• • • The reactive phase is partly a mindset problem 鈥� More than half of tax departments remain stuck in reactive, compliance-focused operations, not only because of frozen budgets, but because of cost-center thinking that shapes cost-center behavior.

    • The value is there, but the measurement isn’t 鈥� Two-thirds of tax professionals say their department鈥檚 technology investment has already enabled more strategic work; yet 22% say they track no performance metrics at all, making that value invisible to the people who control the budget.

    • The rebrand starts internally 鈥� With AI integration timelines compressing to between 1 and 2 years, tax departments that shift their posture now by measuring wins, designating leadership, and building the business case will be better positioned to lead 鈥� and those that don’t will fall further behind, faster.

Apart from the sales department, most other departments within a business are simply viewed as a cost center, and the tax department is no exception. However, like so much of that thinking, this view isn鈥檛 quite accurate because it is the tax department that can uncover the most savings for the business.

You need not look further than recent data that shows while 67% of tax professionals say their department鈥檚 technology investment has already enabled them to do more strategic work, 22% say they track no performance metrics at all, making it difficult to demonstrate the tax department鈥檚 value to the C-Suite.

Given this, it鈥檚 somewhat unsurprising that this cost-center view persists. Worse yet, is often internalized by in-house tax teams themselves. It is one thing to be viewed and treated as a cost center but to act like one is a different matter.

So, what if the bigger problem isn’t how the rest of the business views the tax department but instead how the department views itself?

The , from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, reveals a profession that knows it is capable of far more than it is currently delivering. And yet the same patterns repeat: Budgets stay flat, technology adoption stays slow, and a majority of departments remain stuck in a reactive phase in regard to their technological development that has “remained stubbornly consistent over the past few years,” according to the report.

That’s not just an organizational failure; rather, that’s a mindset problem 鈥� and it starts from within the tax department.

The choices we keep making

The report outlines a Technology Maturity Curve that maps a progression in tech development from chaotic through reactive, proactive, optimized, and predictive stages.

This year, 64% of respondents placed their tax department at the chaotic or reactive end of the spectrum 鈥� up from 57% last year. The reactive phase is the operational definition of a cost center: Heads-down, output-focused, and disconnected from the broader business.

The report reveals something even more important. In those cases in which the budget isn’t the primary constraint, behavior doesn’t change. Almost one-third of respondents (32%) said their strategy for addressing capacity constraints is process optimization 鈥� without new technology or additional hiring. Not because they can’t pursue more, but because that’s the default mode.

One respondent put it plainly: “鈥ur company as a whole is making significant changes, but the tax department is typically an afterthought in those decisions.”

This raises a question that鈥檚 worth asking: Who taught the company to treat tax as an afterthought?

There鈥檚 evidence showing that tax departments are more

The data to challenge the cost-center identity isn’t missing; rather, it’s just not being captured or communicated to the C-Suite.

Two-thirds of respondents (67%) said their tax department鈥檚 technology investment over the past three years has already enabled a shift toward more strategic, proactive work, such as data analytics, forecasting, risk assessment, and decision-making support. Among larger departments, nearly half (48%) are now spending more time on these higher-value activities. This clearly shows that companies that have invested in tax automation are reporting real results, such as improved accuracy, reduced errors, lower costs, and streamlined workflows.

And yet, 22% of tax departments track no technology performance metrics at all, according to the report 鈥� not time savings, not error reduction, not ROI. Nothing.

While 67% of tax professionals say their department鈥檚 technology investment has already enabled them to do more strategic work, 22% say they track no performance metrics at all, making it difficult to demonstrate the tax department鈥檚 value to the C-Suite.

That is cost-center thinking in action 鈥� the belief that it鈥檚 the job of the tax department to do the work, but not to prove its value. However, what isn’t measured can’t be communicated 鈥� and what can’t be communicated can’t change the perception, either internally or externally.

The rebrand starts with how departments see themselves

The most important audience for the tax department’s rebrand isn’t the C-Suite. It’s the department itself.

That means tracking wins and building a formal business case for investment 鈥� grounded in hard ROI and cost savings, which the report identifies as the metrics that are most important to Finance and IT, the two functions that frequently share control of the tax technology budget.

It also means getting serious about leadership. The portion of tax departments with a designated person leading tax technology strategy jumped to 88%, from 51%, in a single year. However, a title only goes so far; and the report is clear 鈥� that role only works when backed by a team that believes it belongs at the decision-making table.

Finally, this rebranding means treating AI as an opportunity, not a threat. The majority of tax professionals have compressed their expectations for AI integration to 1鈥�2 years, from 3鈥�5 years, with 7% saying AI is already central to their workflow. Those departments still locked in cost-center mode are the least prepared for that shift 鈥� because cost centers don’t invest ahead of the curve.

The narrative changes when the mindset changes

No one is going to rebrand the tax department on its own, it has to come from within. Further, it has to be built through deliberate measurement, consistent communication, and a shift in how tax professionals think about our own work.

Your department is not a cost center. The work proves it, and the data backs it up. Now, you should act like you believe it.

You can download a fully copy of the , from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Tax Executives Institute, here

Key takeaways:

• • • Your post-OBBBA forecasts should look different 鈥� If the tax department doesn’t own the OBBBA model, someone else will own the OBBBA story.

• • • Rely on your department鈥檚 inner strengths 鈥� It鈥檚 governance and analysis 鈥� not tools 鈥� that get you into the strategy room.

    • Factor in the conflict in the Middle East 鈥� The Iran war risk belongs in your tax model, not just in your CFO’s macro deck.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in July 2025, enacted large business tax cuts, most notably by providing permanent full expensing of many forms of investment. Under the previous major corporate tax legislation, 2017鈥檚 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), bonus depreciation was scheduled for gradual phase-out following 2023. The OBBBA restored that expensing 100% retroactively for assets acquired from mid-January 2025 onwards.

The after-tax cost of new machinery, fleets, and equipment has effectively fallen by around 21%, designed to encourage immediate capital outlays by allowing businesses to write off these expenses in the year they are incurred rather than amortizing them over five years.

For corporate tax departments, that’s not a disclosure footnote 鈥� that’s your capital plan.

