Why Every Successful Legal Department Transformation Starts with a Current Status Assessment

Introduction

Any legal department transformation that does not begin with a clear assessment of the current state of the legal team is starting on unstable ground, no matter how well intentioned the initiative may be.

A Current State audit provides legal leaders with a detailed, evidence-based understanding of how their legal function is actually operating today, before decisions are made about what needs to change, what should be preserved, and how improvement should be sequenced.

It allows the legal department to identify genuine transformation targets, establish credible performance baselines, incorporate internal client feedback, and engage the legal team itself in a way that grounds the transformation plan in reality rather than assumption.

Without this discipline, transformation efforts are typically poorly targeted, difficult to prioritise, and hard to justify internally, with progress assessed by perception rather than demonstrable improvement.

For this reason, a Current State audit is not a preliminary formality but a critical piece of business intelligence, providing the foundation for strategic planning, operational decision-making, and transformation outcomes that can be measured, explained, and sustained.

The purpose of this article is to make one clear, stabilising case: The safest, most efficient and most defensible way to approach legal department transformation is to begin with a rigorous Current Status Assessment.

Transformation carries risk - but unstructured transformation carries far more

In-house legal leaders are right to perceive transformation as carrying personal and professional risk. 

A poorly chosen initiative, an ill-timed technology investment, or a transformation roadmap that fails to land can have real consequences: financial, reputational, and career-related.

These risks are often cited as reasons for delay or caution. But there is an equally important reality that deserves more attention: the risks inherent in doing nothing, or in transforming without structure and evidence, are significantly greater.

Inaction does not preserve stability. It allows inefficiency, fragmentation and misalignment to compound quietly. Over time, Legal becomes reactive, harder to defend, and increasingly disconnected from business priorities.

By contrast, well-designed transformation is not reckless. It is one of the most effective ways to protect the legal function - provided it is approached correctly.

That “provided” is where most problems arise.

The three questions every in-house legal leader must answer - in the right order

Every transformation agenda eventually comes back to the same three questions. The order in which they are addressed matters.

1. What does an optimally performing in-house legal function actually look like?

Many leaders are asked to transform without ever having been shown a clear, operational picture of what “good” looks like.

“Best practice” is often: vague, generic, vendor-driven, or detached from real-world constraints. 

Without a credible reference model, transformation becomes aspirational rather than engineered.

2. How is my legal function performing compared to that optimised standard?

This is the most confronting step - not because teams are underperforming, but because most legal departments have never been examined at a process and performance level across their core activities.

Without this comparison: gaps cannot be quantified, priorities cannot be defended, and investment decisions remain exposed.

3. Where do we actually start?

This is not a motivational question. It is a sequencing question. Starting in the wrong place: wastes time, consumes political capital, and creates change fatigue. Starting in the right place creates momentum and trust.

Only a rigorous Current Status Assessment allows all three questions to be answered calmly and credibly.

The GLS transformation methodology - context before action

GLS transformation projects follow a four-stage methodology designed to reduce risk and maximise efficiency.

Stage 1: Current Status Assessment: Build a data-based model of how the legal function actually performs today. It is the essential first step. 

Stage 2: Benchmarking: Compare the current state to an informed, best-in-class reference model.

Stage 3: Solution Design: Translate insight into a transformation plan that is consciously planned across three time horizons:

◼️short-term execution (typically a 100-day sprint),
◼️mid-term stabilisation and scaling (6–18 months),
◼️long-term transformation and optimisation (18–36 months).

This approach recognises that durable transformation is achieved through steady, cumulative progress — not shock events. Choosing a safe model for transformation is key.

Stage 4: Implementation: Deliver sequenced, modular change in a way that is deliberately biased toward success, adoption and credibility. 

This Blog focuses on Stage 1, because weaknesses here create inefficiency, rework and risk in every stage that follows.

Why the Current Status Assessment is non-negotiable

A Current Status Assessment is not an administrative precursor. It is the enabling infrastructure for intelligent transformation.  Skipping it does not save time. It simply pushes cost, risk and confusion into later stages. Below are the efficiencies that are routinely missed when transformation begins without a proper current-state model. You simply must have a data based view of where you are at in order to plan the most efficient pathway to where you want to be - and to demonstrate that you have arrived. 

What is lost when transformation starts without a current state?

Solving the loudest problem, not the most constraining one

Without data, priorities tend to follow the same patterns: the most recent escalation, the loudest internal client, or the most compelling technology demonstration.

A Current Status Assessment forces a more disciplined question: what is actually constraining end-to-end legal performance?

That distinction alone prevents months of misdirected effort.

Designing roadmaps without a mandate

Transformation initiatives are funded by evidence, not intent. A current-state model allows a GC to articulate:

◼️what is happening today,
◼️where friction and cost are created,
◼️what the business actually values,
◼️and what improvement will deliver in practical terms,
◼️and the most efficient pathway to achieve that.

