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:

• • • Efficiency is a means, not an end 鈥� Gains from AI only count when you can show what they enabled: better advice, stronger protection, smarter business support.

    • Narrow measurement invites cuts 鈥� Legal departments that measure AI value only through cost savings are telling C-Suites that legal costs less, thereby inviting budget and headcount reductions.

    • Measure across all four plates 鈥� A framework that captures effectiveness, risk, and enablement alongside efficiency is what shifts perception of the legal department from cost center to strategic asset.

Your legal department has invested in AI tools, adoption is growing, your team is saving time on routine work and, by most accounts, work operations are running faster. Then your CFO asks a simple question: What has AI delivered for the legal department?

If your answer centers on hours saved and cost reduced, you are not alone. However, you may be leaving your most important value story untold. And in a climate in which legal departments are under more scrutiny than ever to demonstrate the full return on their AI investment, that gap matters.

This is the fourth and final part of our series on the 鈥淔our Spinning Plates鈥� model, which frames the GC’s evolving responsibilities as:

1. 1. 1. delivering effective advice
      2. operating efficiently
      3. protecting the business, and
      4. enabling strategic ambitions.

This article focuses on the Efficient plate and specifically on the risk of letting it do too much of the talking.

The Efficient plate under pressure

For a GC, making the best use of what are often limited resources is a constant pressure. The Efficient plate sits alongside, not above, the other three plates and must be kept always spinning. Right now, however, for many in-house legal teams the Efficient plate is receiving disproportionate attention, and for understandable reasons.

AI adoption in corporate legal departments is accelerating quickly. According to the 成人VR视频 Institute’s AI in Professional Services Report 2026, nearly half (47%) of corporate legal respondents surveyed said their department has already integrated generative AI (GenAI) into their work 鈥� more than double the figure from the previous year. A further 18% reported that they鈥檙e already using agentic AI, with more than half expecting agentic AI to be central to their workflow within the next two years.

GCs are genuinely excited about what this makes possible. As one GC said in the survey that underpinned the AI in Professional Services Report: “It presents the promise of getting out of low-value work and into higher-value work that supports the business.鈥� Another described their vision of a legal department that is “boldly digital-first, relentlessly innovative, and tightly woven into business priorities.”

Clearly, the opportunity is real, but so is the risk of measuring it badly.

The measurement trap

Our 2026 research found that only one-quarter of legal departments are currently measuring the ROI of their AI tools. That alone is striking given the pace of adoption but the follow-up finding is where the real problem lies 鈥� of those departments that are measuring ROI, 80% are tracking it in terms of internal cost savings.

Reducing external spend, automating high-volume processes, and bringing more work in-house are all legitimate efficiency gains and worth reporting, of course. However, when cost reduction becomes the only story being told, two things can happen. Your C-Suite learns to associate your department’s value with how little it costs, a frame that is very difficult to escape once it鈥檚 established. And the wider value that efficiency enables in terms of sharper risk identification, faster business support, and higher-quality advice goes unmeasured and therefore unrecognized.

听If your metrics only capture time saved and cost reduced, and not what that freed-up capacity actually delivered, you are measuring the means and ignoring the end.

Think about what GCs themselves say they want from AI. As several GCs said in the survey, they鈥檙e hoping AI will provide them with “better output on more meaningful tasks,” “proactive, strategic insight,” and “getting out of low-value work.” These are not efficient outcomes, per se; rather, they are effectiveness, protection, and enablement outcomes, made possible by improved efficiency.

So, if your metrics only capture the input (time saved, cost reduced) and not what that freed-up capacity actually delivered, you are measuring the means and ignoring the end. This is the efficiency trap 鈥� measuring the plate so narrowly that it starts to work against you.

Reframing how you measure efficiency

Measuring efficiency well does not mean measuring it more. It means measuring it differently, and always in relation to the business you support. A few principles worth applying include:

Present spend in a business context 鈥� Legal spend as a percentage of company revenue tells a more credible story than a raw cost figure. It scales with the business and can be benchmarked meaningfully against peers.

Show what technology investment actually delivered 鈥� Time saved through automation is a useful starting point, but the stronger case is what the team did with that time. Tracking the shift from routine to strategic work over a period of time is a far more compelling ROI story.

Connect efficiency gains to business outcomes 鈥� An efficiency gain that enabled a faster product launch, prevented a compliance risk, or improved stakeholder satisfaction has a value that no cost metric will capture. Build those connections explicitly into how you report the value of the legal department to the C-Suite.

New resources to help

To support GCs in getting this right, the 成人VR视频 Institute has added two new resources to its Value Alignment Toolkit that directly address this measurement gap.

The Metrics Library brings together more than 100 metrics organized across all four spinning plates. It is a practical starting point for GCs to browse, select, and adapt to the specific goals of their departments, making it easier to build a measurement framework that reflects everything departments do, not just the part that appears in a budget line.

The AI Success Metrics guide addresses the AI measurement gap head-on with a best practice guide and a hands-on worksheet designed specifically for legal departments navigating AI adoption and asking: How do we actually know whether this is working? It looks beyond cost savings to capture the fuller picture of AI value including quality, capacity, strategic contribution, and risk.

Getting the balance right

In today鈥檚 environment, every GC needs to consider their answer when their C-Suite asks what the legal department delivers. Are your department鈥檚 metrics giving them the full answer or just the part that’s easiest to count?

Efficiency is not the enemy of strategic value. A department that runs well, uses its resources wisely, and embraces technology thoughtfully can in turn create the conditions for everything else the business needs from its legal function. However, that case only lands if your metrics measure across all four plates, not just one.

You can explore the new Metrics Library and AI Success Metrics guide, along with the full 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 Value Alignment toolkit听here

Key highlights:

• • • Lawyers excel at semantic legal work while AI excels in syntactic tasks 鈥� Syntactic work (document generation, pattern recognition) is where AI excels, but semantic work involving exercising independent judgment, reflecting on consequences, and fulfilling fiduciary duties remains uniquely human.

    • Fiduciary duty as the core of legal relevance 鈥� What distinguishes lawyers isn’t just听whatthey do, but听how and why听they do it. The fiduciary relationship demands human understanding of context, balances competing interests, recognizes unstated concerns, and exercises discretion.

    • 5 hours to deepen or diminish 鈥� The five hours lawyers are expected to gain each week by using AI can either accelerate professional obsolescence or deepen lawyers鈥� relevance, depending on what they do with it.

This is the first of a two-part blog series that looks at how lawyers can keep their skills relevant in the age of AI

Lawyers expect to gain a full five hours per week of worktime due to the efficiency derived from AI use, according to the 成人VR视频 2025 Future of Professionals Report. Yet the fear of job loss among lawyers is rising, as those viewing AI as a threat or somewhat of a threat grew from to almost two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2026 AI in Professional Services Report.

Many in the legal profession are asking how lawyers are uniquely valuable at a time when machines can process legal information faster and cheaper. The answer lies in understanding the difference between what AI does in processing legal information and what humans do in exercising legal judgment, says , Founding Director of the .

