In-house legal tech usage worldwide

The paralysing shock brought by the global pandemic may now feel like a distant memory, but there is little doubt that a new era has begun. In this ‘new normal’, as the media labels it, the consequent need to treat digitalisation as an essential ally to carry out daily tasks has forced businesses to approach technology from a whole new angle. Even at the peak of the Covid-19 crisis, The Legal 500 never ceased its interaction with legal professionals worldwide. As the world reopens and in-person global events are now an actuality, we have had more opportunities to speak with our vast global in-house and private practice communities and it appears that the legal industry is at the forefront of this technology debate. The developments arising out of the pandemic have prompted legal teams across the globe to recognise the need to become more responsive, agile, adaptive, and resilient, while the introduction of legal tech is gaining momentum and challenges traditional ways of providing legal services.

The Legal 500 has partnered once again with the independent law firm network World Services Group (WSG) to produce a comprehensive survey that aims to investigate the usage and impact of legal tech on in-house departments worldwide. The ‘In-house Technology – Global Edition’ concludes our In-house series, which covers the subject in Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, and North America. It includes extensive coverage of the Middle East and Africa, the two regions in which legal technology has made substantive progress in the past couple of years. The series also provides an update on recent evolutions in the rest of the world, the challenges general counsel face, and how they expect technology to assist them in overcoming difficulties. Additionally, and for the first time in a special report, we have spoken with over 200 general counsel around the globe and provided bespoke statistics to depict a more global perspective of this phenomenon.

The role of general counsel is changing rapidly, and the remits covered by legal teams are ever-growing, to a point where they need to continually and speedily digest a substantial influx of information. In this context and with the aim to provide a platform for the legal profession to exchange ideas with peers, learn from each other and find solutions together, The Legal 500 looks forward to engaging with in-house practitioners to follow up on the topic of legal technology and how they implement it within a team in the future.

Allan Cohen
Research Editor | Special Projects
GC Magazine

Nathan Oseroff-Spicer
Research Editor | Special Projects
GC Magazine

On behalf of the entire global World Services Group (WSG) network, I am delighted to welcome you to the fifth and final edition in this regional series of
GC: In-House Technology special reports.

Over the course of these five reports, GC Magazine in partnership with WSG, have explored the role technology has played, and continues to play, in modernising the legal profession. This work has been grounded by the contributions of in-house legal leaders and experts from all across the globe, with hundreds of interviews and thousands of hours of research condensed into this multi-part series of work. The reports provide cogent insights into trending technologies, and general counsel members are utilising these tools and solutions during these ever-changing digital times.

Since 2020, the world – and by extension – the legal profession, have endured a level and pace of change that previously would have defied imagination. The series has been particularly timely, too, in the sense that technology has never been more crucially relied on – and by association, closely examined – since the advent of Covid and its effects on our professional lives.

As the world gradually moves into the post-pandemic period and returns to a semblance of normality, one of the most important factors for future success will be how the legal profession applies the lessons from these challenging times – particularly where technology is concerned.

At WSG, we have long been an ardent supporter of the modernisation of the legal practice via technology – with a focus on the power of technology to help WSG members stay competitive and exceed client expectations in rapidly changing environments.

In closing, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to all who have contributed to this series of reports and made it the success that it has become. At WSG, we are immensely proud of this body of work and its contributions on the impact of technology and the legal system, both now and in the future.

Herman H. Raspé
Chair
World Services Group

Partner
Patterson Belknap

The speed at which technological advancements occur is pressuring legal departments to embrace change. We have asked general counsel if the turn to technology by their organisations has recently increased.

The findings report that 55% of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ to the question, indicating that for all surveyed, in-house legal teams operated under the assumption that recently increasing legal tech was either necessary or a pre-emptive decision. This desire of their companies is guided by basic market forces from without to increase efficiencies and internal pressure from legal teams to alleviate increased pressure on legal teams.

Note that the question was limited to recent increases in implementation of legal tech, therefore the set of respondents to the question that answered ‘No’ may very well have relatively recently introduced legal tech or already be using legal tech. Such a coarse-grained answer does not capture any variance in the beliefs or attitudes of GCs that conducted the survey. However, even with this coarse-grained question, the results indicate that as today’s legal departments continue to evolve in response to corporate demands and become more complex, driven by the introduction of new and more demanding requirements, in-house legal teams appear to think legal tech is the best option to respond to such a challenging environment. This reflects the belief that implementing software and other tools scales up in ways that hiring more in-house counsel and other members of legal teams cannot.

One possible inference that can be drawn from the data is that within this 45% that affirm there has been no recent increase in legal tech, there is a subset of this group that belong to organisations that have not been concerned with implementing legal tech. In these cases, part of the reason is likely found in the limited budget and conflicting priorities within corporations. This subset of GCs may want or even need new forms of legal tech to alleviate increased workload; however, due to internal tensions within a company, they may be unable to secure the necessary tech.

Additionally, in some cases, it cannot be ruled out that an increased market of legal tech produces a paradox of choice: there may be too many options available on the market at this point, cognitively overwhelming legal teams and GCs who wish to implement legal tech that would be right for them, but feeling stressed and incapable of making appropriate decisions without a clear preference for an option that appears superior to other options.

Results show that more than 64% of the respondents adopted legal tech to carry out daily tasks. When taken alongside the previous question, we see that at least 11% of respondents that answered ‘No’ to the question of whether they have implemented new legal tech recently already have some form of legal tech in place. This gives a more accurate picture where things currently stand, with 36% of all GCs surveyed currently not implementing legal tech.

Of this 36% that did not implement legal tech, their responses are illuminating. In the opinion of some respondents, their decision to not implement legal tech was due not to any decision made by in-house teams, but due to external corporate pressure. A common reason behind the rejection of technology seems to be budgetary constraints, defined by one general counsel as ‘too expensive to be used for in-house tasks’, an argument sustained by another counsel who supports that before making such investment, the department must assess the value that legal tech brings to the team.

Of note, no respondents gave any indication that they were purposefully avoiding implementing legal tech out of any concerns about its effectiveness or operating under the assumption that legal tech was a fad; rather, one illustrative response helps clarify how little funding in-house legal teams receive: as GC notes, ‘we only use free access databases. Other tools seem too expensive for their use on an in-house team’, providing a clearer picture of the corporate environment in-house legal teams find themselves in.

Between the set that do implement legal tech, however, over 36% use contract management, review, and research tools. Over 16% of the respondents use e-signatures software, and the remaining 12% use more standard programmes such as the Office package and internally designed tools. A common maxim in corporate procurement is ‘fast, cheap, good. Pick two’. If you’ve ever gone through a procurement process you know that sometimes you will only have one option. We can see this in play with the types of legal tech that have been implemented, ranging from bespoke, customised legal tools or highly complex AI-based tools to household names, such as Word or Adobe. Bespoke legal tech will likely be good, but it won’t come cheap, and procurement may not even be fast; however, off the shelf corporate software may be fast and cheap, but it may not get anywhere close to bespoke software in dealing with the needs of in-house legal teams.

A follow-up question addressed the broad range of purposes of legal tech used by in-house counsel. The majority of respondents noted they used legal tech for document management (70%) and legal research (61%), followed by accounting, billing, and or/ finance (47%), case management (40%) and legal AI systems (40%). We determined that a majority of respondents who employed legal tech used legal tech for at least two purposes, with, surprisingly enough, a small cohort only using legal tech for either document management (4%) or legal research (9%), while a large minority (41%) of respondents used at least four different purposes. Surprisingly, 6% answered that they used legal tech for all recorded purposes.

