Key takeaways:

• • • Country-by-country reporting will only increase in complexity 鈥� Australia’s enhanced Country-by-country reporting (CbCR) requirements 鈥� reconciling taxes accrued against taxes credited 鈥� are a preview of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions are heading, and companies need to build that explanatory analysis capability now, systematically, rather than scrambling later.

    • There has to be a shared narrative from corporate teams 鈥� The EU鈥檚 public CbCR is a reputational event, not just a filing. So that means tax, communications, and investor relations teams need a shared narrative before the data goes public 鈥� inconsistencies create exposure you do not want to manage reactively.

    • Rethink your filing jurisdiction in light of changes 鈥� If EU filing jurisdiction was chosen at initial implementation and never revisited, look again. Guidance has matured, and a more efficient or better-suited option may now be available.

WASHINGTON, DC 鈥� Among the many pressing topics discussed in detail at the recent , country-by-country reporting (CbCR) and its ability to reshape the corporate tax industry, certainly had its place. Between escalating local jurisdiction requirements, the , and for deeper explanatory disclosures, CbCR has quietly evolved from a transfer pricing filing obligation into something far more strategically consequential.

The floor is just the floor

The creation of the by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was intended as a minimum standard for countries. And now jurisdictions are increasingly layering additional requirements on top of the OECD鈥檚 basic template, resulting in a widening gap between the standard requirements and what tax authorities actually want.

Currently, Australia is the most pointed example. Australian tax authorities are now requiring multinational groups to go beyond the standard CbCR data fields and provide explanatory narratives that reconcile taxes accrued against taxes actually credited. This requires corporate tax departments to bridge the gap between financial statement accruals and their organizations鈥� cash tax positions in a way that is coherent, defensible, and consistent with positions taken elsewhere.

At the TEI event, panelists explained that for tax departments this will carry complex timing differences, deferred tax positions, or significant jurisdictional mismatches between booked and cash taxes. Indeed, this additional layer of scrutiny will need dedicated attention.

Please add your voice to 成人VR视频鈥� flagship , a global study exploring how the professional landscape continues to change.听

The broader signal matters: Australia will not be the last jurisdiction to move in this direction. So that means that tax departments should treat Australia’s approach as a leading indicator of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions could be heading. Building the capability to produce this kind of explanatory analysis systematically 鈥� rather than scrambling jurisdiction by jurisdiction 鈥� would be the smarter long-term investment for corporate tax teams.

Public CbCR in the EU: The transparency ratchet has turned

For US-based multinationals with significant European operations, the EU’s public CbCR directive has fundamentally changed the calculus. Unlike the confidential tax authority filings most corporate tax departments are accustomed to, the EU鈥檚 public CbCR rules put organizations鈥� jurisdictional profit and tax data into the public domain, making it visible to investors, journalists, civil society groups, and organizations鈥� employees and customers.

The EU framework specifies which entities trigger the reporting obligation and which entity within the group is responsible for making the public filing. That scoping analysis is not always straightforward for complex multinational structures and getting it wrong could present both reputational and legal risk.

Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision 鈥� it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data.

For US-headquartered groups, the implications extend well beyond Europe. Public CbCR data is now being read alongside US disclosures, reporting on ESG activities, and public narratives about tax governance. Inconsistencies, including those technically explainable, could create unwanted noise about the company. This is clearly another reason why the tax function should partner across the business 鈥� in this case with the communications team 鈥� to make they both are aligned to tell the CbCR story instead of being caught off guard by a journalist or an investor during an earnings call.

Questions that US multinationals should be asking

Fortunately, US multinationals with multiple EU subsidiaries are not required to file public CbCR reports in every EU member state in which they have a presence. Instead, under the EU framework, a qualifying ultimate parent or standalone undertaking can satisfy the public disclosure requirement through a single filing in one EU member state, provided the relevant conditions are met. Germany and the Netherlands have emerged as two of the more popular choices for this consolidated filing approach, given their well-developed regulatory frameworks and the depth of available guidance on what compliant disclosure looks like in practice.

The strategic implication is meaningful. Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision 鈥� it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data. Corporate tax departments that defaulted to a filing jurisdiction early in the EU implementation process should take a fresh look. Regulatory guidance has matured significantly, and there may be a more efficient or better-suited path available than the one originally chosen.

The uncomfortable divergence

There is a notable irony in the current environment. Domestically, the IRS and U.S. Treasury’s 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan reflects an explicit focus on deregulation and burden reduction, detailing dozens of projects aimed at reducing compliance costs for US businesses. Meanwhile, the international compliance environment has moved in the opposite direction, adding disclosure layers, explanatory requirements, and public transparency obligations that many US businesses cannot avoid simply because they are headquartered in the United States.

This divergence has a direct implication for how tax departments allocate resources and make the internal case for investment in international compliance infrastructure. The burden internationally is not going down 鈥� indeed, it is intensifying 鈥� and that argument is now backed by concrete examples rather than projections.

