According to Financial Times News, legal departments are undergoing a tech revolution with four leaders driving massive efficiency gains. Farrah Pepper at Marsh McLennan saved $9 million last year by bringing legal data in-house, cutting retrieval times in half. Andreas Vosskamp at Adecco built custom triage software that boosted his US legal team’s efficiency by 40%. Maria Pedrosa Martínez at Repsol uses AI startup Harvey to save lawyers six hours weekly on contract drafting. And Ron Wills at CrowdStrike saw AI cut IP advice spending in half and reduce “prior art” costs by 90%, even while handling the massive July 19, 2024 outage that crippled global IT systems.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The data revolution
What’s fascinating here is how these legal teams are building their own tools rather than just buying off-the-shelf solutions. Pepper’s team includes former technologists working directly with IT – that’s crucial because legal workflows are so specific. When she talks about answering “yes or no questions” quickly, that’s the kind of simple automation that actually moves the needle. But here’s the thing: bringing data in-house sounds great until you consider the security implications. Legal data is incredibly sensitive, and building robust internal systems isn’t cheap or easy.
Custom tools vs AI hype
Vosskamp’s approach at Adecco is particularly smart – building triage software that shows exactly where bottlenecks are happening. That 40% efficiency gain didn’t come from some fancy AI model, but from better workflow management. Now, they’re using Harvey for document work, but the real wins came from solving basic communication problems. This is where many companies get it wrong – chasing AI headlines while ignoring fundamental process issues. Basically, if your team can’t track who’s working on what, no amount of AI will save you.
The human factor
Pedrosa’s hybrid team at Repsol shows how legal ops is evolving beyond just tech implementation. She’s dealing with cyber attack response and digital law compliance – areas that require both legal expertise and technical understanding. The training partnerships with IE and Harvard are interesting because they’re creating standardized methodologies. But let’s be real – getting experienced lawyers to change how they work is incredibly difficult. The six hours saved weekly sounds impressive, but I wonder how much time went into training and change management.
Crisis as catalyst
Wills’ experience at CrowdStrike is the ultimate stress test. That July outage was catastrophic, and the legal team working “around the clock” shows how critical they become during crises. What’s remarkable is how the crisis accelerated their AI adoption rather than slowing it down. Cutting IP spending by half and prior art costs by 90% is massive – but I’m skeptical about whether those savings account for the initial implementation costs and ongoing maintenance. And when we’re talking about AI agents sifting through millions of documents, the accuracy concerns are very real. One wrong “needle” could cost millions in litigation.
The bigger picture
What strikes me is how all four approaches are different yet successful. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution here. Pepper focuses on data management, Vosskamp on workflow, Pedrosa on training and compliance, Wills on crisis response and IP. The common thread? They’re all solving specific business problems rather than just implementing technology for technology’s sake. And honestly, that’s where most corporate tech initiatives fail. They buy the shiny new thing without understanding what problem they’re actually trying to solve. These legal leaders get that it’s about making the business faster and more efficient, not about having the coolest tech stack.