We also asked respondents about what did they value most when considering implementing legal tech. Unsurprisingly, when given a choice to list their priorities, 89% responded that they valued efficiency. This overlapped considerably with respondents who also prioritised reduction of costs, with only 5% of respondents choosing only the value of reduction of costs and no value for increased efficiency. Notably, only one respondent that chose ‘other’ identified a third value that they prioritised over efficiency and reduction of costs, specifically compliance.

A further question we asked related to the increased pressures on in-house counsel driving the adoption of legal tech. The results matched the expected outcome, with 70% of respondents noting their biggest pressure was an increase in volume of work, followed by 45% seeing an increase in their legal responsibilities. Of particular interest was the fact that a full 35% of respondents only answered their biggest pressure was an increase in volume of work; 32% selected both an increase in types of work and volume of work; and only 14% responded solely that their biggest pressure was an increase in types of work, not volume. A statistically insignificant cohort responded that their biggest pressure was neither of the two main options, but rather due to an increase in regulations (2%) or pressure to integrate into a broader team (1%).

Understanding and measuring the benefits of legal tech is not as easy as it may seem. We have asked our respondents if they can measure the value this technology brings to their jobs. Surprisingly, we had a precise 50-50 ratio.

However, further analysis shows that this 50-50 split in the result is an artefact of the survey, since all respondents that explained they did not use legal tech also answered ‘No’ to whether they were able to measure the benefits of legal tech. This means 36% of respondents must be excluded from this survey question as their null answers skewed the results. A more accurate breakdown of the data revealed that a full 78% of respondents who did implement data tech were able to measure the benefits of legal tech, results that were as surprising as the initial results, primarily because it illustrates how for a majority of in-house teams, legal tech is thankfully subject to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), were there to be any auditing or examination of the effectiveness of a particular implementation of a type of legal tech.

Additionally, after reviewing qualitative feedback from GCs that did answer affirmatively, this is a group of GCs that are highly enthusiastic about legal tech, as well as excited to detail the ways legal tech has helped their teams. The reasons vary from timesaving to transparency, efficiency and uniformity, and higher productivity.

Some of the GCs offer a different perspective when assessing the value that legal tech brings to their department. They frequently talk about saving time on routine tasks. One GC even said, ‘we’ve had 15% time saved overall’. Another notes, ‘we’ve had time saves, less errors, and more uniformity’. A third GC says, ‘we’ve had lots of time saved through standardisation and cost-reduction in hours spent per contract’.

Even for GCs that have implemented less extensive forms of legal tech such as e-signatures and don’t have tools in place to measure effectiveness express a sense that legal tech has saved them time: ‘it’s just a gut feeling I have that e-signing is faster than the traditional way’.

And for GCs that can’t yet measure the benefits of legal tech in the short-term note that they are still in early stages of implementing new tech. These changes will only be measurable in the medium-to-long-term. Nevertheless, even if there are no measurable metrics in place, lawyers still cannot praising legal tech. As one in-house lawyer affirms, ‘I can’t live without it’.

A two thirds majority consider budgetary constraints as the main challenge to implementing legal technology. However, when digging into additional responses by GCs that answered ‘No’, a more detailed picture emerges, especially as it relates to budgetary constraints and broader corporate culture, the importance of in-house legal teams in the eyes of corporate leadership, and difficulties in communicating the importance of legal tech in response to changing pressures and workloads on in-house legal teams.

Many respondents expressed, as previously mentioned, a feeling that they were caught in the paradox of choice. With, at some times, substantial upfront costs and long-term investment, as one GC noted, ‘tech implementations are complicated and require a lot of support and time to make it successful.’ Other respondents expressed frustration that there was ‘no time and expertise to dive into the topic and set up a project – we’re still operating under the attitude that old solutions will solve everything into looking into new processes first.’

When faced with too many options and too high a cost to implement, some may avoid implementing legal tech until the market becomes consolidated. Some even expressed ignorance of where things currently stood. One GC even said their biggest obstacle was their general lack of knowledge about the available tools at their disposal. For many lawyers, legal tech can feel overwhelming, especially for older GCs that are often disparaged online as the ‘how do I open pdf?’ generation. But legal tech continues to advance at a rapid pace, and even younger generations of lawyers know the experience of stepping away from software for a short period of time to return to an updated UI that looks entirely alien to them.

Other respondents noted a ‘resistance to change on the part of employees’, corporate ‘culture’, or ‘inertia’ in ways of thinking. This conservative attitude towards change may be due to any number of factors, including the adage, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, expressed in one response that noted they were operating in a culture that was fixed in ‘the old way of doing things’. This, however, is diametrically opposed to the fact that changes in the amount and extensions of the type of work done by in-house counsel practically demand they have access to the best available tools to properly do their job. This failure to secure ‘organisational buy-in’ was by far the second highest stumbling block to in-house counsel securing funding to access new legal tech.

Another GC expressed this difficulty in demonstrating the importance of adopting legal tech as follows: ‘legal tech requires a lot of work to convince others it is worth the cost, while some more traditional costs are accepted more easily by our organisation.’ Similarly, another GC commented, ‘other client-serving lines are more important than our in-house legal department’, while another lamented ‘value of legal tech is not perceived with the financial decision-makers.’ Generally, in these instances, the biggest hurdle was the perception of cost by leadership, especially if a particular programme or application could not be used universally, even if procuring it was desirable.

One GC’s comments provide a synthesis of the other major hurdles facing GCs wishing to implement legal tech: ‘Overall the biggest difficulty is navigating in an IT world where we have little knowledge, little insight and do not speak the same language. It has been critical to find the right partners in IT who can translate our visions into reality. We pride ourselves on being persuaders, but we needed allies to achieve anything.’

A small number note that there were conflicts between in-house IT security measures and the legal tech available to them, with providers not matching their security standards, or noted that ‘contractual relationships’ already in place made it difficult to implement any automation tools or legal tech generally. Others felt that integration of legal tech with existing platforms or systems was the biggest stumbling block to introducing new legal tech into in-house legal teams.

And in rare cases, respondents felt ‘most existing tools are useless’ or felt the ‘mindsets of our in-house lawyers’ prevented them from implementing legal tech. These responses noted that other lawyers on their team felt more secure using ‘paper-based processes’ or could not set down a clear measure on return of investment in new legal tech. In these cases, some GCs pleaded for buy-in on their teams. As one GC said, ‘there is a need for a paradigm shift. Not many people see the benefits of automated legal tech.’

Given companies’ increased interest in legal tech, we have asked our respondents if their companies have clear road maps regarding legal tools.

While the minority, 36%, answered yes, 64% of the respondents affirmed that their corporations do not have a clear plan to adopt the legal tech. As one GC noted, ‘budgetary constraints and other more pressing matters redirect the focus of the team’s attention.’ The main reason behind that seems to primarily a limited budget and small team size; however, increased pressure on legal teams regarding compliance involving sustainability and additional disclosure on ESG also were brought up as limiting the time available for legal teams to construct and adhere to a road map.

There is also a significant number of GC that suggest that even if the time and funding were available, it was simply impracticable for the time being to draft a road map regarding legal technology, mainly because the legal tech space is evolving so fast for that it proved too difficult for the team to establish a medium/long-term plan.

Furthermore, a majority of the respondents state that even though they were interested in implementing legal tech, their companies did not have buy-in regarding the efficiency of legal tech, in part because the corporate side felt the benefits were too hard to measure and they could not see any obvious positive externalities that would be seen outside the legal team.

Pressure to embrace change is also reflected in the relationships between in-house departments and external firms. As can be seen with the breakdown in the responses to this question, a majority (92%) believed either it was very important or somewhat important that external firms were up to date with technology. This result is not unexpected – what is unexpected, however, were the answers given by the 8% that did not believe this was important at all.

A common response within the 8% cohort was that external firms must provide sound advice first, and GCs seem not to be concerned with the methodologies by which the advice is delivered, regardless of tech or more traditional practices. Here we see some crossover in the attitudes of corporate towards in-house legal teams: to an outsider, legal teams remain a black box, even to other legal teams. What matters is only the result, and the belief that the result was arrived by a trustworthy method. So this thinking goes, why bother with any new tools that could increase efficiency for an external firm when the efficiencies are not obviously passed on to those requiring external support?

However, among those that responded that it was very important that external law firms are up-to-date with technology, some of the reasons include the need to provide faster and more efficient service to improve cost performance and more user-friendly documents. Here, a majority of GCs clearly understood the benefits that legal tech provided the profession, either due to personal experience or the desire to implement any tools that would help alleviate the strain on an already-overloaded in-house legal team. Additionally, one respondent made an insightful observation about developments in legal tech: ‘external firms should be the one driving innovation, since many in-house teams lack the budget to embrace more cost-intensive and newer type of legal tech.’

For that 36% that felt it was somewhat important that external firms be up-to-date with legal tech, some seemed a bit warier regarding the rapport between external law firms and legal tech. In fact, between those who selected ‘somewhat important’, even though law firms that implement technology into their process are highly competitive in the market, a few respondents expressed caution. One GC stressed the importance of a strong alignment between the technologies adopted by both the client and the external firm. When this alignment is absent, so they said, this introduced a new variable with potentially unexpected results, making it harder to understand the processes, and extending the length and complexity of the overall service.

In this ever-changing world, technological advancements are in continuous development. The number of devices and legal tech out there is increasing day after day. And yet, a substantial majority of surveyed QCs believe the extensive choice that legal tech offers nowadays pose several challenges when selecting the best tools for in-house counsel. In short, out of all responses to questions that detailed the major stumbling blocks to investing in new legal tech, the primary factor was the overwhelming number of options of legal tech that have swamped the market.

The data should not, however, be understood to exclude other challenges regarding selecting software, which include corporate attitudes towards change, deprioritising the needs of legal counsel compared to the corporate side of business, stinginess when faced with expensive software options, and difficulties in conveying to corporate management that legal tech was necessary in light of increased volume and type of workload.

The majority of the respondents affirm that they select the legal tech provider considering the compatibility with software already in place. In-house lawyers look for tools that are compatible with the internal environment and that are easy to use.

Budget plays once again a pivotal role in selecting legal tech. The most common way to proceed among our respondents is by having a direct experience through free trials and tests. Still, the final choice is given by the costs and efficiency of the products.

An interesting finding is, however, that a high percentage of our respondents rely on word of mouth and peer reviews who have had first-hand experience using the given legal tech. Perhaps, knowing that colleagues are happy with their choices can make GCs more confident when choosing since they can concretely see the added value that a specific tool has brought to other legal departments.

Additionally, some in-house legal teams have created their own tailored criteria to make the best choice. As one general counsel suggests, ‘it must be easy to use and intuitive; it must be compatible with our systems already in place.’ Clearly, when one turns to legal tech searches for a solution that is time-saving and quick to learn, especially when the department in question is a larger team, re-training all the members would probably require some time.

However, a minority of the respondents affirmed that the legal department and general counsel have little say regarding selecting the right legal technology. It seems that the final say goes to the IT department. One GC said, ‘the fact that we do not choose is part of the problem.’ While the IT department is probably more familiar when it comes to technology, legal departments being the ones using certain tools on a daily basis would feel way more comfortable being the one selecting the most suitable to respond to their needs. Perhaps having a standardised process in place when selecting legal tech that considers the opinion of both departments could represent a more viable solution.

While legal technology is now well established, questions arise regarding its regulatory framework. The data clearly suggest that the majority of our respondents do not think that the current legal framework in place is enough to govern legal tech. Their reasoning for what was missing from current regulatory frameworks was wide-ranging, including ethical guidance for all products developed by big tech, including data collection and AI.

Other GCs mentioned that the legal frameworks in some jurisdictions were inadequate or missing entirely. One GC said, ‘in the Philippines, there are limited regulations on legal technology. For comfort of clients, it will be good to have regulations to ensure that legal tech providers are legitimate and compliant with appropriate regulations.’ This concern, while not prevalent in responses, did indicate the major disparities within different legal frameworks. As another GC expressed their concern over the lack of regulation: ‘What current regulatory framework? If you put legal decisions in the hands of business, you reduce oversight and increase moral hazard.’

Another general trend was the feeling that ‘regulation always falls behind’ technology or that ’technology moves faster than any regulatory framework.’ Frequent responses expressed resignation that no matter how responsive to major issues, since regulatory frameworks were designed post hoc, the fact that regulation was always implemented in reaction to problems meant ‘regulatory frameworks are always late, by its very nature.’

However, some respondents felt that in their specific geographic jurisdictions or industries, some regulatory frameworks may be too onerous. For example, one GC said, ‘if anything, regulations in Europe are sometimes excessive and try to reach into technology spaces that the regulators themselves don’t fully understand.’

4% of respondents considered ethics to be a missing issue when it comes to the regulatory framework surrounding legal tech. As one GC said, ‘ethics is behaviour-related, and if the intent is not right, technology may not be able to help’. Unfortunately, a related question concerning whether the respondent’s organisation had a robust ethical policy in place regarding legal tech revealed only 39% of respondents could answer in the affirmative.

Additionally, 15% of surveyed GCs believe that there is a need for more precise and transparent policies in place. Respondents call for a more holistic approach – ‘policies appear to be segmented, whereas the use of technology crosses over all aspects of the business.’ However, the biggest issue concerning QCs seems to be concentrated in the regulatory entities not stepping up to provide universal, clear, and appropriate regulations.

Technology develops much faster than legislation, in the general opinion of the 81% of surveyed GCs who said that a regulatory framework should be formulated at the same speed as technology, catching up and pre-empting new developments. ‘Regulators should adopt policies accepting evidence produced by technology.’ Another GCs adds: ‘regulatory framework is often overengineered and focuses on technicalities, lacking common sense and emotional judgement.’

Automation and digitisation of processes certainly help legal departments in daily mansions allowing them to focus on more time-consuming and demanding tasks. Legal tech is evolving faster, providing solutions to several matters that previously fell under the scope of lawyers. However, it is essential to understand the limits of such trends and what the legal department of the future will look like.

23% of respondents think that the in-house legal departments of the future will definitely have more tech and fewer people. However, in this scenario, GCs seem to believe that there will be a true revolution in the profile of the legal team and the function it will assume within the company. As one respondent suggests, even though the number of people may decrease slightly, there will be the opportunity to operate on a more meticulous selection based on a higher standard to carry out high-quality work. In-house lawyers generally look at this possibility positively, recognising it as an opportunity for lawyers to move up on the value chain, partnering with first-line business teams and providing strategic legal input.