3 things worth doing now

There are several actions that corporate tax teams should consider, including:

Audit CbCR data quality with Australia’s enhanced requirements in mind 鈥� If you cannot readily reconcile taxes accrued to taxes credited at the jurisdictional level, that gap needs to be closed before it becomes an authority inquiry.

Revisit EU filing jurisdiction strategy 鈥� If your jurisdictional decision was made at the time of initial implementation and has not been reviewed since, it is worth a fresh look before the next reporting cycle.

Develop an internal narrative around public CbCR data before it circulates externally 鈥� Your company鈥檚 tax story should not be a surprise to the corporate teams involved in communications, investor relations, or ESG 鈥� and in today鈥檚 world, assuming such news stays quiet is no longer a safe assumption.

While CbCR started as a tool for tax authorities, it today has become something more visible, more public, and more consequential than that 鈥� and that trajectory is not reversing any time soon.

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

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 takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

Jump to 鈫�

2026 State of the Corporate Law Department Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can download

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

Key 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 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:

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

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

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

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

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

The perception gap: What gets measured gets seen and valued

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

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

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

The 4 spinning plates: A complete picture of legal value

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

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

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

Closing the gap: the value alignment toolkit

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

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

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

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

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

The AI imperative: Why better metrics matter more than ever

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

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

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

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

Moving from cost center to strategic partner

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

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

We reduced outside counsel spend by 15%

to telling a more complete story:

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

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

The path forward

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

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

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

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

Key highlights:

• • • AI strategy should drive individual accountability 鈥� Alignment between organizational AI strategy and individual accountability is essential. Most professionals lack clarity on their organization’s AI goals, which hinders meaningful progress and innovation.

    • Strategic AI plan also should drive business revenue growth 鈥� Organizations with well-communicated and strategic AI plans are significantly more likely to realize critical business benefits and revenue growth from their AI investments.

    • Personal AI goals boost usage and accountability 鈥� Setting and linking personal AI goals for all professionals drives regular use and accountability, which is crucial for turning technology investments into tangible organizational success.

Organizations are discovering that true AI transformation in this digital age extends beyond technology alone. The key to maximizing AI鈥檚 value lies in connecting organizational strategy with individual employee accountability and responsible use, according to the 成人VR视频 2025 Future of Professionals report. Indeed, the report reveals that without clear communication of AI strategy and the setting of personal AI goals, even the best technology investments can fall short. Only by focusing on their professionals can organizations find their way forward to maximizing the value of their AI investments.

Clearly communicate organization鈥檚 AI strategy and goals

A听critical yet often overlooked factor in successful AI adoption is the alignment between individual actions and the broader organizational AI strategy. In fact, almost two-thirds (65%) of professionals surveyed who said they have personal goals for AI adoption also said they are not aware of their organization鈥檚 overall AI strategy, according to the Future of Professionals report. Further, only 39% of all professionals say they have personal goals linked to AI adoption, which leaves a majority (61%) without clear direction or accountability in their own use of AI.

When professionals operate without clarity on the organization鈥檚 strategic direction, their efforts may not contribute meaningfully to broader business objectives. This leads to wasted investment, fragmented progress, and missed opportunities for cross-functional innovation.

The consequences of this misalignment are significant, especially as AI becomes increasingly central to operational efficiency and competitive advantage. The report cites that organizations that craft a strategic plan for their AI adoption and implementation are 3.5-times as likely to see critical AI benefits compared to those without any significant plans. Adding to this, those organizations with a strategic AI plan are almost twice (1.9-times) as likely to already be experiencing revenue growth as a result of their AI investment, compared to those organizations that are adopting AI informally.

These findings underscore that the mere presence of AI technology is not enough. Successful deployment depends on coordinated, intentional actions at every level. For organizations seeking to maximize the value of their AI investments, ensuring that every employee understands how their own learning, experimentation, and adoption of AI tools fits into that vision is just as important as articulating the organization鈥檚 overall vision.

Leverage professionals鈥� personal AI use to drive accountability

Unfortunately, there is a strong disconnect with professionals鈥� own AI use in the workplace, according to the Future of Professionals report, which reveals that 70% of professionals say they are not yet using AI tools on a regular basis. This gap between organizational ambition and day-to-day practice leads to a situation in which substantial investments in technology yield only limited returns.

Our research makes it clear that regular engagement with AI tools has a significant impact. Professionals who use AI routinely are 2.4-times as likely to report organizational benefits from AI adoption compared to those who use it sporadically or not at all. Yet, setting and linking personal AI goals for every professional remains a rare practice. Only 21% of professionals with AI adoption goals report using AI at least once a week, underscoring the importance of personal accountability in driving meaningful adoption. Additionally, professionals who say they have clearly defined AI goals are 1.8-times as likely to see tangible organizational benefits, highlighting the powerful link between individual commitment and collective success.

To bridge this gap, organizations must move beyond simply providing access to AI tools and instead require all professionals to set personal AI learning and usage goals that are explicitly tied to broader business objectives.

Mandate human oversight

As organizations accelerate their adoption of AI, they need to require human oversight and responsible use of these technologies. The report notes that concerns about accuracy, security, and the potential for overreliance on AI remain significant barriers to robust adoption. Notably, an overwhelming 91% of professionals say they believe that computers should be held to higher standards of accuracy than humans, with 41% insisting that AI outputs must be 100% accurate before they can be used without human review. This high threshold underscores the persistent trust gap and the need for rigorous validation processes.

Beyond accuracy, professionals are also wary of the impact that excessive reliance on technology could have on their own or their colleagues鈥� development. Nearly a quarter (24%) of respondents say they fear that overreliance on AI may stunt the growth of essential professional skills. Without ongoing human involvement, there is a real risk that core competencies could erode over time, potentially leaving professionals less capable and more dependent on technology.

The solution lies in fostering a culture of responsible AI use, one in which human expertise remains central. Organizations must therefore set clear standards for AI oversight, provide training on ethical and critical evaluation of AI outputs, and encourage continuous skill development alongside technological advancement.

As organizations chart their course through the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, the most successful will be those that put their people at the heart of their strategy. By acting intentionally and fostering a culture in which human insight and innovation drive the use of AI, both organizations and individuals can secure lasting success and lead the way into an AI-enabled future.

You can download a full copy of the 2025 Future of Professionals report here

• • • 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

Key insights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generating value for the business

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

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

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

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

Which resources to use and when

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

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

Ensuring quality of service

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

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

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

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

Keys to driving business objectives

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

For starters, GCs looking to enhance operational value should:

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

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

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

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

This lost revenue represents low-hanging fruit for a quick and meaningful return on an investment (ROI) in GenAI technology.

Jump to 鈫�

The AI-driven future of legal efficiency

To explore this further, a new white paper from the 成人VR视频 Institute, The AI-driven future of legal efficiency, written in collaboration with Jim Shoemaker, Chief Legal Operations Officer at Miles & Stockbridge, highlights the hidden costs of inefficiency in legal services. The paper also offers a view toward a potential framework for how GenAI can be tactically applied to minimize lost time and optimize revenue gains.

The hidden costs of legal inefficiencies

Billing inefficiencies represent an enormous hidden tax on law firms. Indeed, the average law firm partner writes down approximately 300 hours of their own time annually, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 research on billing practices. And this does not even include the billable time those same partners write down from other timekeepers as well.

These seemingly minor time increments accumulate across every timekeeper at a firm; and when multiplied by hourly rates, the financial impact is staggering. As the white paper discusses, a firm with 100 partners could quickly find itself losing out on millions of dollars of revenue just from partners writing down their own time on routine tasks.

A firm with 100 partners could quickly find itself losing out on millions of dollars of revenue just from partners writing down their own time on routine tasks.

The white paper refers to hours that are written down as unbilled time, and much of this isn’t inherently non-billable. Rather, partners often decide not to bill clients because the work took too long or became too expensive. These inflated timeframes frequently stem from inefficiencies that AI could help reduce or eliminate.

Top areas of revenue leakage

The paper identifies five critical areas in which billable hours are consistently lost:

1. 1. 1. 1. Getting up to speed on new areas of law
         2. Correcting or revising associate work
         3. Legal research
         4. Drafting briefs and litigation documents
         5. Replacing another attorney on a matter

These aren’t merely operational issues 鈥� they directly impact profitability and client value. As the paper points out, every unbilled hour represents lost revenue that AI could help recapture while simultaneously allowing lawyers the time to deliver better, faster service to clients.

A framework for strategic AI adoption

The paper also introduces a framework that law firms can utilize when developing their own strategic framework for AI adoption 鈥� and that begins with a comprehensive revenue-leakage analysis. The development of such a structured framework can create tactical alignment of AI solutions with areas where these solutions will have the greatest and most immediate positive financial impact.

However, it is also critical that any such framework keep clients (and the attorneys and other legal staff professionals who serve them) at the center of the process. To remain client-centric, AI should enhance legal service quality, responsiveness, and strategic insight in three key ways: i) allowing for the delivery of faster, more informed legal insights; ii) ensuring seamless matter transitions; and iii) focusing attorney time on high-value advisory work.

By framing AI adoption around client value rather than just cost reduction, firms can position themselves as forward-thinking advisors rather than mere service providers.

As the paper makes clear, the legal industry has lost millions annually to inefficiencies for years. What’s different now is the availability of tools to address these challenges directly. The solution isn’t simply more technology; however, it’s a thoughtful application of technology that keeps both lawyers and clients at the center.

The opinions and conclusions contained in this blog post and in the referenced white paper do not necessarily reflect the views of Miles & Stockbridge.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute “The AI-driven future of legal efficiency” by filling out the form below: