The success of a healthcare organization’s compliance program often depends on the harmony between the compliance officer and in-house counsel. While they have different roles and responsibilities, their collaboration is crucial to ensuring the organization navigates the intricate legal landscape with confidence and integrity. However, this collaboration isn’t always seamless. There are instances where the in-house counsel may not fully support compliance activities or fully embrace the compliance officer. This article delves into this phenomenon, examining its roots, illustrating examples, and exploring how certain behaviors from compliance officers might exacerbate the situation.
Defining the Issue
In-house counsel serves as the organization’s legal advisor, tasked with understanding the ever-changing laws and regulations and ensuring that the organization operates within the legal boundaries. On the other hand, the compliance officer oversees the compliance program, implementing policies, conducting audits, and enforcing rules that adhere to internal and external standards.
Despite the common goal of safeguarding the organization from legal and reputational harm, frictions can occur. In-house counsel may perceive compliance activities as a duplication of their own work or even as a threat to their authority, leading to lack of support or resistance.
The Root of the Issue
One underlying issue stems from the perception of overlapping roles. In-house counsel may feel that compliance activities infringe on their legal oversight domain, especially when compliance officers take a more assertive approach to risk management.
For example, suppose the compliance officer identifies a potential violation and proposes immediate corrective actions. In-house counsel, considering potential legal implications, may want to first conduct a privileged and protected internal investigation to determine the organization’s legal position. This can cause friction if not managed properly, leading to the in-house counsel seeing the compliance officer as overstepping their role.
Power dynamics can also come into play. The compliance officer often has access to the board or CEO, giving them a level of authority that could be seen as competitive to the in-house counsel’s. If the compliance officer’s recommendations are implemented over the legal counsel’s advice, this may fuel feelings of resentment or territorialism.
Compliance Officer Behaviors Contributing to the Issue
Certain behaviors and actions by the compliance officer can exacerbate these issues. A compliance officer who acts unilaterally without consulting in-house counsel can create an impression of dismissiveness or disregard for the legal department’s role.
Similarly, a compliance officer who takes an overly aggressive stance on compliance issues, without considering the legal nuances, could alienate the legal counsel. For instance, pushing for the immediate disclosure of a potential violation without considering the potential for litigation could be seen as an intrusion into the in-house counsel’s role.
Lack of communication or a failure to include the in-house counsel in significant decisions or updates can also contribute to this disconnect. If the compliance officer communicates updates directly to the board or management without including the legal team, this could foster an environment of mistrust and lack of support.
Navigating the Issue: A Path Towards Collaboration
Addressing these challenges requires clear communication, respect for each other’s roles, and understanding that the common goal is the organization’s well-being. Regular meetings between the compliance officer and in-house counsel can foster a collaborative environment, facilitate information sharing, and ensure that the compliance program aligns with the organization’s legal strategy.
In essence, while the relationship between the compliance officer and in-house counsel can be challenging, understanding the underlying issues and addressing them proactively can lead to a more efficient and effective compliance program, ultimately safeguarding the organization’s interests.
