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:

• • • New Zealand legal market achieves revenue and profit growth 鈥� A new TRI report on the New Zealand law firm market shows firms rebounding strongly from the pandemic, with firm revenue and profits up impressively.

    • Transactional and counter-cyclical practice demand drives success 鈥� More than half of the legal demand for New Zealand law firms comes from transactional work, which rose of the past year; meanwhile, counter-cyclical practices saw even higher growth rates.

    • Managed expenses and increased partner utilisation boost profit margins 鈥� Despite rising expenses due to technology and knowledge management investments, New Zealand law firms maintained manageable costs and increased equity partner utilisation.

For New Zealand law firms, years of careful investment and strategic pandemic recovery have paid off. Today, strong demand has vaulted firm revenue growth above double digits, leading to profits not seen among New Zealand firms since the early days of the pandemic, according to a new report from the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) and data from TRI鈥檚 .

Jump to 鈫�

2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market

Demand at New Zealand law firms rose more than 5% last year, following stagnant or decreasing growth rates between 2022 and 2024, according to TRI鈥檚 2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market. As a result, overall firm revenue rose by more than 10%, placing it back near pre-pandemic levels. Coupled with managed expense growth, New Zealand law firms saw their first double-digit profit growth since 2021, after declines in demand for transactional practice work scuttled profits in 2022 and 2023.

Overall, more than half of the legal demand for New Zealand law firms comes from transactional work such as corporate general and M&A practices; and indeed, demand for such work rose last year after seeing only modest growth or declines in the the years prior. However, the report shows that even more notable is the rise of demand in counter-cyclical practices such as disputes & litigation, insurance defense, and workplace relations. The growth rate of counter-cyclical demand topped that of transactional demand in the second quarter of last year and continued to separate itself throughout the remainder of the year.

At the same time, firms continued to enjoy steady rate growth, with their worked rate growth over this past year coming close to their average rate growth than was seen from 2022 to 2024.

Interestingly, this represents a different strategy by New Zealand firms, compared to those in the United States or Australia, to capture profits through other means while keeping their rate increases manageable. And indeed, while Australian and US firms have largely seen falling utilisation, New Zealand equity partners averaged more hours worked per month in 2025 than they did the year prior, which helped to drive higher revenues.

Meanwhile, total expenses ticked up slightly last year compared with 2024, with both direct expenses and indirect expenses rising. However, much of this growth in indirect expenses is largely due to increased investments in technology and knowledge management, an increasingly necessary expense in the age of AI.

As a result of the demand rebound and more manageable expenses, New Zealand law firms are seeing their revenues and profits soar.

Overall revenue more than doubled, percentagewise, in 2025, which in turn directly led to sky-high profits in 2025 that were almost triple what they were the year prior. Profit per equity partner also saw similar gains.

Overall, New Zealand law firms on average largely held steady with a profit margin around 43%, while some firms saw profit margins soar above 50%.

As the report shows, all of this represents a very positive financial picture for New Zealand law firms. The return of demand, steady rate growth, and managed expenses has provided firms a solid footing from which to grow further. And if New Zealand law firm leaders can build on those positive metrics, they look poised to take these gains and grow further in 2026.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market” by filling out the form below:

Key insights:

• • • There鈥檚 an AI awareness gap 鈥� Most corporate legal professionals do not know whether their outside legal counsel are using AI in handling their client matters, leaving both law departments and their firms in a state of AI uncertainty.

    • A potential upcoming billing model shift 鈥� Efficiencies from AI usage could have a major impact on how many law firms bill matters; value-based billing may need to replace or supplement hourly billing for matters in which AI is used.

    • Transparency builds trust 鈥� Lack of visibility and ROI measurement could erode trust between law departments and their outside counsel. Dialogue and measurements can strengthen the firm/client relationship and create scenarios in which both sides can reap the benefits of AI usage.

While the use of AI is increasingly widespread for both corporate legal departments and their outside law firms, there is a considerable lack of dialogue and data-sharing between the two sides on usage, guidelines, and expectations regarding AI. This complicates efforts to maximize the benefits of using AI, and it also may be eroding trust between the two sides.

Significant gaps in visibility and measurement

The 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 (TRI鈥檚) 2026 AI in Professional Services Report found major gaps in visibility and measurement between law firms and legal departments. The survey found that more than half of law firm respondents said their organizations are currently using or considering using GenAI. And more than half of corporate legal professionals surveyed said they feel that their outside legal firms should use AI on their matters.

However, more than two-thirds (68%) of corporate legal professionals admitted that they currently have no idea if their outside law firms are using AI or not.

In addition, neither side is effectively measuring whether or to what degree their use of AI is improving the delivery of legal services. Indeed, 85% of law firm respondents and 75% of corporate legal department respondents said their organizations are either not collecting ROI data on AI usage or are unsure if they are doing so.

Is your organization measuring the ROI of AI tools?

These visibility and measurement gaps make it difficult for both sides to plan how AI can and should be used in handling client matters. It also raises questions about how potential efficiencies from AI use will affect related factors such as how much firms charge for their services and how much clients are willing to pay. Half of legal professionals surveyed said they feel that AI is either a major threat or somewhat of a threat to billings and law firm revenues. Not surprisingly, the industry continues to wrestle with how to balance efficiency gains from AI against the limitations of the hourly billing model.

