The complex tapestry of modern corporate risk is increasingly interwoven with the unpredictable threads of geopolitical conflict, according to a recent survey by the Diligent Institute. More than half of General Counsels (GCs) now identify global fighting as a significant and growing component of the enterprise’s interconnected risk picture. This sentiment underscores a broader trend of escalating risk and compliance workloads for senior legal leaders, forcing them to dedicate substantial portions of their time to these critical areas, often at the expense of traditional legal duties.
The Diligent Institute’s comprehensive survey, which polled nearly 150 senior legal executives, revealed that 52% of GCs believe ongoing conflicts worldwide are contributing to an increased risk profile for their organizations. This perception is not merely an abstract concern; it reflects a tangible shift in the daily responsibilities of legal departments. The report highlights that 67% of GCs are now spending more time on enterprise-wide risk and compliance than they did a year prior. This intensified focus means that a significant portion of their professional bandwidth is being allocated to navigating these multifaceted challenges. Specifically, the study indicated that close to half of these enterprise legal leaders dedicate up to 40% of their weekly workload to risk and compliance, with another quarter reporting that these responsibilities consume as much as 60% of their professional time. This represents a substantial increase from previous years, suggesting a fundamental recalibration of the GC role towards proactive risk management and regulatory adherence.
The findings also shed light on a critical disconnect in corporate governance. A striking 79% of GCs expressed a lack of confidence in the current state of board risk reporting. They perceive a persistent challenge in striking the optimal balance between providing boards with sufficient clarity on risk matters and avoiding an overwhelming deluge of information. This suggests that while GCs are increasingly immersed in managing risk, the communication channels and reporting frameworks to the highest levels of organizational oversight may be inadequate or misaligned. This gap could have significant implications for strategic decision-making and the effective allocation of resources to mitigate emerging threats.
The evolving landscape of legal practice is also reflected in compensation trends. Executive search firm BarkerGilmore’s latest report indicates a slowdown in wage growth for in-house counsel. The median salary increase for General Counsels and managing and senior counsel over the past year has dipped to 3.2%, a notable decrease from the 4.4% recorded in the preceding year. This deceleration in salary progression may be indicative of a maturing market for in-house legal talent or a broader economic recalibration.
Furthermore, the BarkerGilmore report suggests a diminished propensity for in-house lawyers to seek new employment. In 2026, a substantial 64% of in-house lawyers reported low or very low motivation to pursue job changes, a significant increase from the 40% who expressed similar sentiments in the previous year. This trend, the report posits, is a consequence of heightened competition for highly skilled and passively seeking candidates, making it more challenging for organizations to attract top-tier legal talent through external recruitment.
However, the report also points to a concerning widening of the gender pay gap within the in-house legal profession. The disparity in compensation between men and women has increased from 5.4% in 2025 to 7.4% in 2026. In 2026, men reported a median total compensation of $503,275, while women’s median total compensation stood at $467,587. This growing gap warrants closer examination by organizations aiming for equitable compensation practices and highlights a persistent challenge in achieving gender parity in the legal field. The BarkerGilmore study’s findings are based on a robust survey of over 2,879 in-house attorneys across a diverse range of public and private organizations within the United States.
Beyond the operational and financial aspects of the legal profession, the importance of ethics and corporate culture is being increasingly recognized, yet its integration into board-level discussions remains inconsistent. A survey conducted by Boards of the Future, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the inclusion of ethics, compliance, and risk leaders on corporate boards, reveals a significant disconnect. While more than half of board directors identify corporate culture and leadership as top ethical risks, these critical areas are only present on the immediate agendas of just 35% of organizations.
The inaugural "Boards Ethical Readiness Index (BERI)" report from Boards of the Future, which involved surveys and interviews with over 300 directors and senior leaders across compliance, risk, audit, HR, and legal functions in various regions and sectors, underscores this disparity. The report found that a substantial 77% of executives and 58% of directors pinpointed culture and ethics as paramount risks facing their organizations. Despite this acknowledgment of risk, the translation into active board-level engagement is lagging.
Further insights from the BERI report reveal a divided perspective on the receptiveness to dissenting views within organizations. While 59% of directors agreed or strongly agreed that diverse opinions are welcomed, a considerably lower 23% of executives shared this sentiment. This suggests a potential chasm between board aspirations for an open and ethical environment and the actual experience of employees and managers on the ground. Moreover, the report indicates that a significant majority of boards, 83%, have not altered or postponed major decisions due to ethical concerns in the past two years. This statistic, coupled with the finding that only 56% of board members have received training in ethical decision-making within the last 24 months, raises questions about the proactive integration of ethical considerations into strategic planning and decision-making processes. The lack of robust ethical training and the infrequent deferral of decisions based on ethical grounds could signal a latent vulnerability within corporate governance structures, potentially leading to reputational damage or regulatory scrutiny in the long term.
In a parallel development, the healthcare sector is bolstering its defenses against escalating cyber threats, particularly concerning medical devices. A survey by RunSafe Security highlights a significant tightening of cybersecurity measures within healthcare systems. In 2026, a substantial 84% of healthcare professionals involved in device procurement reported that their organizations now incorporate cybersecurity requirements into vendor Requests for Proposals (RFPs). This figure represents a notable increase from 38% in 2025, with 43% of these organizations demanding detailed cybersecurity specifications. The heightened vigilance is also evident in procurement decisions, as nearly 56% of purchasers have rejected devices based on cybersecurity concerns, a rise from 46% in the previous year.
The threat landscape for medical devices is demonstrably worsening. The survey revealed that 24% of healthcare facilities experienced a cyberattack on a medical device in 2026, a 2% increase from 2025. The impact of these attacks is also becoming more severe, with approximately 80% of those affected reporting moderate or significant patient care impacts, up from 75% in the prior year. This escalation underscores the critical need for robust cybersecurity protocols to safeguard patient safety and maintain the integrity of healthcare operations. The RunSafe Security survey encompassed the perspectives of 551 healthcare professionals across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, providing a broad geographical view of these critical trends. The increasing reliance on interconnected medical devices, while offering numerous clinical benefits, simultaneously creates new vectors for cyberattacks, necessitating continuous adaptation and investment in advanced security solutions. The trend indicates a proactive shift in the healthcare industry, moving from reactive measures to a more embedded and stringent approach to device security, driven by the palpable increase in successful attacks and their direct impact on patient care. This proactive stance is crucial as the healthcare sector continues to embrace digital transformation, ensuring that innovation does not come at the expense of patient safety and data privacy.