A company's top in-house lawyer, so conventional wisdom goes, should advise his or her board of directors but not sit on it.

There is nothing preventing the lawyer from taking a board seat — and some do — but have a look at the boards at the UK’s biggest companies and you will notice a distinct lack of lawyers.

Many general counsel (GC) argue that there is simply no need for them to be on the board. Some already have a combined company secretary and GC role that compels them to attend board meetings. Others say that they are highly valued and deeply plugged-in to their businesses as it is.

This, combined with the independence argument — a GC who sits on the board finds himself in the potentially awkward situation of advising himself — makes the case for keeping lawyers at bay compelling.

But would it really be so bad to have a GC on the board? The overwhelming response in a survey of in-house lawyers this week was no.

According to research by Lovells, British in-house lawyers are the most ambitious in Europe, with 58 per cent saying that they are keen for a seat on their board. Across Europe, almost half of general counsel believe that their role should command board-level status. Contrast those figures with the number of GCs who actually sit on their boards: 28 per cent in the UK and 16 per cent in the rest of Europe.

A quick glance at recent headlines presents an excellent opportunity to re-think the issue.

Last week the NatWest Three resigned themselves to spending at least some time in a US jail after agreeing to a plea deal on Enron-related fraud charges. Days later, and only a matter of miles away, another three British citizens caught by the long arm of American law found themselves in a similar setting. Barry Allinson, managing director of UK-based Dunlop Oil & Marine, David Brammar, the former sales director, and Peter Whittle, an independent consultant, were charged in a federal court in Houston for their alleged roles in a price-fixing scam in the oil industry.

The two cases have many differences but they highlight the same unavoidable fact: the world has become a more dangerous place in which to do business. Companies need to be thinking about legal issues harder and more often than ever.

Whether it is appropriate for eager American authorities to have the ability to investigate foreign business executives is an continuing debate. But the fact is that they can and do - and are open about their plans to continue.

So where does the GC fit in? It would be facile to suggest that had either RBS or Dunlop Oil appointed their general counsel to their boards, events would have been different.

But having an individual at the very top of an organisation looking out for legal risks can only be a good thing. By placing legal and regulatory compliance at the very heart of their businesses, boards will be doing themselves and their shareholders a favour.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure