The question behind the question
Founders don't usually wake up wanting an in-house lawyer. They wake up tired of chasing a law firm for a straightforward answer, or nervous that something's being missed because no one owns the legal picture. The in-house hire is a solution they've reached for, not necessarily the right one.
It's worth separating the two. What you actually want is ownership and responsiveness. Whether that comes from an employee or not is a second question.
You don't want a job title. You want someone who knows your business well enough to answer fast.
The case for hiring in-house
- Volume. If legal questions land daily, not monthly, a full-time hire earns their keep.
- Depth of context. Someone in the building, in the meetings, builds an understanding of your business a part-time adviser can't fully replicate.
- A single point of accountability sitting inside the team, not outside it.
The case for something more flexible
- A full-time hire is a fixed cost whether the workload is heavy that month or quiet.
- Recruiting, and getting wrong, a senior legal hire is expensive and slow, often six months from decision to a productive first day.
- Most growing businesses don't have daily legal volume, they have peaks, a fundraise, a big contract, a dispute, surrounded by quieter months.
- A fractional or retained model gives you senior experience at the moments that matter, without the fixed overhead in between.
How to actually tell which you need
A rough but useful test: if you can't answer, honestly, what your legal spend was in the last three months without checking, you probably don't have enough volume yet to justify a full-time hire. If you can answer instantly, and the number is significant, that's a different conversation.
Most businesses reach for a headcount when what they actually need is a phone number they trust.
Where Silva fits
Silva's retainer model is built for exactly this gap, senior legal support on an ongoing basis, without the cost or commitment of an employed lawyer. Same person, same context each time, fixed monthly fee.
Frequently asked questions
Should I hire an in-house lawyer or use a retainer?
It depends on volume. If legal questions land daily rather than monthly, a full-time hire earns its keep, but most growing businesses have peaks and quiet months rather than constant volume, which is where a fractional or retained model gives you senior experience without the fixed overhead in between.
How do I know if my business needs an in-house lawyer yet?
A useful test is whether you can say, without checking, roughly what your legal spend was over the last three months. If you can't answer instantly, you probably don't have enough volume yet to justify a full-time hire.
What's the downside of hiring an in-house lawyer?
A full-time hire is a fixed cost whether the workload is heavy or quiet that month, and getting a senior legal hire wrong is expensive and slow, often six months from decision to a productive first day. Most growing businesses have peaks and quiet periods rather than steady daily volume.
What does a legal retainer give you instead of an employee?
A retainer gives you senior legal support on an ongoing basis, the same person and the same context each time, for a fixed monthly fee, without the cost or commitment of employing someone. It's built for businesses whose legal need is lumpy rather than constant.
Weighing up in-house versus flexible?
Silva's retainer gives growing businesses ongoing legal support without an employment contract attached.