Chris Mooney

Legal teams are losing credibility fast. And it has nothing to do with your legal expertise. A General Counsel confided in me recently: "The board trusts my legal judgement completely. They just don't trust me to run an efficient operation." We've perfected the art of legal analysis whilst completely neglecting the basics of business operations. The evidence is everywhere. Finance directors demanding justification for every legal pound spent. Chief executives bypassing legal because "it takes too long." Board papers questioning whether legal adds value or just adds delay. Here's the brutal reality - exceptional legal advice delivered through dysfunctional operations equals irrelevance. You might draft the perfect contract, but if it takes three weeks to turn around, that's what gets remembered in the boardroom. The legal functions that command real respect have cracked something the rest haven't - they run like businesses, not academic departments. They measure what matters. They eliminate waste ruthlessly. They deliver predictably and professionally. They've recognised a fundamental truth: credibility comes from operational excellence as much as legal excellence. Their stakeholders don't just trust their legal judgement - they trust their ability to deliver results efficiently and cost-effectively. The transformation isn't complicated. Start treating your legal function like the business operation it actually is. Track performance metrics that matter to the business. Optimise processes that create value. Manage resources like every pound counts. Because in today's environment, legal competence without operational competence equals professional suicide. The question isn't whether you're a good lawyer - it's whether you're running a credible business function. #legalops #generalcounsel #legalleadership

106

4 Comments

There's a huge discrepancy in General Counsel salaries, which often frustrates people. But in reality, there's a reason for this, and I think it's because there are three levels to being a GC. Level one is to provide top quality legal advice. You tell the business what they need to know, providing legal insights. That's good stuff, and necessary for a business, but in reality a significant amount of your time is managing external counsel. Level two adds in strategic input - what's good for the business' goals, offering actionable risk insights, and bridging that gap between legal and the commercial side of the business. But level three is something else entirely, they do two key things: 1) they sense problems early and prevent them from happening. It's not about saying 'we've looked at the facts and here's our solution to this'. It's about saying 'don't worry, we already knew this might happen, we prepared our legal and business tactics to mitigate this 2 years ago, and we've already fixed it'. 2) they're psychologists. They translate complex challenges into clear, manageable information, but the key is that their communication is outstanding. They know how to manage the CEO's ego, how to work with sales to keep their energy high during a collapsing transaction, how to understand the CFO's financial motivations whilst still explaining that something isn't long-term the right move. They guide leadership and colleagues without threatening their autonomy and freedom to make commercial decisions. The CEO still feels in control, the business stays focused on profits, and legal risk is handled long before it becomes a commercial distraction. Want to keep your budgets low? That's ok, you'll get good lawyers and good strategists. But when you pay top-dollar, you get someone who can take bad news and make it a highlight of your day, meaning you continue to be able to focus on the things that matter to you.

36

8 Comments

How successful is Lawfront? Reading through The Legal 500 UK 2026 rankings, I found myself asking: what impact have we had on the market for regional legal services in England? The answer surprised me. The Data Across our six member firms—Brachers, Farleys, Fisher Jones Greenwood, Nelsons, Slater Heelis, and Trethowans—we've secured 81 Legal 500 rankings in regional England (excluding London). Based on my reading, that's greater breadth than any legal services business in England for regional law! For context: - 14 Tier 1 rankings - 29 Tier 2 rankings - 53% of all rankings in the top two tiers Coverage spans South East (35 rankings), North West (20), East Midlands (19), and South West (14) What Legal 500 Rankings Don't Tell You Here's what matters as much as the numbers: these rankings reflect six firms that still operate as Brachers, Farleys, Fisher Jones Greenwood, Nelsons, Slater Heelis, and Trethowans. Local partnerships intact. Regional identities preserved. Client relationships maintained. What changed: shared technology infrastructure (Project Drive, Katchr, ShareDo), operational standards, knowledge management, and the ability to recruit at platform scale rather than as individual 150-200 lawyer regional firms. Rankings measure recognition. They don't measure client satisfaction, profitability, lawyer retention, or operational efficiency. They're one signal among many. A Challenge to the Market I'm genuinely curious: has anyone achieved higher combined Legal 500 recognition in regional England outside London? If you're operating a similar model and you've scored higher, I'd like to know about it. What Constitutes Success? This is the real question. Is success measured by: - Total rankings breadth? - Tier 1 concentration? - Revenue growth? - Lawyer satisfaction scores? - Client retention rates? - Something else entirely? I'd argue it's all of these. For Lawfront, success means proving that regional firms can perform at national level without sacrificing local identity or client relationships. The Legal 500 results suggest we're moving in the right direction. Your Perspective? If you're operating in regional legal services—as a firm leader, managing partner, or platform operator—what metrics matter most to you? And if you've achieved stronger Legal 500 performance than our 81 combined rankings in regional England, I'm genuinely interested in hearing about it. The market needs more transparency on what works, not just who ranks where. https://lnkd.in/emzNXEp9

91

4 Comments

Introducing Mishcon de Reya's latest guide, providing a concise overview of the key competition law principles under UK law relevant to start-ups and growing companies. Download your copy for practical guidance to help new businesses operate legally and ethically while fostering innovation and growth, from Gwen Ballin-Reeler and Chanelle Cattin: https://lnkd.in/gZQay-35

48

1 Comment

Can the SRA Hide Behind Its Own Disclaimer? The SRA's guidance letters include this caveat: "This guidance should not be treated as a formal ruling on the matter, and is not binding on solicitors, their clients, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Legal Ombudsman, or the Courts" But should the regulator shelter behind disclaimers when its interpretation proves wrong? The Mazur case has exposed the SRA's fundamental misinterpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007. Yet practitioners who relied on SRA guidance found themselves facing shifted regulatory ground. The disclaimer in effect says: "We'll tell you what we think, but if we're wrong, you're on your own." Who bears the risk of regulatory error? If guidance carries a disclaimer that it might be wrong and isn't binding on anyone—including the SRA itself—what value does it have? Solicitors face an impossible choice: - Follow SRA guidance and risk being wrong - Ignore it and risk regulatory action - Pay for legal advice to second-guess the regulator Mazur showed that the SRA got it wrong on fundamental legal sector law. Can a regulator really function when it pre-emptively distances itself from its own guidance while still expecting compliance? What are your experiences with SRA guidance? Has the disclaimer affected how you approach regulatory queries? The profession needs to consider whether this approach serves anyone's interests—including those of clients and the public.

54

15 Comments

LexisNexis report: Over 60% of UK lawyers now ‘use GenAI’, but law firm culture slows progress Sixty-one percent of lawyers say they are now using generative AI in their work, according to a new report out today (2 September) from LexisNexis, but two-thirds say slow organisational cultures risk undermining progress. Despite headline adoption clearly escalating, it is important to note that 11% of lawyers said they are using GenAI heavily for day-to-day work and that number drops to 7% at large and medium-sized firms. There are some interesting and wide-ranging findings in here, take a look. I haven't reported on how lawyers would use the time they save from using GenAI (more work or work/life balance) because I'm not clear on whether a significant amount of time is yet being freed up. #legaltech #legalservices #generativeai https://lnkd.in/e4dR3N7C

27

5 Comments