Concerns of corporate law departments

For corporate law departments, the lack of AI usage visibility and ROI measurement is producing a wide variety of responses, ranging from mild but growing concern all the way to outright suspicion about how law firms are using AI on their clients鈥� behalf. Law department respondents said that while they generally trust their outside counsel to make the right decisions regarding AI use and maintaining quality, most departments have not yet had conversations on those issues with their law firms, including how AI use will affect billing.

鈥淏illing has remained the same as it did before,鈥� noted one corporate legal department attorney. 鈥淪o, either they are not using AI tools efficiently, or they are just doing double work.鈥�

One corporate CLO was far more blunt in their assessment, especially given the lack of detailed discussions or data from firms: 鈥淚 fear that firms will use AI to cut time, but continue to bill for the hypothetical amount of time a task would have taken without it. It’s dishonest, but so are many firms.鈥�

One encouraging note is that, according to TRI鈥檚 2025 Future of Professionals Report, 56% of law firm respondents said they are highly or moderately confident in their ability to articulate the value of AI to their clients. Despite law firms鈥� confidence in explaining the value of AI, however, the visibility gap illustrated in the 2026 AI in Professional Services Report indicates that law firms are not actually having those conversations with clients. Indeed, some corporate law department respondents suggested their outside counsel may be reluctant to discuss AI with them because of concerns about quality and accuracy. One even suggested that firms may feel threatened by AI.

More & better communication is needed

As difficult and complicated as discussions involving AI usage may be, they are also essential. Absent those discussions, trust between firms and clients may be eroding, potentially jeopardizing long-standing relationships.

Here are a few steps that both sides can take to build confidence around the use of AI:

For law firms 鈥�

• • Communicate with clients 鈥� Hold discussions with clients that allow firms to detail how AI is being or will be used in client matters. Solicit feedback from clients about in which instances they would accept (or even demand) AI usage on different parts of a matter.
  • Develop an AI billing strategy 鈥� Determine not only how AI usage is impacting billable hours, but also how that will interact with the firm鈥檚 billing and pricing strategy.
  • Demonstrate and articulate value 鈥� Be prepared to explain billings in detail and answer client questions in terms of not only time and rates, but of value to the client. This includes both the value that AI brings to client engagement, but also the value that the firm brings above and beyond what technology provides, such as more freed-up time for lawyers to pursue value-added work.

For corporate law departments 鈥�

• • Lead the conversation, if need be 鈥� About three-quarters of both law firm and legal department respondents said it is the firm鈥檚 responsibility to initiate discussions around AI usage. However, corporate law departments should not wait for their outside firms to start the conversation. Take the initiative and make sure firms鈥� delivery models and fee structures are clear regarding AI usage.
  • Set expectations 鈥� Provide guidelines, expectations, or mandates on how and when AI will be used in handling client matters. This includes outlining specific use cases, data security protocols, and the human-in-the-loop oversight mechanisms that are used to ensure accuracy.
  • Build an external-facing metrics program 鈥� Law departments need to accurately measure the efficiency gains their outside firms are achieving to ensure that they, as the client, are receiving a fair price for value received. Baselines can be established for how long various legal matters took historically and how much they cost. The baselines then can be compared against AI-enabled engagements to evaluate ROI and business impact. This also allows legal departments to more thoroughly explain those gains to their own stakeholders.

For both corporate law departments and their outside counsel, it is imperative to engage in thorough discussions and develop data that can inform better decision-making. Such dialogue and measurements can strengthen the firm/client relationship and create scenarios in which both sides can reap the benefits of AI use.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚听2026 AI in Professional Services Report听here

Key takeaways:

• • • LFFI dip driven by slowing demand 鈥� The small dip in the LFFI was driven almost entirely by decelerating demand growth, which slowed to a still-strong 3.3% in Q4.

• • • Changing of the guard听鈥� M&A work slammed on the brakes while counter-cyclical practices surged, with bankruptcy re-emerging as a major engine of demand growth 鈥� a shift that often signals broader economic turbulence ahead.

    • Rate increases, client pressure builds听鈥� Firms fielded strong rates at the beginning of 2025, which helped power profits; however, with client budgets stretched, firms must demonstrate value to justify their higher rates.

Law firms ended 2025 in an enviable position, even as the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) score dipped 2 points to 61 for the fourth quarter of 2025, snapping a yearlong upward streak as demand growth slowed from its Q3 pace. The final quarter of 2025 delivered one of the strongest finishes in recent memory, with profits surging and margins cresting above 40%. Yet even as the champagne flows, the winds may already have begun to shift.

Jump to 鈫�

Q4 2025 Law Firm Financial Index

The LFFI’s slight decline was driven almost entirely by decelerating demand growth, which slowed to a still strong 3.3% in Q4 from 3.9% in Q3. More telling than this headline figure, however, was a quieter changing of the guard beneath the surface.

Transactional practices began cooling from their Q3 peaks, with M&A work falling 5 percentage points from its prior pace. Filling the void, bankruptcy work surged in Q4, particularly in December, as counter-cyclical practices re-emerged as the dominant engine of demand growth. If this signals a greater shift for the United States economy, as it often does, law firms may find something far more important than just their demand threatened 鈥� their rates could come under pressure.

The rate question

Rate increases have historically been the primary power behind law firm finances, and 2025 proved no exception. Firms broke through a two-decade-old threshold, with the average firm seeing 7% growth in worked rates. Since the end of 2022, every 1% increase in worked rate growth has correlated to about a 0.9 percentage point increase in profits.

Where things may become less comfortable is the increasing potential for client pushback. Legal services buyers’ budgets are under more pressure than ever, and 2026’s new rate increases 鈥� expected to be as strong or stronger than 2025’s 鈥� are already in effect. If the legal industry continues raising rates at this pace without delivering corresponding increases value 鈥� and communicating that value to clients 鈥� they may see clients shift work to cheaper firms or move more legal work in-house entirely.

We’ve seen this movie before, in 2008 immediately after the global financial crisis, and the result was a stagnant decade of law firm growth.

Preparing for changing weather ahead

The good news is that none of this spell immediate trouble, and there is more than enough time for firms to avoid the worst of the long-term threats. A brighter future, one in which firms use advanced AI tools to deliver more value per hour and thus strengthen their surging rates even further, is just as possible.

By effectively locking in their revenue before the winds shifted and practicing disciplined expense management, law firms have bought themselves some breathing room to invest in technology and talent, at least in the short term.

For law firm leaders, this is a moment for preparation, not for a victory lap. The firms best positioned for whatever weather lies ahead will be those that solidify their efficiency gains and demonstrate value now, ensuring that when the next wind shift comes, they’re positioned not just to survive, but to thrive.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “Q4 2025 Law Firm Financial Index” by filling out the form below:

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 takeaways

• • • Rate strategies can mask performance 鈥擱ate and realization strategies can make it unclear how they affect the bottom line and what is actually driving firm performance.

    • Firms use vastly differing rates and discount strategies 鈥� Many law firms are taking various approaches to better balance different strategic goals around profitability and performance.

    • Firms need to understand their rate system configuration 鈥� Law firm leaders need to better understand how their rates and realization form an interconnected system.

Law firm leaders, practice group heads, and firm pricing teams go through countless discussions about setting rates, realization targets, and collection metrics. The conversation often devolves into debates about how much standard rates can be raised, how much to discount those rates, and how aggressively to apply write-downs or write-offs before submitting invoices to clients.

In fact, firms use vastly different rate and realization strategies in an attempt to better balance benefits and costs, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent Law Firm Rates Report 2026, which took a closer look at how law firms diverge in how they manage these different strategies. Understanding which configuration a firm runs 鈥� and why 鈥� can be key to effectively managing revenues in today’s legal market.

The 4-stage system

Think of a firm’s rate and realization as an integrated system having four sequential stages, similar to the operation of a jet engine. Inputs flow through multiple processing steps before emerging as collected revenue that powers the next cycle.

Stage 1: Standard rate increases (Intake)

This is where raw potential enters the billing system; and like a jet intake, standard rates determine how much volume enters the system.

These standard rates are the foundation 鈥� the starting point that feeds everything downstream. Some firms set aggressive annual increases of 10% to 15% on their standard rates, while others in the same market segment may push more modest 3% to 5% bumps.

This intake volume goes a long ways to determining how smoothly the following stages work. Set rates too aggressively without the infrastructure to support them, and it creates client resistance and downstream problems. Set rates too conservatively, and the rest of the system will be starved of the inputs needed to generate strong performance.

Stage 2: Pre-work realization (Compression)

At the compression stage of a jet engine, air gets squeezed down so that the remaining stages can use it efficiently.

For law firms, this is the critical stage in which standard rates meet the reality of client negotiations and market forces. Some firms utilize high-compression systems by limiting pre-work discounts and maintaining worked realization as high as 95%. Other firms operate low-compression models, immediately releasing pressure through aggressive discounts that can bring realization down to 75% to 80% before work on matters even starts.

Stage 3: Post-work realization (Combustion)

This is where strategy meets execution. For jet engines, it鈥檚 where the massive amount of intake air is put to work by mixing with fuel and igniting into power. At the same time, some of the air is allowed to bypass the combustion chamber, helping maintain the optimal operating temperature.

Similarly, firms can apply write-downs after the matter is completed and worked hours are logged with the goal being to optimize billing for the current market conditions. Firms pushing for 100% post-work realization every time (pushing the engine too hard) might maximize revenue per transaction, but risk damaging client relationships over the long-term. Write-downs 鈥� particularly on associate work 鈥� can function as a buffer that protects higher partner rates from client pushback and preserves long-term relationships. Like a jet engine, some level of what initially could be seen as inefficiency may actually protect the engine.

Also, just as jet engines must be engineered to balance tradeoffs between compression ratios (Stage 2) and air bypass ratios (Stage 3), firm leaders must decide how to balance pre-work vs. post-work realization, even fine-tuning by timekeeper level or practice, according to how they feel they can best generate revenue more efficiently.

Stage 4: Collected revenue (Thrust)

This final stage produces thrust 鈥� the collected revenues that drive a firm 鈥� however, this doesn’t represent the end of the process. As the hot gases blast out the back of the jet engine, they also spin turbines on their way out, powering the air intake and compressor blades up front, creating a self-sustaining cycle.

