A recent headline announced that GCs are most concerned about compliance matters within their companies, and that this worry even surpasses concern about outside counsel costs. Although the implementation and complexity of Sarbanes-Oxley and related laws often bear the blame for GCs’ concerns, compliance at all levels of corporate operations is increasingly problematic. It is therefore no surprise that GCs are working more closely with in-house intellectual property (IP) counsel (or drawing from the GCs’ own IP experience) to demand higher accountability for a company’s IP holdings.For multinational corporations, the IP portfolio is now well recognized as an asset with licensing and litigation potential, as well as a liability with the potential for indemnity claims and the potential for allegations of corruption (most likely via defense on inequitable conduct and fraud). GCs require and demand increased multidisciplinary knowledge from IP counsel as shareholders and regulatory bodies identify more risks at every level of corporate operation. IP counsel should not lose sight of the primary role as caregiver of the client’s IP portfolio, even upon the assumption of increasing responsibility in multidisciplinary roles on behalf of the corporate client. In these roles, however, a comprehensive and successful legal risk management program requires integration of the IP counsel’s province as existing and effective means of reducing exposure at all levels of IP procurement, excision and exploitation.Thus, IP counsel’s particular attention to the preparation of opinions and drafting of underlying IP contributes highly to the success of the company’s risk management efforts. These tasks, taken in combination with non-traditional forums of indemnity and cyberlaw, help IP counsel focus on the greatest risks inherent in the company’s IP operations and relieve GCs of at least one item from an ever-increasing regulatory agenda.