Capital-intensive corporations will see tax burdens reduced through permanent rate extensions, depreciation adjustments, and expansion of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap 鈥� but only if your models are built to capture the timing and location of investment, the mix of debt compared to equity, and where your organization books its next dollar of income.

Not surprisingly, most corporate tax departments aren’t there yet. They’re still recalculating last year, plus a few adjustments. That’s glorified compliance, not modeling.

A standout tax department doesn’t ask, What’s the OBBBA impact? Rather, it asks, Which version of OBBBA do we choose for this business? 鈥� and it has the models to back it up.

From spreadsheet heroics to controlled modeling

For many organizations, tax modeling still means creating a massive spreadsheet that only one director truly understands. The spreadsheet gets pulled out for budget season, rebuilt under pressure, and quietly retired until next year. That’s a single point of failure, not a process.

And after OBBBA, continuing that practice is dangerous. One wrong assumption on expensing or interest limitation can move cash tax by millions of dollars and blindside the Finance Department.

Here’s what disciplined modeling looks like in practice:

• • • Create a unified model 鈥� Build one integrated model that the whole team can use or accept that your department is choosing to fly blind.
    • Use the same assumptions 鈥� Standardize the levers that matter most (such as capex timing, financing mix, jurisdiction, and incentives) and make sure every scenario runs off the same assumptions.
    • Conduct modeling reviews 鈥� Treat major OBBBA-driven decisions (such as large capex, funding shifts, supply-chain redesign) as tax deals that must go through a modeling review before they’re greenlit.
    • Document your assumptions explicitly 鈥� Under permanent full expensing, the difference between a well-supported assumption and a poorly documented one isn’t just an audit risk, rather it’s a credibility problem with your CFO.

It鈥檚 also important to remember that in a post-OBBBA world, this level of disciplined modeling is not technology transformation 鈥� it鈥檚 basic survival.

Governance: Where leaders quietly win or loudly fail

The differentiator isn’t which corporate tax department has the fanciest tool 鈥� it’s which one has the cleanest governance. And the data is unambiguous: More than half (55%) of tax departments are still in the reactive phase of their technological development, stuck with five capex models circulating with five discount rates and the tax team arriving late to the planning meeting.

Those tax departments that are breaking out of that pattern share one trait: They put someone formally in charge. In the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report, a large portion (88%) of survey respondents said their company had appointed a person to lead the tax department’s technology strategy. That number jumped a whopping 37 percentage points, from 51%, from the previous year鈥檚 survey. That single structural move separates those departments with a governance model from those that simply hold a governance conversation every budget cycle and forget about it.

Clearly, this type of ownership drives results. Two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that their company’s investment in technology has enabled a shift from routine, reactive work to more strategic, proactive, higher-value work.

Under OBBBA, the kind of governance isn’t housekeeping. It’s how you get invited into strategy discussions instead of having to clean up after things go awry.

Why your OBBBA win may not feel like a win

On paper, the tax changes embedded in the OBBBA look generous. In practice, your effective tax benefit is colliding with something you don’t control.

When the war on Iran began, all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was effectively halted, removing roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply from the market. Fuel prices throughout the world spiked and are likely to remain elevated as long as conflict persists.

With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel, there are will wipe out the benefits of higher tax refunds this year for most Americans. If those benefits, arising from Trump’s 2025 tax cuts, are erased for the average American, only the top 30% of taxpayers will still seeing a net gain.

For corporate planning purposes, the parallel dynamic is real: The topline OBBBA benefit is being eroded by higher fuel, freight, and financing costs across the business and its supply chain.

Inflationary pressures are being driven by higher energy prices tied to the Iran war, and the conflict’s impact on a wide range of goods and services is likely to last for months 鈥� with experts saying even a ceasefire is unlikely to immediately ease global energy shortages.

A serious corporate tax department doesn’t handwave these concerns away. It takes three actions:

1. 1. 1. Run a war-extended scenario 鈥� The scenario should show exactly how sustained higher energy costs and borrowing rates change the payoff from accelerated expensing and leverage 鈥� with specific numbers, not just directional commentary.
      2. Share your forecasts internally 鈥� Put your monthly or quarterly cash-tax forecasts on the table for Finance to see, so that it can manage liquidity rather than hope the annual plan holds.
      3. Force the hard conversation 鈥� Ask the tough question: At today’s rates and fuel costs, the after-tax return on this project is X. Are we still in? That question should come from the tax team now, not from the finance team six months later.

Clearly, the daily fluctuations in oil prices matter less than monthly and quarterly averages 鈥� and volatility will likely remain elevated given the absence of a clear timeline for the end of the war. That’s exactly the kind of sustained uncertainty that belongs front and center in your scenario set, not in a footnote.

The bottom line

The OBBBA gives corporate tax departments a genuine opportunity to move from being simply a compliance function to becoming more of a strategic advisor. Permanent full expensing, richer cost recovery, and more flexible interest rules can create real levers to add value, but only for those organizations that model them rigorously, govern them cleanly, and stress-test them against the macro environment their business actually faces today.

Indeed, the Iran war is a live test of that readiness. The corporate tax departments that show up with modeled scenarios, cash-tax forecasts, and a clear point of view on after-tax returns will earn a seat at the strategy table. The ones that show up with caveats will be asked to leave it.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report here

Key insights:

• • • A significant visibility gap persists between legal departments and the C鈥慡uite 鈥� Most general counsel believe their legal department contributes strategically, yet senior executives often fail to see or understand that value.

    • Strong internal relationship鈥慴uilding is critical (and often underdeveloped) 鈥� This capability enables legal teams to spot risks earlier, stay embedded in decision鈥憁aking, and make their work more visible across the business.

    • Closing the gap requires communicating legal鈥檚 value and increasing true AI fluency 鈥� For legal teams to be seen as proactive, strategic partners rather than task executors, communication and strong AI fluency are essential.

General counsel (GCs) have spent years doing more with less, tightening their legal spend, and aligning the law department鈥檚 priorities with the wider business. And yet, despite all of this effort, a striking visibility gap persists. While 86% of GCs believe their department is a significant contributor to overall organizational objectives, only 17% of the C-Suite agrees, according to the , from the 成人VR视频 Institute, which was based on more than 2,300 interviews with corporate general counsel. Meanwhile, 42% of C-Suite executives say the legal function contributes little or not at all to company performance.

The challenge for GCs is whether their staff have the skills and capabilities to make their work visible, relevant, and understood by the business at large. To address this perception gap in 2026, every GC needs to prioritize building richer internal relationships with business leads, moving from task-based to outcome-focused messaging, and improving the team鈥檚 collective AI fluency.

Empower teams to build internal relationships

Nearly half of all GCs surveyed for the report cited staffing and resource constraints as the top barrier to delivering additional value, a concern that has remained stubbornly consistent for years. Beyond headcount, the report underscores that the deeper challenge facing legal departments is relational.

Internal relationship-building is one of the most critical and underrated people skills in a legal department’s collective skill set. Indeed, 68% of GCs rate internal dialogue as their most valuable source of information about emerging risks. In fact, the most successful GCs use a deliberate combination of formal and informal methods to build connections with the internal business units that they serve.

You can learn more about how to assess your legal department鈥檚 strategic positioning with the听成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 Value Alignment toolkit, here

Some run structured weekly face-to-face sessions with business departments, complete with schedules, plans, and frameworks. Others rely on walking the halls, open-door policies, and ad-hoc conversations that keep the corporate law department visible and accessible on a human level.

The report offers a five-dimensional framework to help GCs audit where, with whom, and how often legal is in dialogue with other parts of the business.

Use communication tactics that focus on business outcomes

Even when legal departments are doing excellent work, they often describe it in the wrong language. Many in-house lawyers categorize their contributions in task-based terms 鈥� such as 鈥淲e support M&A鈥� or 鈥淲e analyze contracts鈥� 鈥� rather than in value-creating terms.

Some in-house legal leaders have progressed to stakeholder-level framing, such as, 鈥淲e protect the company from competitive threats鈥� or 鈥淲e support new business opportunities.鈥� Still, neither of these levels truly communicates value to a C-Suite audience, the report shows.

To effectively align the law department’s priorities with business goals, in-house attorneys need to develop the skill of communicating through a business lens. For example, one GC states that the primary goal of the law department is to “find the fastest and most compliant way for the sales department to sell products.” This response reframes the legal function鈥檚 activities as much more business fluent and value-added.

Legal teams are not always good at touting their accomplishments, however, and this is a challenge when a lot of the work can be categorized as invisible. For example, when protecting the company is done right, threats are eliminated before they occur and no one notices. When efficiency is unlocked through process improvement, the C-Suite only sees the outcome if someone connects the dots explicitly. This is why surfacing invisible value is now a business imperative for corporate law departments.

Advancing from AI literacy to AI fluency

The most significant skills challenge facing legal departments in 2026 is how to best use AI strategically. Mentions of AI as a strategic priority among GCs have doubled in the past year, according to the report. In fact, almost half of all GCs now reference AI in their survey interviews. Yet the report draws a sharp distinction between being AI literate and being AI fluent, with most departments being the former but not the latter.

To close that gap, the report recommends a six-layer model covering learning, empowerment, ownership, accountability, usage, and expectations.

At its core, the model asks GCs to start with open encouragement and access to AI tools to build momentum, then shift toward more formal expectations around adoption to make AI use a daily habit.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 here

Key takeaways:

• • • Disconnect between legal departments and C-Suite perceptions 鈥� While many general counsel believe their departments are significant contributors to business success, most C-Suite executives do not share this view. Fully 86% of GCs say they believe their department is a significant contributor, but only 17% of C-Suite executives agree.

    • A need to find new ways to demonstrate value 鈥� Legal departments are under increasing pressure to do more with less, as nearly half of GCs surveyed cite staffing and resource constraints as their top barrier to delivering additional value. Despite these limitations, expectations from the C-Suite continue to rise.

    • AI adoption accelerates, business strategy comes next 鈥� Legal departments are rapidly embracing technology to improve efficiency, manage resources, and address cost pressures. Not surprisingly, the proportion of GCs calling AI a strategic imperative has doubled.

Over the past several years, general counsel and corporate law departments at large have transformed their operations. Many have become more efficient enterprises, leveraging technology, in particular AI, at an increased pace. GCs have adjusted their hiring practices to conform with the modern corporation, taking new ways of working into account. And they have embraced data-driven decision-making, evaluating outside counsel and their own operations alike with a wider suite of new metrics and KPIs.

But do you know who hasn鈥檛 yet realized the fruits of that labor? The corporate C-Suite.

Jump to 鈫�

2026 State of the Corporate Law Department Report

The , released today by the 成人VR视频 Institute, reveals a disconnect between how GCs and their corporate law departments view their own alignment to the wider business, and what C-Suite executives believe the legal department contributes. Within this gap, the message is clear: GCs not only need to align with their organizations鈥� overall business strategy, they need to learn how to prove that alignment to the rest of the company.

Indeed, when asked how they view legal鈥檚 contribution to the rest of the business, 86% of GCs surveyed said they viewed the legal function as a significant contributor. However, only 17% of other C-Suite executives said the same 鈥� and 42% said legal contributes little or not at all.

As the report explains, this disconnect lays the inherent groundwork for the tension facing many GCs today. While they are increasingly aiming to align to business standards, the rest of the organization is not recognizing those actions. Instead, many C-Suites are looking for even more out of today鈥檚 legal departments to prove their contributions to organizations鈥� business imperatives.

As in past years, many in-house legal departments are being tasked to do more with less. Nearly half of GCs cited staffing and resource constraints as the top barrier they face to delivering additional value. Indeed, many said they expected outside counsel spend in some key areas 鈥� such as regulatory work and mergers & acquisitions 鈥� to remain high. As of the fourth quarter of 2025, more than one-third (36%) of GCs said they expect to increase overall spend on outside counsel over the next year, while only 20% said they plan to decrease their spend.

Despite legal departments’ gains, their C-Suites are looking for them to take the next step, turning operational excellence into business success.

Not surprisingly, many GCs said they view technology as one of the primary ways they have to combat these resourcing and cost issues. In fact, the proportion of GCs mentioning technology as a strategic priority entering 2026 doubled over the year prior. Legal departments have begun to feel positive effects of AI in their own organizations, the report notes, such as increased efficiency or time feed up for strategic work.

