Though a recent joint survey from the ACCA and NACD trumped "significant agreement" about who bears responsibility for recent governance scandals, buried deep within the statistics were some eyebrow-raising insights into a possible disconnect between the expectations and perceptions of corporate directors towards in-house counsel.

According to the numbers, the lawyers are either under-appreciated, or they have an inflated view of their own roles in the organization when compared to what corporate directors expect from them.

When asked, for example, who normally supplies the Board with information about potential fraud involving employees, nearly three-quarters of GCs stated it was the role of in-house counsel; less than half of directors thought in-house counsel normally supplied that information.

Similarly, 65 percent of GCs felt that in-house counsel normally supplies to the Board information on the status of corporate compliance programs, while less than half of directors said in-house counsel supplied that information.

Krebs

Regarding the disconnect, ACCA President Fred Krebs told Compliance Week "perhaps the actual number of times someone actually brings or the board receives this type of information is limited, so the response may deal with a perception as to who has the responsibility rather than actual events."

That may be the case, but the survey also implied directors don't want lawyers at board meetings as frequently as the GCs themselves want to be present: almost 90 percent of GCs thought they should attend Board meetings all the time, while only 60 percent of directors thought the lawyers should always be there.

The complete survey is available, below:

Download The Results Of The ACCA/NACD Joint Survey

Topics