The majority of respondents to this question regarding in-house legal departments of the future believe that legal tech does not mean there will be fewer people in legal departments in response to an increase in reliance on legal tech. A common argument put forward in responses is that ‘automation only eases the pain, but does not necessarily reduce the need for human insight and experience.’

Among GCs surveyed, the human element is considered a key factor that can never be fully removed from in-house counsel, not only because it offers a more creative approach to advice and essential decision-making but also because it allows for building relationships with other departments and business partners, which are crucial in risk management and strategic decision-making process which will enable the business to function and expand. As one GC puts it, ‘my strong belief is that the human factor to the legal professional shall never be replaced by technology.’

A noticeable minority of 20%, however, predicts that the legal department of the future will be a mix between people and tech, with a strong integration between the two. A common pattern in these respondents’ answers is that legal tech and people are not mutually exclusive, but meant to complement each other.

Responses to this question have been varied. Overall, a majority of 86% expect legal tech to bring changes into the legal department of the future. Analysing this data further, we can identify three major categories in the data.

10% of respondents believe legal tech will entirely change the way the legal department operates within the business, touching upon every area: ‘The more you can implement legal tech tools, the more you manage to keep the legal department updated with trends and tasks that the legal department is expected to fulfil. In other words: you need legal tech to keep the legal department competitive in the long run.’

This is contrasted to 7%, who believe that the main change will be reflected in saving costs, while a vocal minority of 3% claim future legal tech will primarily allow establishing clear metrics for KPIs. As one GC puts it: ‘it will allow calculating metrics into the legal analysis, representing a tangible benefit for our internal clients.’

Additionally, the majority of respondents at 66% of all surveyed believe legal tech will positively affect driving efficiency and save time. One of the respondents noted, ‘legal tech will evolve to more suitable and efficient solutions that will manage low risk-high volume repetitive tasks, saving time and resources as well as budget, generating creative and value-added legal work.’

Oddly enough, the remaining 14% did not expect legal tech to bring a noticeable change in the way legal departments operate, especially in the near future. However, given the pace at which legal tech and other major tech tools have developed in even the last two decades and its substantial changes to in-house legal teams currently operate, it’s clear that we’ll soon have a much clearer picture of what the legal department of the future will look like. And unlike this minority of respondents, the majority expect legal tech to help their development every step of the way.

Few would disagree that the global pandemic has led us into a new era. Many call this the ‘new normal’. The term might have been overused, as some media outlets argue, but we cannot dispute that companies around the world are still trying to find their footing with the transformed expectations of their employees, customers, and the societies they contribute to.

The developments that have arisen and which are still arising as the result of the pandemic have prompted corporate legal teams to recognise the need to become significantly more responsive, agile, adaptive, and resilient. In this fast-paced environment, technology has a colossal and indispensable role to play.

Isabel Parker, executive director of the Digital Legal Exchange, warns us, though, that ‘technology is necessary, but it is not enough on its own.’ What she means is that if in-house legal departments intend to become adaptive organisations, they will have to commit to a much more holistic digital transformation.

To conservative and circumspect companies, this may sound like yet another buzzword with little constructive consequences; however, the idea in fact proposes a change in the way companies are structured and the way they work, spanning from their interactions with partners and customers to their relationship with their employees, in order to create a comprehensive digital mindset.

In most cases, the businesses to which in-house lawyers provide support have already embarked on this journey and durably baked digital transformation into their strategies. Isabel Parker observes, ‘there is not a single leading corporation today that has not committed to digital transformation in one way or another.’

Occasionally, however, in-house legal departments struggle to make their voice heard and unfairly carry a reputation of being yet another back-office function whose activities only slow down the business. As a result, when the world’s way of doing business changed, the legal function was often left behind as the last piece of the jigsaw when it came to digitalisation. This was a source of frustration for both sides. But more often than not, businesses have now come to understand and appreciate the far-reaching changes corporate legal teams are undergoing. Although there can still be a disconnection between the two, businesses are now pushing for legal teams to evolve alongside them.

In this evolution lies an excellent opportunity for legal teams to demonstrate their value to the business. However, the disconnection remains as a crucial hurdle. The vast majority, if not almost all, of the general counsels (GCs) report facing challenges in securing a budget for investments in technology. In the light of the current evolution towards digitalisation, this means that despite businesses pushing for the transformation and for a more proactive approach to risks and legal teams’ desire to implement them, there is still a discordance between these aspirations and what is effectively happening on the ground. One way or another, in-house legal departments must find a way to become a different kind of player that works alongside the enterprise to demonstrate tangible value.

Nowadays, GCs openly admit that running a department cost-effectively and coming in under budget is no longer good enough. ‘In-house legal departments provide all sorts of advice to the business side of corporations. As a consequence, GCs need to actively demonstrate this contribution’, says Douwe Groenevelt, Vice President and deputy general counsel at ASML. This is what investment into legal technology needs to achieve.

From a corporate counsel’s point of view, the pressure to start carrying out effective technology policies is also immense. The pace with which the macroeconomic, geopolitical, and regulatory landscape quickly changes and the remits of GCs expand is such that GCs simply do not have the capacity to keep up with the increasing inflow of data without investing in technology.

Isabel Parker explains this bind: ‘I do not know of a corporation that is willing to hire hundreds, maybe thousands of heads to deal with this. Technology is the only way to fight this fire.’

For this purpose, GCs need to have a plan: they must invest in the right type of technology that integrates well with other forms of tech already used across the business. ‘The legal department sees everything, it touches each part of the business and a huge volume of data flows through legal’, explains Parker, ‘so corporate legal teams are very well placed to harness that data and use it to provide insight to drive the business forwards.’

‘It will soon be standard to use technology to spot opportunities for revenue increase, identify which branch of the company has repeated employment investigations or needs to have extensive training on discrimination, detect revenue leakage through specific commercial contract corpus, or track contract renewals’, continues Groenevelt.

These are just a few examples, but what they reveal is that it is this kind of proactive, risk-spotting, risk-preventing, and revenue-generating activities that legal tech need to move towards.

The shift is underway, but it is slow to materialise. The primary reason why this change is so slow for most corporate legal teams, whatever jurisdiction they operate in, is that in most cases, they do not have at hand the benchmarks and data to help them articulate what concrete changes can be implemented.

Although a great deal of legal technology was developed with in-house counsel in mind, there are still very few examples where GCs can clearly identify the specific value expected to be generated if they transition to implementing legal tech.

As a consequence, there is little dependable benchmarking data available – there is no clear North Star guiding GCs towards their goal, reliably directing them towards what they should aim for, technology-wise. This makes it even more challenging for them to create a business case that articulates the costs of investing into legal technology.

One major concern voiced is that introducing new forms of technology is likely to give rise to high expenses during its initial implementation, maintenance, and upkeep. Therefore, in the context of business activity, introducing legal tech needs to demonstrate beforehand that it will generate benefits by improving cost or time efficiency in the medium or long term.

However, in addition to finding the appropriate type of technology set-up, there is a prior ‘people challenge’ that needs to be resolved: how do people relate to and interface with the technology? This question is important because people are always the starting point for implementing any new form of technology. It makes no sense to implement a form of technology that does not help accomplish those goals. As American psychologist Abraham Maslow once said, ‘if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.’ This problem runs in the other direction as well: if the only tool you have is a hammer, no matter how aware you are of what goal needs to be accomplished, you can’t use a hammer as a hacksaw. In essence, you need both the right people and tools to do the job.

Very often, corporations owe their success to attracting and retaining the right people with the right skill sets and mindset in the right roles. Mastering this craft is essential as digital transformation can be a tremendous management challenge.

