Legal as the gas pedal
Sterling Miller on the future of in‑house legal
Risk avoided, issues flagged, and problems contained before they escalate.
Success has often been measured by what did not happen. That model is no longer sufficient.
According to Sterling Miller, COO, General Counsel, and Senior Counsel at Hilgers Graben PLLC, “the future of in-house legal will be defined not by how effectively it minimizes risk, but by how meaningfully it contributes to business outcomes.”
As organizations move faster, compete more aggressively, and operate in increasingly complex environments, legal teams are expected to do more than protect the business.
They are expected to help it win.
This shift requires a fundamental rethinking of how legal measures its performance, how it delivers its services, and how it positions itself within the organization. The most important change is not structural – it is conceptual.
Legal must move from being a cost center to being understood as a driver of value.
For decades, legal departments have relied on metrics that are easy to track but difficult to connect to business impact. Number of contracts reviewed. Volume of matters handled. Outside counsel spend. Internal response times.
These metrics provide visibility into activity. But they say very little about value. They do not answer the question that matters most to the business: How is legal contributing to outcomes?
The business doesn’t care how many contracts you reviewed. They care how quickly deals get done. This gap between activity and impact has allowed legal to operate with limited scrutiny for many years.
That is changing. As organizations become more data-driven, every function is expected to demonstrate its contribution in terms that align with business performance. Legal is no exception.
The traditional role of legal has been grounded in risk management:
Miller notes, “the business now expects the legal department to be part of how the business wins.”
This expectation changes how legal defines its role. It is not enough to prevent negative outcomes; legal must also enable positive ones.
This includes:
This shift aligns with broader changes across the series. Lisa Mather highlights how speed has become a defining constraint. Mark Smolik emphasizes that influence depends on trust and credibility. Bjarne Tellmann points to the increasing complexity legal must interpret.
Miller’s contribution is to connect those ideas to value.
If legal helps the business move faster, make better decisions, and execute more effectively, it is not just supporting the business. It is contributing to its success.
One of the most effective ways to reframe legal’s impact is through a simple concept.
Most notably, Miller suggests legal identifies, “how long does it take to get to yes?” This idea, often referred to as “time to yes,” captures something that traditional metrics miss.
It reflects how quickly legal enables decisions for the business and connects directly to business outcomes. It also highlights where legal creates friction. A long cycle of time does not just reflect internal inefficiency. It can delay revenue, slow product launches, and create frustration for stakeholders.
By contrast, reducing time to yes has a measurable impact on performance. Deals close faster. Projects move forward more quickly. Teams operate with greater confidence.
This metric also reinforces a broader point made by Mather. Speed is not a trade-off against quality. It is a requirement for relevance.
Metrics alone do not change how legal operates. They reflect underlying behavior. Improving outcomes requires a shift in how legal engages with the business.
This includes:
Legal teams that consistently help move decisions forward build credibility over time.
That credibility becomes trust. And that trust, as Smolik emphasizes, determines whether legal is included in the conversations that matter most.
In this sense, value creation is not just about efficiency. It is about influence.
As demand for legal support continues to grow, many teams find themselves under increasing pressure.
More work, greater complexity, and higher expectations. The instinctive response is to work harder or add resources. But this approach does not scale.
“You can’t hire your way out of this problem,” says Miller.
Legal must find ways to extend its impact beyond direct involvement in every task. This is where scalability becomes critical. And where operating model design begins to shape outcomes.
One of the most effective ways to scale legal is through self-service.
Providing business teams with the tools, templates, and guidance they need to handle routine matters independently. This does not mean removing legal from the process.
It means enabling legal to focus where it adds the most value.
Self-service can include:
When implemented effectively, these systems reduce bottlenecks, improve consistency, and allow legal to operate at scale.
This approach aligns closely with the platform model described by Lisa Mather. Both perspectives reflect a shift away from legal as a function that processes work and toward legal as a system that enables the business to operate more efficiently.
To deliver both scale and impact, legal teams are increasingly adopting hybrid operating models.
These typically include:
This structure allows legal to allocate resources more effectively.
Routine work is handled through systems. Complex issues receive focused attention. Strategic decisions benefit from close collaboration between legal and the business.
But as Paula Pépin emphasizes, designing this model is only part of the challenge.
The real work lies in implementation. Processes must be clearly defined. Ownership must be established. Adoption must be actively managed. Without execution, even the best-designed model will fall short.
As legal shifts toward value creation, it must also change how it is perceived within the organization. This is not just a matter of messaging, but a reflection of behavior.
When legal consistently enables progress, it is seen differently.
It becomes:
Over time, this changes the relationship between legal and the business.
Legal is no longer viewed primarily as a cost.
It is seen as a contributor to performance. This shift reinforces the broader theme across the series. Legal’s influence is not determined by its formal role. It is determined by the value it delivers.
The future of in-house legal will not be defined by how effectively it manages risk alone. While that remains a critical responsibility, it is no longer the differentiator. The differentiator is value.
Legal teams that succeed will be those that can demonstrate, clearly and consistently, how they contribute to business outcomes.
They will measure what matters, design systems that scale, and enable faster decisions. Critically, they will embed themselves in the processes that drive performance.
In doing so, they will shift how legal is understood within the organization.
It will no longer be seen as a function that slows things down, but as one that helps the business move forward. Because in the future of in-house legal, success will not be defined by what is prevented.
It will be defined by what is made possible.