Despite these gains, C-Suites are looking for are looking for their legal functions to take the next step, turning operational excellence into business success. This can take a number of different forms, such as explicitly tying advice to client business objectives, presenting legal spend in the context of the business by showing it as a percentage of revenue, or approaching risk management with the goal of aiding business imperatives. 鈥淲hen we have a risky legal subject, the company never prefers just to see the legal opinion,鈥� said one retail GC. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e also requesting you to drive them how to make a decision.鈥�

AI and technology should also be approached in this same way, the report argues. Although almost half of all corporate legal departments have some type of enterprise-wide GenAI tool, according to the survey, very few are collecting success metrics around AI鈥檚 implementation or linking its use to business revenue. Put a different way, many legal departments are focused on unlocking capacity, rather than deploying capacity in a business-centric way 鈥� much to the chagrin of their C-Suites.

Although legal departments have established a solid foundation upon which a business can stand, ultimately, C-Suites don鈥檛 want just a foundation. They want help building the entire house, the report shows, directly enabling the services that companies provide to customers. In that, GCs and legal departments have more work to do, not only tying strategy to overall business initiatives but actively communicating how the legal function鈥檚 work aids the company as a whole.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “” here

Key insights:

• • • Value perception gap persists 鈥� Most corporate legal departments still measure and report primarily on cost, obscuring their broader strategic contributions.

    • Value alignment toolkit 鈥� A new value framework exists for legal departments to close the gap in the perception of their value to the organization.

• • • AI accelerates urgency 鈥� The rise of AI makes comprehensive value measurement essential in order to safeguard legal department budgets and resources.

As many General Counsel continue to elevate their position as strategic leaders in their business, they are often constrained by cost-focused narratives. Despite their success in delivering high-quality legal advice, managing complex risks, and enabling business growth, many corporate legal departments remain trapped in a narrow perception defined almost entirely by spend metrics.

The disconnect is clear. While legal departments support strategic goals across multiple dimensions 鈥� delivering effective advice, operating efficiently, protecting the organization, and enabling business strategy 鈥� most measure and report only on cost and time. And when leadership sees only budget and time metrics, this unfortunately reinforces the cost center narrative and hides the real value of the legal department.

The perception gap: What gets measured gets seen and valued

Research from the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) reveals a troubling pattern: While 90% of legal departments now use formal metrics 鈥� up from 75% eight years ago 鈥� very few align those metrics to the full range of their strategic goals. Indeed, nearly half of all metrics currently in use relate to spend factors, while only about one-in-four measure quality, and even fewer capture how legal departments protect enterprise value or enable business strategy.

This creates what TRI calls a perception gap. When C-Suite executives describe in what areas they expect their legal departments to focus, they consistently over-emphasize efficiency while under-recognizing contributions such as business protection and strategic enablement. As a result, many legal departments struggle to secure resources for risk management initiatives, their strategic contributions go unnoticed and unrecognized, and their efficiency efforts are viewed as mere cost-cutting rather than value optimization.

The root cause of this misalignment lies in measurement itself. A legal department cannot manage what doesn鈥檛 get measured, and more importantly, it cannot demonstrate value for what remains invisible.

The 4 spinning plates: A complete picture of legal value

Through extensive analysis of strategic priorities across hundreds of legal departments, TRI identified four core areas of responsibility that remain evergreen regardless of changing business environments, regulatory shifts, or technological disruption.

The four spinning plates model captures these perpetual responsibilities 鈥� effective, efficient, enable, and protect 鈥� in a deliberate metaphor. Like a performer keeping multiple plates spinning simultaneously, GCs must maintain constant attention across all four areas. They are fundamentally interconnected 鈥� efficiency gains can enable strategic work, while strong risk management builds the trust necessary for bolder business strategies.

Yet when metrics are focused primarily on cost and time, they tell only a fraction of this story. Many legal departments have built their measurement framework around the Efficiency plate alone, leaving the other three plates far less visible to enterprise leadership and limiting their understanding of legal’s comprehensive roles and strategic influence.

Closing the gap: the value alignment toolkit

TRI has spent years conducting research, developing frameworks, and facilitating strategic planning sessions with legal department leaders on this challenge. Now, it is making this expertise broadly accessible through a comprehensive new resource: the Value Alignment Strategic Toolkit.

This free online resource center provides practical, immediately actionable guidance to better define, measure, and communicate a corporate legal department鈥檚 full value to the organization. The toolkit is built on benchmark data from hundreds of legal departments along with proven strategic frameworks and expert insights that all is organized into six interconnected sections that guide users from foundational clarity to strategic execution. These six sections include:

1. 1. 1. Define your department鈥檚 strategic goals 鈥� Establish business-connected objectives with clear ambitions
      2. Design metrics that matter 鈥� Select measurements that demonstrate value creation, not just cost
      3. Strengthen your data 鈥� Build robust collection and analysis methods, including feedback involving the voice of the stakeholder
      4. Tell your value story 鈥� Develop compelling narratives that resonate with enterprise leadership
      5. Review, refine & advance 鈥� Implement continuous improvement processes
      6. Maximize your impact 鈥� Scale success across all four spinning plates of value

Each section includes practical resources, including assessment tools, templates, checklists, framework guides, and real-world examples. The metrics masterclass features more than 50 legal department metrics aligned to the four-plate framework, including 12 recommended core metrics that span all four strategic areas.

For example, a GC preparing for a quarterly check-in with the CFO could use the appropriate templates, guides, best practices, and the recommended metrics to create a one-page dashboard. The dashboard would provide customized metrics to align with their CFO鈥檚 priorities, such as deals accelerated, risks avoided, or initiatives supported.

The AI imperative: Why better metrics matter more than ever

Not surprisingly, the emergence of generative AI (GenAI) adds new urgency to this work, presenting both opportunity and vulnerability. On one hand, AI holds significant potential to enhance legal department capabilities by automating routine tasks, accelerating research, improving contract analysis, and freeing lawyers to focus on higher-value strategic work. At the same time, however, if legal departments continue to be viewed primarily through an efficiency lens, advances in AI that reduce time and cost could conceivably threaten department resources and headcount.

Comprehensive value measurement can help legal departments demonstrate enterprise value that cannot be replaced by AI. When legal departments can clearly articulate how they protect enterprise value, enable faster time-to-market for new products, strengthen board confidence through proactive governance, and maintain high stakeholder satisfaction scores, they establish their strategic necessity regardless of technological advancement.

The Value Alignment Toolkit provides frameworks and tools to build this comprehensive measurement approach, ensuring legal departments are positioned to leverage AI’s benefits, while at the same time demonstrating the irreplaceable value that the legal department provides, including:

• • • Quantifying strategic legal department contributions that AI cannot replicate, such as judgment, relationship-building, business counsel, risk navigation, and more
    • Demonstrating value beyond efficiency to justify budgets and resources
    • Identifying high-impact opportunities in which legal department expertise can best leverage AI to address the most pressing business needs
    • Assessing ROI of specific AI use cases to prioritize where to adopt and scale, and conversely, areas that are not ready yet

Moving from cost center to strategic partner

For a corporate legal department, the transformation from cost center to strategic partner requires more than aspiration, it requires data-driven evidence. It demands a systematic approach to measurement that captures the complete picture of the department’s contributions and then communicates that value in clear business language.

The Value Alignment Strategic Toolkit enables legal departments to shift from reporting simple cost metrics, such as:

We reduced outside counsel spend by 15%

to telling a more complete story:

We delivered value by maintaining 90% stakeholder satisfaction while handling 25% more strategic matters, reducing costs through technology and process improvements, preventing potential regulatory exposure through proactive compliance programs, and accelerating product launch timelines through innovative legal structures.

This is not merely reframing 鈥� it’s revealing what was always present but had remained largely invisible. This enables strategic conversations about the department鈥檚 complete contribution rather than defaulting to discussions solely around cost.

The path forward

Many corporate legal departments today create enterprise value every day across multiple dimensions by providing sound advice, managing risk exposure, and enabling growth. Yet too often, that value remains unrecognized simply because it isn’t being measured or communicated effectively.

At a moment when business transformation is accelerating, regulatory complexity is increasing, and technology is reshaping legal service delivery, continuing to rely on cost and time metrics alone isn’t just insufficient, it actively undermines a legal department’s strategic position.

The complete value story of legal departments deserves to be told. It’s time to move from defending budgets to demonstrating impact, from reporting costs to revealing value, and from being seen as a necessary expense to being recognized as an essential strategic partner. Better frameworks and tools can shift the conversation from cost center scrutiny to strategic leadership discussions about how GCs and their teams enable business growth.

Transform how your legal department demonstrates value by accessing the free frameworks, metrics, and strategic guidance in the Value Alignment Strategic Toolkit

Whether you鈥檙e looking to sharpen your financial strategy, improve operational efficiency, or stay ahead of industry disruption, our Forum delivers practical insights and meaningful connections you won鈥檛 find anywhere else. Follow #TRIC226 for the latest updates and highlights leading up to and throughout our premier event.

Registration is now open. Secure your spot below before Friday, September 25, 2026.

Key takeaways:

• • • Strategic alignment drives ROI听鈥� Organizations that implement GenAI with a clear, formal strategy aligned to their broader business goals, such as revenue growth or client experience, are able to find stronger ROI measurements than those adopting AI informally.

    • Measuring GenAI requires more than basic metrics听鈥� While many firms currently track simple, internally-focused metrics like cost savings and user adoption, true value from GenAI comes from mapping its use to strategic outcomes such as revenue generation, operational efficiency, and client satisfaction.

    • AI strategy aids measurement capabilities听鈥� Despite increasing adoption of GenAI tools, less than one-quarter of professional services organizations have a visible AI strategy, according to our research, which decreases their ability to properly measure GenAI鈥檚 organizational impact.

At this point of the lifecycle of generative AI (GenAI), most individuals across the professional services world have a conception of what GenAI is and what it can do. Indeed, 96% of respondents had at least a basic understanding of AI principles, according to the 2025 Future of Professionals report, which surveyed corporate, legal, tax & accounting, and government professionals.

With that in mind, most organizations are prepared to take the next step: Making GenAI an integral part of their operations and measuring its direct impact on the organization. It鈥檚 a natural progression, as individual use of publicly available GenAI technologies such as ChatGPT or Claude turns into institutional investment in business-centric tools such as Microsoft Copilot or industry-specific GenAI tools.

Of course, organizational leaders whose teams are using these tools want to see how much these tools really help, and attempt to quantify GenAI鈥檚 return-on-investment (ROI).

However, those that have undertaken the ROI exercise have found that arriving at an answer may be easier said than done for a number of reasons. Many professionals are just beginning with the tools and have not yet fully integrating them into their workflow, which makes the true impact of GenAI harder to measure. Determining the time saved by AI tools requires an intricate knowledge of how these professionals work on a daily basis; and most professional services firms are not yet talking to their outside clients about GenAI, making calculations around business won or client satisfaction next to impossible to compute.

That said, however, there already are some simple ways to start to map GenAI usage to a set of ROI metrics. It starts with knowing what your organization wants to achieve by using GenAI.

Mapping use cases to goals

GenAI, as is the case with all business-oriented technologies, should not be treated as a goal in itself. When determining metrics around AI use, start with the organization鈥檚 primary set of strategic initiatives then extrapolate from there.

For instance, increasing revenue is a way 81% of C-Suite respondents say they measure success, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2025 C-Suite Survey. GenAI, therefore, should be rolled out with this in mind, with potential use cases for the technology aimed squarely at increasing revenue such as by delivering stronger market analysis and predictive analytics for client issues. If instituted with the larger revenue goal in mind, the ultimate metric for the technology鈥檚 success then is not simply usage, but how well the technology actually contributes to revenue gains.

The chart below from the Future of Professionals Report provides some examples from a law firm perspective of how other organizational goals can lead to ROI metrics, including bolstering the client experience, creating operational efficiencies, and attracting and engaging talent. Other industries such as tax, audit & accounting; government agencies; and courts have their own sets of goals that can be adapted in the same fashion.

GenAI is a powerful tool particularly because of its versatility. While many past technologies aimed at professional services were focused squarely on one or two use cases, GenAI, as demonstrated above, can be adapted to serve a number of different uses and goals. As a result, implementing these use cases 鈥� and crucially, measuring their success 鈥� requires more strategic planning than past technologies.

