Suggestions
Gregory Raiten
Co-Founder at TechGC
Greg Raiten is a prominent figure in the tech and legal sectors, serving as the Co-Founder and President of TechGC, an organization focused on building a community for general counsel and legal executives in technology companies. He has held this position since April 2015, contributing to the growth and development of legal professionals within the tech industry.
Professional Background
- The Suite: Co-Founder since January 2022, focusing on executive community building.
- FirstMark Capital: Previously served as Partner & General Counsel from December 2014 to July 2019, and as Chief Operating Officer for a brief period in 2018.
- 500 Startups: Worked as General Counsel from May 2013 to December 2014.
- Legal Practice: Raiten has experience as an associate at prestigious law firms such as Latham & Watkins and Gunderson Dettmer.
Contributions
Raiten is also recognized for being the original author of the KISS legal documents, which provide free templates for startups and investors involved in early-stage financing transactions. His extensive background combines legal expertise with a passion for technology and entrepreneurship, making him a key player in fostering connections among legal professionals in the tech space.
Personal Interests
Outside of his professional endeavors, Raiten is described as a "geek and entrepreneur at heart," with interests that include technology, photography, and travel.1
Highlights
Should GCs report to the CEO or CFO?
This question often generates a spirited debate.
On one side, the argument goes that the CFO is the CEO's right hand and is charged with overseeing a wide range of functions beyond just finance, such as operations, HR, and yes, even legal.
Some companies do structure their org charts this way, especially smaller or earlier-stage companies.
However, in my view, having the GC report to anyone other than the CEO is a mistake that can have serious consequences for the company.
There are a few reasons why:
First, when you place the GC under the CFO, you send a clear message that legal is not a top-level priority.
You're effectively saying that the company's chief legal advisor doesn't merit a direct line to the CEO, and that their input is somehow less strategically valuable than that of other C-suite executives.
If you’re actually looking for a commercial lawyer rather than a GC, that may make sense.
But it’s a dangerous mindset for a true General Counsel role, particularly in today's complex business environment where legal considerations are woven into every aspect of a company's operations.
Second, having the GC report to the CFO can create a perception problem, both internally and externally. It suggests that the GC is not truly a peer to other C-level leaders.
This is problematic when considering the GC's role in managing risk and ensuring compliance—two areas where they need to be seen as a powerful and independent voice.
But there's also a more practical consideration—GCs and CFOs perform two very different functions with two very different skill sets, and each can be helpful in providing a check and balance on the other.
From a functional or independence standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to place one under the other's purview.
None of this is to say that the GC and CFO shouldn't work closely together. Of course they should. But a partnership is different than a reporting relationship.
Ultimately, you can boil this down to one simple argument:
GCs should report directly to the CEO because it ensures that legal has an independent seat at the table where the most important business decisions are being made (together with CFOs and other C-suite leaders).
So, what do you think? Who should a GC report to, and why?
When you're applying for a GC role at a startup, it's crucial to evaluate how the company views the legal function.
In my experience, when a company is hiring their first in-house lawyer, there tends to be two high-level categories that these roles fall into.
The first is what I would call a "true General Counsel" – a strategic business partner who is part of the executive leadership team, helping to run and grow the company.
In this role, the GC is expected to own a lane, managing all things legal while also contributing meaningfully to the company's overall direction and unlocking new opportunities.
The second category is more focused on insourcing legal work and reducing outside counsel spend. This typically looks more like a commercial counsel - someone to handle contracts or specific deal work.
While this is also a very important function, it's a different scope of responsibilities compared to a strategic GC role.
Neither of these categories is inherently right or wrong, but it's important for both the company and the candidate to be aligned on expectations.
I've seen instances where a CEO wants to hire a "General Counsel," but when they describe the role, it becomes clear that what they're really looking for is a commercial contracts lawyer.
The compensation range and scope of responsibilities are more in line with that type of position. And if that isn’t made clear during the hiring process, there are bound to be misaligned expectations and unhappiness down the road.
So, when you're evaluating a GC role at a startup, try to understand how the CEO and leadership team view legal.
Are they looking for someone to reduce bills and handle a bunch of contracts themselves (a defensive hire), or are they seeking a strategic partner who can help propel the company forward (an offensive hire)?
Remember, as a startup GC, you have the potential to be much more than just a legal administrator – you can be a key strategic partner, helping to shape the company's direction and growth.
But to step into that role, you need to find a company that views legal through that lens.
