In-house legal teams are expected to be both strategic partners and quick problem solvers. But when every request is treated as a custom conversation, volume wins and capacity loses. This creates a service model that feels helpful in the moment but becomes unsustainable with each new 'quick question.'
How the in-house legal role expanded
Initially, legal functions were designed to offer a cost-effective alternative to external counsel, with deeper insights into the company’s industry, contracts, and risk profile. Over time, this role expanded. Legal became integral to daily operations: reviewing commercial terms, supporting procurement, advising on sales processes, and engaging in projects long before disputes arise.
This evolution adds real value but also alters the operating model. Instead of serving a few senior stakeholders, legal becomes the 'trusted adviser' for a broader part of the organisation. While this relationship-based model works at low volume, it breaks at scale.
Why the model becomes unsustainable
Two dynamics usually collide:
- Growing demand outpaces legal capacity. Each lawyer supports numerous stakeholders across functions. While most need only small amounts of time, the overall demand is constant, fragmented, and interruption-driven. Maintaining deep relationships with so many people simply doesn’t scale.
Internal clients want outcomes, not process. Even when businesses recognise that legal teams are stretched, patience is limited. Turnaround expectations rise, and 'regular' work starts to feel urgent. Legal may add steps to protect quality and reduce risk, but for the business, these can seem like friction rather than assurance, intensifying pressure.
Escaping this cycle requires more than working harder or hiring another lawyer. It demands a deliberate shift in how legal work is captured, categorised, prioritised, and delivered.
Start with a demand map: Three lenses that change the conversation
Before redesigning the model, build a fact base for what actually impacts the team. Study your request flows from three angles:
- Work profile and time drivers. Catalogue the types of work that arrive (by legal domain and activity) and estimate the effort each category consumes. Even without time-tracking, you can build a reliable baseline by sampling closed matters, reviewing calendars, and examining email and collaboration-tool activity over a representative period. Pay special attention to broad 'advice' requests, which often hide significant effort behind informal conversations.
- Complexity and risk. Introduce simple criteria to distinguish routine, standard, and complex matters. Define when a matter becomes a 'file,' what information is required at intake, and which work can follow a fast-track route. Most teams find that the majority of volume sits in low-to-moderate complexity, making it the best place to standardise.
- Why the business involves legal. Volume is a symptom; the cause is often upstream. Interview a cross-section of business managers (sales, operations, procurement, project leads) to understand what triggers legal involvement. Common drivers include mandatory sign-offs on commercial decisions, a desire for legal 'endorsement,' unclear policies, or document-quality issues that force legal into editorial clean-up. These conversations reveal which demand is truly necessary and which can be prevented, redirected, or handled differently.
Transition from open-door support to a scalable service model
With the demand map in hand, leadership can make conscious choices about how accessible legal should be, and for what. An 'open door' approach feels client-friendly but can become a capacity sink—absorbing time that could be used for higher-value work.
A strong starting plan typically includes:
An intake and triage process that routes requests based on risk, urgency, and business impact.
Self-service options for recurring, low-risk needs: templates, playbooks, FAQs, clause libraries, and decision trees.
Clear thresholds for when legal must be involved versus when business teams can proceed within guardrails.
Service-level expectations that match the nature of the work (fast lanes for routine, structured timelines for complex).
Investment in legal operations capabilities: workflow design, practice management, and data to monitor demand and cycle time.
Targeted technology that reduces back-and-forth (e-signature, contract automation, matter intake tools, and knowledge management).
Resource rebalancing so the right work goes to the right role (including paralegals, legal ops, and support roles).
Even a partial reduction in low-value, low-complexity demand can create breathing room. That window can then be used to redesign workflows, improve consistency, and strengthen the team’s ability to handle truly strategic matters.
Key takeaway
Legal teams don’t become overwhelmed because the business suddenly stopped caring about risk. They become overwhelmed because the operating model treats every request as custom. Mapping demand, classifying work, and building self-service pathways turns legal from an always-on help desk into a scalable partner.
