Leader Interview: The General Counsel Rewriting the In-House Playbook

Dhaka — the in-house function has changed more in five years than in twenty. The question now facing practitioners is less about the letter of the rule and more about the institutional habits that will decide whether it is enforced with consistency.

Over the past eighteen months, the market has absorbed a steady sequence of regulatory adjustments. Each on its own appeared technical. Taken together, they describe a deliberate shift in how the regulator understands its own mandate — from adjudicating disputes after the fact to shaping conduct before it hardens into practice.

"We advise clients to treat this as a governance question, not a filing question," said a partner at a Gulshan-based firm who has advised on four cross-border transactions this year. "The documentation is the easy part. The board minutes are where the exposure lives."

“The documentation is the easy part. The board minutes are where the exposure lives.”

That view is not universal. Counsel acting for mid-sized manufacturers argue that compliance costs fall disproportionately on companies without in-house legal teams, and that the phased timeline offers relief in name only. Their concern is practical: the professional capacity to advise simply does not exist outside a handful of firms in Dhaka and Chattogram.

There is a longer arc here. Bangladesh's legal economy has matured faster than its infrastructure for training lawyers to serve it. Commercial arbitration, data protection, ESG disclosure and competition work all now generate meaningful fee income — yet they remain electives, if they are taught at all.

What happens next will be decided less in the courtroom than in the quiet negotiation between regulators, industry bodies and the professional bar. For readers of this magazine, the practical guidance is unchanged: document the reasoning, not just the decision. The record is what survives.