Defining 2 levels of legal work

Understanding what makes lawyers particularly听meaningful听in this current AI moment requires distinguishing between two different levels of legal work in an environment in which AI-enabled information systems are compressing humanity and legal judgment into data points and draining away the storytelling and moral nuance that ground both. According to Lee, these different levels involve the syntactic and the semantic:

• • • Syntactic 鈥� Lawyers process information, generate documents, and recognize patterns at the syntactic level, meaning those tasks in which AI excels and delivers promised efficiency gains. 鈥淭he danger is that we will use this efficiency merely to generate more syntactic volume,鈥� Lee explains, adding that this will result in faster processing of more documents at greater speeds. 鈥淚f we do that, we will have automated ourselves out of a profession.鈥�
    • Semantic 鈥� The semantic aspect of lawyering highlights the irreducible skills of the legal practice, which include exercising independent legal judgment, reflecting on consequences, demonstrating care for clients, and fulfilling fiduciary duties.

This distinction between the semantic level is inherent within the practice of law definition, Lee says, pointing out that many jurisdictions distinguish between “providing legal information” (not practicing law) and “exercising independent legal judgment” (the essence of legal practice).

He also rightly contends that the existential risk facing lawyers is not in AI completing legal tasks, but rather the temptation to reduce lawyers鈥� role to verifying machine output and processing legal information. Conflating these two concepts is a challenge for the legal profession and requires increasing the appreciation for the craft of legal reasoning and judgment.

Making this more difficult is that the current information age complicates this picture by challenging society’s assumptions about reality, consciousness, and the moral meaning of human life 鈥� all at an exponential rate, Lee says. Similarly, AI and information systems threaten to reduce everything, including human beings and law itself, to processable data by stripping away the narratives and meanings that define humanity, he adds.

Semantic qualities of legal judgment

The question of what makes lawyers especially relevant in the AI era is mainly answered in how and why they do what they do, rather than in what they do. For example, Lee points to skills around executing their fiduciary duty and ensuring legitimacy and meaning as key characteristics of lawyers鈥� semantic qualities.

Fiduciary duty 鈥� When a client seeks legal counsel, it鈥檚 legal judgment 鈥� not information processing 鈥� that the client wants. Lawyers, as part of their fiduciary duty to their clients, demonstrate human and legal understanding of the unique context of each case and the consequences of various legal paths forward. This bond of trust between attorney and client demands reflection, consideration, care, and proper purpose.

The fiduciary duty of the lawyer to the client requires balancing competing interests, recognizing unstated concerns, and exercising discretion in ways that honor both the letter and spirit of the law. At the heart of this balance is legal reasoning and professional judgment, which often involves navigating the critical gap between legal rules as written and their meaningful application to human circumstances.

Legitimacy and meaning 鈥� Beyond the fiduciary of care exercised in individual client relationships, lawyers serve a broader purpose in their role to safeguard law’s connection to the narratives of justice and human dignity that legitimize its authority. Indeed, lawyers maintain the connection between law and its humanistic foundations, so that the narratives that give legal authority its legitimacy depend on this connection. 鈥淭he artwork that one associates with the law (in law schools and courtrooms) connects actions and legal judgment of attorneys to the mythic meaning of justice, equality, and the rule of law,鈥� Lee explains.

How to deepen appreciation for the special relevance of lawyers

The five hours that lawyers said they expect to gain each week through AI-driven efficiency represents a choice point for the profession. These hours can either accelerate lawyers鈥� obsolescence or deepen their relevance. To ensure the latter, Lee advises lawyers and legal institutions to examine ways to put those hours to good use by, for example:

Collaborating on apprenticeships 鈥� Bar associations, practicing lawyers, legal service providers, and law schools should consider apprenticeship models that teach professional norms and values through mentorship that allow law students to learn the craft of legal reasoning through guided practice.

Recommitting more fully to legal service 鈥� Law firms and in-house counsel must reclaim humanistic awareness as central to their professional identity. The efficiency gains from AI should be reinvested into semantic work, which include counseling clients, exercising moral judgment, and fulfilling fiduciary duties with greater care and reflection.

Improving legal education 鈥� Law schools must return to the humanistic formation of lawyers, echoing the vision of the pre-2007 , before economic pressures reduced legal education to producing commercially exploitable graduates. In addition, AI ethics must be integrated systemically across the curriculum into doctrinal courses rather than being confined to elective courses.

Looking ahead

The five hours gained through AI represent a defining choice for the legal profession. The special relevance of lawyers in the AI age lies precisely in the human components and semantics aspects of lawyering.

In the concluding part of this blog series, we look at how the legal profession needs to rethink how it trains lawyers in order to prevent AI from eroding legal judgment skills

Key insights:

• • • Client expectations around AI have shifted from curiosity to accountability 鈥� Law firms are now being asked not just whether they use GenAI, but to prove how it delivers measurable cost savings on specific matters 鈥� a question most firms still cannot answer with hard data.

    • A growing contradiction defines firm/client relationships 鈥� As clients simultaneously demand AI adoption, require granular billing transparency, and in some cases refuse to pay for work performed with AI, they鈥檙e creating a pricing and value paradox with no clear resolution for their law firms.

    • The ROI challenge around AI is fundamentally a relationship problem 鈥� Driven by a widening gap between what clients expect to save and what firms can demonstrate, a rift has developed between clients and firms, which is compounded by the fact that few firms have a coherent GenAI strategy in place.

NEW YORK 鈥� opened with a keynote conversation featuring Mindy Kaling, the Emmy-nominated writer, producer, and Tony Award-winning playwright, who reflected on a career built around one enduring fascination: messy relationships. She talked about growing up wanting to write something like Sex and the City, only to end up helping to chronicle the internal politics of a Scranton, Pennsylvania paper company in The Office. She talked about her love of watching people navigate breakups and power struggles and then finding the comedy in it all.

If she’s looking for new material, the three standing-room-only panels that followed could keep her busy for seasons.

Not surprisingly, the relationship between clients and their law firms has always been complicated 鈥� bound by mutual need but strained by competing incentives. Now, that tension is starting to reach a rolling boil as many law firms can鈥檛 seem to agree on exactly how the gains of their use of AI tools, especially generative AI (GenAI), are going to be split, or even if they鈥檙e going to be split at all.

AI is no longer optional or experimental 鈥� and many clients simply assume it’s already in use.

Across three 成人VR视频-sponsored sessions during this week鈥檚 Legalweek event, that tension surfaced again and again 鈥� not as a future concern, but as a present reality. Today, clients are arriving at the table more informed, more demanding, and more willing to use AI themselves. Firms are investing heavily in AI, but they still are struggling to quantify returns in terms their clients will accept. With the rates that law firms charge increasing 鈥� averaging more than 7% growth in 2025, and likely to stay on that pace in 2026 鈥� it sets up a collision with savings mandates that have yet to produce a shared framework for measurement. And underneath all of it, a fault line is building pressure 鈥� one that, as Ellen Hudock, GSK’s Chief of Staff Legal and Compliance, is not being resolved.

