Insights
When a company needs outside general counsel: the standing-counsel model vs. building an in-house legal department
Many companies reach a point where ad-hoc legal help is no longer enough but a full in-house department is not yet warranted. This general explainer outlines two common answers — a standing outside-counsel relationship and an internal legal function — and the factors that typically inform the choice.
Key takeaways
- The standing outside-counsel model provides continuous, senior legal attention on a retained basis without a permanent internal hire.
- An in-house legal department embeds lawyers within the company and generally suits high-volume, business-specific, or especially sensitive legal needs.
- Under the Companies Law (Royal Decree M/132), directors and managers carry duties tied to how decisions are taken and recorded, which often drives the need for standing legal support.
- The Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) and CMA governance expectations apply regardless of where legal work sits, so each model should support compliance and accountability.
- The right model is fact-specific — depending on size, sector, regulatory exposure, and sensitivity — and many companies use a hybrid or evolve over time; this article is general information, not legal advice.
As a company grows, its legal needs tend to shift from occasional, transaction-by-transaction questions toward continuous demands: governance, contracts, regulatory compliance, and data protection. Two broad models commonly address this. One is engaging outside counsel on a standing basis to serve, in effect, as an on-call general counsel; the other is building an in-house legal department. The following is general educational information about how each model is typically understood, not legal advice or a recommendation for any particular company.
Why the need arises
A company's legal load usually increases not only in volume but in continuity: boards must take properly documented decisions, contracts must be negotiated and enforceable, and obligations across several authorities must be monitored over time. Under the Companies Law (Royal Decree M/132), directors and managers carry duties tied to how decisions are taken and recorded, and listed companies face additional governance and disclosure expectations under the CMA's framework. These ongoing duties are often what prompt a company to consider standing legal support rather than one-off advice.
The standing outside-counsel model
In this model a company retains external legal advisers on a continuing basis — sometimes described as an outsourced or fractional general-counsel arrangement — so that senior legal attention is available without a permanent internal hire. It can give smaller and mid-sized companies access to experienced, licensed counsel across governance, contracts, and compliance while keeping scope and accountability defined in advance. Companies typically use it where their needs are significant but not yet large enough to justify a full department, or where independence from day-to-day operations is valued.
Building an in-house legal department
An internal legal function embeds lawyers within the company, close to operations and available continuously. It generally suits organisations whose legal activity is high in volume, deeply specific to their business, or sensitive enough that proximity and institutional knowledge matter. Building one is a longer-term commitment involving recruitment, supervision, and ongoing cost, and many organisations combine an in-house team with outside counsel for specialised or higher-stakes matters rather than treating the two as mutually exclusive.
Compliance and data-protection considerations
The choice of model also interacts with regulatory and data obligations. The Personal Data Protection Law (Royal Decree M/19) sets requirements for how personal data is collected, used, and safeguarded, and many companies must demonstrate accountability for compliance regardless of whether legal work sits inside or outside the organisation. Where sensitive or regulated activity is involved, companies typically weigh how each model handles confidentiality, conflicts, and continuity, and how well it supports the governance and disclosure expectations that apply to them.
Factors that typically inform the choice
There is no single correct answer; the appropriate model generally depends on the company's size, sector, transaction tempo, regulatory exposure, and the sensitivity of its matters. Some companies move through stages — beginning with standing outside counsel and later building an in-house team, or maintaining a hybrid of both. Because the considerations are fact-specific and tied to a company's particular obligations under Saudi law, decisions of this kind are usually made with qualified legal input rather than from a general framework alone.
Sources referenced
- Companies Law (Royal Decree M/132)
- Personal Data Protection Law / PDPL (Royal Decree M/19)
- CMA Corporate Governance Regulations
- Ministry of Commerce
This is general information published by Pactis, not legal advice. Laws and regulations change; verify the current position and obtain specific advice before acting on anything here.