United Kingdom 2015: The Team Elite
Supported by the Association of Corporate Counsel
Our third annual GC Power List report looks more like a state-of-the profession piece than its two predecessors. While the earlier reports focused on standout individuals, in 2015 we highlight 50 exceptional in-house teams, which inevitably addresses how clients operate.
Even a cursory glance at how these teams have evolved underlines the huge shift that has been taking place in the UK legal profession over the last 15 years: the best in-house legal teams are seizing influence, technical skills and budget, largely from their service providers.
This is particularly notable when it comes to managing their people. High-flying GCs are obsessive about talent and retention. This is largely why they strive to retain interesting work in-house: cost-saving is merely a justification, the primary reason is to motivate and develop their talent with engaging work.
Likewise, expanding in-house teams are using their scale to build formidable industry know-how. A common theme from our research is that law firms are failing to keep up with advances in sector insight at clients.
Even discounting some of the overblown claims about the savviness of GCs as buyers it is clear that bluechips in the UK have become materially more sophisticated purchasers of legal services since the banking crisis.
Successful in-house teams also usually display two related organisational characteristics: firstly an ability to step outside the day-to-day grind to deploy some measure of medium-term thinking and, secondly, develop a co-ordinated approach to building strong links with the business. Failing on these counts is a pretty reliable marker of the teams that struggle.
Those are the common experiences across in-house but huge differences remain between industries (the revenue-per-lawyer range in-house remains startlingly wide even between many comparable businesses). Beyond that it is increasingly obvious that there are two very different dynamics for the in-house profession. GCs working in heavily regulated and contentious sectors have built up vast legal teams interconnected with compliance functions in recent years. Those in less regulated sectors like retail and real estate have maintained surprisingly lean operations. In future, strategic thinking and operational support for in-house may have to more clearly recognise these very different models.
These observations lead to several conclusions. Firstly, these shifts represent an existential challenge to law firms as in-house counsel press their service providers into narrower roles. It’s not clear that law firms have grappled with the troubling implications of this for their business models. And, if we are currently witnessing the glory days for corporate legal teams, as ITV’s Andrew Garard convincingly asserts, then the UK profession is arguably overtaking its US equivalents in terms of sophistication. If true, those are two highly significant trends for the global legal market that will be playing out for years to come.
In the three years we at RPC have been involved with Legal Business’ GC Power List, the shifting sands of the economy have created both threat and opportunity across all sectors, in all jurisdictions; the rise and rise of the regulator has continued unabated; and the issue of enterprise-level risk has established itself firmly at the top of the corporate agenda.
Frightening? Actually, I take that back, it’s exhilarating. We live in interesting times. Interesting times bring interesting challenges. And interesting challenges give the very best people the opportunity to put down a marker and establish themselves as true leaders within their organisations.
And, as this stellar list of the 50 best in-house legal teams in the country shows, the most progressive lawyers are making up a growing number of those leaders. Not just as leaders of their teams but, increasingly, as genuine leaders of their organisations, influencing strategic direction and with a significant voice at the boardroom table.
Jonathan Watmough
Managing Partner
The recent news that elite US firm Sullivan & Cromwell had apologised to a judge over AI hallucinations in a court filing prompted a collective wince from the legal profession.
But while some lawyers remain wary of AI, others are striking a more open-minded note, and at the LexisNexis AI Forum hosted this Wednesday (20 May) by Legal 500 and Legal Business, panelists argued that the risks are far outweighed by the opportunities.
Barbara Zapisetskaya, principal technology counsel at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, made the case that hallucinations and other potential pitfalls can be overcome with a shift in mindset.
‘What makes a difference,’ she said, ‘is empowering your lawyers to take responsibility for AI output – helping them become active AI operators, not just passive AI users. You have agency to decide whether you agree with the output or not.’
Zapisetskaya was among a line-up of leading in-house figures speaking on two panels, which covered everything from practical steps for AI implementation to the key decisions GCs need to be making in the coming months.
Financial Times general counsel Dan Guilford began by stressing the importance of building the right culture for AI adoption. In addition to proactively upskilling himself, Guilford talked about how he had implemented a voluntary weekly ‘show and tell’ meeting for team members to share successful use cases – or an exercise that became a gratifying measure of progress.
Other panelists discussed how increased in-house productivity is altering the dynamic with their external counsel.
While some see the use of AI by law firms as a precursor for reduced fees, Russell Davies, head of global operations for legal and compliance at Dentsu, said that faster results – however they are delivered – are something to be valued.
GSK assistant general counsel Anthony Kenny agreed, saying that while there was an expectation that external counsel would be utilising AI, the focus should be on the value of the output, rather than an overemphasis on identifying AI use as a justification to reduce fees.
Speaking on the second panel, MUFG EMEA general counsel James Morgan stressed the critical importance of education, noting that educating the C-suite on the advantages and risks of AI is just as important as enabling large in-house teams to use these tools.
Shanthini Satyendra, vice-chair of the AI Committee, Society for Computers & Law, CEO and founder of Manisain, offered a reminder of the importance of making the connection between tasks and the purpose behind them, extolling the virtues of identifying use cases for AI that can solve a meaningful problem.
Zapisetskaya concurred, adding that one of the most important tasks for GCs across the next six to twelve months is to create AI playbooks and templates, noting that ‘it is easy for lawyers to see problems – much harder for lawyers to see opportunities.’
There was also broad agreement among panellists that GCs should focus on upskilling their junior lawyers on AI, rather than – as some may expect – cutting back their workforce. As Satyendra summarised: ‘Some people are replacing human capital with AI without thinking about what’s required to make AI work. Retain your people and train them up.’
The panels were moderated by Emma Millington, head of the UK Lexis+ Finance Group, and LexisNexis director of segment management Stuart Greenhill.