Similarly, strong collection performance creates confidence for more aggressive standard rate increases in the next cycle. Conversely, weak collections undermine the ability and confidence to push rates higher, creating a negative feedback loop. This explains why some firms may sustain 8% to 10% annual rate hikes while others struggle to maintain 3% to 4% increases. Firms with strong collection discipline can reinvest that credibility into higher rates, while those with collection problems may find themselves prone to breakdowns.

Like a jet engine, sustained success depends on how efficiently the entire engine runs.

Three distinct configurations

As the Rates Report illustrates, most law firms can be clustered into three operating configurations based primarily on how they manage pre- and post-work realization.

Configuration 1: The low-compression approach

These firms start with higher standard rates but release billing pressure early and often through aggressive upfront discounting. While these firms tend to achieve better demand growth 鈥� 1.9% compared to a 1.0% for the average firm 鈥� at the end of the day, that higher demand translates to only marginally higher fees worked (9.0% growth compared to an 8.4% average).

These firms also lag in productivity, as measured by hours per lawyer. Comparing fees worked per lawyer, they’re running slightly behind the pack. This means that high activity levels don’t necessarily translate to proportionally higher performance.

Configuration 2: The high-compression approach

These firms strive to maintain high pre- and post-work realization with minimal pressure loss throughout the stages. While one might expect this approach to generate superior results, their demand growth sits right around average (1.3% compared to 1.0% for the average firm) and the same with fees worked.

Indeed, while these firms have earned the market position to maintain rates with minimal discounting, this premium positioning doesn’t translate into premium growth.

Configuration 3: The afterburner approach

These firms show a massive drop-off between standard rates and collected revenue because they鈥檙e incorporating higher discounts and write-downs across both the Compression and Combustion stages. These firms accept the realization losses in order to generate client satisfaction and maintain competitive momentum in a strategy that trades pricing efficiency for relationship velocity.

Indeed, these firms are essentially injecting extra fuel into their exhaust stream and lighting it on fire, similar to a jet鈥檚 afterburner. And like an afterburner, it appears hugely inefficient, burning upstream resources that theoretically could have been conserved. Some firms are succeeding with this approach in terms of demand growth and productivity improvement, while others are finding themselves locked in a dogfight to maintain performance.

So, which is the superior rate strategy?

What’s remarkable is that despite being significantly different approaches, all three end up collecting nearly identical amounts 鈥� between $553 and $580 per hour on average.

This means that the choice isn’t about finding the objectively best configuration, rather it’s about understanding which approach aligns best with a firm’s unique culture, client relationships, and operational strengths.

For example, a firm with strong project management and lean operations might thrive with the low-compression approach by trying to process more work through the system. A firm with premium brand position might excel with the high-compression approach by leveraging reputation to minimize discounting. And a firm with deep, long-standing client relationships might succeed with the afterburner approach, treating discounts and write-downs as strategic investments in future client retention.

As the Rates Report noted, firms shouldn鈥檛 evaluate any one stage in isolation. The best strategy isn’t about maximizing any single metric, rather it’s about understanding how each firm鈥檚 configuration fits with their specific market position and strategic goals. Understanding where a firm generates 鈥� and loses 鈥� power can help law firm leaders properly adjust their strategies as market conditions change in order to withstand any turbulence.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 Law Firm Rates Report 2026 here

Key takeaways:

• • • Cost centers to strategic business enablers 鈥� In-house legal departments and general counsel in particular are increasingly focused on aligning their goals with broader company objectives, moving beyond traditional cost containment to emphasize service enhancement and business growth.

    • Current success metrics are still heavily focused on spend 鈥� Although GCs and legal operations professionals want to prioritize service and enable their businesses, most law departments continue to track and report metrics related primarily to costs and spending.

    • Updated metrics are essential for future success 鈥� To truly support business objectives, law departments must evolve their metrics and implement new data strategies to better capture service quality, business impact, and enablement.

In recent years, and especially in the AI age, corporate law departments have been tasked to increase efficiency, doing more with less and contributing back to the business at large. This has contributed to the rise of corporate legal operations as a discipline 鈥� what was fairly recently a niche concept for only the largest companies has morphed into a regular part of the corporate legal equation, and one that is increasingly tasked with keeping up with a burgeoning technology ecosystem and aligning the in-house legal function with larger company goals.

Increasingly, corporate law departments are fully embracing their role in enabling larger business objectives, and general counsel in particular are more focused than ever before on service enhancement for the business, according the 2025 Legal Department Operations (LDO) Index, published by the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) in conjunction with Buying Legal Council.

鈥淭eam mission: We are a trusted partner and strategic enabler, empowering [our company] and its builders to innovate with confidence,鈥� answered one technology company GC about their team goal for legal operations. 鈥淲e provide clear, practical legal guidance that removes friction and unlocks opportunity 鈥� driven by thoughtful leadership, collaboration, and operational excellence. The legal team intentionally tracks its greater vision to be the same as our company-wide mission.鈥�

You can check out our here

However, are law departments actually reaching that goal? That answer becomes a bit murkier, not the least of which because corporate law departments aren鈥檛 actually measuring what they identify as their goals. While GCs and corporate legal departments are gradually moving away from cost containment as their top priority, the primary success metrics they track by and large all deal with legal spend and spending impacts.

