Team size: 10

Looking forward, what trends do you foresee in the legal landscape over the next 5–10 years that companies should prepare for?

Looking back on the past year, one trend that has really stood out to me — and that I believe other in-house lawyers should keep a close eye on — is the growing expectation for legal professionals to broaden their skill sets beyond traditional legal expertise. It’s clear that being a successful in-house lawyer today means much more than just understanding the law. There’s an increasing need to grasp the business context, communicate effectively with commercial teams, and engage thoughtfully with technology.

From my experience, the in-house lawyers who bring the most value are those who can bridge the gap between legal risks and business impact. They don’t just point out potential issues but translate those risks into insights that help steer strategic decision-making. This proactive involvement allows legal teams to support the organisation’s goals rather than merely responding to problems after they arise.

Another important aspect of this trend is a deeper familiarity with legal technology, data-driven approaches, and process improvement. While we aren’t expected to be IT specialists or operations experts, having enough fluency in these areas enables us to assess risks more effectively, identify opportunities for increased efficiency, and collaborate across departments. Embracing these tools and mindsets helps move legal teams away from being seen only as compliance gatekeepers toward becoming trusted strategic advisors.

I also see this shift reflecting a broader change in how legal functions are integrated into business operations. As companies face more complex challenges, having lawyers who understand both the legal and commercial sides is increasingly essential. For anyone working in-house, cultivating this hybrid approach is not just a trend — it’s becoming a key part of how we add value and remain relevant within our organizations.

What factors influence your team’s decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate their performance?

In our team, we generally aim to handle matters in-house whenever possible. We’re closely embedded in the business, which allows us to move quickly, understand context, and manage risk in a very practical way. That said, we’re also realistic about the fact that there are situations where external counsel adds real value.

Typically, we look outside when a matter requires highly specialized expertise, involves significant complexity or cross-border elements, or when there’s a temporary spike in workload that would be difficult to absorb internally. This approach is very much in line with what we see in mature in-house teams in the U.S. and the U.K., where external lawyers are used selectively and strategically rather than by default.

When we do engage external counsel, performance is assessed less on technical knowledge alone and more on whether they deliver clear, practical advice that supports the business. We pay close attention to how well they understand our objectives, how responsive and proactive they are, and whether they manage matters efficiently and within agreed budgets. Strong collaboration and transparency are also key for us.