GCs Say They’re Delivering—The C Suite Disagrees

Laura Clayton McDonnell, President of Corporates at Thomson Reuters, summarised, saying, “Legal departments have done the hard work of transformation — streamlining operations, adopting AI, and aligning their priorities to the business. Yet our research reveals a striking disconnect: 86% of general counsel believe their department significantly contributes to organisational objectives, while only 17% of C‑suite executives agree.

“The issue isn’t that legal isn’t delivering value — it’s that they’re not speaking the language that makes that value visible. GCs have become adept at unlocking capacity through efficiency and AI. The next step is channelling that capacity into outcomes the C‑suite can clearly see and measure. That’s the shift from a legal department that transforms itself to one that transforms the business.”

The thirty-one-page report contains a mix of commentary, data visualisations, Thomson Reuters analysis, and qualitative comments from interviewees. After an executive summary and key takeaways, the report examines the four strategic priorities that Thomson Reuters sees as corporate legal departments’ operational and business imperatives: Enable, Effective, Efficient, and Protect. It then looks at AI’s rise as a strategic priority before the conclusion.

The Four Spinning Plates

It is not the first time that Thomson Reuters has used the four plates, and one of the insights from this year’s report is how the focus has changed from the 2025 report. Over the last year, while Efficiency remains the top priority, Effective has dropped to fourth, and Protect has climbed into second place.

The biggest change, though, is the specific strategic priorities, which saw technology double from 14% to 28%, rising to the top place. In one of the few regional and industry breakdowns, last year, technology was most mentioned across the UK, Europe and Asia, as well as financial services, Energy and Tech, which no longer apply in 2026. In 2026, only mainland Europe mentioned technology the most. In general, Cost control now receives the most mentions.

The Enabling Plate

The report determines that while legal departments have improved, delivering value to themselves, that hasn’t translated to the wider business seeing it. There are several reasons for this; the top three constraints noted were staffing/resourcing (48%), Budget (24%), and Time management/Workload (18%). Interestingly, technology was one of the lowest at 8%; it would have been interesting to see how that fared in 2025.

The section also considers how GC’s looked to deliver better business value in 2025. It noted that whilst they often overcame resource constraints, often with technology, they then failed to turn the freed resources into a greater business impact. The suggestion is that the legal team must aim to be more visible in day-to-day strategic planning rather than during crises.

The Protection Plate

The protection plate is evolving to include proactive risk management and structured approaches to identifying and mitigating risks. The report examines how GC’s are doing this, with the top three highly valuable sources being:

• Dialogue with internal business units (68%)
• Regulatory Alerts (49%)
• Peer Networks (48%)

While technology is used, it is only seen as a highly valuable source 36% of the time. With the emergence of AI and advancements in platforms such as CoCounsel, it will be interesting to see if this rises quickly. The section then identifies six ways GCs gather information and provides five further hints on how they can enhance their approach to internal dialogue.

This is one of several takeaways from the report that make it worthwhile reading. Whilst, most are common sense, common sense is often the sagest advice that many seem to forget.

Where technology is starting to make a difference is the application of AI in risk management. The respondents identified several direct and indirect benefits of AI risk-mapping tools and automation. One interviewee noted, they “Get a lot of unsolicited email blasts, daily digest and  news. In terms of regulatory and terms of my industry. Using AI has helped with my efficiency in reviewing things or summarizing things.”

The section concludes with the Thomson Reuters Institute analyses, noting that risk prevention itself isn’t the end goal and that GCs need to reconsider their approach to gathering information.

The Effective Plate

GCs aim to deliver high-quality, practical, and timely legal advice tailored to business needs. They feel successful, but as noted by the gap, the perception from the wider business is not aligned. The section examines whether external law firms hit the mark and offers some insights that lawyers at those firms may find useful.

The concluding analysis is almost biblical in nature and reflects Matthew 7:3-5: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” The recommendation is that GCs consider the metrics they use to evaluate external counsel when evaluating themselves. That might help them to identify the issues they face to close the gap.

The Efficiency Plate

Worldwide, GCs are streamlining processes and leveraging technology, especially AI, to improve workflows and reduce costs. However, while decreasing costs was a focus for most of 2025, in Q4, the net spend anticipation climbs again.

Spend is increasing across the board, but spending on regulatory costs (up 23%) and disputes (up 16%) is rising the quickest. Regionally, the net spend anticipation remains positive, except in Australia, where no explanation was given.

Thomson Reuters advocates that GCs should evolve how they report expenditure and tie it more directly to business revenue. Similarly, other metrics should be benchmarked against comparable companies and functions to provide a more meaningful comparison of value.

AI as a strategic Priority

AI is changing the world one model at a time. It is, however, new, and GC’s are still finding their way, or rather identifying value from the different use cases. The section highlights some of the benefits observed, including greater efficiency, reduced costs, faster response times, and fewer errors. GCs need to stop experimenting and start thinking strategically about AI.

The report notes: “There is no silver bullet for AI. Instead, its adoption and implementation must be carefully planned in order to receive all of the benefits across the various plates outlined above.”

The section also looks at how AI augments professional skills across five core abilities:

• Technical domain expertise
• Organisational and efficiency skills
• Core practical abilities, such as researching and writing
• Interpersonal effectiveness
• Higher-order thinking

72% of corporate legal professionals said they believe GenAI should be applied to legal work, yet fears remain. There is also an expectation that, properly leveraged, AI might reduce the cost of external legal teams.

While over half of GCs believe that external firms should be using AI, 67% don’t know how they are using it; that gap needs to close. Can GC’s learn from external counsel, or is the reverse true? Clearly, someone needs to take the first step to close that communication gap.

Enterprise Times: What does this mean

This is a solid report with several useful insights and takeaways for the reader. It is well put together, better than many of the reports we review. For GCs and law firms alike, there are some worthwhile findings from the research. More could have been done to compare with the previous year, and if the report is repeated next year, it will be interesting to see further trends analysed.

There is little doubt that AI is shaking up several industries, including the legal profession. What the report may be missing is the ethical use and compliance of AI itself. It could also dive deeper into the impact that AI is having on jobs, certainly next year, as more firms leverage the technology. It will be interesting to better understand the staffing challenges in more detail.

The post GCs Say They’re Delivering—The C Suite Disagrees appeared first on Enterprise Times.