Consequently, although the digital transformation of in-house legal teams is unavoidable and even desirable, an integrated approach is essential for digital transformation to be implemented correctly. The angle at which GCs consider the approach must embrace their company’s organisational structure, people, and processes before implementation.

‘The first thing GCs must indentify is the problem they are trying to solve by precisely defining the issue and dig deep into what its root cause is. Sometimes, part of a problem stems from the process, culture, documents or something else which technology can easily have a solution for, but is just not clear at the outset,’ explains Roisin Noonan, chief operating officer and co-founder of oneNDA.

Once the appropriate considerations have been taken into account and GCs understand how their company functions, what matters to the business, and what their internal and external stakeholders want improved, they must avoid the mistake of introducing new ad hoc solutions to solve local problems. Instead, they should work backward from their objectives and the outcomes they are trying to achieve, and in the process, try to identify where they can use the appropriate tools and technologies that already exist within their company.

Legal operations do need to focus on the efficiency of the team and doing work in their own way. However, failing to understand the whole picture and what is of interest to the company as a whole can be a problem, for example, by acquiring a range of individual legal tech solutions that are siloed from one another to solve individual legal problems, will only increase the language gap between legal and business. This will in turn isolate corporate legal departments when the general desire is to see them more fully integrated and work in harmony with the business. This isolation could generate undesirable consequences in the long run. As Groenevelt suggests, ‘GCs should start with an inventory of their department’s capabilities and overlaps, and then only should they start thinking of ways to harmonise the work. So, in short, organisation is key; the technology often follows.’

‘Even when a GC has their house in order and is ready to implement a technology solution, choosing the right solution can be challenging given the proliferation of legal tech in the market,’ Noonan adds.

‘My decisions regarding technology implementation are always influenced by basic parameters,’ Srvatava explains. ‘User friendliness and ease of training my team are on top of my list. Data security is also very important, and so is the cost of course, but I will always opt for the tools which can be integrated into the company’s existing IT environment.’

‘I have noticed that many tend to sway too much by additional functionalities that do not offer a precise solution to their core problems,’ Noonan continues. ‘Instead, the most important thing for them is to stay laser-focused on both the problem which needs to be solved and their business’ highest priority requirements. This is the only way to isolate technology that will meet their needs or to accurately communicate their needs to tech vendors, who, in my experience, are typically transparent about whether they are the right fit for a department.’

One could argue that GCs should also proactively educate themselves on the available digital solutions, with the view that knowledge of what is possible may inspire them in the transformation process, sparking ideas on how to restructure their teams. In any case, the truth lies in the middle between complete restructuring and overhaul of a team in response to new technology and keeping the structure of a team fixed.

Once this analytical work is complete, GCs still need to select a suitable solution among the overabundance of available products. ‘GCs are constantly bombarded with emails from vendors to the point that they lose track of who does what. In my experience, even the benchmarks that are available are influenced by clouded marketing language’, Groenevelt says.

GCs around the globe have developed a favoured and increasingly popular answer to this situation: exchanging ideas with the broader in-house community.

Of people…

A large part of the in-house legal department of the future will be shaped by ongoing competition for talent. Traditionally, the best lawyers with the best technical skills have been poached by law firms who were willing to offer the most lucrative wages. To some extent, this pattern still exists, prompting corporate legal departments to work hard to attract the key people they need.

In-house legal departments might, however, have an advantage over law firms in certain respects: ‘The main purpose of many law firms is still to make the partners wealthier; that is a fact,’ states Parker, but this approach to life is not necessarily what new lawyers entering the labour market are looking for. In many respects, the priorities of the new generation entering the marketplace have shifted.

Jeanne Somma, who is the chief client officer and general counsel at Lineal, and an adjunct professor at two American universities, agrees with Isabel Parker. ‘Students are picky, nowadays’, she says, ‘they are not necessarily interested selling their soul for money.’

An important element in the shift of this model is that life as we knew it a few years ago has changed: ‘The majority of law firms are based on the partnership model. Arguably, partners have not given a great deal of thought to defining the purpose of a law firm partnership, beyond generating revenues to sustain the partnership for the next generation. This is a missed opportunity,’ says Parker, ‘working in-house, lawyers are much more have a clear vision of their company’s ‘North Star’ or purpose – for example, as a lawyer supporting a life sciences organisation, your purpose might be to help customers live longer and healthier lives. We know that young lawyers starting out in the profession are much more likely to be purpose-driven, and it is easier for corporate legal teams to give their lawyers a sense of purpose that is aligned with their company’s vision than it is for law firms’, an ambition that technology contributed to achieving by improving processes and assisting lawyers in their daily tasks.

Recruiters around the world acknowledge that candidates have extended their checklists when they apply for a job, which, as Somma says, ‘does not always match the work pace and lifestyle of a first-year associate.’

On the company side, recruitment has changed as well. The willingness to add more ‘purpose’ to their activity has played a part in this tack change, but mostly, corporations worldwide have had to adapt to new relationships with employees and to their customers’ expectations.

This attitude has gained popularity within in-house legal teams. When in-house teams recruit, they still look at candidates’ legal expertise, of course, but they also look at auxiliary technical skills and general behaviour, generally referred to in recruitment circles as ‘soft skills’. Having the right mindset and a sense of collegiality, being able to work as a team, and eagerness to learn, are highly regarded by GCs, as these qualities are essential in building the flexibility and agility a team needs to quickly adapt to economic changes, new regulations, and digitalisation.

The ever-changing nature of the role of GCs (see boxout on the Role of GC) also appeals to many lawyers. ‘Students understand that multiple tracks are open to them now’, observes Somma, ‘many are interested in more than learning about just the law. They want to learn about the technology side and the business side of the law, and from what I can see, I think that, in the future, it is law firms that will struggle to capture the same amount of good talent and keep it; unless they change the way that they attract people and help them grow’, she adds.

The shape of the in-house legal department of the future will therefore be likely be determined in no small part by education. ‘Law schools might have to rethink their programmes too’, Somma expands, ‘in a company, many people went to either law school or to business school. This means that from early on, they knew they were going to be a lawyer or a businessperson, and this can be problematic.’ Somma’s emphasis on law school’s curricula is motivated by the fact that they are often centred almost exclusively on legal studies, whilst modern-day lawyers must also understand how businesses operate. In comparison, MBA programmes, which do not provide specialised legal education, often do include courses on contract review and other aspects of the legal side of running a business.

…and Machines

The technology landscape is constantly shifting, making it difficult to anticipate which solutions will be available or required in the future. ‘There will undoubtedly be developments in quantum computing, blockchain and AI that lawyers will be able to use – if not tomorrow, then certainly in 15 years’ time!’ Parker suggests.

Nonetheless, we can contemplate the kind of products that are likely to be developed in the short term and who will be developing them. Nowadays, it is not rare to hear of companies that have developed their own client-facing digital solutions intended to help their GCs do their jobs. However, ‘I think the real change is going to be driven by the in-house legal teams themselves’, Parker says.

Particularly, we are reaching a point where not only do corporate legal teams develop their digital solutions, but they also sell them into the market after white-labelling them. If this trend continues, this could be a significant shift for in-house departments: it would denote both a change in mindset and cultural attitudes within a team, and who will in turn be able to demonstrate their ability to actively bring revenue to their respective company, marking their entry into the heart of the business.