In 2026, GenAI has become the thing neither side can stop talking about, the thing both sides agree matters, and the thing that neither side can agree on how to handle.

This is not the story of an industry resisting change. Nearly everyone at Legalweek agreed that AI adoption is no longer optional. The harder questions, however, and the ones that echoed through every panel, every audience comment, and every hallway conversation is who benefits, how much, and who gets to decide.

Proving AI鈥檚 path to saving clients money

Three years ago, the client question was simple: Are you using AI, and would you use it on our matters? In 2026, that question has matured, and the new version is much harder to answer.

GSK鈥檚 Hudock described the shift bluntly during one panel. GSK is learning as much as it can from its outside law firms about how they’re deploying GenAI, she said, and are always looking to partner on new use cases. However, she noted that the conversation has moved well past curiosity. The pressure to deliver savings 鈥� internally and externally 鈥� is intense, and the questions have sharpened accordingly: What are you using? How are you using it? How does it generate savings?

Clearly, firms are hearing this message. Matthew Beekhuizen, Chief Pricing and Innovation Officer at Greenberg Traurig, noted that the pace of AI-driven change has accelerated sharply, particularly since October 2025. Clients who had previously said nothing about AI are now asking how it’s being used on their specific legal matters.

Indeed, AI is no longer optional or experimental 鈥� and many clients simply assume it’s already in use, said Mark Brennan, a partner at Hogan Lovells.

The trouble is that firms still can’t give clients the answer they most want to hear. When pressed on how much cost savings AI is actually achieving, the response from the firm side is often: We’re still gathering the data. Mitchell Kaplan, Managing Director of Zarwin Baum, acknowledged the industry is still in the anecdotal phase of measuring returns.

Sergey Polak, Director of Technology Innovation at Ropes & Gray, described the current state of ROI measurement as being based more on conventional wisdom rather than hard evidence. Hudock’s response to this was pointed: That’s exactly the situation in which clients want to partner. Supply the work, and let’s figure it out together.

The contradictions in the room

If the evolution in client expectations were the whole story, it would be manageable; however, the reality is messier than that, because clients are not speaking with one voice.

During another panel, Barclay Blair, Senior Managing Director of AI Innovation at DLA Piper, laid out the contradictions in sharp relief. Blair, who introduced himself as “the extremist on the panel,” is seeing clients who expect AI to be used and are asking how it will achieve specific savings targets. At the same time, many law firms are still receiving directives that feel lifted out of 2023, such as demands for warrants that models are unbiased, and declarations that firms cannot use AI without explicit permission. In 2026, both postures are arriving in the same inbox.

When pressed on how much cost savings AI is actually achieving, the response from the firm side is often: We’re still gathering the data.

The billing conversation captures this tension perfectly. Polak of Ropes & Gray noted that clients are beginning to ask for line-item transparency on invoices 鈥� was AI used on this task, and how much time or money did it save? Simultaneously, as Blair observed, other clients are issuing guidelines stating they won’t pay for certain services if performed by AI. This isn’t clients barring AI outright; rather, its clients demanding firms adopt AI, then using that very adoption as leverage to negotiate a decrease in costs. Not surprisingly, this becomes a self-reinforcing cycle with no obvious exit 鈥� at least, not for law firms.

Meanwhile, Zarwin Baum鈥檚 Kaplan raised a billing paradox that GenAI is making harder to ignore. As AI compresses work that once took hours into minutes, an itemized hourly bill increasingly tells a story that undersells the value delivered. His proposed answer: a return to the single line-item services rendered bill, which actually predated the billable hour. Kaplan then asked whether clients would actually accept it.

The advice to the law firms in the room from DLA Piper鈥檚 Blair was more blunt: Don’t wait for the client to set the terms. Lead the conversation about AI ROI and set the meeting. As Blair described, this is now the time to negotiate how value gets shared, while both sides are still figuring out the rules 鈥� not after one side has already written them.

The pressure hasn’t yet found a release valve

None of these tensions exist in isolation. They are symptoms of a structural mismatch between what clients need from the economics of legal AI and what firms are currently able to demonstrate 鈥� and the numbers suggest the legal industry is less prepared for this conversation than it thinks.

As 成人VR视频’ Steven Petrie pointed out, those law firms with a GenAI strategy are 3.9-times more likely to achieve ROI than those without one. Yet, only 22% of firms have such a strategy, Petrie said. That gap 鈥� between the firms that are thinking systematically about AI’s role in their business and those that aren’t 鈥� may turn out to matter less than the gap between what clients expect to save and what firms can show they’ve delivered.

The ROI question, in other words, is not just a measurement challenge, rather it鈥檚 a relationship challenge. And like all the best relationship drama, the tension doesn’t come from disagreement about whether the relationship matters. It comes from both sides wanting something slightly different from it 鈥� and neither being quite sure if both sides can get what they want.

If Mindy Kaling is still looking for complicated relationships to write about, she knows where to find them. This one鈥檚 going to need a few seasons to work itself out.

You can find more of here

Key takeaways:

• • • Become truly client-centered 鈥� Legal departments claim to be client-focused yet frequently make strategic decisions about effectiveness without systematically understanding stakeholder needs.

    • Decide where to automate 鈥� As AI transforms legal services delivery, decisions about where to automate versus where to deploy human judgment require evidence, not assumptions.

    • Build intelligence with continuous feedback 鈥� Systematic stakeholder intelligence reveals where speed matters more than depth, which services lack visibility, and where relationships can create differentiated value.

Today鈥檚 general counsels face a fundamental challenge as AI capabilities expand, that of determining where to deploy technology and where to deploy human judgment. Getting this formula right can create irreplaceable value for an organization. Yet many GCs may be making these critical decisions based on assumptions about what stakeholders need rather than evidence.

The paradox is that while corporate legal departments consistently say they want to be effective, client-focused, and responsive partners in service of the business, many are making strategic decisions about how to be that way without systematically measuring or understanding the stakeholder experience they’re trying to optimize. It’s like declaring customer satisfaction as your goal while never actually asking customers how satisfied they are. This blind spot doesn’t just undermine service quality; it undermines one of the four core accountabilities of every legal department which is that of being Effective.

This is the third part听of our series on the 鈥淔our Spinning Plates鈥� model, which frames the GCs鈥� evolving responsibilities as:

1. 1. 1. delivering effective advice
      2. operating efficiently
      3. protecting the business, and
      4. enabling strategic ambitions.

This article focuses on the听Effective听plate.

The information gap

Being Effective as a legal department means delivering high-quality, practical legal advice that is responsive to business needs, and this requires knowing what those needs are. Most legal departments rely on hallway conversations, occasional feedback during business reviews, and organic complaints or praise. While these interactions are valuable and should continue, what they lack is systematic intelligence that could be used to determine the best strategic decisions.

Ad hoc feedback is reactive, incomplete, and reflects the loudest voices rather than the broader reality. You hear from the very satisfied or the very unsatisfied, rarely from the middle majority of stakeholders whose experience shapes overall effectiveness.

As AI transforms legal delivery, this information gap becomes more costly. Without understanding which feedback touchpoints stakeholders prefer as human interactions and which they’d rather handle on their own, how can you decide which legal services to automate and where your team’s judgment and relationship-building are essential?

When legal departments systematically gather stakeholder feedback, they uncover patterns that challenge assumptions about what effectiveness means to the business.

Consider response time, for example. Many legal teams pride themselves on providing thorough, carefully crafted advice. However, stakeholder feedback often reveals that the speed of an initial response matters more than depth, at least for the first touchpoint. What lawyers see as diligence, stakeholders may experience as delay. This insight doesn’t mean the legal team should compromise quality; rather, true effectiveness comes from knowing when a quick acknowledgment is sufficient and when an issue demands thorough analysis right away.

Varied responses needed

Of course, different stakeholders have different expectations of responsiveness. For example, sales colleagues working under targets and time pressure need speed to drive momentum in contract negotiations. Understanding different stakeholder personas can help manage expectations and educate junior lawyers about the different business rhythms that the legal department must respond to.

Or, as another example, take service awareness. It’s common to discover that stakeholders simply don’t know the full extent of what the legal team can offer. Business leaders may not realize their legal team provides training, templates, or advisory services that could prevent issues before they escalate. The problem here isn’t service quality, it’s visibility 鈥� and that distinction matters enormously when deciding where to invest limited resources.

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

More importantly, these insights directly inform AI integration strategy for corporate law departments. Routine, high-volume work in which speed matters is a prime candidate for automation and self-service tools. Complex matters in which stakeholders specifically value a lawyer’s business understanding and strategic judgment is where to protect and focus human capacity.

Perhaps the most valuable output of fostering systematic feedback is when that feedback reveals where satisfaction varies across departments or stakeholder groups. A legal department might assume it delivers consistent service, only to discover that one business unit rates the department highly for responsiveness while another complains that it struggles to receive timely answers. These variations point to either inconsistent delivery or improperly communicated expectations. which are exactly the kinds of problems that process standardization, better intervention systems, or technology can address.

Without this type of intelligence, GCs risk automating services that should stay personalized, or maintaining high-touch approaches for work that stakeholders would happily handle themselves through self-service options.

The human value imperative

As AI handles more legal work, the question becomes: What can legal professionals do that technology cannot? The answer lies in the distinctly human elements of legal service such as judgment, knowledge of the business, relationship building, and strategic counsel.

The challenge for corporate law departments, however, is that without first knowing which touchpoints stakeholders value as human interactions, you can’t strategically deploy your team’s capabilities. Systematic stakeholder feedback allows evidence-based decisions on where the legal team’s relationship adds value and where speed or self-service could better serve stakeholder needs.

The question for every General Counsel then becomes: Are you making decisions on the department鈥檚 effectiveness based on systematic stakeholder intelligence, or operating with a blind spot that may be costing you more than you realize?

This then becomes critical intelligence for decision-making around resource allocation and restructuring, as well as for demonstrating the legal team’s value to the C-Suite in terms they can recognize. When a GC can articulate not just what their department does but how effectively it serves broader stakeholder needs, they are speaking the same language as the business they support.

This also allows a GC to shift from defending their department headcount based on workload volume to justifying resources based on stakeholder-defined value 鈥� and that’s a fundamentally stronger position.

Understanding the Spinning Plates

The Four Spinning Plates model 鈥� Effective, Efficient, Protect, and Enable 鈥� represents the complete picture of a legal department’s role and value within the organization. Yet research consistently shows a perception gap. For example, C-Suite executives over-emphasize the Effective plate while under-recognizing Protection and Enablement contributions.

This gap exists partly because legal departments lack metrics that capture effectiveness in business terms. They can report cost savings and matter volumes but struggle to demonstrate how well they’re actually serving stakeholder needs. Stakeholder feedback mechanisms bridge this gap by making effectiveness measurable and visible through the lens of those the department serves.

Indeed, it’s not about running surveys for the sake of feedback. It’s about grounding strategic decisions about AI integration, service design, and where to focus human talent, in evidence not assumptions. For those GCs navigating AI transformation specifically, this isn’t optional. Rather, it’s the difference between guessing where to automate and knowing where automation serves stakeholders.

Leading legal departments are already using stakeholder intelligence as their compass for AI transformation, leveraging that intelligence to best determine where to standardize, where to automate, and where human judgment remains irreplaceable.

The question for every General Counsel then becomes: Are you making decisions on the department鈥檚 effectiveness based on systematic stakeholder intelligence, or operating with a blind spot that may be costing you more than you realize?

You can learn more about the challenges that corporate GCs face every day

Key insights:

• • • Pricing power now depends on clear, measurable value 鈥� Firms must prove their worth at every client touchpoint to justify charging premium rates.

    • Value delivery spans five critical stages 鈥� Demand management, service design, delivery excellence, value capture, and relationship management. All must be systematically audited and improved.

    • Action is essential 鈥� Diagnosing gaps is only the first step; law firms must assign accountability, set goals, and continuously adapt to meet evolving client expectations and avoid competing solely on price.

The 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market, published jointly by the 成人VR视频庐 Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law,听shows that over the past three years, legal industry pricing has skyrocketed at an unprecedented pace.

Many law firms have enjoyed strong demand and the ability to command higher rates, often without significant pushbacks from clients. However, that era of unchecked growth is coming to an end. Today鈥檚 clients are far more discerning about what they are willing to pay for and why. More often, they scrutinize every invoice, questioning whether the value delivered truly matches the premium price charged.

The danger for many law firms is complacency. Past success can create a false sense of security, leading to assumptions that reputation alone will sustain pricing power. However, as client procurement teams become more sophisticated and alternative legal services providers enter the market, firms that fail to prove their worth will find themselves competing on cost, which can result in a race to the bottom that few can afford.

This shift signals a fundamental change in the market in which pricing power is no longer guaranteed by reputation or past performance. Instead, pricing power hinges on a firm鈥檚 ability to demonstrate clear, measurable value at every stage of the client relationship. Those firms that fail to adapt risk being forced into price-based competition, eroding margins and undermining long-term sustainability.

By 2025, even as inflation eased to a more typical 鈥� but still elevated 鈥� 3%, many law firms continued to push rate increases at more than twice that level. The disconnect between pricing and underlying economic conditions had widened into a significant gulf, underscoring the critical need for firms to clearly demonstrate and defend the value behind their premium rates.

So, how can firms ensure they are delivering premium value to earn the right to charge premium rates? The answer lies in systematically diagnosing where value is created 鈥� and where it is destroyed 鈥� across the entire client experience journey.

