Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A recent report from Major, Lindsey & Africa unpacks the trends shaping how law department leaders are viewing their roles, the makeup of their teams, the use of new technologies, and the extent to which legal services panels will be relied upon.
Major, Lindsey & Africa recently released its Q2 2026 Global Legal Market Conditions Report, which details how law departments are navigating rising workloads, regulatory complexity, and continued cost pressure by way of more deliberate hiring, increased flexibility, and evolving leadership priorities.
In conversation with Lawyers Weekly, the firm’s managing director of in-house counsel recruiting and partner recruiting, Kate Olgers, and partner of in-house counsel recruiting, Olivia Seet, discussed the report’s headline takeaways and how Australia-based GCs are likely to approach the new financial year.
Highly targeted hiring
According to the report, in-house hiring remains steady but highly targeted, with legal teams hiring against specific business needs rather than expanding broadly. When asked what this says about how law departments are thinking about their talent strategies this year, and whether that mindset will continue in FY2026–27, Olgers and Seet said that headcount is a GC’s “most precious commodity”, and becomes more so in environments of uncertainty or constrained growth when the business looks to the centre to take cost out.
“A talent strategy focused on identifying the greatest ongoing business need, understanding the capability and capacity in the current team, and hiring in a targeted way to close any gap in ability to address that need, is a smart and business-focused response to that headcount reality,” they said.
That said, they added, targeted hiring doesn’t always reflect a carefully designed talent strategy.
“In many cases, it just reflects the reality that legal headcount is hard to get approved; so, every role needs to be tied to a clear business problem, with the candidates getting traction being those who can show immediate relevance to that,” Olgers and Seet said.
“There is less appetite for general bench-building or automatic like-for-like replacements on a resignation, with GCs expected to first consider whether the work can be absorbed, automated, outsourced, moved to a lower-cost location, or covered on an interim basis.”
“We anticipate this approach continuing for the foreseeable future, bringing with it the risk that legal teams become efficient in the short term, but underbuilt for succession and future leadership capability.”
Evolving hiring models
Further on the issue of hiring, the normalisation of interim and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) “has been a game changer” for GCs, Olgers and Seet said, amid ongoing pressure to do more with less.
“They are now a real part of the legal resourcing conversation. The better legal teams are becoming more thoughtful about what really needs to sit permanently in-house and what can be dealt with more flexibly through interim lawyers, ALSPs, or other specialist providers,” the pair said.
“For others, they are less a deliberate workforce strategy and more an in-the-moment response to permanent headcount being out of reach or the business need being urgent but not yet clearly permanent. It allows teams to tackle important projects without pushing headcount, and frequently more cheaply than outsourcing to a law firm.”
Importantly, Olgers and Seet said, such recruitment options have created a viable, long-term career path for those who enjoy the variety and relative flexibility of working on a project basis.
“It’s not for everyone, and does require a particular approach and mindset – strong commercial acumen and a high tolerance for ambiguity; the ability to drop into a new environment and hit the ground running, quickly identifying the key stakeholders and getting across the problem to be solved; a willingness to roll up the sleeves; and a lack of concern for titles,” they said.
Changing relationships with external providers
Olgers and Seet were also asked how they see the relationship between in-house teams and external advisers evolving over the next 12 months, as greater scrutiny is placed on external spend and more deliberate choices around how and when to engage firms. The pair noted that, if the US experience is anything to go by, “hourly rate inflation shows little sign of slowing, although that is not always reflected in realisations”.
“In Australia’s smaller market, leading external advisers will likely continue to command premium rates for complex, high-value work. At the same time, legal departments are becoming more deliberate about how work is allocated, matching matters to the provider best suited to deliver value – whether that is a top-tier firm, a boutique, an ALSP or the in-house team itself,” they said.
“GCs are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that external legal spend is driven by value rather than habit. The question is no longer just which firm to instruct, but whether work needs to be outsourced at all and, if so, to whom.”
AI, Olgers and Sett added, is also reshaping the conversation.
“Many in-house leaders now expect external advisers to use technology to improve efficiency, particularly for research, document review, and other process-driven tasks. As AI reduces the time required to complete certain work, clients are increasingly looking for those efficiencies to be reflected in fees,” the pair said.
“This is a theme we are hearing with increasing frequency in client conversations and one that is particularly relevant for senior lawyers responsible for managing legal spend and maintaining P&L discipline.”
“Ultimately, the focus is on ensuring external spend is aligned with value, and that the right resource is being used for the right task.”
AI’s place
The pair also reflected on how the impact of AI is “still to play out” in law departments, with its adoption to date being relatively uneven.
“From a recruitment perspective, the greatest impact is likely to be on lawyers whose value sits mainly in first drafts, summaries, basic research, or high-volume, commoditised work, who are already under pressure to be faster and more efficient,” Olgers and Seet said.
“Employers are not necessarily looking for ‘AI lawyers’. Rather, they are looking for lawyers who are comfortable with AI and who understand the governance and risk issues and can work with the business on responsible use.”
“The lawyers who will stand out are those who can use AI well, but still bring judgement, commercial framing, stakeholder influence, and a clear view on risk. As in private practice, we may also see an uptick in demand for lawyers with skills in data governance, IP, and technology transactions.”
The bigger opportunity for legal departments, Olgers and Seet said, will come in the form of using AI to help think through how work can best be triaged, delegated, supervised, and delivered.
“Few lawyers are putting their hands up to spearhead this yet, but those who do will become more valuable as technology improves and expectations around AI use increase.”
Leadership opportunities
Finally, the pair reflected on the report’s focus on the elevated demand for GC and deputy GC positions, what it signals about leadership priorities across the board, and how aspiring leaders can put themselves forward for such vocational opportunities in FY26–27 and beyond.
On such matters, Olgers and Seet said, the Australian market has been “somewhat different”.
Despite relatively high CEO turnover, they said, “many GCs have stayed the course, leaving their long-suffering deputies waiting patiently for movement at the top”. Even so, the pair added, changes in CEO and senior executive leadership remain pivotal moments, often requiring legal leaders to re-establish their credibility and influence with a new executive team.
“Succession planning is now, sensibly, more commonplace, with the plans increasingly including names from outside the organisation. Of relevance to aspiring legal leaders is the increasing competition from, and willingness of CEOs to hire, law firm partners,” they said.
The advice offered hasn’t changed, Olgers and Seet said: “Doing good legal work is table stakes.”
“Beyond that, aspiring leaders need to identify any gaps in their GC toolkit and find ways to overcome or compensate for those (e.g. moving from unlisted to listed can be a heavy lift); develop and prove their leadership skills at the scale and complexity of team which they aspire to lead; be curious, and expand their presence and impact around their current organisation beyond the limits of their role; and actively raise their industry profile through targeted networking, speaker opportunities, thought leadership and the like,” they said.
“A candidate won’t make it to a recruiter’s market map or a GC/CPO’s succession plan if they’re bunkered down and invisible.”
With CEO and senior executive turnover still high, Olgers and Seet said, legal leaders “also need to be able to re-establish credibility quickly with new leadership and show that their value is not dependent on one CEO, CFO or internal sponsor; demonstrating commercial judgement, adaptability and value to the business, not just loyalty, institutional knowledge or strong internal relationships”.
Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of professional services (including Lawyers Weekly, HR Leader, Accountants Daily, and Accounting Times). He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.
You can email Jerome at:
