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

Introduction

Legal department transformation is no longer novel. It is no longer discretionary. For many in-house legal leaders, it has become an expected part of the role.

Boards are asking sharper questions about legal spend and risk exposure.

CFOs want predictability and transparency.

Business leaders expect speed, commercial alignment, and pragmatic advice - all bundled up in a call for more “Value”.

Technology vendors promise efficiency, insight, and automation at scale.

Against this backdrop, many legal leaders feel an underlying tension:

change is clearly needed — but the cost of getting it wrong feels high.

 

That tension is understandable. Legal transformation decisions are rarely reversible, often visible, and frequently judged with hindsight.

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.

Not as an academic exercise.

Not as a consulting ritual.

But as the foundational step that allows all subsequent decisions to be made calmly, credibly, and with evidence.

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.

RPLV decision-making: how serious legal leaders reduce transformation risk

GLS approaches legal transformation through a disciplined decision-making framework developed by GLS known as RPLV.

RPLV is not a slogan or a theory. It is a practical filter that ensures transformation decisions are made in a way that is defensible and proportionate.

It requires that decisions be:

◼️Resourced – grounded in the actual capacity, authority, budget and change bandwidth that exist today

◼️Prioritised – sequenced deliberately, with a clear understanding of what matters now versus later

◼️Leveraged – focused on interventions that create multiplier effects across the legal ecosystem

◼️Validated – supported by evidence, metrics and observable outcomes, not belief or optimism

When applied properly, RPLV produces transformation outcomes that are:

◼️self-authored and defensible,

◼️incremental rather than disruptive,

◼️capable of being approved on a “pass and proceed” basis,

◼️credibility-building with the business,

◼️and expandable over time.

But RPLV cannot be applied in a vacuum.

It requires a clear, data-based understanding of where the legal department is starting from.

That is the role of the Current Status Assessment.

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.

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 article 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.

 

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 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.

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 selected without understanding:

◼️intake behaviour,

◼️triage logic,

◼️escalation thresholds,

◼️approval authority,

◼️exception handling,

◼️and reporting needs

◼️rarely delivers its promised value.

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.

No judgement — only clarity and leverage

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 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.