The 5 stages of legal service delivery

To maintain pricing power, firms must examine their service delivery through five key client experience stages. Each stage represents an opportunity to create value or destroy it.

1. Demand management

Do you truly understand the client鈥檚 business problem, or are you focused solely on the legal question? Effective demand management requires moving beyond transactional requests to uncover a client鈥檚 strategic objectives. This ensures the solutions proposed align with business impact, not just technical compliance.

You can hear more about the 鈥�2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market鈥� in听, on YouTube

Start every engagement by asking: What client business goal is driving this need?, What constraints is the client operating under?, and How will success be measured beyond legal compliance? These questions can reframe the conversation from a focus on deliverables to a focus on strategic results, positioning your law firm as a proactive partner in the client鈥檚 success.

By facilitating co-design workshops with clients and requiring clear documentation of business goals for each project, your firm ensures that every initiative is aligned with measurable impact. This approach not only demonstrates leadership and a deep understanding of client needs, but it also builds lasting trust and drives greater value throughout the relationship.

2. Service design

Are your offerings built around client outcomes or your own internal structure? Many firms design services based on practice groups and billing models, not on what may serve clients best. This can create friction and inefficiency.

Adopting a client-centric design philosophy requires mapping the client journey, identifying pain points, and designing integrated services around client business needs. For instance, bundling advisory and compliance work into outcome-oriented solutions and coordinating delivery through a single relationship manager simplifies decision-making, strengthens trust, and delivers consistent, measurable value throughout the engagement.

3. Delivery excellence

Do you have safeguards that prevent failures before they ever reach the client? Even the most sophisticated legal advice loses its impact if delivery is inconsistent or error prone. Breakdowns in market research, service design, process conformance, or communication don鈥檛 just create inefficiencies, they erode client trust and diminish the firm鈥檚 perceived value. This is about embedding reliability into your delivery model, so clients don鈥檛 have to chase updates, catch errors, or manage deadlines on your behalf.

Invest in quality checks and project management tools and use proactive risk controls 鈥攕uch as early warning systems for potential delays 鈥� that provide automatic status updates and clear ownership. These measures signal professionalism and reliability, reinforcing your premium positioning.

4. Value capture

Can clients clearly see and articulate the value you鈥檝e delivered? If your impact is invisible, your pricing will always feel inflated. Many firms struggle to articulate outcomes beyond hours billed, which can leave clients to wonder what they are paying for.

Communicate value in terms that matter to clients. Use outcome-based reporting to show how your work mitigated risk, accelerated timelines, or unlocked opportunities. Record these in quarterly impact reports 鈥� because when clients see tangible benefits, they are far more willing to pay premium rates.

5. Relationship management

Do you build trust systematically or hope it happens organically? Trust is the foundation of pricing power, but it doesn鈥檛 happen by accident. Firms that rely on personal rapport alone risk inconsistency and vulnerability when key contacts change.

Implement structured feedback loops, client listening programs, and regular value reviews. These mechanisms demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement and deepen client confidence in your firm鈥檚 ability to deliver.

Turning insights into action

Assessing your client鈥檚 journey is only the first step. The real challenge and opportunity lies in acting on those insights. Start by identifying gaps in the five key stages, then prioritize improvements that will have the greatest impact on client perception and outcomes.

Assign accountability for each stage, set measurable goals, and track progress over time. Consider creating cross-functional teams to break down silos and foster collaboration. Remember, value delivery is not a one-time project; it鈥檚 an ongoing discipline that requires vigilance and adaptability.

As the legal market transforms, so do client expectations. Firms that cling to outdated assumptions about pricing power will inevitably find themselves competing on cost alone 鈥� a losing strategy in an increasingly crowded and sophisticated marketplace.

You can download a full copy of the听2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market, published jointly by the 成人VR视频庐 Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law, here

Key takeaways:

• • • Commercial awareness is a group goal 鈥� This must be a team capability and not just the GC’s responsibility.

    • Being “in the room” is critical 鈥� As standard practice, being present when decisions are made 鈥� like in the boardroom 鈥� helps position the legal function as a strategic partner rather than an emergency contact.

    • The keys to enabling the business 鈥� Strategic enablement means understanding business objectives and finding solutions to make them happen.

A Chief Legal Officer at a software company had a revealing interview question for the internal candidates who were seeking a senior role: “What’s your favorite product that we make, and what value does it give our customers?”

Many struggled. Some couldn’t answer on the spot. Others sounded like they were merely reciting the company website. Those who succeeded spoke easily and authentically about customer value, showing that they thought about the business regularly, not just when legal issues arose.

The message was clear: In order to enable the business, you need to know it as well as the business knows itself.

In this second part of our series on the “Four Spinning Plates” model, which frames the General Counsels鈥� evolving responsibilities as:

1. 1. 1. delivering effective advice
      2. operating efficiently
      3. protecting the business, and
      4. enabling strategic ambitions.

This article focuses on the Enable plate.

Building commercial muscle across the entire team

The above story about the CLO鈥檚 interviews reveals the uncomfortable truth that lawyers can be proficient in their legal skills yet disconnected from the business they serve. They know contract law but not what makes customers choose their company’s products or services. They understand regulatory compliance but not the competitive dynamics that are shaping strategic decisions within the company. And this gap doesn’t just limit individual careers; it prevents legal departments from becoming true strategic enablers.

Commercial awareness isn’t just the GC’s responsibility 鈥� every team member needs to understand the company’s products, its customers, strategic objectives, and values. Everyone should be able to articulate not just what the company does, but why it matters to customers and how it creates competitive advantage.

For many corporate legal departments, this cultural shift requires deliberate efforts to help lawyers understand the commercial context of their work, create opportunities for them to engage directly with business functions, and make commercial acumen a clear expectation for career advancement.

One GC shifted their team members from a stay in your lane mentality to one in which they saw themselves strategic advisors. The GC did this by redefining excellence as not just providing technically sound legal advice but also offering a point of view about how the business develops and grows. Now, lawyers are welcomed at every meeting, whether or not there’s a legal issue on the agenda. Legal team members strive to know the business as well as anyone and identify issues proactively

Being in the room as standard, not emergency contact

There’s a difference between being called in when there’s a crisis and being present as strategy develops. When the legal team only appears during emergencies, relationships remain transactional. However, when legal has a regular presence in strategic discussions, it builds trust as business partners can see how legal thinking sharpens strategy, identifies opportunities others may miss, and helps the organization make better-informed decisions. Then, engagement becomes organic as leaders naturally seek out legal input because the relationship already exists.

One GC described their department as focused on enhancing commercial performance, not just mitigating risk. This means developing a refined understanding of competing risks alongside opportunities and making strategic bets informed by business goals rather than by defaulting to the most conservative position.

Many GCs aspire to have a seat at the table but aren鈥檛 yet invited into strategic planning. However, there are ways to start building that level of involvement, including initiating cross functional meetings, asking to observe other department meetings, and leading technology and process improvements that showcase legal’s forward thinking.

