In-house lawyers are often asked questions such as: what legal risks could affect our upcoming campaign? How can we mitigate those risks without disrupting operations? What are our chances of winning the court case? If we receive a complaint, can we defend ourselves? How do similar organisations deal with the regulatory constraints? What changes do we need in our processes to stay compliant?
These questions point to a simple truth: legal advice alone – even if technically sound – may not fully meet business needs. What business leaders value is advice that is sharp, practical, and attuned to operational realities. They expect legal input to illuminate how legal risks affect business operations, strategy, and reputation.
This article explores how in-house lawyers can learn to speak the language of business and become trusted partners.
Why do businesses hire in-house lawyers?
At first glance, the answer seems obvious: companies need advice to minimise legal risks. But the real reason goes much deeper. Businesses do not just want lawyers to solve legal problems. They look for partners who understand the business, respond quickly, and collaborate across teams to deliver results.
While external counsel often provide excellent advice, they operate at arm’s length. In-house lawyers, by contrast, are part of the organisation, with the advantage of being able to see the bigger picture, understand internal dynamics, and translate legal risks into business implications.
Businesses also expect their lawyers to grasp what drives success, such as revenue targets, customer experience and governance priorities. Without factoring in these elements, advice may be disconnected from reality.
Why is there often a gap between legal language and business language?
Lawyers are trained to think in terms of statutes, precedents, and risk mitigation. Business leaders focus on growth, market share, and competitive advantage. When these perspectives collide, friction naturally follows.
Take a simple example. A lawyer advises the management team that their approach carries significant regulatory risk. The management hears: ‘Your project cannot launch as scheduled,’ and dismisses the advice as impractical. A more effective approach might be: ‘This could expose us to penalties that may harm our brand and delay product launch.’ Framing the issue in terms of business impact shifts the conversation from compliance to strategy.
Business leaders work under tight timelines and performance pressures. If legal advice lacks a business lens, it can feel like a barrier. Legal risks therefore need to be framed in terms of cost, reputation, or operational impact, so that decision-makers can reach informed and balanced decisions.
How can lawyers get closer to the business?
Understanding the business changes how legal advice is delivered. To be a trusted adviser, lawyers need more than legal expertise and should also understand how the business creates value. Familiarising with business objectives, the industry landscape, and organisational risk appetite provides the context that makes advice relevant and actionable.
For instance, when advising on a marketing campaign, knowledge of brand strategy and the regulatory environment helps suggest changes that keep creativity while reducing risk. In contracts, aligning terms with business goals and risk tolerance provides better safeguards and relevance.
Understanding business also means knowing the people, processes, and priorities behind decisions. Staying curious about organisational developments is essential, even those that seem unrelated to law or the scope of the legal department. The real value comes from keeping abreast of changes, looking deeper and considering broader impacts. This perspective enables lawyers to connect the dots and deliver advice that genuinely resonates with business needs.
What mindset shift helps in-house lawyers succeed?
To speak the language of business, lawyers need to embrace a broader mindset.
Law firm lawyers act as independent advisers, typically working with a set of instructions and assumptions. In contrast, in-house lawyers are employees of the organisation and work closely with internal operations and decision-making. Their success is not measured solely by legal accuracy, but by how effectively they can balance legal insights with business requirements.
This shift requires thinking like a business partner. Lawyers need to understand shared objectives and deliver advice that is clear, practical, and based on a solid business understanding, not lengthy legal analysis filled with disclaimers.
For instance, the procurement process in an organisation involves workflows and multiple teams. While lawyers often focus on contract review, those who actively seek to understand the procurement process are better positioned to identify potential internal control issues and recommend solutions to improve governance and operational efficiency.
Collaboration makes this mindset shift possible. Lawyers should invest time and effort in connecting with business teams and building mutual trust and respect. When trust is established, business teams are far more likely to involve lawyers early in their projects rather than waiting until the last minute for compliance checks.
How can legal advice be anchored in business context?
Legal advice has the greatest impact when it is firmly rooted in business realities. One way of achieving this is through the ‘FACTS’ approach (Familiarity, Analysis, Context, Tactics, and Solutions).
Familiarity involves taking time to understand the factual background and identifying the issues that genuinely matter. Without a solid grasp of the facts, any analysis risks drifting away from what the business is trying to achieve.
Analysis requires setting out the legal position in clear, jargon-free language and, where helpful, using simple analogies so complex concepts feel accessible to non-lawyers.
Context is equally important. Legal issues rarely stand alone, so situating them within a wider business setting – whether internal operations, industry practice or developing legal trends – helps decision-makers appreciate their broader implications.
Tactics involve converting observations into different possible approaches. This is where lawyers help the business understand the likely consequences of each option, such as cost, timeline pressures, reputational considerations, and how well each approach aligns with broader organisational goals.
Finally, Solutions pull everything together. This means offering clear direction that is both legally sound and commercially workable.
By following these steps, lawyers can enhance both the depth and practicality of their advice, making it easier for the business to use and far more influential in day-to-day decision-making.
What ultimately makes in-house legal advice valuable?
The real value of in-house legal advice lies in its usefulness and practicality. When lawyers explain legal issues in business terms, businesses can better balance ambition with responsibility, align strategic plans with compliance requirements, and pursue growth while remaining resilient.
By thinking like business partners and putting legal risks in business contexts, lawyers can truly speak the language of business.
Eddie Chan is a legal director at the Hong Kong Tourism Board.

Slaughter and May corporate and M&A co-head Simon Nicholls (pictured) also has faith in the strength of markets going into the new year, saying: ‘There’s a lot of assets looking for a home, and you need to find homes for them.’
One area partners all agree is not in any danger of slowing down is the technology sector, and the data underlines this, with global tech M&A values up 66% to $1.08trn, making it the top-performing sector by some distance.
Regardless of how the market shapes up, it’s clear that partners are excited for the year ahead.
Interviews
Features
Data
News
In-house
Lateral moves
Deals
Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling, 2024
McDermott Will & Emery and Schulte Roth & Zabel, 2025
Ashurst and Perkins Coie, 2025
Clifford Chance, Rogers & Wells and Punder Volhard Weber & Axster, 2000
Norton Rose and Fulbright & Jaworski, 2013
Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, 2010
DLA, Piper Rudnick and Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, 2005
Dentons and Dacheng, 2015
CMS, Nabarro and Olswang, 2016
Herbert Smith and Freehills, 2012
King & Wood Mallesons and SJ Berwin, 2013
Honorable mentions
AG managing partner Andrew Johnston (pictured) put the firm’s success down to ‘the combination of a strong focus on domestic markets and clients, coupled with international growth.’