The message is clear: Law departments want to move away from being a cost center, but in order to truly accomplish that goal, they need to update their metrics and data gathering to actually move more in line with the business.

Aligning goals and metrics

Recent TRI research categorizes in-house legal departments鈥� role into four distinct categories: effectiveness, efficiency, protecting the business, and enabling growth. Each of these should be a focus of the department, but historically not all four have been given equal time. Many business leaders, for instance, traditionally have believed the legal department鈥檚 role to be more centered on protecting the business rather than enabling growth, leaving key business enablement to other internal teams in the company.

That shift is slowly changing, however. GCs are increasingly focused on aligning the department鈥檚 business goals with that of the larger organization, shifting the department from a cost center to a business generator, the LDO Index shows.

This is particularly true when comparing GC survey respondents with those respondents who hold a legal operations title. Among GC respondents, 47% say they are more focused on service enhancement than cost reduction, while just 7% say they are more focused on cost reduction. For legal ops professionals, that sentiment shifts, with a higher proportion focused on cost reduction (22%) and fewer focused on service enhancement (36%). This tracks with what is asked of each role, as legal operations professionals are typically tasked with more efficiency-centric and technology tasks, but GCs are conduits to the larger business.

Overall, however, both sides agree on one aspect: The legal department is shifting to become more service-focused than being simply about cost savings. It is interesting, then, that when asked what metrics are routinely reported on in their legal department, spend still remains far and away the top one. This is particularly surprising given that GCs are often the ones establishing these metrics, even though they hold a stronger stance towards service enablement than most legal operations professionals.

Indeed, spend by law firm and spend by matter type clearly dominate available metrics across many corporate law departments. Further, even many of the next most commonly tracked metrics available, according to one-third of respondents 鈥� forecasted versus actual spend, total spend by business unit, and total spend by practice group 鈥� still center around costs. Many of the service-centric metrics 鈥� such as quality of legal outcomes, cycle time, and costs avoided 鈥� are captured by less than 20% of respondent legal departments, the survey shows.

This also brings up one note about the survey: Respondents to this question leading to the chart above were given a choice from a list of predetermined metrics, meaning that conceptually, there may be service-centric metrics in use that are not listed here. However, additional open-ended research found in backs up the assertion that many in-house legal departments are still primarily measuring costs, despite wishing to focus their overall priorities elsewhere.

Moving to better metrics tracking

There is recognition that the law department needs to evolve in order to serve constantly shifting business needs. And for many departments, meeting these needs starts by developing data sets that can be shared across the organization.

鈥淚 see my role evolving into a more strategic, innovation-focused function 鈥� leading digital transformation, leveraging [generative] AI for smarter legal service delivery, and aligning legal operations with enterprise-wide goals,鈥� said one energy industry legal operations professional. 鈥淚 anticipate deeper collaboration across departments, greater emphasis on data analytics, and a continued shift from process execution to proactive business enablement.鈥�

In fact, many respondents 鈥� particularly those at companies with newer legal operations functions 鈥� did note that better metrics tracking is on their roadmap for the future. And some said their primary goal at first was simply to become established, and more business-centric goals would come next.

鈥淲e have just started to develop the legal operations function at the company over the past year and a half,鈥� said one financial industry legal operations professional when asked how they see their role evolving. 鈥淒uring the first part of this second year, we have been focused on legal spend and tracking our work with outside counsel to see where we can reduce our overall spend and ensure we are receiving the best service from our outside counsel. The second half will be focused on furthering our knowledge management base internally with shared resources and regular tracking of regulatory risks鈥� so as to better be able to support the business.鈥�

Yet, this focus is not universal, and especially for law departments that have not updated their data gathering and metrics capabilities, the time for thoughtful action is now. The LDO Index concludes with 10 practical actions that legal department leaders can undertake, with one of them explicitly calling to implement key metrics for data-driven decision making. This goal should be a top priority for all legal departments, regardless of whether the action comes from a GC or a professional with a background in legal operations.

Entering 2026, GCs and legal operations professionals alike should look into supercharging their metrics for success, focusing on how they can better measure business enablement and promote service enhancement more than ever before.

You can download a full copy of the听听here

Of course, accomplishing these goals is just the start. Corporate law departments also need to be able to demonstrate their success to others in the organization 鈥� in particular the senior leadership team and the board. Here, metrics that measure legal department success are a key tool.

In recent posts in our series, we鈥檝e examined the importance of a strategic metrics program for a corporate law department. We鈥檝e looked at metrics in terms of optimizing legal spend, protecting the business, and demonstrating the effectiveness of the law department. However, there is one more critical function of metrics to consider: How a strategic metrics program can be used to support the law department鈥檚 role as an enabler of the business.

As we鈥檝e mentioned, many metrics collected by legal departments are focused mainly on spending. That鈥檚 understandable 鈥� metrics around spending are relatively easy to aggregate and understand 鈥� however, if a department is only sharing metrics around spending, then the department is promoting itself primarily as a cost center. Promoting such a viewpoint understates the true worth of the legal department and undermines its function as a strategic partner to the rest of the business.

Defining success

To support the law department鈥檚 importance as a strategic leader, GCs should consider metrics that go beyond the practice of law. Success in this arena requires looking at the relationship of the law department to other parts of the business and could include the extent to which the law department:

• • • demonstrates in-depth knowledge of business and industry;
    • is embedded into business units and engages with leaders across the organization;
    • fully understands the risk appetite and objective for each matter;
    • proactively suggests new opportunities; and
    • frames advice in the context of the company鈥檚 overall business goals.

To convert these assessments into metrics, a law department could rate or enumerate the instances in which they鈥檝e gone beyond textbook answers in response to queries from colleagues. A department could show cases in which they鈥檝e provided their business colleagues with a recommended course of action rather than simply presenting a list of options. And a department could look for evidence that they are demonstrating an understanding of the business context 鈥� not just the legal context 鈥� of their matters.

It may help to consider the business focus of a corporate law department along a spectrum. Departments at the beginning of the spectrum 鈥� those that operate with a business-as-usual mindset 鈥� are certainly aware of their impact on the business. The objectives of these legal departments are aligned with business strategy, and members of the department are well-versed in that strategy. Members of the legal team have regular discussions with their colleagues in the company鈥檚 other business units, and they share insights from their contacts and conversations across the wider industry.

If a law department is only sharing metrics around spending, then it is promoting itself primarily as a cost center, understating its true worth, and undermining its function as a strategic partner to the rest of the business.

These legal departments are also well aware of, and able to respond to, different legal environments in different markets or countries. None of this is problematic, of course, but neither does it evoke an image of the law department that is really moving the business forward.

Legal leaders with a more commercial mindset are proactive in ensuring that their colleagues in the business units can fully understand and act on their advice. The advice itself is enabling to the business because the legal department fully understands the company鈥檚 overall business objectives. However, delivery also matters: Advice is presented as a course of action, rather than as one option among many. It鈥檚 placed within the context of the wider business goals and delivered in business-ready language. The legal team also encourages feedback from their internal clients. Most importantly, the legal department is sufficiently embedded in the business so they can proactively suggest new legal opportunities and strategies to their business colleagues.

A legal department that is a true leader in business change and transformation within their company takes this approach even a step further. In these cases, the legal department itself has digitalized, increasing its service levels and efficiency. This modernization also makes it easier to establish metrics across the department鈥檚 operations. This advanced legal department has built and maintains strong relationships with the organization鈥檚 sales channels and understands the legal landscape across the existing business landscape 鈥� not only in the company鈥檚 current market but also in those markets and jurisdictions in which the business might choose to enter in the future. Finally, this department provides a regular cadence of feedback to other teams in the organization, such as in sales and product development.

The value of iteration

Implementing a metrics program that addresses the full range of a legal department鈥檚 priorities is a substantial undertaking. Legal departments are wise to tackle these areas one at a time, in order of importance. Even after a comprehensive metrics program has been established, however, metrics are never a one-and-done proposition.

Instead, those law departments with the most successful metrics programs will update them regularly because they understand the importance of evaluating practices and developing a culture based on continuous improvement. A regular review cycle also helps create the structure necessary to help measure success. Some organizations will want to do this monthly, while others may find that an annual review is enough. One solution is to begin with an annual review and move to a more frequent cadence as more metrics become available.

The first step of the review process is to benchmark the legal department against other legal departments within similar organizations. That provides some objective context in which to view the department鈥檚 metrics.

A comprehensive metrics program will yield many areas for improvement, and it鈥檚 up to the GC to choose those areas that best support the broader business goals.

The next step is to look for year-on-year improvement. In this part of the review, legal departments should analyze the impact of any investments. It may be relatively straightforward to assess the value of an efficiently delivered risk-management process, for example, because such an initiative should result in longer-term cost reduction and an ability to better control risk. The contribution of other initiatives may be much less clear.

It’s also important to look at spending or activities in the past year that are unlikely to be repeated. Those may be distorting a department鈥檚 year-on-year results. Understanding them fully can help teams identify trends and make realistic plans for spending and the use of other resources.

Next, GCs and their in-house legal departments should undertake a full analysis. While individual metrics can be telling, it can also help to look at related metrics in tandem. Total legal spending is an important metric, but it may be even more helpful if it鈥檚 expressed as legal spending per billion in revenue. In some areas GCs may need to get creative and gather data outside their own legal department to show how the department is connected to the wider business.

In our research, we found one legal department, for example, that tracks the number of new product pitches that incorporate legal costs. This demonstrates that the legal department is building relationships with the sales team, which is a crucial foundation for enabling the business. Tracking this metric also helps the legal department manage costs.

The last step, of course, is to set goals for the following year. A comprehensive metrics program will yield many areas for improvement, and it鈥檚 up to the GC to choose those areas that best support the broader business goals, and those that will add shape and cohesion to the choices department leaders make.

While no metrics program is fully formed 鈥� or fully informed 鈥� in its first incarnation, a steady process of iteration and continual improvement will produce a metrics program that promotes the true value of the corporate law department.

This is the fifth in听a series of blog posts about legal success metrics, what they are, and how they can be used by corporate law departments to better understand their own operations and performance.

