What is a fractional general counsel?

A fractional general counsel is an experienced senior lawyer who works with a business on a part-time, retainer or project basis, providing General Counsel-level legal expertise and strategic oversight without the cost or commitment of a full-time hire. Unlike external law firm advice, a fractional GC becomes embedded in the business, building institutional knowledge and acting as a genuine commercial partner rather than an external service provider billing by the matter.

How much does a fractional general counsel cost in the UK?

Fractional GC retainers in the UK typically range from £3,000 to £12,000 per month depending on scope and seniority. This compares to a true employer cost of £175,000 to £310,000 per year for a full-time General Counsel when salary, employer National Insurance at 15%, pension contributions, benefits and recruitment fees are included. Project-based and ad hoc arrangements are also available for businesses that need senior legal support for specific transactions rather than ongoing coverage.

What is the difference between a fractional general counsel and a law firm?

A law firm provides matter-specific external advice from a solicitor who does not know your business. A fractional GC becomes embedded in your organisation, attends board meetings, builds institutional knowledge of your commercial priorities, and provides ongoing strategic input rather than reactive matter-by-matter advice. The result is faster decisions, fewer surprises, and legal counsel that operates as a business partner rather than an external service provider.

Do I need a fractional GC if I already have an in-house legal team?

A fractional GC can supplement an existing in-house team by covering capacity during high-volume periods, providing specialist expertise in areas outside the team's skillset such as AI governance or complex cross-border transactions, and providing General Counsel-level strategic input when the team does not have a lawyer at that seniority. The fractional model is designed to complement internal capability, not replace it.

Can a fractional GC help with EU AI Act compliance?

Yes, provided the fractional GC has genuine AI law specialism. The EU AI Act is a technically complex regulation with specific obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems. High-risk AI system obligations apply from 2 August 2026. A fractional GC with AI expertise will conduct an AI systems inventory, classify tools against the Act's risk framework, review vendor agreements for compliance gaps, and implement governance documentation and oversight mechanisms.

Does the EU AI Act apply to UK businesses?

Yes, in many cases it does. The EU AI Act applies on the basis of where an AI system is placed on the market or put into service, and where its outputs affect people, rather than where the developer or deployer is based. A UK business that sells AI-powered products or services into EU markets, or whose AI systems affect EU users or residents, falls within scope. Prohibitions on certain AI practices have applied since February 2025. High-risk AI system obligations apply from 2 August 2026. UK businesses with EU market exposure should treat the EU AI Act as a live compliance obligation now.

What are the legal risks of using open-source AI tools in a commercial business?

Open-source AI tools introduce legal risk in three main areas: supply chain security, intellectual property, and contractual liability. On security, most commercial contracts do not address what happens when a third-party AI dependency is compromised. On intellectual property, open-source licence terms vary significantly and can create unintended obligations for businesses embedding these tools in proprietary products. On contractual liability, if an AI tool produces a defective output that causes loss to a client, responsibility depends on how contracts are drafted. The practical starting point is to request a software bill of materials from AI vendors and review whether existing contracts address these risks.

What should an AI use policy include for content and communications?

An AI use policy for content and communications should address six areas: scope (which AI tools are approved and for what purposes); disclosure (when AI-generated content must be disclosed to clients or counterparties); intellectual property (ownership of AI outputs and handling of third-party IP); accuracy and review (a requirement for human review before commercial use); data handling (a prohibition on inputting confidential or personal data into unapproved tools); and record keeping (documentation of AI use in significant commercial outputs to demonstrate governance if challenged by a regulator, client or court).

What does the UK government's position on AI and copyright mean for businesses using generative AI?

It means operating in a jurisdiction where the rules are unresolved. The UK government confirmed in March 2026 that no copyright reforms are being introduced, and its previously preferred text and data mining exception was abandoned. For businesses using generative AI, this creates three categories of live risk: training data risk (where the copyright position of data used to train AI tools remains uncertain); output risk (where AI-generated content may incorporate copyrighted elements without the user's knowledge); and competitive risk (where the absence of a framework will eventually produce litigation). The sensible approach is to review IP ownership, ensure AI vendor contracts include appropriate warranties, and put written guardrails around staff use of generative AI in commercial outputs.

How does the Meta platform liability verdict affect UK platform operators?

The Los Angeles verdict of March 2026, in which Meta and YouTube were found liable for negligent platform design, has direct relevance for UK platform operators even though it was decided under US law. The case succeeded by targeting design decisions the platforms made rather than content posted by users. In the UK, the Online Safety Act places duties on platforms to assess and mitigate the risk of harm from their services. For UK platform operators, the verdict is a prompt to document the reasoning behind engagement design decisions, ensure internal research on user harm is acted upon, and review whether governance frameworks reflect the standard that regulators and courts are beginning to apply.