The importance of strategy

Even with the rate of GenAI adoption continuing to climb, formal AI strategies are not climbing at the same rate. The Future of Professionals report found that just 22% of respondents say their organizations have a visible AI strategy, while 43% say their organizations are moving ahead with adoption despite having no formal strategy in place. About one-third of respondents, meanwhile, say their organizations have no significant plans for widespread adoption.

Unsurprisingly given the above, this lack of strategy has a tangible impact on measurable ROI, particularly as it relates to underlying revenue. The report notes that organizations with a strategic AI plan are almost twice (1.9-times) as likely to already be experiencing revenue growth as a result of their AI investment than those organizations that are adopting AI informally. Similarly, 81% of respondents at organizations with an AI strategy report seeing some sort of positive ROI from AI; only 64% of respondents at organizations adopting AI informally say the same.

Measuring proper ROI from GenAI implementation is not an impossible undertaking, but at the same time, it is not an easy proposition. The 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2025 Generative AI in Professional Services Report from earlier this year found that even of those organizations measuring GenAI鈥檚 impact, the most common metrics were simple and often internally-focused, such as internal cost savings, user adoption, and user satisfaction. Metrics focused on client satisfaction or external revenue generation, meanwhile, were tracked by less than 40% of organizations, according to survey respondents.

That is the wrong way to approach AI measurement, particularly in a professional services landscape that expects GenAI (and soon, agentic AI) to become a central part of the profession鈥檚 workflow within the next five years. If GenAI is becoming so crucial to the organization, then its measurement should be based not on simple technology metrics, but on larger strategic metrics for the organization.

And that means, for organizations without an AI strategy that links to the larger organization鈥檚 overall strategy, the time to begin that planning in earnest for the AI-driven future has arrived.

You can download your copy of the听2025 Future of Professionals Report here

Key insights:

• • • Digital transformation among top priorities 鈥� C-Suite leaders have identified enabling digital transformation, improving operational efficiency, and exploring the potential of AI as their top priorities for 2025.

    • Challenges for corporate functions 鈥� Corporate functions face significant constraints, including time-consuming compliance tasks, lack of risk alignment, difficulty keeping up with legislative changes, and ineffective data flows.

    • Opportunities for improvement 鈥� To enhance the contribution of corporate functions, C-Suite leaders suggest they focus on simplified compliance and reporting, technology and automation, and risk management and mitigation.

Corporate C-Suite leaders have been pretty clear about their priorities for their businesses. Indeed, business leaders have made digital transformation, improving operational efficiency, and exploring the potential of AI their top priorities for 2025, according to the 2025 C-Suite Survey, published recently by the 成人VR视频 Institute.

Almost two-thirds of these same leaders (62%) identified the rise of AI and generative AI (Gen AI) as the most likely transformational trend for today鈥檚 businesses. However, even with a clear vision of the potential for AI to be transformative, and indeed, a strong desire to drive digital transformation within their businesses, C-Suite leaders are not fully convinced their corporate functions are up to the task and able to contribute strongly to the corporation鈥檚 overall objectives.

The role that corporate functions play today

Corporate functions, sometimes called enabling functions are the support operations that keep businesses running and encompass everything from customer success and supply chain management to tax, audit, and legal departments.

Some of these enabling functions have already begun to play a significant role in driving business objectives.

More than half of C-Suite leaders surveyed said that their customer success, technology, operations, marketing, and finance functions have significantly contributed to overall business objectives. In fact, as one respondent stated: 鈥淥ur support functions, especially in technology and operations, were instrumental in driving a digital shift that improved organizational workflows and overall customer satisfaction.鈥�

Obviously, leaders of every enabling function would love to hear such statements made about the teams or departments they oversee.

A sliding scale of contribution

However, there is a general perception that enabling functions are generally not as effective as they could be, nor able to contribute significantly to the overall objectives of their organization. For example, only 17% of C-Suite leaders said that their internal legal function had played a significant role in attaining overall business objectives; and 42% of C-Suite leaders said that their legal function had contributed to the organization鈥檚 overall objectives only a little (36%), or worse, not at all (6%).

This is concerning, not only for the overall organization and its top-level leaders, but for the leaders of these specific internal functions; and it raises questions about the alignment of priorities and communication within the business.

There is a general perception that enabling functions are generally not as effective as they could be, nor able to contribute significantly to the overall objectives of their organization.

Yet, a few different explanations may exist simultaneously. First, the lack of apparent contribution of any given enabling function to broader business goals may be simply a lack of effective communication. In reality, the function may be completing many of the objectives it needs to do to drive the organization forward, but the function鈥檚 leaders may not be doing a good job of informing top leadership of their efforts.

Alternatively, C-Suite leaders may not be quite as clear about stating their desired objectives as they think they are, leaving function leaders with less guidance than needed for the team or department to otherwise meet their objectives. Another possibility is that there is, in fact, genuine misalignment between functions鈥� priorities and those of the C-Suite.

This is likely far from an exhaustive list of potential reasons why enabling functions may not be doing an effective job of contributing to the organization鈥檚 objectives, and many of these reasons likely exist simultaneously. There is, however, some insight into what might be constraining the effectiveness of these enabling functions.

What is getting in the way?

C-Suite leaders identified four key areas that have either a moderate or significant constraining effect on their enabling functions, including:

• • • Time-consuming compliance and reporting tasks that leave little time for value-add work (with 68% of C-Suite leaders surveyed saying this)
    • Lack of alignment around the organization鈥檚 risk appetite (58%)
    • Difficulty keeping abreast of legislative and regulatory change and emerging risks (54%)
    • Ineffective data and information flows between enabling functions (52%)

Interestingly, that last point was actually the most frequently cited as placing a significant constraint on enabling functions with 21% of respondents saying that a lack of effective data and information flow was hampering their enabling functions.

This is not a new concern. CEOs have long decried the existence of silos within their businesses; however, with the increasing volume of data generated by businesses and the acceleration of the business cycle, the impact of these silos can easily be magnified. For this reason, it is not surprising to see the long-time frustration around information silos rising to the level of the most significant impediment to enabling functions鈥� contributions.

