From gatekeeper to business enabler
Mark Smolik on the future of in‑house legal
Legal should move closer to the business. It should become a strategic partner. It should be involved earlier in decision-making.
But positioning alone does not create influence.
According to Mark Smolik, CLO at DHL Supply Chain Americas, “the defining factor shaping the future of in-house legal is not where legal sits within the organization – it is how it is perceived and the value they deliver. Legal teams that are truly embedded in the business are not there by default. They are there because they have earned trust.”
That trust is built over time, through consistency, commercial understanding, and a willingness to engage in decisions rather than stand apart from them. As expectations of legal continue to expand, the ability to influence outcomes will depend less on authority and more on credibility.
The shift from gatekeeper to business enabler is not a structural change. It is a relational one.
The phrase “strategic partner” has become one of the most widely used and least examined ideas in modern legal leadership. For many teams, it has become an aspiration without a clear definition. Legal should be more strategic. More aligned. More embedded.
But what does that actually mean in practice?
Too often, it is interpreted as a change in positioning rather than a change in behavior. Legal attends more meetings. Joins earlier conversations. Is included in planning discussions. And yet, in many organizations, the perception of legal does not fundamentally change.
It is still seen as:
This is the gap Smolik highlights: “Being present is not the same as being influential. Just being invited to the table doesn’t mean you have a voice at the table.”
Influence is not granted through structure. It is earned through trust.
Trust is often discussed in abstract terms. But within an organization, it is highly specific.
It is built when business leaders believe that legal:
When the business trusts you, they bring you in earlier. They rely on your judgment. They see you as part of the solution.
This creates a reinforcing cycle. As trust increases, legal is involved earlier in decisions. As involvement increases, legal gains more context. With more context, legal can provide better guidance. And that, in turn, builds more trust.
The opposite dynamic is equally true.
When legal is perceived as overly cautious, disconnected, or slow, business teams begin to limit engagement. Legal is brought in later, often after key decisions have already been made.
At that point, legal’s role becomes reactive. And its ability to influence outcomes diminishes.
This dynamic connects directly to Lisa Mather’s observation that speed and responsiveness are now central to legal’s effectiveness. Trust is not just about judgment. It is also about whether legal can operate at the pace of the business.
The traditional perception of legal as a gatekeeper is rooted in how the function has historically created value.
Legal was responsible for identifying risk, enforcing boundaries, and preventing mistakes. Those responsibilities remain. But they are no longer sufficient.
Today, organizations expect legal to do more than protect the business. They expect legal to help it move forward.
The role of legal is to help the business accomplish its goals and objectives and, in doing so, finding a path to yes.
This shift sounds straightforward. In practice, it requires a fundamental change in mindset. Instead of asking, “What are the real risks?” legal must also ask, “How can we achieve this outcome within an acceptable level of risk?”
Instead of acting as a checkpoint, legal becomes a partner in problem-solving. This is where legal’s value becomes most visible. Not in identifying obstacles, but in helping the business navigate them.
One of the most important drivers of trust is context.
Legal teams that operate at a distance from the business – reviewing issues in isolation – are limited in their ability to provide practical guidance.
They may be technically correct. But their advice may not fully account for how the business actually operates. Smolik emphasizes the importance of embedding legal within the organization.
Lawyers need to understand:
Without that context, legal advice can feel disconnected. With it, legal becomes far more effective.
This is where Smolik’s perspective aligns with broader shifts in operating models across the series. Embedding legal is not just about proximity. It is about enabling lawyers to develop the context required to exercise sound judgment – a capability Bjarne Tellmann identifies as increasingly central in complex environments.
When trust is weak, the consequences are not always immediately visible. But they are significant.
Business teams may:
In these situations, legal is still present within the organization. But it is not shaping outcomes.
Over time, this creates a gap between the formal role of legal and its actual influence. Closing that gap requires more than structural change. It requires rebuilding how legal is perceived.
Trust is not created through a single initiative. It is built through repeated interactions. It is shaped by how legal shows up in everyday situations:
Small moments accumulate.
A practical answer delivered quickly builds credibility. A thoughtful approach to a complex issue reinforces confidence. A willingness to engage constructively, rather than defaulting to caution, strengthens relationships.
Over time, these interactions define how legal is perceived. This is why trust cannot be delegated. It is built at the individual level through the behavior of every lawyer in the organization.
Many organizations focus on structural changes to improve legal’s effectiveness. Embedding lawyers within business units. Creating centers of excellence. Investing in legal operations and technology.
These changes are important. They create the conditions for legal to operate more effectively. But they do not, on their own, create trust.
Trust is built through how legal uses those structures. An embedded lawyer who behaves like a gatekeeper will not build influence. A centralized team that delivers slow, impractical guidance will not earn credibility.
This is where Smolik’s perspective connects with Paula Pépin’s emphasis on execution. Designing the right model is only part of the challenge. The real work lies in how that model is implemented and how people operate within it.
As expectations evolve, so does the identity of the legal function. It is no longer defined solely by expertise in the law. It is defined by its ability to contribute to business outcomes.
This includes:
In this sense, legal becomes a business function in the fullest sense. Not because it abandons its legal foundation, but because it applies that foundation in a way that directly supports how the organization operates.
This shift is reflected across the broader series.
Lisa Mather focuses on how legal must deliver at speed. Sterling Miller emphasizes measuring success through outcomes like “time to yes”. Tellmann highlights the growing importance of judgment in complex environments.
Smolik’s contribution is to show what makes all of that possible. Trust.
The evolution of in-house legal is often framed as a structural transformation. New operating models. New technologies. New ways of working.
Those changes matter. But they are not the full story. At its core, the future of in-house legal is about influence. And influence is built on trust.
The legal teams that succeed will not simply be those that are closest to the business. They will be the ones the business chooses to rely on. They will be trusted to provide guidance in uncertain situations. Trusted to balance risk and opportunity. Trusted to help move decisions forward.
That trust is not automatic. It is earned.
And in the future of in-house legal, it will be the defining factor that determines whether legal is seen as a constraint… or as a true business enabler.
