Heather Kidd
Senior Editor & Writer
at LawVu
Written by
Table Of Contents
For years, in-house legal teams have wrestled with the same perception problem. Sales teams are measured by revenue, marketing by pipeline and operations by efficiency gains, while legal often struggles to articulate its contribution in language that resonates beyond the legal department.
That challenge sat at the heart of a recent legal leaders debate in London*, where participants tackled a provocative question: should legal be a revenue generating function? The audience’s answer was decisive. The proposition was defeated by a landslide.
Yet the debate revealed something more interesting. Both sides agreed that legal contributes significantly to commercial success. The disagreement was over whether that contribution should be measured in revenue terms. And that distinction matters.
The most important question facing modern legal departments is not whether they should generate revenue. It is whether legal leaders can clearly demonstrate their contribution to business outcomes while preserving the independence and judgment that organizations depend upon.
The answer will shape not only how legal is perceived, but also how it is funded, trusted and included in strategic decision making.
Harriet Naylor, Head of Legal at shipbroking firm SSY, argued that legal teams already contribute directly to commercial success. Whether supporting acquisitions, negotiating contracts, protecting intellectual property or recovering value through litigation, legal helps drive growth. “You might be introducing your company into new markets and completing the regulatory approvals you need to do so, or introducing new products for your business,” she said.
Legal also plays an increasingly important role in accelerating commercial activity. Faster contract turnaround times can shorten sales cycles. Better templates can reduce friction. Earlier legal involvement can help organizations move more quickly and make better decisions. As legal teams become more embedded in strategic decision making, many are moving beyond their traditional reputation as risk managers and becoming active contributors to business growth.
That evolution is reflected in the expectations placed on today’s GCs. Increasingly, organizations want legal leaders who understand commercial priorities, identify opportunities, and help navigate complexity.
Value creation is not the same as revenue generation
Yet commercial alignment and revenue generation are not the same thing. The strongest counterargument in the debate focused on the professional obligations that distinguish lawyers from other business functions.
“The fit and proper declaration is not an onboarding formality,” argued Josie Norris, Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance at LawVu. “It’s a promise to the regulator, to your company, to yourself that your judgment is independent.”
Her concern was not that legal should avoid contributing to business success. Rather, it was that introducing revenue targets could create conflicts that compromise legal’s role as an independent adviser.
“The moment legal is revenue generating, a red flag costs the entire team money,” she said.
Whether or not one agrees with that conclusion, the underlying principle deserves serious consideration. Legal occupies a unique position within organizations. It is expected to support growth while also protecting the business from unnecessary risk. At times, those responsibilities align perfectly. At other times, they create tension.
The value of legal often lies in its willingness to ask difficult questions, challenge assumptions or slow a decision when the risks outweigh the rewards. Business leaders must believe that legal advice is driven by sound judgment rather than financial incentives.
Why legal still struggles to prove its value
This is why the revenue debate may ultimately be the wrong debate. The real issue is measurement.
Legal does not suffer from a value problem. It suffers from a visibility problem. Much of its contribution happens behind the scenes, making it harder to measure and communicate than functions whose impact appears directly on a balance sheet.
Legal’s impact is frequently indirect, preventative, or distributed across multiple business outcomes.
As Danny Bugler, Associate General Counsel at The Trade Desk noted, one of legal’s greatest challenges is attribution. A contract negotiated successfully, a regulatory issue identified early, or a risk avoided entirely may have enormous business value, yet that value rarely appears in conventional performance metrics.
Success often means something never happened; that creates a communication challenge as much as a measurement challenge. Traditional metrics such as contracts reviewed, matters closed, or hours spent provide useful operational data but rarely tell a compelling business story. They describe activity rather than outcomes.
The legal leaders gaining influence today are increasingly focusing on a different set of measures: contract cycle times, product launch speed, automation gains, compliance outcomes, and the role legal plays in accelerating strategic initiatives. Most importantly, they translate legal work into a language the business understands.
Reducing contract turnaround times by four days is not merely an operational improvement. It is a contribution to faster sales execution. Improving regulatory readiness is not simply a compliance exercise. It may enable entry into new markets. Strengthening governance is not only about risk management. It can support sustainable growth and investor confidence.
The distinction is important. Legal does not need to become a sales function to earn a strategic seat at the table. Nor should it abandon the independence that allows it to serve as an effective adviser. What it does need is a stronger value narrative. Legal leaders who can connect legal activity to strategic business objectives are often better positioned to secure investment, influence decision-making, and expand their role within the organization.
The most successful legal leaders are balancing commercial alignment with professional independence. They help drive business outcomes while retaining the judgment to challenge decisions when necessary. That balance may be legal’s greatest competitive advantage.
The future of the function will not be determined by whether lawyers carry revenue targets. It will be determined by whether they can demonstrate, in business terms, how their work enables growth, protects value, and improves decision-making.
In an environment where every function is being asked to justify investment, value and revenue are not the same thing. The legal teams that thrive will be those that can clearly explain the difference.
LawVu’s 2026 Legal Leaders Connect concluded with a provocative discussion on the evolving role of legal in modern organizations: Should legal be a revenue-generating function? The panelists were Harriet Naylor, Josie Norris, Danny Bugler, and Eduard Alia. To see more from the event click here.
