Corporate Trends Reshaping Legal Departments
The corporate world has never moved faster. According to a study published in the Harvard Business Review, one-in-three companies will be delisted in the…
August 07, 2017 at 05:10 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The corporate world has never moved faster. According to a study published in the Harvard Business Review, one-in-three companies will be delisted in the next five years. Companies need to constantly reinvent themselves, their products and their markets if they want to sustainably grow. But what does this world of rapid change mean for in-house legal departments?
Trends Impacting In-House Legal Departments
It's impossible to outline the full extent of changes impacting corporations—there are just too many. But there are a few trends that have dramatic consequences for how legal departments will need to transform in the years ahead.
|- (1) Increasing Corporate Demand for Legal Services. As the volume of M&A increases, regulatory changes promulgate and a greater percentage of corporate wealth depends on a legal basis (e.g., intellectual property), the demand for legal services will only increase. We estimate that demand will increase 85 percent between 2016 and 2020, putting pressure on in-house legal departments to increase provision of cost-efficient legal services to the company.
- (2) Changing Client Consumption Patterns. As executives face an increasing array of decisions to be made, they need confidence that they are receiving the right set of information (or have the right way to distill information). In this world, legal departments need to “productize” their expertise so it can be consumed at the time when executives are making a decision. This means the way legal guidance is delivered to business clients must change. Increasingly, legal departments need to apply the user-centered design to their “customers” and embed guidance and self-service capabilities into workflows at the right decision points. This is the only way that legal can keep pace with and streamline enterprise decision-making and failing to do so may result in a firm-level drag on productivity.
- (3) Corporate Digitization and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Legal departments have not been bastions of innovation. Historical legal technologies have saved lawyers time by better organizing department work (e.g., matter management, e-billing), but they have never replaced the time-consuming effort of forming legal judgments. The advent of machine learning will change this dynamic. For the first time, it will be possible to “download” legally trained minds and bring them to scale. Legal's adoption of this technology will be important, as “analog” functions will become an increasing drag on corporate speed. Going forward, legal department productivity will depend on defining and codifying the algorithm of legal judgement.
- (4) Cybersecurity and Privacy. As the value of information increases, so too does its potential risks. In-house legal departments will find themselves on the front lines of cybersecurity and privacy concerns, interpreting regulatory mandates, consumer sentiment and working with Information Security. General Counsel, in conjunction with other corporate executives, will need to develop information governance policies and corporate data strategies for their companies. The organizations that can protect privacy and sensitive corporate information while simultaneously providing the business with strategic freedom and simple processes to confidently use data will gain a competitive advantage.
Legal in 2020
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
In-House Leaders Trying to Contain Political Divisiveness Face Maze of Challenges
5 minute readMeta Directors Accused of Deleting Emails Discussing Cambridge Analytica, FTC Settlement
3 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Christopher J. DeGroff, Andrew L. Scroggins and Samantha L. Brooks from Seyfarth Shaw have stepped in to represent AG Equipment Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged employment discrimination under the ADA. The case was filed Aug. 30 in Oklahoma Northern District Court by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of five former employees who contend that they were wrongfully terminated after seeking accommodations from the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill, is 4:24-cv-00403, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AG Equipment Company.
Who Got The Work
Samantha J. Hughes of Dykema Gossett has entered an appearance for Home Depot in a pending slip-and-fall personal injury lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 30 in California Central District Court by Countrywide Trial Lawyers on behalf of Ernestina Rolon. The case, assigned to U.S Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson, is 2:24-cv-07451, Ernestina Rolon v. The Home Depot, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
R. Evan Jarrold and Latiqua M. Liles of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete have entered appearances for Walmart in a pending lawsuit for alleged breaches of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The complaint was filed Aug. 30 in Missouri Eastern District Court by Roberts, Wooten & Zimmer on behalf of a former Walmart employee who contends that he was wrongfully terminated for taking medical leave after contracting COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp, is 4:24-cv-01196, Weber v. Walmart, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough partner Molly Jean Given has entered an appearance for CooperCompanies, a medical device maker comprised of CooperVision and CooperSurgical, in a pending product liability lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 27 in California Northern District Court by Girard Sharp and Sauder Schelkopf LLC, is part of a wave of cases brought on behalf of plaintiffs whose embryos failed to develop during in-vitro fertilization due to alleged contamination of the defendant's embryo culture media lots. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, is 4:24-cv-06047, I.I. et al v. CooperSurgical, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Jacob Oslick of Seyfarth Shaw has entered an appearance for Prudential Insurance Co. of America in a pending ERISA lawsuit. The complaint, which pertains to short- and long-term disability benefits, was filed Aug. 29 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by the Cornerstone Law Firm on behalf of Catherine Alunni. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher, is 5:24-cv-04547, Alunni v. The Prudential Insurance Company Of America.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250