What can be done

C-Suite leaders have identified three key opportunities to improve how their enabling functions contribute to overall business objectives:

• • • Simplified compliance and reporting
    • Technology and automation
    • Risk management and mitigation

These are important goals, to be sure. However, they fail to confront the silos that C-Suite leaders say are the biggest challenge to their enabling functions.

To effectively push toward a digital transformation, C-Suite leaders will need to find effective ways to improve data and information flows. This presents a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, improved technology creates greater opportunities to improve inter-function collaboration and communication. And while all major business software suites have collaboration and sharing functions integrated into them, creating opportunities for teams to interact in ways they have not been able to before is critical.

To effectively push toward a digital transformation, C-Suite leaders will need to find effective ways to improve data and information flows.

On the other hand, those same technologies create even greater volumes of data and information for corporate functions to manage. By simply adopting a technology tool without making meaningful efforts to more successful integrate the new tool into existing team workflows, businesses run a real risk that technology intended to solve a problem could actually exacerbate it.

That word of caution, however, should not be seen as a reason for corporations to avoid pushing toward digital transformation. As discussed, C-Suite leaders see the digitization of their businesses as a key priority, and broader market indicators are proving them correct. The insights shared here around the challenges for enabling functions should not dissuade them of that notion.

Rather, leaders should be keenly aware of the potential pitfalls and incorporate solutions to these existing and potential problems into their tech rollout and adoption plans as they push into a digital future.

Successfully navigating digital transformation requires more than new technology 鈥� it demands intentional change management efforts to break down silos and improve information flow. Leaders who acknowledge these challenges upfront and build solutions into their transformation strategies will be best positioned to unlock their enabling functions’ full potential.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent听2025 C-Suite Survey听here

Key insights:

• • • Managing resources is key 鈥� The effectiveness of a legal department depends on how internal and external resources are managed, coupled with the quality and commerciality of the advice provided.

    • Strategic resource allocation needed 鈥� Using the right resources for the type of task is critical for GCs who are looking to create operational value in their legal departments.

    • Providing quality legal advice is a differentiator 鈥� GCs are looking to their outside law firms to provide commercially relevant legal advice that will help the in-house legal department drive value creation.

Today鈥檚 corporate general counsel (GCs) find themselves juggling a challenging load of responsibilities. Frequently in the past, the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) has talked about the four spinning plates that today鈥檚 GC must monitor 鈥� effectiveness, efficiency, protection, and enablement of business growth.

Previously, we described the first of these plates, effectiveness, as an area in which frequently the expectations of C-Suite leaders about their GCs鈥� office are slightly out of alignment with the daily reality of many GCs.

This misalignment does not mean that business leaders overemphasize operational effectiveness or that GCs neglect this priority; rather, this misalignment is most likely due to the differing perspectives each group has on the operations of in-house legal departments. Within each organization, the C-Suite rightly expects its GC to be operating its enabling function as effectively as possible 鈥� it鈥檚 a baseline expectation. However, because it is a baseline expectation, it can easily become table stakes for the GC in terms of day-to-day focus. It鈥檚 not that effectiveness isn鈥檛 top of mind, it鈥檚 that focusing on the effectiveness of the department has become business as usual.

However, TRI鈥檚 2025 State of the Corporate Law Department report provides a new lens through which to view the effectiveness of the legal team. As covered extensively in that report, GCs have demonstrated a rapidly increasing focus on extracting value from their team. GCs are looking to bring their teams into alignment with the business鈥檚 enterprise-wide value system, attaining greater value from their external legal spend and generating greater value for the business 鈥� all while working to protect the value the business itself has created.

Generating value for the business

The idea of generating greater value for the business can be a challenging one for GCs to deliver. The legal team isn鈥檛 tasked with product development, lead generation, or sales, so how is the team supposed to generate value?

As discussed in the recent Corporate Law Department report, one way that GCs can create value for the business is by creating greater operational value. This relies on how effectively the in-house team operates, adding a new label to the now-familiar effectiveness plate that GCs are already spinning.

But how does that kind of value-generation work in practice?

This effectiveness equation provides a handy framework to which GCs can refer when trying to optimize the effectives of their operations. In sum, how GCs manage their resources and talent, coupled with how they provide advice and service, equates to how effectively their team operates.

Which resources to use and when

The first component of the equation deals with striking a balance between internal and external resources. GCs tend to look primarily to internal resources for day-to-day and core types of work as well as matters that require a greater sense of the commercial interests of the business. They also favor their in-house teams when cost is a factor, an increasingly common consideration.

Further, GCs tend to look to law firms for help when they need specialized expertise or a boost to their in-house capacity. Many GCs describe themselves as Swiss Army Knives, that are adept at doing a little bit of a lot of things. However, when a matter requires deeper expertise, GCs will then turn to their specialized toolbox, which means outside law firms or, occasionally, alternative legal service providers (ALSPs). Another common area in which GCs will leverage outside law firms deals with issues of capacity. GCs frequently report dealing with increasing matter volumes while managing flat to declining internal attorney headcounts and budgets. External law firms can provide much needed pressure relief, but such relief often comes at a cost.

Ensuring quality of service

Even as GCs strive to strike a balance on the first portion of the effectiveness equation, they must be mindful of the quality of the service they are providing. The Corporate Law Department report made the point that corporate law departments do not operate effectively or efficiently as ends in their own right. Rather, all of the law department鈥檚 activities must be done in service to the broader commercial interests of the business.

This applies not only to the advice the in-house lawyers provide but also to external counsel, whether that be a law firm or an ALSP. Legal advice, no matter how correct or thorough, will be of little ultimate value to the business if it bears no relation whatsoever to the commercial realities of the business. Likewise, advice that is not responsive or timely to the end stakeholder鈥檚 needs, or which is so complex as to be unusable, does little to help demonstrate the effectiveness of the legal team.

As a result, GCs are increasingly making it a priority to ensure that their in-house lawyers provide advice that is timely, responsive, and understandable for stakeholders across the business, and increasingly, they expect their outside counsel to do the same.

When the component parts of this effectiveness equation come into balance, it not only helps the GC demonstrate the effectiveness of their team, but it also helps to service broader interest in growing the business and providing strategically relevant counsel to leadership.

