Fractional General Counsel: Why Growing Businesses Are Making the Shift
Here’s the hard truth: hiring a full-time General Counsel will set you back $200k+ (and that’s before super, payroll, workers compensation and a desk). And let’s be honest—that figure doesn’t always buy “top shelf.”
Now… do the math.
For $30k –$50k, a Fractional GC can:
Draft contracts
Review legal risk management
Advise on a deal & key issues
Scale up when you need extra horsepower
No long-term headcount. No overhead. Just legal firepower on tap.
But here’s the real reason businesses are shifting
Speed that matches business reality Deals don’t wait. Sales don’t pause. Urgent matters aren’t “next week’s problem.” With a fractional GC model, you can get answers in hours, not weeks. Speed to response = winning the deal.
Breadth of expertise One in-house lawyer = one perspective. A fractional model = a bench of experienced specialists you can tap on short notice. The right expertise, at the right time.
Business enabler, not handbrake In-house teams often get a reputation for slowing things down. A fractional GC is wired differently—laser-focused on solving what matters, not creating roadblocks.
Legal risk truth no one talks about: in-house lawyers rarely have PI insurance. Fractional GCs do. That layer of protection matters more than people admit.
For startups and scaling companies, a fractional GC isn’t a “nice to have”—it’s often the smarter first step before building a full team.
I’m curious—lawyers, owners, execs: what’s your take? Would you hire a full-time GC first, or start fractional?
This article is a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
The amount of plumbing related building defects I see in Victoria is astonishingly high. Often they exceed all other defects. Yet the insurance that should respond has become a farce.
More and more I am seeing protection works disputes become disputes about access to land, adverse possession, boundary issues, building defects and property damage.
The headline change is that many of the Code's obligations are proposed to become legally enforceable. On paper that is a significant shift.
Burns v Corbett and later decisions mean tribunals are not Chapter III courts and cannot exercise federal jurisdiction. It is time to consider a national tribunal.