Flex vs hire: making the resourcing call with confidence when demand keeps moving

This decision is becoming more frequent. CLOC's 2025 State of the Industry Report reveals that 83% of legal departments anticipate rising demand, with workload being the top challenge for 63% of teams. Meanwhile, AI adoption is gaining momentum; 30% of legal teams already use it, and 54% plan to within two years. While technology is reshaping workflows, it doesn't replace the need for seasoned legal judgment, especially for high-risk, time-sensitive matters.

General counsel are under growing pressure to define and demonstrate value. The Thomson Reuters Institute's 2025 State of the Corporate Law Department Report underscores this, noting that "value" was mentioned three times more often in GC interviews compared to the previous year. This focus translates into pressure to speed up delivery, enhance predictability, and position the legal function as a growth enabler, not just a business protector.

Outsourcing work to outside counsel can introduce cost unpredictability. According to Gartner, the total cost of such matters stays within budget only 20% of the time. Gartner suggests not eliminating outside counsel but for general counsel to drive cost-effectiveness through active matter management. Lawyers who excel at this are twice as likely to keep matters within budget.

The choice between flexible resourcing and a permanent hire should be based on the nature of the work, not the organisational chart. The first consideration is the time horizon. For clearly time-bound demand—such as a transaction wave or regulatory deadline—a permanent hire is an expensive solution to a temporary problem. Flexible resourcing lets a team scale up for peak demand and scale back down as work normalises.

A second consideration is distinguishing between capacity and capability gaps. Capacity gaps relate to volume, while capability gaps concern specialised skills. Hiring permanently for a capability gap can be risky if demand is uncertain or the talent is scarce. Flexible resourcing can provide targeted expertise for a defined scope, freeing senior in-house lawyers to focus on strategic work requiring long-term continuity.

The third lens is institutional knowledge and decision ownership. Roles requiring deep company history and ongoing executive relationships, such as business unit counsel, are most effective as permanent positions. However, a significant portion of legal work can be effectively scoped and managed without long-term embedding, provided the core team establishes clear templates and escalation paths.

Speed-to-impact is the fourth, often underestimated, factor. A resource gap creates business friction, leading to slower contracting, delayed initiatives, and increased reliance on premium-rate outside counsel. When the business impact of delay is high, a flexible resource that delivers value quickly can be the most cost-effective solution, even as an interim measure before a permanent hire.

In practice, the optimal answer is often a controlled hybrid approach. Flexible support can stabilise delivery, help define the long-term role, and build the business case. If demand proves to be structural, this groundwork allows for a permanent hire with a clearer scope and stronger internal alignment, reducing the risk of a mis-hire under pressure.

At PwC Switzerland, we support both sides of the equation. Flexible Legal Resources is designed to help companies build their in-house legal team on demand, match projects with experts who have the exact skills and knowledge needed, and achieve seamless integration and quicker onboarding for immediate impact. For long-term needs, our Permanent Legal Resources offering supports those who need to build or expand their in-house legal function on a longer-term basis. The point is not to push one model over the other. It is to help legal teams build a resourcing portfolio that preserves quality and control while keeping cost and speed predictable.