However, GCs also tell us that they鈥檙e not collecting metrics that show their progress towards all four of those goals. It鈥檚 not that legal teams don鈥檛 collect metrics at all 鈥� 90% are doing so, up from 75% eight years ago. But too often, the focus is on measuring how much the law department spends. While that supports an important goal 鈥� meeting budgets 鈥� it doesn鈥檛 begin to show the true value of the legal function to the organization itself. Without metrics that show progress toward the other goals, it鈥檚 difficult for the legal team to be perceived as a true strategic partner.

In our last two columns in this series, we discussed metrics that can help corporate law departments elevate the conversation around their spending and demonstrate the quality and effectiveness of their advice. In the next two installments, we鈥檒l discuss transformational metrics 鈥� those that show the legal department as a protector of the business, and those that support the legal team as a partner in business transformation.

For the legal team, being a protector of the business means taking a proactive approach to risk by preventing legal issues from negatively affecting the business before they happen. This is an especially large and complex task at multinational corporations, of course, but one that is of singular importance. Of the four priorities described by most GCs, our research shows that protecting the business is the priority of most concern to boards of directors and shareholders.

Of course, the range of legal risks that could potentially present a problem to the business is large and growing: Changing laws and regulations; an increasing focus on environmental, social & governance (ESG) issues; long, complex, and opaque supply chains; and the complexities of operating in multiple jurisdictions, and that鈥檚 just for starters.

Just as the department鈥檚 approach to risk must be proactive, so must their approach to metrics that support that approach. No matter which particular metrics are chosen, these measurements must do more than simply pave the way for the legal department to respond to business needs. Instead, they should help in the creation of more proactive, structured practices that will help department leaders better assess risk, benefit from the knowledge of other business leaders, strengthen the team鈥檚 connections across the industry, and build knowledge.

To that end, there are three categories of metrics that may prove helpful:

1. Risk discovery

If the legal team is part of a larger organization, it probably already has a regular risk discovery or risk-mapping process in place. According to our research in 2023, almost half (45%) of GCs at organizations with $1 billion or more in annual revenue run annual risk-mapping exercises, while about one-third (34%) say they do this quarterly or even more regularly. Risk-mapping allows legal teams to proactively identify and assess risks, with the goal of being able to implement a plan to reduce or manage them. Risks should be mapped across lines of business and regions to help identify the processes and training needed to prevent damage to the business and minimize legal costs.

Interestingly, 30% of respondents told us they feel their organization is fully protected from risk 鈥� this group utilizes data-driven tools like a risk framework, or key technologies, but they also place substantial focus on dialogue, such as that from internal stakeholder consultations to advice from external sources. This combination of dialogue and data is key to building a successful risk-management plan. And the right metrics can add structure to this process and create a better framework for managing these risks.

Metrics that show the department has a proactive risk-discovery program might measure: i) whether team objectives are set; ii) the frequency of risk mapping; and iii) whether there is continuous scanning of new laws and regulations.

2. Horizon scanning

Horizon scanning is an important element of risk mapping, which helps the legal team systematically uncover new laws and regulations, as well as other relevant changes, across all active jurisdictions. In this case, the measure of success is not how many new risks are found, but the strength of the team鈥檚 process for finding them. The right metrics can help evaluate the effectiveness of their scanning system.

In addition to maintaining risk-discovery and horizon-scanning programs, it鈥檚 important for legal leaders to maintain a regular presence in board and executive meetings. These will help these leaders to become aware of any new developments as early as possible. Only then will they be able to help the organization avoid or mitigate any accompanying risks before it鈥檚 too late. A regular presence will also help cement their credibility with the board when a need arises to warn them of a new risk and persuade them to take the team鈥檚 advice.

3. Risk management

After risks have been identified, the process of managing and mitigating them comes to the fore, and this is where risk management metrics can be vital. Metrics that could help illustrate the success of the legal team could include: i) number of disputes raised; ii) percentage of disputes resolved without litigation; and iii) number of risks registered, evaluated, and mitigated.

These risks can be monitored by category, such as antitrust, data privacy, supply chain, anti-corruption, and intellectual property.

While legal departments have multiple and competing roles and priorities, the department鈥檚 role as a protector of the business is unique. It鈥檚 not often or easily duplicated by other departments, of course, and even top-flight outside legal counsel may not fully understand the challenges of the companies鈥� particular business or industry. It鈥檚 also a top priority for CEOs and corporate boards.

For those reasons, it鈥檚 especially important for corporate law department leaders to design a metrics program that properly illustrates its success by focusing on the key outputs they hope to achieve, while creating structure and efficiency, and allowing for timely identification of risks that enables action.

This is the fourth in听a series of blog posts about legal success metrics, what they are, and how they can be used by corporate law departments to better understand their own operations and performance.

And while that鈥檚 important, law department leaders have other important goals that can鈥檛 be measured by looking at legal spend alone, such as protecting the business from risk, enabling enterprise goals, and providing effective legal advice.

To measure how they鈥檙e advancing against these other goals, law departments need a metrics model that captures their progress in these areas. If the team can only share metrics related to spending, the team will be seen solely as a cost center. Metrics showing the broader effectiveness of the legal team can help convince company leadership and the board that the law department is a strategic partner.

