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 09, 2017 at 05:40 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 AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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