Keys to driving business objectives

Another TRI report 鈥� the recent 2025 C-Suite Survey 鈥� discussed how business leaders do not generally view their enabling functions as making significant contributions to the ability of the business to achieve its overall objectives. For GCs looking to improve the perception of their in-house legal teams, how effectively their team operates in the creation of operational value can be key.

For starters, GCs looking to enhance operational value should:

• • • constantly evaluate when to keep work in-house, when to outsource, and which type of outside resources are most appropriate to GCs鈥� specific needs;
    • explore whether technological enhancement could create additional capacity to keep work in-house, mitigating the need to seek outside counsel;
    • ensure that the advice their teams offer is commercially attuned to the needs of the business and responsive to the stakeholders; and
    • hold outside counsel and ALSPs accountable to the same standards of commerciality.

While the discrete goals and key results of the business may vary from year to year, GCs must always be attentive to how effectively their legal department is operating. Frameworks such as the effectiveness equation can prove to be useful reference tools for GCs who are trying to identify what metrics they should be monitoring.

Not surprisingly, C-Suite leaders have high expectations for the leaders of their enabling functions. The good news for GCs is that they have plenty of options at their disposal to demonstrate how effective their departments can be in improving organizations鈥� ability to meet their goals.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2025 State of the Corporate Law Department report here

Key insights:

• • • Traditional board oversight models are outdated 鈥� Amid multiple crises threats, corporate boards that still rely on legacy governance approaches risk falling behind as today鈥檚 interconnected crises demand proactive and adaptive oversight.

    • Questioning assumptions about growth 鈥� Boards must continually challenge their assumptions about growth and risk utilizing four key strategies, including red team exercises, translating trends into strategic trade-offs, embedding sustainability anticipation, and linking culture with capital.

    • Sustainability is a central filter for all board decisions 鈥� Boards that proactively integrate sustainability into their culture, risk management, and strategic planning are better positioned to thrive amid regulatory pressures, climate risks, and stakeholder expectations in a volatile global environment.

Last year, corporate boards demonstrated greater readiness to address sustainability issues with significant financial implications, especially compared to their preparedness in 2018, according to the . For example, Environment, Social & Governance (ESG) board committees among Fortune 100听companies increased to 89 in 2024, compared to 22 in 2018.

At the same time, it is hard to know if this progress is adequate. As climate shocks become more severe, AI transforms industries, and stakeholder expectations evolve, corporate boards of directors are encountering a dynamic business environment that contains multilayered risks.

Boards operating in the traditional oversight models may soon find themselves struggling as the governance tactics of the past prove inadequate in the face of these newer changes.听Furthermore, the future operating environment for companies is becoming increasingly complex, with a heightened risk of polycrises, in which multiple, interconnected crises converge to create unprecedented challenges.

Moreover, boards of directors as fiduciary stewards of companies鈥� strategies are now expected, by regulators, investors, and stakeholders, to demonstrate fluency in climate and sustainability issues. In fact, more than 50 jurisdictions have introduced requirements or expectations for directors to possess climate-related competence. This profound shift requires boards to take a much more aggressive, forward-looking orientation in which every operating assumption is questioned.

In this context, sustainability is no longer a peripheral concern, but rather a central filter through which every decision must pass, as companies must navigate the intricate relationships between environmental, social, and economic factors to ensure long-term resilience and success. This reality means that boards must take proactive and integrated approaches to effective governance and oversight. Indeed, those that prioritize sustainability, risk management, and strategic adaptability are more likely to thrive in a world characterized by uncertainty, interdependence, and accelerating change.

Embracing re-evaluation strategies

To meet these new expectations in an ever-changing business landscape fraught with multi-faceted risks, boards must also question their assumptions about growth and the lens through which they are examining systemic risks. A board also needs to understand where it is prioritizing short-term wins at the expense of long-term viability.

These four key strategies can help directors prompt a critical re-evaluation of their growth assumptions and framework they use for assessing systemic risks 鈥� they can also help directors determine whether the board is prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability:

1. Execute 鈥渞ed team鈥� exercises

Boards often find themselves surrounded by confirmation bias because they rely on trusted advisors and management teams who often share familiar viewpoints. This environment can stifle innovation and obscure systemic risks. A red team exercise can help break this cycle by inviting a diverse group of external experts and internal challengers to pressure-test assumptions about growth, systemic risks, supply resilience, reputation, and the company鈥檚 license to operate. Such exercises encourage directors to confront uncomfortable truths and explore alternative scenarios.

Too many organizations still operate as if ESG and value-creation are in conflict when, in fact, they are not. Running red team exercises in the board room can better align their strategies with sustainable goals to better spur innovation while maintaining operational resilience as priorities.

2. Translate trends into strategic trade-offs

Boards must be adept at discerning emerging trends to better inform the difficult strategic听decisions about what to pursue and what to forego. Asking tough questions that frame trends as choices is an effective mechanism to analyze trade-offs. For example, 鈥淒o we invest in short-term returns with high-carbon lock-in, or reallocate capital toward regenerative business models that preserve long-term viability?鈥� is a common trade-off question that many companies across industries are asking. By engaging in debates about real dilemmas rather than passive updates, directors can make informed decisions that balance immediate gains with future sustainability.

3. Build 鈥渟ustainability anticipation鈥� into board culture

To lead effectively in an uncertain future, boards must build sustainability foresight into their culture. An effective means of doing so is embedding sustainability anticipation into every board committee鈥檚 mandate. Tools such as dynamic scenario planning, transition-readiness metrics, and real-time materiality assessments that address emerging risks can help boards to anticipate and adapt to future challenges.

4. Link culture and capital

Most companies view sustainability as just a function rather than a filter for every business decision. This is why linking culture and capital at the board level is an essential step in making boards genuine hubs of foresight. Indeed, pulse surveys, stakeholder feedback, and behavioral data are necessary sources boards can use to make sure that sustainability is a foundational principle across all business decisions and used as a lens for value creation.

Looking ahead

The time for passive governance is over. By adopting these strategies, boards can navigate the complexities of today’s business environment for long-term viability for tomorrow. As the risks of interconnected crises 鈥� polycrises 鈥� intensify, making sustainability a fundamental criterion for every business choice is crucial for companies and can provide a profitable operating path in the years to come.

You can find out more about how companies are addressing the challenge of sustainability here