In-house legal teams are growing in sophistication and complexity. Many mid-sized and particularly large in-house teams increasingly resemble law firms, complete with intricate internal structures, flexible working and outsourced contracts, legal operations as a distinct discipline, the use of non-legal specialists such as project managers, sophisticated use of legal tech, and so on.
What is driving this change and why is it likely to continue? In this article, I explore the ways in which mid- and large-sized in-house teams have changed in recent years and will continue to change in the future. I explore the general structure of in-house teams of the past, how they appear in the present, and how they will evolve in the future.
Let’s start at the beginning. The core focus of a legal team of any size is supporting its primary function: providing expert legal advice. The teams consisted of lawyers – and often only lawyers. Data experts were not hired solely for their data expertise, for example. They were hired because they were great lawyers that happened to be data experts. Specialisms outside the legal function were a nice-to-have, not a necessity.
The lawyers worked from the office and typically received their legal training in private practice before moving into an in-house role. They might have arrived with few tech skills. In-house teams across different businesses had a great deal in common, with not much deviation from business to business, regardless of industry and sector, shape and structure, or organisational goals. In short, in-house legal teams were primed to offer expert legal advice.
We’ve seen substantial changes in recent years. Mid-sized and large in-house teams have become increasingly complex and sophisticated. The largest teams now resemble law firms in various ways – structure, specialism, flexibility of working, options for outsourcing, general embrace of tech, and so on – and our latest research shows that medium-sized in-house teams are following suit.
Larger in-house teams are positioned strategically within the business, often led by the Chief Legal Officer or General Counsel who takes a leadership position across the whole organisation. Such legal teams immerse themselves in long-term thinking, adopting a wide and often top-level view of the organisation, aiming to spot incoming threats, mitigate potential risks, solve problems, and help to guide the strategic trajectory of the company.
In-house teams do not simply offer legal advice, but may also delve into all sorts of board-level initiatives, ranging from ESG policies, DEI initiatives, and inform both short-term and longer-term organisation goals. That shift is reflected in our recent UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ survey, Escaping the legal labyrinth, with 90% of in-house respondents suggesting they are involved in strategy and 93% in collaboration.
Mid-sized and large in-house are increasingly specialised, too. Larger in-house teams now include a range of non-legal roles, according to the same UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ survey. In-house teams may have tech experts that have no legal background, or employees from a background of operations to help supervise and organise, or even data experts to find quick and simple insights.
In-house teams are increasingly diverse, differing from business to business, adapting to meet the demands of the organisation. Large in-house teams are agile, adaptable, and that shows in the general make-up of employees. Teams are less likely to rely solely on permanent staff, according to the survey. They are invested in outsourcing and turning to flexible working arrangements to find the right skills.
And, importantly, mid-sized and larger in-house teams are far more likely to embrace legal tech. Tech skills have become an expectation from both the in-house lawyer and the company. Half of all in-house counsel (50%), for example, said they would not work for teams that do not embrace legal tech. That demonstrates huge progress in terms of tech adoption.
The future promises an even greater reliance on tech. Consider, for example, that 60% of large in-house respondents expect their work to be transformed by tech in the next five years. Or consider that 84% of mid-sized teams said that tech skills will become more important for in-house counsel in the future, a number that rose to 88% for large in-house teams.
It seems likely that larger in-house teams will continue to be at the forefront of embracing legal tech, encouraging mid-sized and increasingly small in-house teams to follow suit.
The future of in-house teams also promises to offer even more flexibility in the workplace, with non-traditional arrangements becoming increasingly common. Consider, for example, that nearly 40% of respondents from large teams said that they will rely on flexible resourcing and independent contracts and less on permanent staff in the coming years.
And, finally, the future promises even more specialism. According to the survey, for example, 59% of respondents believe that both mid- and large-sized teams should expect increasing specialisation, with a boom in the number of roles that do not require any legal background.
So we’ve seen larger in-house teams grow increasingly complex, increasingly sophisticated, mimicking law firms in myriad ways. That is a trend that seems likely to continue, with teams evolving and developing, providing more long-term and strategic value, embracing non-traditional structures and new ways of working, and relying more and more on legal tech.
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234