Of course, better integration into the overall business creates its own challenges 鈥� as the in-house legal team becomes more approachable and visible, requests will increase and demand must be managed. As one GC put it, “the reward for good work is more work.” That鈥檚 why the most effective GCs must find the balance across all four plates by being accessible enough to be valuable and structured enough to be sustainable.

From Department of No to Department of How

Being a strategic enabler doesn’t mean saying Yes to everything. It means legal’s voice is sought out by business leaders and thus, carries weight. Rather than automatically saying No and explaining the risks of a business initiative, effective GCs ask Why? and then make an effort to understand objectives and find safer paths to yes that balance risk with ambition.

When regulatory changes created opportunities for an energy company to build pipeline infrastructure, the company鈥檚 GC ensured leadership understood all facets of the durability of those regulatory changes before committing billions of dollars. Regulatory shifts were likely to be contested, which meant that permits granted today could be overturned years later, leaving the company with unusable infrastructure and lost investment. By helping the business think through these scenarios, the legal department enabled an informed strategic decision, rather than a reactive one.

This mindset shows up in everyday legal work too. A GC at a fast-moving technology company described their focus as: “Helping evolve our contracts to keep up with the strategies or keep up with what the company is doing.” Rather than treating every new business model as requiring completely new contractual frameworks, the legal team modifies existing approaches to accommodate new risks without becoming “too intrusive on the business” or creating “weeks and weeks of negotiating.” This agility demonstrates how seemingly routine legal work 鈥� such as contract negotiation 鈥� has significant business impact when approached with a commercial lens.

Moving forward: Strategic enablement as ongoing practice

As complexity and change intensify, the GC’s role as strategic enabler is crucial. To jumpstart this process, GCs should assess their department in key areas, asking:

• • • How does senior leadership view legal? As a strategic partner, a necessary gatekeeper, or an emergency contact?
    • How integrated is your department into business operations? Are representatives from the in-house legal team present as strategy develops, or are they called in to review decisions already made?
    • How well is your team building commercial muscle? Can everyone on your team succinctly describe what your business does, who its customers are, where the company is headed, and what its values are?

GCs who can build commercial muscle across their teams, maintain consistent presence in business decisions, and approach challenges with a mindset of enabling solutions will become indispensable strategic leaders that help their organizations thrive.

You can learn more about how the 成人VR视频 Institute’s Value Alignment toolkit allows you to assess your legal department’s strategic positioning, here

Key insights:

• • • More focus on implementation, training, and integration is needed 鈥� Many legal departments need to be more prepared before accelerating their AI adoption plans.

    • Legal departments are looking to AI-driven tech tools to help them improve efficiency and reduce costs 鈥� Most corporate legal professionals say they consider their departments under-resourced but feel that technology can make processes more efficient.

    • Use of legal technology is expected to increase 鈥� Many legal departments report increasing or stable budgets for technology investments.

Corporate legal departments are racing to add new technologies. The rapid advancement of AI not only means that promising new solutions are emerging just about every day, but also that organizations and their legal departments may feel compelled to engage in a technology arms race in order to keep up with competitors.

There are vital lessons and warnings that legal departments should heed, however, as they rush to adopt AI and other emerging technologies.

The race is on

The emergence of AI-driven tools comes as legal departments stand at an important crossroads. They are under increasing pressure to take on more tasks while controlling costs. Indeed, more than half of the in-house legal professionals surveyed say their legal departments are under-resourced, according to the 2025 Legal Department Operations (LDO) Index, published by the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) in conjunction with Buying Legal Council.

At the same time, however, survey respondents ranked greater use of technology as one of the top ways to improve efficiency and reduce costs. It鈥檚 not surprising then, to find that 59% of respondents say they are increasing their use of technology tools, and an overwhelming 88% say they have stable or increasing tech budgets to make that happen.

You can check out our听2025 LDO Index Infographic听here

As a result, the number of legal departments that are looking to implement fast, large-scale technology deployments is surging. Although it鈥檚 currently only 12%, that鈥檚 a four-fold increase from just 3% last year, and it鈥檚 likely to continue climbing as the race to adopt AI tools intensifies.

Not surprisingly, AI-powered tools are some of the fastest-growing solutions being adopted by legal departments. Yet, adoption does not necessarily mean effectiveness 鈥� and as the LDO Index reveals, there are some important warning signs flashing as legal departments rush headlong into the AI future.

Underutilized tech tools

One of the most significant parts of this sobering reality is that many legal departments are not even taking full advantage of the technologies they鈥檙e already deployed.

In fact, many technologies are being used widely across legal departments 鈥� such as legal research, spend management, and e-discovery 鈥� however, for many of these automation tools are underutilized and not being used effectively, despite the fact that the tools are considered valuable when used, according to the report.

That means that many technologies that have proven their worth within a legal department remain largely underutilized, collecting digital dust even though they could help the department achieve greater efficiencies.

Legal department software solutions are underutilized

The reasons for underutilization are many-fold, including inadequate training, lack of awareness, and failure to properly integrate technology solutions.

And the early signs for more advanced AI-driven tools is that they are following the same troubling pattern. Contract AI tools are currently more than twice as likely to be considered underutilized than being used effectively. Generative AI (GenAI) tools also are struggling to achieve an even split between underutilization and effective usage.

The underutilization of existing technology in legal departments isn’t just a current operational challenge 鈥� it’s a warning signal about departments鈥� readiness for the AI era.

The good news, however, is that AI tools are still in the relatively early stages of adoption. Legal departments are more likely to report that they have not yet adopted GenAI tools but are looking to procure them over the next 24 months, so there is still time to prepare. Therein lies the opportunity for legal departments to take steps now to ensure that they have not only chosen the right technologies but are deploying them properly to help ensure effective usage.

Some of these steps toward proper preparation include:

Conducting a technology audit 鈥� Assess the current utilization of existing legal tech solutions and use this assessment to prioritize investment towards those tools that address the department鈥檚 most pressing needs. This will enable strategic investments in the specific technologies that are most likely to drive efficiency and value.

Ensuring the department is ready 鈥� Deploying new technologies requires resources, and department leaders need to make sure there is sufficient implementation bandwidth.

Understanding that AI implementation is different 鈥� Unlike other technologies, AI is likely to require new processes, policies, and governance frameworks in order to be most impactful. In addition, AI adoption will require more substantial changes to departmental workflows, role definitions, and work practices than previous technology deployments.

Providing effective training and education 鈥� Attorneys and staff need to feel confident they know how to use a tool to get the most out of it and additional training on these tools can provide that. And by sharing use cases and best practices, leaders can reinforce training and continually drive awareness.

As the LDO Index report shows, successful technology adoption requires careful planning and execution. Corporate legal departments can’t simply purchase AI tools and expect them to magically generate efficiency from day one.

