Architects of change

In-house has influence, but will it be enough to make meaningful change?

In-house legal teams have fought hard to have a voice in corporate decision-making, and most have made considerable progress.

In our January 2026 survey of in-house lawyers, almost half (49%) said legal leaders in their organisation advise on a wide-range of board-level decisions. An additional quarter (27%) said they have some influence on key decisions.

Three-quarters of in-house legal leaders have considerable or some influence on a range of board-level decisions.

A significantly smaller amount said they are called on when needed (18%), only when something goes wrong (4%), or that they have very little influence (1%).

For most legal leaders, this means they are perfectly primed to advise on strategic business decisions, avoiding risk, protecting reputations and acting as the moral epicentre of the organisation.

The influence is real but conditional, says Fractional General Counsel, Natalie Salunke.

We add "clarity of thought and risk-based assessments, enabling quick decision-making," said one General Counsel.

An in-house advisor within a large legal team said legal leaders are "closer to the commercial decision-makers."

Others said they add value by looking at matters from an objective or subjective perspective or by balancing legal advice with commercial realities.

Yet when asked how others within their organisation would most likely describe them, the responses were mixed.

Approximately half put their team in a positive light: "commercially-minded and collaborative" (28%), practical and responsive (11%), or strategic business partners (9%).

However, more than a quarter (27%) said "supportive but overstretched", 11% said "reliable but cautious", 5% said "traditional and siloed", and 3% said "reactive and hard to access".

Half of in-house lawyers described their team as "overstretched", "cautious", "siloed" or "hard-to-access".

These views were largely shared across seniority levels, and while evenly mixed, it's a far cry from the O-shaped pinnacle many are aspiring to reach.

The key challenge holding most back, it seems, is an exhaustive and unrelenting workload.

In-house counsel need the right technology and tools

With a seat in the C-suite, or with persuasive power close to it, General Counsel can help corporates make smarter decisions.

Yet much of a legal teams’ time is still spent on traditional compliance and regulatory work. When asked about the most pressing strategic work they are currently working on, compliance and contract automation work dominated.

Checking data use and privacy in digital projects is currently a core strategic priority for just over 52% of teams, although only around one-third say it should be a priority going forward. Similarly, managing regulatory risks in supply chains and automation is handled by just under 50% of teams, but only 29% say it should be a priority. This reflects how compliance work continues to dominate workloads and limit capacity for more strategic activity.

When looking at the work that should be a priority, the strongest interest is in creating dashboards to track legal and risk issues. Around 40% say this should be a priority, but only 26% are currently doing it. When looking at the results by seniority, 35% of General Counsel say this is something they're already doing, while only 25% said it should be a priority, suggesting leaders may feel slightly further ahead in this area.

In reality, the “strategic” work is less abstract than people think, Salunke says.

This means shaping commercial models such as pricing, risk allocation, or go-to-market, says Salunke, as well as navigating regulatory exposure early, and acting as a decision partner on things such as market entry or product changes.

Having full visibility of the legal risks from the outset makes commercial sense when going to market with a new product, one in-house advisor said.

"Identifying legal risks at an early stage is crucial so that those risks can be addressed as part of the product design process."

They can also add value from a creative and analytical point of view, suggested another.

"We are the users of a lot of technology products. Including us in the creative process contributes to better decision-making."

Others mentioned the value in-house legal advisors add to avoiding potential IP issues.

Another key priority is setting rules and safeguards for AI tools and products, with 39% wanting to focus on this and about 38% already doing so. This hints that AI governance is already embedded in legal teams’ roles but will become even more strategic.

Contract automation and digital templates are also a major focus, with 37% wanting to prioritise this and 33% currently doing so. Interest is particularly strong among senior leaders: just under 50% of General Counsel want to focus on automation, but only about 20% are currently doing so, suggesting automation is seen by leaders as a future transformation priority rather than a current operational activity.

Around half of legal teams are held back by "checking data use and privacy in digital projects" and "managing regulatory risks in supply chains and automation".

Legal leaders should invest in better tools, clearer operating models and positioning themselves as problem-solvers rather than gatekeepers, says Salunke.

"What’s holding teams back is still capacity, fragmented data, and a tendency, often culturally reinforced, to default to risk avoidance instead of calibrated risk management."

That gap exists because many teams are still structurally under-resourced relative to demand, she says.

Find out more about streamlining your privacy and data use requirements here.

AI presents a whole host of opportunities to improve workflows for legal and administrative tasks. Will this give in-house teams the time and resources they need to drive real change?

Will AI help save time?

Automation is not new to in-house legal teams. Before generative AI came on the scene, the majority had complex automation processes in place.

Without doing these processes a disservice, AI has the ability to categorically change the in-house legal function and truly make way for more complex analysis and strategic advice.

Our research shows that the highest levels of AI use sit within core fee-earning activity including legal research (74%), drafting internal documents (69%), summarisation and analysis (68%), legal contract drafting (61%) and knowledge management (61%).

Yet when using this technology, the vast majority (82%) of in-house lawyers are concerned about inaccurate or fabricated hallucinations.

Hallucinations are the biggest concern for lawyers using AI

When there are high technical risks, in-house lawyers show a strong preference for legal-specific AI tools. This was evident across the most common use cases when combining legal specific AI tools with generic AI tools. We also found 85% feel more comfortable relying on AI when it's grounded on legal solutions.

Read the latest risk and compliance precedents here

Candice Donnelly, former Director of Legal - Corporate at Skyscanner, emphasises that AI doesn't replace advisory strength, but creates space for it:

AI will free up more time for junior lawyers to add more value as strategic advisers, says Donnelly.

"This isn't just legal knowledge but commercial judgment, business insight, and the ability to add clear direction into complex situations."

AI does not replace those strengths, but it can create more space for them to shine by taking on the more mechanical work, she believes.

Similarly, Alessandro Galtieri, Deputy General Counsel at Colt, highlights the impacts of knowledge automation on organisation performance:

In just twelve months, AI capability has moved from being a competitive advantage to a baseline retention requirement.

This year, 50% of lawyers now say that if their organisation fails to embrace AI, it would negatively affect their career progression, up from 38% in 2025.

Additionally, 23% say they would consider leaving their organisation if it does not invest in AI, compared to 19% in 2025.

These are not marginal increases. They reflect a significant recalibration in how lawyers view the role of AI in their professional future.