Without that, transformation lacks authority -  regardless of how sensible it appears.

Missing zero-cost and low-cost opportunities

Almost every legal department contains underutilised assets:
 

◼️templates and precedents,
◼️informal playbooks,
◼️strong individuals deployed sub-optimally,
◼️workable service provider arrangements,
◼️data already being captured but never reported.

Without a structured assessment, these assets remain invisible - and teams spend money solving problems they already have partial answers to.

Selecting technology before understanding workflow reality

Technology rarely delivers its promised value without first understanding:
 

◼️intake behaviour,
◼️triage logic,
◼️escalation thresholds,
◼️approval authority,
◼️exception handling,
◼️and reporting needs
 

The Current Status Assessment prevents technology from becoming an expensive overlay rather than a genuine operating upgrade.

Sequencing work incorrectly

Transformation is cumulative. Some improvements only work once others are in place.  Without a current-state model, sequencing is guesswork. Guesswork leads to stalled initiatives and lost momentum.

Being unable to prove progress

Without a baseline:
 

◼️improvement cannot be measured,
◼️value cannot be demonstrated,
◼️and Legal does not receive credit.

The result is predictable: early enthusiasm fades, and further investment becomes difficult to justify.

Increasing personal risk for the GC

When decisions are not anchored in evidence, they are harder to defend. A Current Status Assessment shifts transformation from personal judgement to structured governance — materially reducing professional risk.

What the Current Status model enables

A rigorous Current Status Assessment produces a working model of the legal department - not opinion, not anecdote. That model enables:

Resourced decision-making
 

◼️realistic capacity planning
◼️identification of under-utilised resources
◼️honest assessment of change bandwidth

Prioritised decision-making
 

◼️alignment to what the business truly values
◼️defensible sequencing of initiatives
◼️elimination of low-value activity

Leveraged decision-making
 

◼️identification of foundational interventions
◼️focus on elements that generate productivity ripple effects
◼️scaling of effective practices across multiple processes

Validated decision-making 
 

◼️baseline measurement
◼️progress tracking
◼️executive-level reporting

This is RPLV applied properly — as a control mechanism, not a concept.

What the Current Status Assessment actually delivers

In practical terms, a GLS Current Status Assessment delivers:

1. A whole-of-function performance map across up to 15 critical legal processes
2. A quantified gap profile distinguishing structural, capability and prioritisation issues
3. Visibility of work flow, friction, rework and bottlenecks
4. A stakeholder value map grounded in internal client input
5. Clear, defensible starting points with sequencing logic
6. Identification of under-utilised assets and immediate leverage opportunities
7. Evidence-based prioritisation that withstands executive scrutiny
8. Baseline metrics to validate improvement over time
9. Early identification of transformation risks and constraints
10. A coherent narrative the GC can confidently own
 

This is not insight for its own sake. It is operational control. 

Many legal leaders worry that an assessment will expose weakness. In practice, the opposite is true. Businesses do not penalise leaders for having a baseline. They penalise surprises, excuses and unmeasurable change.

A weak starting point is not a liability - it is actually an asset. It is easy to show improvements from a low starting base. It is the fastest route to visible improvement and credibility.

Scope discipline: depth only where it matters

GLS applies strict scope discipline. Diagnostics go as deep as required — and no deeper.

Early-stage teams may move quickly to benchmarking.

Mature teams may focus on known pressure points.

Enterprise transformation agendas may dictate immediate alignment.

And just as a small number of medical tests reveal most health indicators, certain legal processes reveal most performance constraints.

The Contracting Line, Internal Client Line, Data Analytics Line, Human Capital Line, General Counsel Line and Service Provider Lines consistently deliver the highest RPLV impact so are excellent focal points for the Current Status assessment.

How GLS supports the Current Status stage

Through the GLS Legal Operations Centre Transformation Tube Map, a world leading transformation planning resource, in-house leaders can:

◼️access diagnostic modules across all 15 critical legal functions,
◼️conduct assessments internally, or
◼️engage GLS to deliver an independent assessment.

GLS-led assessments typically provide: independence and credibility, speed and precision, reduced internal bias, minimal disruption, and certainty of deliverables.

Diagnostic depth is always calibrated collaboratively - only what is required to produce actionable, mandate-ready insight.

The calm conclusion 

If you want transformation that is: efficient, measured, cost-effective, credible, and expandable, then a Current Status Assessment is not optional. It is the step that allows change to be approached with clarity rather than urgency, and with confidence rather than risk.

If you are going to change your legal function, the safest place to start is by understanding it properly. That is what the Current Status stage delivers.

And it is why working with GLS is the most rational way to begin.