We鈥檝e already discussed approaches that can help law departments rethink their metrics programs as tools to better manage their departments and elevate its perception. We鈥檝e also written about frameworks for optimizing legal spending data that enable law departments to make better decisions about their allocation of work, their choice of outside legal services providers, and opportunities to gain efficiencies with the use of technology.

Now we turn to an examination of metrics related to quality and effectiveness. While these metrics may seem a bit less intuitive and more difficult to collect than those around spending, there are, nevertheless, a wide variety of metrics that can capture key elements of the department鈥檚 performance.

This analysis can provide multiple benefits to law departments. It can help leaders see where the department is strong, where it could improve, and where external firms are best able to fill the gaps. Armed with this information, law departments are better able to make decisions related to training, up-skilling, and recruiting.

Metrics that track quality and effectiveness also have the potential to improve departments鈥� relationships with their outside law firms. By completing these analyses, department leaders will be better able to articulate, at the outset, what success looks like in terms of legal outcomes, service levels, speed, commercial value, and tolerance for risk.

Defining effectiveness

To measure effectiveness, we first need to define it. For our purposes, we鈥檒l define an effective law department as one that is an excellent service provider 鈥� being highly responsive and giving practical, commercial advice based on a solid understanding of the business and its priorities. Doing this well requires an ability to manage both the in-house team and external legal counsel. And because general counsels are also leaders of teams, a well-managed law department includes staff that are engaged, skilled, and developing.

This definition provides three lenses through which to measure effectiveness. One is the actual legal results that the team has achieved, which is usually tangible. The next relates to the experience of arriving at those results. That may include the perceptions of internal clients who partner with the legal team, as well as relationships with external law firms. Finally, there鈥檚 the legal team itself 鈥� its level of engagement and motivation.

Here are some metrics you might consider:

• • • Volume of work undertaken 鈥� The volume and scale of the legal matters that the department has handled is one of the most general ways to show effectiveness. Quantity doesn鈥檛 necessarily have a bearing on quality, but it鈥檚 still a necessary point of reference. If the team is doing more or less work this year than last, it is important to know what the difference is with some amount of precision.
    • Successes 鈥� A success doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean a win at trial. Instead, success should be measured in terms that are relevant to the law department and to the overall business. Success may mean that a transfer of intellectual property was suspended until better terms could be agreed upon, or that damages were limited to a certain dollar amount.
    • Cycle time 鈥� In general, the longer it takes to resolve a matter, the less satisfied colleagues can become. Ideally, over time, you want to be able to demonstrate a reduction in cycle time for comparable matters.
    • Regulatory penalties and fines 鈥� These fines are usually a matter of public record, making it relatively straightforward to compare your company鈥檚 penalties and fines to those of peer companies. This is one way of showing how effectively a legal team is monitoring regulations and ensuring compliance. It could also be used to build the case for more investment in prevention, to reduce the risk of greater regulatory intervention.

You may also want to consider using metrics such as the number of settlements reached, monies recovered, and the ability to predict outcomes. This last metric, in particular, can highlight the law department鈥檚 role as a strategic partner and a stabilizing force.

Commercial value-added is perhaps the metric with the largest impact. It鈥檚 also among the most difficult to accurately measure. If a law department negotiated terms on behalf of a business unit, it may be possible to measure the economic impact of those improved terms. The negotiated terms may also have removed a potential liability from the business, which can also be estimated.

Commercial value is most often calculated in relation to a law department鈥檚 internal clients, but the concept 鈥� and its measurement 鈥� can be extended to customers, shareholders, and regulators. Some departments conduct internal surveys of these stakeholders, while others use the volume of complaints as a proxy. At most firms, organized feedback programs are conspicuously absent, leaving an important gap in the law department鈥檚 ability to collaborate with colleagues in other parts of the business and to deliver appropriate and actionable advice.

Feedback programs also are crucial in managing relationships with external law firms. Outside counsel typically consume a large part of law department budgets, so it鈥檚 important that these relationships are assessed, reviewed, and improved on a regular basis. Unlike time tracked or spending, assessing these relationships requires a more proactive effort on the part of outside law firms themselves. It鈥檚 essential for GCs to ask for and collect feedback from their outside firms, and working with a trusted research partner can make this a lighter lift.

Indeed, there are a number of ways to capture this feedback 鈥� from surveys to formal interviews and more casual conversations. Either way, this should be a two-way street. In-house legal teams should be asked to review law firms鈥� performance, and law firms should learn how they could improve on factors such as speed of response, completeness of information, understanding of business objectives, quality of outputs, and communications. External partners will be better able to deliver quickly and efficiently if they understand what they鈥檙e doing well and where they鈥檙e stumbling.

The payoff from implementing a metrics program with a focus on effectiveness can be dramatic. These metrics can provide a shared language with which to discuss the success of the department, becoming a critical step toward boosting the department鈥檚 perceived value and strategic importance. Many legal leaders believe, rightly, that their teams offer high-quality, effective legal advice, but collecting and sharing data in support of that belief is a critical tool in convincing others.

This is the third in听a series of blog posts about legal success metrics, what they are, and how they can be used by corporate law departments to better understand their own operations and performance.