The conversation spanned everything from budgets and outsourcing to AI, cultural challenges, and the evolving GC–law firm relationship. Below are the key themes and takeaways.
Innovation vs. Efficiency: avoiding “more platforms, more problems”
The session opened with the question of whether innovation really makes lawyers’ lives easier—or whether it can sometimes make things harder.
“Innovation often promises efficiency, but if it’s not managed well it can add complexity—more platforms, duplicate processes, constant training,” ,warned Barbara Maggi. To make sure it reduces workload rather than creating it, she suggested six principles: define the problem before the solution, measure expected impact, co-design and pilot, avoid fragmentation, invest in adoption, and automate the routine but keep humans on the complex.
Maria Lourdes P. Gatmaytan shared how her team approached this challenge with data. “We built a centralized SharePoint site called CLEAR—Centralized Legal Automated Request. This lets us track patterns, surface recurring issues, and pinpoint frequent requests. From there we drive standardization—templates, model clauses, playbooks, FAQs. Depending on each unit’s maturity and proficiency, we tailor the support. Where needed, we run seminars, refreshers, and short on-demand videos.” Importantly, she added, they survey internal clients to identify gaps and refine solutions: “It’s not one and done. We always go back and check what worked and what didn’t.”
For Rashna Mistry, innovation must always be practical: “I focus on four essentials: define the problem clearly, deliver concrete outcomes, eliminate redundant activities, and train thoroughly. The goal is not to do more things, but to achieve more outcomes with fewer inputs.”
Tools, processes, and savings
The panel then turned to the tools and processes that drive both innovation and cost savings.
Szabolcs Mestyán, drawing on his dual perspective as both a law firm partner and a secondee inside a multinational corporate, argued that technology and people must move in lockstep. “First map where the problem is, then choose the tool. Processes that were once paper-based are now electronic, freeing junior lawyers for more complex work. But the challenge is reshaping teams to align with the tech. If the people don’t change with the system, you don’t capture the benefit.”
From an in-house perspective, Gatmaytan stressed adoption as the critical factor: “Even the best tools fail if people don’t use them. That’s why we run training refreshers, build videos that colleagues can access on demand, and create playbooks that are actually usable.”
Matthew A. Taylor added the law firm perspective: “Clients expect efficiency, cost consciousness, and state-of-the-art tech. Pilots are crucial—bring clients into them so they can see the value early. Products excel in different areas, so piloting helps you test what really works. And we’re seeing paralegals’ roles change dramatically. We’re now hiring people with data-science backgrounds, because the legal team of the future needs different skills.”
Budgets and prioritisation
With cost pressure intensifying, how do GCs prioritise?
“It’s one of the hardest GC tasks,” admitted Mestyán. “I rely heavily on technology and on cross-border leverage. And law firms have to adapt too, by adopting flexible pricing and focusing on high-end, complex advisory where they add the most value.”
Maggi echoed the challenge: “Covering more than 20 countries, I can’t simply apply a single budget strategy. The maturity of local business units and the regulatory environment vary widely. Prioritisation is about understanding what really matters to the business and where legal can deliver most impact.”
Taylor agreed from the firm side: “Budget pressure is constant. Internally we align our capacity with workload. Externally, we maintain open dialogue with clients and offer flexible fee arrangements. Clients expect predictability—we can’t just hand them a surprise at the end of the month.”
What to keep, outsource, or automate
On the question of what should stay in-house, what should be outsourced, and what can be automated, the consensus was pragmatic.
“In-house handles strategy-driven, sensitive work,” said Mistry. “Litigation, arbitration, and specialist opinions are outsourced. MIS and reporting, routine contract templates—those can be automated. But accountability always stays with us. Even if work is outsourced, the responsibility comes back to the GC.”
Gatmaytan agreed: “We outsource foreign law and big-ticket items like litigation and M&A. We automate low-value, time-consuming tasks where possible.”
Maggi added a further layer: “I always ask whether an issue is strategic or routine. External partners complement us, diving deep where we lack capacity. But we also invest in our business by running a legal education program, so our internal clients know when to come to us and when they can self-serve. We also train external counsel so they understand the scope and culture of our organisation.”
Cross-border complexities
For multinational GCs, adapting strategies across jurisdictions adds layers of complexity.
“I oversee more than 20 countries,” said Maggi. “We must understand not just legal systems, but also business norms, enforcement practices, and cultural expectations. Law and judicial interpretation differ. Regulatory fragmentation is common. Negotiation styles vary. We try to standardise language, but always tailor for local differences. And our external partners need to connect across jurisdictions, not just in their own silos.”
As a litigator, Taylor flagged the cultural gap around US discovery: “It can shock foreign clients who are not used to that level of disclosure. We must build trust, educate clients, and work with strong local counsel to manage expectations.”
Mestyán, from his secondment experience, highlighted the human side: “Cultural differences and expectations really matter. Sometimes clients want a simple yes/no answer, but instead get a long memo. Predictability and alignment on objectives—not just the law—are crucial. It’s about being a partner, not just an advisor.”
How can GCs get more out of their law firms?
“Relationships are our biggest asset,” said Taylor. “Procurement adds pressure but it’s here to stay. It has also made firms better project managers. Clear communication among GC, procurement, and the firm is vital.”
Gatmaytan offered practical advice: “Provide detailed RFPs. This helps scope the work accurately and avoids endless back-and-forth. Firms should also ask clarification questions—they improve efficiency. And Continuing Legal Education offered by firms is valuable and keeps them top of mind.”
Where firms can improve
The panel was candid about what law firms need to do better.
Mistry was particularly clear:
“Move beyond technical advice to business-oriented solutions. Offer predictable, value-based billing. Integrate technology with corporate IT. Build in-house capabilities through training, secondments, seminars. And ensure diversity across teams.”
Mestyán reinforced the message:
“Predictability is paramount. Don’t exceed agreed caps. Anticipate likely issues and price accordingly. Understand the client’s objective—options, not just law.”
AI and Legal Tech: promise with pitfalls
The closing discussion inevitably turned to AI.
“AI has potential but also limitations,” said Mistry. “Contract automation still needs oversight; tools are costly; training phases require human input; and many are UK/US-centric. We have to be realistic.”
Gatmaytan warned about the risks of hallucinations: “We need closed-loop, sandboxed tools. Non-adoption may soon be the bigger risk, but we need to proceed cautiously.”
Taylor added: “We must embrace AI, but it’s not ready for prime time. Pilots are essential. Different client sectors vary in comfort with AI, so testing carefully is key.”
Maggi closed with a success story: “A strong Contract Lifecycle Management system has been transformative. It reduces risk, accelerates deals, and empowers business units to self-serve. Pairing the tool with a contract manager function makes life much easier.”
Closing note
The closing discussion inevitably turned to AI.
As moderator Adam Cooke reminded the audience, “the role of technology is to free legal teams to be strategic.”
The clear message from all panellists was that innovation only creates value when it is problem-led, carefully piloted, and fully adopted by people. For GCs under pressure to “do more with less,” the challenge is not to chase every new trend, but to harness innovation that genuinely reduces workload and strengthens the legal function’s role as a strategic partner.
Thank you to all our panellists and the Legal 500 team. The full webinar recording is available on the Legal 500 website.