However, with proper planning and change management, new advanced technologies and AI-driven tools can transform legal department operations. By following the outlined steps to ensure better preparedness, leaders can help their legal departments prevent their AI investments from turning into expensive technology budget line items that ultimately disappoint by failing to deliver promised efficiency gains.

You can download a full copy of the听听here

• • • Understanding is critical 鈥� Law firms must seek to deeply understand their clients鈥� businesses and proactively use data and AI to build trust and deliver value.

    • Transparent communication is needed 鈥� Conversations with clients around pricing, value, and staffing 鈥� supported by clear metrics 鈥� strengthens client relationships and helps firms demonstrate their worth.

    • Pull a lot of levers 鈥� Proactive business development, creative billing models, and leveraging advanced technology are critical for law firms to differentiate themselves and meet evolving client expectations.

WASHINGTON, DC 鈥� Today, law firms are facing unprecedented pressure to deliver more value, build deeper relationships with clients, and differentiate themselves in a crowded market. The recent 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 24th Annual Law Firm COO & CFO Forum brought these developments into sharp focus, highlighting how client management is now seeping into every aspect of law firm operations.

Jump to 鈫�

The 24^th Annual Law Firm COO & CFO Forum Executive Summary

The message from industry leaders at this event was clear: Law firms must prioritize deep client understanding, proactive business development, and transparent use of data and AI to build trust and deliver 鈥� and demonstrate 鈥� value in client relationships.

The not-so-new imperative: Deep client understanding

As many speakers underscored at the Forum event, the foundation of any successful client relationship is understanding 鈥� not just of the client鈥檚 current needs, but of their business, market, and future ambitions. While not new, this sentiment is now echoed more strongly by many clients who expect their law firms to act as true partners, invested in their growth and success.

For clients, that even seeps down into the minutiae of running a firm, said one corporate counsel. 鈥淲hat clients really look for is outside law firms that have a track record of good work, meet deadlines, and don鈥檛 overstaff 鈥� of course, those are just table stakes now,鈥� the counsel said. 鈥淏eyond that, clients are increasingly looking at how law firms train and retain their lawyers 鈥� because it鈥檚 a trust issue, and we don鈥檛 want any surprises around who is working with us.鈥�

Increasingly, clients seem to be using their legal spend to speak to those priorities, our research shows. The portion of total legal spending going to outside counsel increased this year to more than two-thirds (67%) of the total. And almost one-quarter (24%) of clients鈥� outside counsel spend goes to the law firm they use most, with 15% of clients saying they plan to use their most-used firm more this year, compared to last year.

To meet these deepening expectations around collaboration and value, law firms are increasingly leveraging advanced, AI-driven technologies that enable them to gain deeper insights into their clients鈥� industries, anticipate challenges, and proactively offer solutions. Indeed, these pathways to partnership, it seems, run directly through AI, several panelists suggested. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not just about being reactive to client needs but about anticipating those needs and demonstrating value at every turn,鈥� said one speaker.

However, law firms 鈥� for the sake of their own economics 鈥� need to train their partners to hold sometimes difficult conversations with clients around pricing and be able to explain the value the firm is offering. 鈥淲e need to show what鈥檚 working and what鈥檚 not working in a client relationship,鈥� said one law firm leader. 鈥淣ot just once a year when we set rates, but in conversations all year long.鈥�

Building trust through transparency & metrics

While trust is the cornerstone of any client relationship, it鈥檚 built on transparency. Clients want to know not only what their law firms are doing, but also why, and how value is being delivered, several panelists explained, adding that this means having open conversations with clients around pricing, value, and staffing that are supported by clear, objective metrics.

At the Forum, several law firm leaders emphasized the importance of ongoing, transparent dialogue with clients that backed by data, which helps eliminate any surprises and ensures that both sides are aligned on expectations and outcomes.

鈥淚 mean, clients are why we鈥檙e in business, and client expectations should be a priority for every firm,鈥� said one panelist. 鈥淚t鈥檚 shocking how frequently we ask ourselves, How will this affect the client? 鈥� we ask it a lot, because everything naturally does.鈥�

鈥淟aw firms will need to get better on their own metrics so they can see 鈥� and explain 鈥� what is happening.鈥�

Not surprisingly, many firms are beginning to leverage advanced technology to build out these critical metrics to demonstrate value to clients 鈥� yet, it鈥檚 not a panacea. Lawyers will still need to review and validate AI-generated work, and the anticipated cost savings may not always materialize as quickly as clients hope. This makes ongoing communication and expectation management all the more important.

Clients and law firms must move forward together, several panelists suggested, adding that firms regularly need to ask their clients, 鈥淲hat do you want to do? What problems do you want to solve and what opportunities do you want to seize?鈥� This collaborative approach ensures that the firm鈥檚 efforts are always aligned with the client鈥檚 goals.

Proactive business development and creative billing

As many speakers at the Forum contended, gone are the days when law firms could rely solely on traditional billing models and reactive business development. Today鈥檚 clients expect more flexibility, creativity, and initiative from their outside counsel.

To that end, firms are getting better at using data to help sharpen their pricing prowess, offering more alternative billing structures, flat-fee arrangements, subscription models, and even tech surcharges. 鈥淵ou have to get creative, and you have to have options,鈥� one speaker explained. 鈥淟aw firms will need to get better on their own metrics so they can see 鈥� and explain 鈥� what is happening.鈥�

As evidenced by this, many law firms are taking multiple approaches to addressing pricing issues and questions of value with clients. For example, one firm leader said his firm looked at its own billing and revenue data and the client feedback it had gathered and saw with which clients the firm was most successful and where growth opportunities could be identified. 鈥淭his is extremely helpful information to guide your lawyers as they prioritize their actions,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t helps you determine where you want to go as a firm.鈥�

Another firm鈥檚 goal was to find more green space 鈥� those law firm service offerings that clients weren鈥檛 using but could, adding that the firm had much more success finding added value for current clients than locating new ones. Yet another firm did tariff modeling by using data analysis to determine how their manufacturing clients could save money by changing locales. The firm provided the tool, trained clients鈥� in-house lawyers on the tool, gave the data results to clients, and then worked with them on solutions.

Another argued for tech surcharges 鈥� fees charged to the clients to help offset the high costs of law firms鈥� tech investments. While admittedly controversial, the speaker explained that clients may not balk at reasonable charges because they want their law firms to succeed too 鈥� an idea that didn鈥檛 draw immediate objection, even from the corporate counsel in attendance. 鈥淎nd I think if one big law firm does it, the industry will follow along,鈥� he added.

Putting clients at the center

As many of the panels at the Forum underscored, clients are the reason law firms exist, and their expectations should be the driving force behind every decision. By prioritizing deep client understanding, embracing transparent communication, and proactively seeking new ways to deliver value, law firms can build stronger, more enduring partnerships 鈥� while setting themselves apart in a challenging market.

