In-House Risk

Over the last thirty years or so, as the number of in-house counsel rose and their role increased in scope and prominence, increased attention has been given the various challenges these lawyers face under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, from figuring out who is the client the in-house lawyer represents, to navigating conflicts of interest, maintaining independence, and engaging in a multijurisdictional practice of law. Less attention, to date, has been given to business risk assessment, perhaps in part because that function appears to be part of in-house counsel’s role as a business person rather than as a lawyer. Overlooking the role of in-house counsel in assessing risk, however, is a risky proposition, because risk assessment constitutes for some in-house counsel a significant aspect of their role, a role that in turn informs and shapes how in-house counsel perform other more overtly legal tasks. For example, wearing her hat as General Counsel, a lawyer for the entity-client may opine and explain issues of compliance with the law. Wearing her hat as the Chief Legal Officer, however, the same lawyer may now be called upon as a member of business management to participate in the decision whether to comply with the law. After outlining some of the traditional challenges faced by in-house counsel under the Rules, this short essay explores risk assessment by in-house counsel and its impact on their role and function under the Rules. It argues that the key to in-house lawyers’ successful navigation of multiple roles, and, in particular, to their effective assessment of business risk is keen awareness of the various hats they are called upon to wear. Navigating these various roles may not be easy for lawyers, whose training and habits of mind often teach them to zoom in on legal risks to the exclusion of business risks. Indeed, law schools continue to teach law students “to think like a lawyer” and law firms, the historical breeding grounds for in-house counsel positions, in a world of increased specialization master the narrower contemplation of legal questions. Yet the present and future of in-house counsel practice demand of its practitioners the careful and gradual coming to terms, buildup and mastery of business risk analysis skills, alongside the cultivation of traditional legal risk analysis tools.

The role of the social environment in non-suicidal self-injury among LGBTQ youth: A mixed methods study

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), such as cutting and burning, is a widespread social problem among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Extant research indicates that this population is more than twice as likely to engage in NSSI than heterosexual and cisgender (non-transgender) youth. Despite the scope of this social problem, it remains relatively unexamined in the literature. Research on other risk behaviors among LGBTQ youth indicates that experiencing homophobia and transphobia in key social contexts such as families, schools, and peer relationships contributes to health disparities among this group. Consequently, the aims of this study were to examine: (1) the relationship between LGBTQ youth's social environments and their NSSI behavior, and (2) whether/how specific aspects of the social environment contribute to an understanding of NSSI among LGBTQ youth. This study was conducted using an exploratory, sequential mixed methods design with two phases. The first phase of the study involved analysis of transcripts from interviews conducted with 44 LGBTQ youth recruited from a community-based organization. In this phase, five qualitative themes were identified: (1) Violence; (2) Misconceptions, Stigma, and Shame; (3) Negotiating LGBTQ Identity; (4) Invisibility and Isolation; and (5) Peer Relationships. Results from the qualitative phase were used to identify key variables and specify statistical models in the second, quantitative, phase of the study, using secondary data from a survey of 252 LGBTQ youth. The qualitative phase revealed how LGBTQ youth, themselves, described the role of the social environment in their NSSI behavior, while the quantitative phase was used to determine whether the qualitative findings could be used to predict engagement in NSSI among a larger sample of LGBTQ youth. The quantitative analyses found that certain social-environmental factors such as experiencing physical abuse at home, feeling unsafe at school, and greater openness about sexual orientation significantly predicted the likelihood of engaging in NSSI among LGBTQ youth. Furthermore, depression partially mediated the relationships between family physical abuse and NSSI and feeling unsafe at school and NSSI. The qualitative and quantitative results were compared in the interpretation phase to explore areas of convergence and incongruence. Overall, this study's findings indicate that social-environmental factors are salient to understanding NSSI among LGBTQ youth. The particular social contexts in which LGBTQ youth live significantly influence their engagement in this risk behavior. These findings can inform the development of culturally relevant NSSI interventions that address the social realities of LGBTQ youth's lives.