Corporate counsels are just starting to use their unique knowledge and sell it as a full-fledged asset. And as technology matures, it is likely that corporate legal teams will take the matter of digitalisation into their own hands. ‘Nowadays many GCs are extremely capable and forward-thinking, and an efficiently run team, equipped with the right technology can deliver real value to the business, without having recourse to expensive outside counsel. With the right mindset, these teams can do a lot for themselves’, concludes Parker.

Douwe Groenevelt agrees with this conclusion. ‘In the future’, he says, ‘a component of the legal function will be focused on technology, and possibly dedicated to developing tech solutions in-house.’

These, however, remain organisational matters, and the main goal of any team restructuring is to create synergies within an organisation and better integrate the legal function with the rest of the company. ‘The way I foresee this’, continues Groenevelt, ‘is that the corporate lawyers will play an ever-growing role as strategic business partners. And if the in-house departments are asked to do more with the same human resources or less, they will likely have to use technology to simplify, streamline and automate certain tasks, most likely using data to constantly improve the way they work. I also anticipate that these technologies will have to be used conjointly with other functions within the company, like finance, HR, maybe even communication, and other departments that are now still slightly isolated from business, to give operations a boost.’

The idea behind this synergetic approach is also to allow legal departments to right-size their teams. On one hand, this means structuring legal teams around the business. On the other hand, and more generally, it will move in-house legal departments away from their traditional role. ‘I see an evolution amongst the very big companies that I work with’, notes Somma, ‘some companies are litigators by nature – banks, for instance – who have large, robust and experienced legal departments. Others do not have this need at all, because they never get sued or their risk of being sued is minimal, because what they do – like mergers and acquisitions, for instance, does not imply that kind of legal risk. These organisations would have built their team around people who know the ins and outs of contract review. I am convinced that we will see more companies, technology helping, which will follow that route, knowing how their business operates, what their spot is in the marketplace, and what legal risk they are taking.’

Isabel Parker agrees, stating, ‘the field can sometimes be a bit conservative, but changes are coming, and lawyers would be well-advised to be prepared.’

Invention is the child of necessity, to spoonerise a common maxim. Either way we read the maxim, it’s worth taking the time to look at the current state of play for in-house counsel – the necessities they currently face and inventions, both social and technological, which have been developed – and may be developed – in response to these new pressures on in-house counsel. After speaking with GCs around the globe, a picture emerges that can be drawn in quick strokes: the volume and type of work have steadily increased, and only accelerated through Covid. GCs, generally, have been left to their own devices by corporate to find solutions to these pressures. However, the legal tech market is, as evidenced in our current global survey, complex, with a multitude of tools available to in-house counsel. How can GCs based in Africa safely ford this river?

As we have seen time and again after speaking with GCs and in-house counsel around the world, the interconnected nature of modern-day life and the systematisation of corporate structures means that the form of in-house counsel is recapitulated in different sectors, across different legal regimes, and different cultures. However, that recapitulation of roles and duties nevertheless reflects the specific socio-politico-cultural aspects of wherever the GC is operating. Additionally, while the form may be similar, the content often differs considerably. After speaking with a broad range of GCs in Africa, it is clear that while there are broad differences, there remain similarities shared between them, as well as similarities with all GCs in the pressures they face and the solutions they have attempted to implement to decrease the pressures that all GCs can relate to, including an increased workload, complexity, and diversity of matters.

Of particular interest within Africa’s growing legal tech scene is how quickly it has grown – and how it is not entirely limited to private practices or in-house legal teams. Rather, many entrepreneurs have attempted to use legal tech to make it easier for the non-lawyer to receive up-to-date information on their legal rights or obligations, be it securing legal counsel or setting up a company. But our focus will be primarily on the specific recent circumstances that affected how all lawyers operated, and how lawyers are trying to use new developments in legal tech to stem the tide.

Based in Nigeria, Tochukwu Okezie is chief legal officer at Interswitch Group, an Africa-focused digital payment and commerce company, active since 2002. Tochukwu explains in detail the developments in in-house lawyer responsibilities, saying: ‘Increasingly, GCs are relied upon by companies to provide advisory beyond their core legal issues. Commercial teams are leaning more on in-house lawyers to provide robust advice that cuts across core legal issues to also include advisory work on commercial positions to be taken by the company. In-house lawyers are expected to understand transactions in their entirety and provide wholistic advice that addresses not just legal issues but other aspects of the transaction’.

Tochukwu’s own experience is not unique. In fact, as detailed in our article on legal tech in the Middle East and the global research report, GCs globally are experiencing an increase in duties and responsibilities, exacerbated by Covid, while seeing little to no increase in funding to plug the gap. The corporate side’s necessity increases the pressure to do more types of work, scale up, increase efficiencies, and do more with less, forcing GCs to invent their way out or collapse under the pressure, just as many other workers in other sectors.

Omisakin Ayobami, legal counsel at Interswitch, provides another point of view regarding the pressures that face legal teams, saying: ‘the pandemic hastened the adoption of tech tools as more in-house counsel teams now work remotely.’

Tochukwu elaborates on the extension of these responsibilities, noting: ‘Some of these “other aspects” include the ability to assess the overall risks of certain corporate endeavors. This ability to assess certain risks points means that today, the in-house lawyer is also considered a risk manager by corporate. In-house lawyers are typically expected to manage legal risks; however, this expectation now extends to general operational risk management as part of their day-to-day assessments.’

Ayobami concurs on the extension of legal duties in in-house teams, but also noting how many African corporations have begun taking the necessary steps to alleviate the strain on legal teams, stating: ‘There have been discussions around the automation of legal processes for in-house counsel teams and the adoption of relevant technology tools for contract management, IP rights protection and litigation portfolio management.’

This new added responsibility of risk management is, however, a skill set that many GCs are not equipped with and requires picking up these skills on the fly. Thankfully, GCs we spoke with generally believe they are up to the task; however, even if GCs can quickly pick up these new skills, where does it end? Risk management was, for many in-house counsel, not on the job description. And whatever new role corporate asks from GCs will similarly not have been listed as a core duty.

Additionally, it’s important to address the acceleration of new duties laid on in-house counsel by corporate due to Covid. The economic and social shocks continue to reverberate back and forth between different subsystems, throwing out of alignment entire industries that had been held in a tenuous equilibrium. And for GCs, this means quickly responding to several large-scale corporate problems, often with little space to rest in between each problem.

Tochukwu explains: ‘The global pandemic offered up different scenarios that underscored the in-house lawyer as an operational risk manager. From dealing with new employees who had been issued contracts to resume employment just before the quarantine orders and the associated hiring uncertainty crept in, to dealing with other pandemic staff-related issues such as mandatory physical meetings or company seminars and events. The risk of staff getting infected at such events, the possible legal action that could arise, and also the operational risks of exposing other staff members to the virus. These are just a few of the general issues GCs faced. In short, the global pandemic accelerated the expansion of GCs and in-house lawyers’ responsibilities and the expectations have continued to grow post the global pandemic.’

Thankfully, legal tech was there during the crisis to help legal teams in Africa. Tochukwu notes: ‘Technology has already helped in-house legal departments improve legal efficiency. For example, having a dashboard that shows all pending requests logged with legal enables the legal operations lead to monitor workloads across the team and ensure even distribution of tasks. With technology, we are currently able to track time spent dealing with tasks and also track the volume of work. The right tool would guide the GC on not just task-allocation but also resourcing decisions.’

Additionally, many forms of legal tech that have been implemented were not especially onerous on companies. ‘Deploying technology into the legal department is not necessarily an expensive venture. Sometimes the company has some existing enterprise solution licenses which legal departments can leverage. This would entail the GC working with the tech team or legal operations team in assessing the existing solutions already deployed in the company’s environment or accessible to the company by virtue of its existing licenses,’ says Tochukwu.

However, costs cannot always be measured in currency. As Ayobami notes: ‘Efficiency, training sessions and added costs should not be viewed exclusively. Yes, it has increased the cost of the in-house legal team, especially since it required a lot of unwanted training for in-house counsel, but these are sacrifices required for achieving greater efficiency. Now we can say the benefits are immense.’

The in-house legal departments of the future

In response to this acceleration of responsibilities taken on by in-house counsel, many GCs we spoke with are thinking towards the future, and what material changes in the structure of the workplace can be introduced to alleviate the increased workload. Some changes are more noticeable than others, and affect in-house counsel differently, depending on their duties. Ayobami’s personal experience involved the noticeable increase in modes of communication both within teams and with external partners, stating: ‘The most obvious changes in recent times are the increased reliance on instant messaging tools for seamless communication and investment in home office set-up for in-house counsel.’

However, while there may be technological developments that facilitate communication both within and outside in-house legal teams, there remains the major structural hurdle that, in the eyes of many GCs we spoke with, corporate has, and will likely be for the foreseeable future, more stingy with the purse strings when doling out funding to in-house legal teams than other teams. But GCs are resourceful, and are looking to the future for methods to take some pressure off their backs.

Tochukwu sets out one vision of the future, saying, ‘in-house legal departments of the future would be more technologically driven. Repetitive processes and basic legal tasks would be automated. Legal departments would lean more on tech solutions that can address the entire gamut of the legal department’s operations – from contract lifecycle tools, dispute and case management tools, intellectual property management, and other departmental-specific functions.’ Tochukwu’s vision isn’t unique – many GCs surveyed express similar desires to see automation of mundane, rote tasks that are done in bulk, which would alleviate much of the pressure and allow GCs to focus on the types of complex work that interest them.

Thankfully, when considering the current structure of most in-house legal teams, we can see the beginnings of the end – that is, legal tech and technological developments in general have already changed much of the normal functioning of in-house teams and GCs; however, in many cases, these changes are still in the early stages, and don’t have the full corporate buy-in required to take off the extra weight.

Tochukwu elaborates on this, saying, ‘currently, a number of legal departments have tech tools to manage different legal functions. Contract management solutions, automated notifications to manage periodic reminders that can cut across court hearing dates, expiration dates of important documents, and so on. For legal departments that manage company secretariat services, they would also consider having a Board Solution to manage company secretarial activities.’

Ayobami foresees different developments, noting, ‘I think the legal industry will see more investment in technology to promote automation of key processes, chief of which are request initiation from business departments, contract review, execution, management and productivity.’

Without immediate access to these tools and technology commonly in place throughout the globe, most in-house teams would be unable to maintain their normal workload, effectively reverting GCs to their pre-internet counterparts. Or, in some cases, a power outage would render in-house legal teams entirely ineffective until power is restored.

However, when looking towards the future rather than dwelling on the past (or the fears of a power outage), Tochukwu provides further thoughts on what he expects legal departments of the future to look like, saying, ‘eventually, I think, legal departments would seek robust solutions that can encompass all its legal operations in a single solution. For example, a single tech solution with different modules that can handle contract management lifecycle, litigation and dispute management lifecycle, intellectual property and other legal functions.’

Ayobami, however, believes that future in-house legal teams will develop more on the personnel side, saying, ‘more than ever, in-house counsel teams have seen the need for building expertise at various areas of law in a bid to increase efficiency. Whilst more specialist lawyers will be hired to advise the company on key areas of its business with lesser dependence on external counsel, the recruitment of lawyers with expertise in multiple areas of law would be the game changer for in-house counsel teams.’

Tochukwu brings up a simple solution to a major issue that numerous GCs have brought up during interviews and in surveys: current legal tech often remains niche, siloed from other systems, and often not cross-compatible. Therefore, even if new legal tech software currently serves an important role that alleviates the increased time and energy required of in-house teams, or even may be highly effective in solving specific problems through automation, the multiple types of software cannot interface with one another. Unification and consolidation of legal tech into a series of core modules that can be independently purchased under an overarching framework would solve these problems of cross-compatibility overnight.

Tochukwu continues, saying, ‘imagine scalable and adaptable solutions that can, for instance, take on new legal functions as they arise, deepen the existing legal functions, embed imminent new tech, for example, artificial intelligence and machine learning into its various modules (which, among other functions would assist in assessing not just legal but operational risks) with a focus of improving legal efficiency. Rather than having multiple incompatible tools, legal departments would be better served by a legal department management solution that can be utilised across a wide array of legal functions while also remaining adaptable as the corporate expectations of legal departments functions continue to increase.’

Contrasted to Tochukwu, Ayobami’s thoughts about the future help clarify the legal tech/legal personnel relationship, noting that in response to the increased presence of legal tech, ‘I think the legal operations and data analytics roles will grow into prominence in years to come as more in-house teams in Nigeria see the need for both. Whilst generalist lawyers may meet these operational needs currently, the role would require specialists in the coming years, either non-lawyers who have a good grasp of legal operations or lawyers who have developed core experience in operations. This also applies to data analytics and data science roles as companies CEOs and GCs understand the invaluable benefits that could be derived from the data.’

While there are many forms of tech that quickly embraced cross-compatibility and modularity (think of, for example, corporate software released by Microsoft and Apple), legal tech still remains in its early stages, in what feels to many GCs as lagging behind technological developments that have long been taken for granted elsewhere.

Much of in-house work still is paper-based, which naturally produces an additional step that eats up the time and energy of in-house legal teams. Tochukwu provides some personal experience on this, saying, ‘to bridge the tech gaps in legal operations, it would not be uncommon for GCs to engage non-lawyers in the legal department to manage the digitising of legal operations, for example, or manage the tech, provide advice on implementations and modifications of the tech, extract report friendly data for the GC’s use, and so on.’

On this point, as GCs are well-aware, in-house legal teams are not limited to GCs, but include a large number of staff who are similarly under pressure from corporate to deal with ever-increasing duties. The role of GCs may differ from the roles of other members of their teams, but nevertheless, increases in efficiency due to adopting legal tech will similarly alleviate the strain put on these teams, allowing them to provide better service and with less workload. This is something that the corporate side should take seriously. A happy in-house team makes for a better in-house team.

Ayobami notes how these developments on the corporate side of businesses will inevitably influence hiring decisions on in-house legal teams, noting, ‘this is key, not only for talent recruitment but also for talent management and talent retention. There is a need for more defined roles that carry a strong sense of importance. However, agile models must be adopted to allow role modification as team members grow and develop other interests. It may take time but over time, a balance will be achieved between business needs and individual interests.’

While this current approach of relying on other members of in-house legal teams to perform much of the drudgery may be currently serviceable, it nevertheless can influence the hiring process in ways that may not be made explicit. Tochukwu says, ‘this current approach of pulling talent to deal with digitising documentation may be a viable approach to handling digitisation of the legal department; however, the assumption is that a GC who would typically have a limited recruitment budget would tilt towards employing a lawyer with the same tech skill set as a non-lawyer.’

On this point, we see the same general trend in modern-day attempts at automation: oftentimes, what is presented as a completely automated process requires a great deal of unsatisfying, repetitive manual labour hidden behind the scenes, whether it is scores of people directing content moderation on Facebook or Twitter or all the young in-house lawyers filling out forms in a back room. Additionally, those in-house lawyers face the issue of, as mentioned previously, quickly adapting to whatever new duties corporate can devise.

Thinking of the not-to-distant future, these important soft skills present on many modern-day CVs are becoming even more relevant. Even if automation of these manual tasks is fully achieved and the pressure finally alleviated, the ability to cover novel tasks will likely influence the hiring process in the future to an accelerated degree. Tochukwu notes, ‘beyond reliance on tech solutions, or employing lawyers with diverse legal background, it is predictable that lawyers with tech background or experiences working with robust legal tech solutions would become essentials for legal departments.’

And it isn’t just the ability to adapt to new legal tech, but also communicate with other teams in a corporate environment: ‘In the future, the communication gap that legal departments face in conveying user requirements to tech implementers (either in-house or outsourced) detailing how legal departments expect their tech to function would be bridged by these categories of digital native lawyers. The diverse legal experience of the future would not only entail experiences across various aspects of the law but would also include an experienced tech background. Legal resourcing would generally consider legal officers that are knowledgeable and can use these technologies comfortably. A premium would be placed on lawyers who can offer both core legal services and contribute to enhancing legal operational tools.’

Of course, with all these developments in legal tech to automate processes, this does not let lawyers off the hook. Instead, with every new solution comes a swathe of new puzzles, problems, and issues for GCs. Tochukwu rightfully points out that as new legal tech is put in place, ‘lawyers would be expected to continuously review the legal processes and advice on deployment of solutions, automations, tools to track legal requests as they come in, track the response time, track the details of the requester and closure of the request and continuously research and identify alternate solutions that can meet legal department’s ever-growing user requirements.’ While automation may be the most anticipated and desired solution to increasing demands on in-house legal teams by taking of the pressure of many administrative duties, it is in no way a silver bullet.

The modern-day structure of the legal team

Tochukwu elaborates on the current environment and structure of in-house legal teams, stating, ‘it is always important to assist legal teams connect their day-to-day tasks with the larger purpose of the organisation. This creates some form of meaning, purpose and self fulfilment for team members. One approach I have adopted is with regards to management reporting. Management reporting now goes beyond regulatory or litigation reporting as companies increasingly want to understand how legal activities feed into the company’s goals. Working with our legal officers to craft the management reporting, which captures legal activities in a language that resonates with the strategic objectives of the company, serves as a continuous reminder to the legal officers of the larger corporate strategic picture.’

Tochukwu continues: ‘In addition to building a sense of purpose by connecting the dots for legal teams, it is important for GCs to create departmental structures that show a clear career growth trajectory for members of the team. GCs may consider structures that speak to areas of responsibility, supervisory functions over younger lawyers and clear-cut designations. It is important for lawyers to understand their growth path as this serves as an effective motivator.’

Consider, for a moment, how the legal landscape has drastically changed over the past decades as legal tech and other forms of technology have become more readily available. Before the internet and emails or the general digitalisation of documentation, work was limited by the speed of typewriters, phone calls, or fax machines – and before then, the speed of mail carriers. The structure of the modern-day office bears little resemblance to, say, an episode of Mad Man, and with increased efficiencies includes the speed of communication.

Ayobami elaborates on this point, saying, ‘many teams now rely on technology and those who are yet to adopt the same are planning to do so. Even CEOs are becoming increasingly interested in the automation and efficiency of legal processes so it is expected that GCs enjoy more support as they rely more on technology. We now rely heavily on technology to ease our contract management process and the key areas where technology has proven useful.’

Tochukwu gives his perspective on the growing reliance on legal tech, stating, ‘over the last decade, legal departments have taken steps to digitise their manual processes. An example of a manual process I have seen would include activities such as keeping written registers with dedicated staff crosschecking these physical registers daily to ensure important events, reminders, or expirations were not missed. Over time, legal departments became more comfortable with adapting technology for digital record keeping with simple Microsoft tools, for example, Microsoft Word and Excel. This served as a precursor to implementing automations that generate automated reminders to specific staff’.

He continues: ‘Currently, Excel is popular for capturing data, but beyond Excel, other Microsoft office solutions like Sharepoint are handy for capturing data in a useable format. Key of course would be for legal teams to work very closely with Sharepoint implementation teams to ensure that the tool captures all required fields and the right data’.

These modern-day tech tools, although not initially developed for the legal industry, have been a boon for the sector. Many GCs and in-house legal teams rely on this type of software for a broad range of tasks. Ayobami stresses the ease at which off-the-shelf software can streamline processes, saying ‘automating the process through which various departments in the company initiate legal related requests. Technologies in this area, such as SharePoint, also help the in-house counsel to track the number of requests received, nature of such requests and departments with the highest requests’.

Tochukwu elaborates on this point, saying, ‘Sharepoint can be used to track legal requests, assign tasks and timelines, keep records, and so on. Other Microsoft tools like Power BI can be used to extract legal data from Sharepoint or other data sources like Excel to create rich and interactive dashboards showing legal data in a format that helps the GC take intelligent decisions. The visuals created by such tools also enable GCs to present legal data in a language that is easily understood by management teams. Other off-the-shelf solutions promise specific and detailed solutions to address particular legal functions, for example, Contract Management Lifecycle Solutions, Board Solutions, and so on.’

Of course, none of these tech solutions can be implemented without relying on tech support. This universal truth of modern-day corporate organisational structure holds fast in Africa, just as it does globally. ‘GCs require tech guidance to wade through the various technology offerings in settling for the most appropriate solutions for the legal department. It is on this premise that it is envisaged that lawyers with deep tech knowledge would be regarded as valuable members of the legal department’, says Tochukwu.

The issues with using off-the-shelf software by GCs shouldn’t be avoided, however. As Ayobami notes: ‘Whilst SharePoint has proven key in addressing some of these needs, there is a need to rely on customised or bespoke tools to meet specific needs and enhancements.’ Additionally, Ayobami says, ‘A major concern is the applicability of these tech products to specific needs. Tech products seem to be designed for companies in general and not specifically for the in-house counsel teams in these companies which means the in-house counsel teams need to adapt these tech products for their specific needs.’

However, ‘Obtaining internal tech support can be challenging. Tech support for legal operations is not often regarded as mission critical for internal engineering and tech teams,’ as Tochukwu explains. He continues, ‘it can also be challenging acquiring the right tech tool to support legal operations. Scoping out the department’s requirement and matching it with the appropriate tech solution while considering other factors like cost, adaptability, user friendliness, support, and so on, can produce serious roadblocks.’

Imagining an ideal legal tech tool, Tochukwu says, ‘it is common to see tech tools that address specific legal functions, but it would be good to see tech tools that can be utilised across all or at most of the available legal functions. A robust legal department management tool that legal operations teams and the GC can use that tool to ensure the efficient running of the legal department generally.’ This ideal tool would be the Swiss Army knife of tools, rather than just one tool in the toolbox. ‘For instance, rather than shop for a contract management tool, it would be good to be able to acquire a tool that addresses contract management lifecycle, dispute and litigation management, intellectual property management, plus the more complex type transactions involving mergers, acquisitions, and so on,’ says Tochukwu. ‘It would be great to have a tech tool that not only addresses all functions carried out in the legal department but can be adapted easily by legal departments or where necessary with the aid of their inhouse tech team to incorporate all new legal functions under the same tool.’