And, several speakers noted, this is going to be increasingly important going forward. 鈥淚f the legal market is going to get rocky,鈥� one panelist said, 鈥渋t鈥檚 going to be tech investment and client management that will become critical differentiators for many law firms.鈥�

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “The 24^th Annual Law Firm COO & CFO Forum Executive Summary” by filling out the form below:

• • • Business risks are rising 鈥� Businesses are seeing elevated risks around trade tariffs, worries of recession, and other uncertainties.

    • GCs must lead strategically 鈥� Corporate general counsel need to engage in proactive scenario planning to better anticipate potential risks.

    • Communication and collaboration are key 鈥� GCs need to communicate and collaborate both across the business and with senior management for effective risk management.

Imagine waking up to news that a key supplier鈥檚 country has suddenly imposed new export restrictions, or that a regulatory body announced sweeping changes overnight. For many corporate general counsel (GCs), these scenarios are part of the daily reality in today鈥檚 volatile global landscape. In this environment, the GC鈥檚 role as protector of the business has never been more vital.

Growing economic and geopolitical uncertainty are leaving many businesses struggling to determine their optimal course for moving forward amid rising risks. The volatile trade environment, rising costs, interest rate uncertainty, and economic slowdown concerns are only a few of the factors raising corporate insecurity to new heights.

The Four Spinning Plates Model: Context for the GC鈥檚 role

The Four Spinning Plates model frames a GC鈥檚 responsibilities as: i) delivering effective advice; ii) operating an efficient legal department; iii) protecting the business from unwanted legal risk; and iv) enabling the company鈥檚 strategic ambitions. This article focuses on the Protect Plate and the role of the GC in helping their business navigate uncertainty; and like future parts of this series, it is based on extensive conversations we鈥檝e had with GCs around these issues.

In our discussions with GCs, many point out that the importance of serving as not only legal guardians, but as a key strategic advisor to their organization has never been greater. 鈥淭he pace of change is speeding up,鈥� one GC noted. 鈥淭he world is becoming more complex, and it鈥檚 becoming less clear what the path forward is.鈥�

The on-going, often-chaotic tariffs situation provides an example of how GCs are currently challenged to develop and execute strategies to manage risk across their organizations. Tariffs impact multinational businesses in a multitude of areas simultaneously. This means that supply chains must deal with potential disruptions and re-examine supplier relationships and contracts based on geography and other factors. And that means that contracts need to be re-assessed for both current flexibility and the potential need for renegotiation or future changes.

Further, production and demand forecasts must be continually adjusted, finance needs to account for volatile pricing and taxation, and regulatory and compliance changes must be continually updated and evaluated.

鈥淚t鈥檚 increasingly hard to assess what鈥檚 going to be different from one day to the next,鈥� one GC recently told us. 鈥淣ot knowing how to plan even two or three quarters ahead has been very difficult for companies and legal teams.鈥� And tariffs are only one of the myriad of risk drivers that organizations are currently facing across the global economic and regulatory environment. And as other recent events 鈥� such as conflict in the Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns 鈥� have shown, disruptive global events can erupt at any time.

Consider a recent instance in which a multinational manufacturer鈥檚 operations were disrupted by new tariffs that were suddenly imposed. The GC鈥檚 team quickly convened a cross-functional task force across the organization鈥檚 legal, supply chain, finance, and operations to assess contract exposures, renegotiate terms with key suppliers, and advise the board on immediate and long-term risk mitigation. As a result, the organization managed to avoid millions of dollars in potential losses and emerged with stronger, more resilient processes in place. This is the kind of real-time leadership GCs are now expected to deliver on a daily basis.

Risk management in turbulent times

Many of the GCs with whom we鈥檝e spoken emphasize that they must be able to lead strategy discussions for their organizations and not merely react to external conditions. Lawyers鈥� skills at scenario planning can be a strategic asset that goes well beyond any notions that they are merely helping their organizations鈥� hedge their risks. 鈥淟awyers possess a trained skill set of how to keep moving forward in ambiguous environments,鈥� a GC explained.

One of the keys, according to GCs, is understanding that it is not essential to initially know or immediately provide an answer, but rather to enable the frameworks, processes, and resources to help the business expeditiously arrive at an answer. And it is often not a single answer but a series of flexible or potential options for effectively dealing with various scenarios amid fluid, unpredictable environments.

Collaborate across the business

In our discussions, GCs have emphasized that their in-house legal departments are most effective when they serve as a central hub for the collection and synthesis of risk intelligence across the entire organization. This means gathering input from all sections of the business to thoroughly understand both the macro issues facing the company as well as the varied viewpoints of organizational leaders in assessing and strategizing against those risks.

鈥淭he key is to use that hub to efficiently share the information that’s needed to get to the right answer,鈥� according to one GC.

Effective communication is key

Open dialogue between legal and operational teams can help identify emerging or non-obvious risk vectors 鈥� such as regulatory shifts, contractual risks with critical vendors, or cross-jurisdictional tax impacts 鈥� before they escalate into crisis. Stress tests can similarly help identify potential vulnerabilities; and scenario planning sessions and regular updates or risk roundups can help ensure that planning is current with fast-moving market conditions.

All of this needs to be communicated regularly to other senior management. Processes need to be implemented in which the legal department delivers timely, concise, forward-looking risk updates directly to key executives, focusing on immediate threats 鈥� such as tariffs, regulatory changes, and litigation exposure 鈥� while tying their potential impact to the organization鈥檚 strategic business initiatives.

Measurement and metrics

There is an inherent irony in that if GCs are doing an excellent job of risk management, successful outcomes mean the avoidance or mitigation of situations and events that could have been potentially damaging to the company. So, unlike other business metrics, these represent not what was necessarily achieved, but what was prevented 鈥� which, quite naturally, can be very challenging to quantify, measure, and document.

This makes it all the more important that GCs establish regular and effective communications with other senior leadership in the business. Establishing risk models can help clearly communicate the legal department鈥檚 risk management goals, which in turn can be regularly reviewed to evaluate success or adjusted as needed. Risk parameters and events, such as litigation cases or supply chain disruptions, can be measured and compared with previous time periods.

Actionable takeaways

There are several steps that corporate GCs can take to better protect their organization from risk, including:

• • • Develop playbooks for likely risk events and ensure cross-functional teams are ready to meet quickly and act decisively
    • Establish scenario-planning as a regular discipline, not just a crisis response
    • Create regular risk roundtables with leaders from operations, finance, compliance, and technology to identify emerging threats and align organizational responses
    • Develop a risk dashboard or regular executive briefings that translate legal risks into strategic context that highlight potential business operational impacts
    • Work with finance and risk management to develop risk-avoided metrics and then share examples of near-misses or successful interventions with the board and C-suite

As the pressures of uncertainty intensify, organizations are increasingly looking to their GCs to provide a steady hand and reasoned counsel to guide the business through turbulent times. However, the most successful GCs go further, embedding themselves as strategic business leaders who not only protect but also enable and empower their organizations to thrive amid change. By mastering the Protect Plate, today鈥檚 GC can be poised to become tomorrow鈥檚 indispensable business leader.

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