The Global Disconnect: Why Legal Departments Are Diagnosing Problems They Can't Solve

Between July and December 2025, legal leaders from three continents gathered to tackle the challenges defining our profession's future. From conferences in Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong to summits across Europe to the ACC Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, a remarkable pattern emerged: despite operating in radically different regulatory environments, markets, and business models, legal departments worldwide are wrestling with nearly identical challenges.  

But here's what struck us most: while every panel brilliantly diagnosed these problems, almost no one discussed how to actually solve them. The conversations stopped at identification. Implementation? That was left as an exercise for the reader.  

This disconnect—between recognizing what needs to happen and having the capacity to make it happen—explains why so many legal departments feel perpetually behind despite being led by increasingly sophisticated general counsel.  

Let's examine what we heard, what's missing, and why the gap matters more than the problems themselves.  

Force #1: The AI Implementation Theater

At the ACC Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, polling revealed something remarkable: organizations reported being "fully implemented and monitored" on AI governance, yet simultaneously couldn't answer basic operational questions about how their policies actually worked.  

The problem isn't that organizations lack AI policies. The problem is they lack execution capability.  

One employment lawyer shared a stunning finding during validation discussions: approximately half the time, organizations discover their AI assessment tools don't work as intended. In some cases, tools produced inverse effects—worse performance on screening tests correlated with better actual job performance. Companies were making consequential hiring decisions based on tools producing the opposite of their intended outcomes.  

Think about that. Half of all AI tools tested showed problems. But most organizations never test at all because they don't have the capacity to validate systematically.  

Compare this to what we observed at APAC conferences, where legal teams demonstrated a more measured approach, focused on strategy, governance, and people enablement rather than racing to adopt every tool. The emphasis was clear: successful AI transformation requires balancing all three elements, not just implementing technology.  

Meanwhile in Europe, attendees admitted they're overwhelmed with vendor outreach while realizing the core issue isn't product selection but departmental readiness. And many organizations simply aren't ready because readiness requires dedicated focus that overstretched legal teams can't provide.  

Takeaway: The readiness gap isn't about having smart lawyers. It's about having capacity for systematic implementation.  

Force #2: How Small Problems Become Catastrophes  

At an environmental emergency response session in Philadelphia, panelists emphasized that small environmental incidents aren't minor problems—they're potential disasters waiting to happen. The Exxon Valdez was cited as the perfect example: one intoxicated captain, and one crew member's intervention could have prevented the entire disaster.  

This "small becomes catastrophic" pattern appeared repeatedly across all three regions, though in different contexts.  

In APAC M&A discussions, panelists described organizations turning over a million documents stored in complete disarray, requiring weeks just to understand what existed. The consequences? Deals delayed, valuations reduced, integration failures. Despite vendor promises, organizations learned they couldn't simply run AI over massive, disorganized document sets and expect quality results.  

In North American AI governance sessions, the "small" problem of inaccurate AI-generated meeting summaries is creating a litigation time bomb. How do you prove what actually happened in meetings when AI-generated summaries contain inaccuracies that no one reviewed or corrected before filing them?  

The pattern is consistent: organizations recognize these risks exist. They understand the importance of addressing them early. But when your five-person legal department is already underwater with daily demands, who has time to organize ten years of M&A documents before the next deal happens?  

Takeaway: The difference between knowing what should be done and having the capacity to do it is where disasters incubate.  

Force #3: Why Judgment Can't Be Automated (but Everyone Keeps Trying) 

APAC conferences provided the clearest articulation of this principle: technology amplifies expertise, it doesn't replace it. Expert-guided AI implementation consistently outperforms both traditional offshore models and generic AI solutions.  

In Philadelphia, this played out dramatically in AI employment law discussions. Panelists questioned how automated decision-making tools actually determine priorities—what information are they using to make these consequential decisions? The answer requires human judgment about business context, role requirements, and organizational culture, not just pattern matching in historical data.  

The right framework emerged from engineering sector discussions: treat AI like an intern. It's beneficial for repetitive, low-risk tasks. It shouldn't replace thoughtful analysis, but can augment it effectively within appropriate guardrails.  

The environmental emergency sessions reinforced why human presence matters physically, not just virtually. An attorney on-scene can secure a ship's logs before they're destroyed, establish a chain of custody for samples, and handle volunteer releases—all requiring real-time judgment about evidence preservation, privilege, and investigation strategy.  

Takeaway: The sweet spot isn't "AI instead of lawyers" or "lawyers instead of AI"—it's expert judgment equipped with appropriate technology. But that requires having experienced lawyers with time to apply judgment systematically, not just reactively.  

Force #4: Relationship Capital as Crisis Currency  

In Philadelphia's outside counsel management session, new general counsels were advised against the common recommendation to fire all existing outside counsel upon taking a role. Organizations with decades of history benefit from outside counsel who have accumulated institutional knowledge that helps new leaders learn their own jobs more effectively.  

APAC conferences emphasized this relationship-building through long-term strategic partnerships. When challenges emerged, those foundational relationship proved invaluable.  

But here's the tension many organizations face: traditional law firm partnerships often lock organizations into fixed engagement structures—monthly retainers, minimum commitments, rate structures that don't flex with actual needs. When work volume fluctuates or priorities shift, general counsels find themselves either underutilizing expensive relationships or scrambling to quickly ramp up capacity.  

Trust-building also requires transparency about advisory roles. As one panelist emphasized, legal counsel should clarify upfront, "My job is to advise you, not make decisions." That clarity builds the trust that performs during crises.  

Takeaway: Building relationship capital requires consistent engagement over time. But that requires legal capacity that isn't constantly firefighting.  

The Synthesis: A Profession Brilliant at Diagnosis, Struggling with Treatment 

Here's what struck us across every legal conference, every region, every topic: panelists identified problems brilliantly but rarely discussed systematic solutions.  

APAC conferences emphasized that legal teams need to be strategic business leaders first, legal gatekeepers second. Absolutely true. But how do you build that capability when you're a five-person legal department stretched across multiple jurisdictions?  

European attendees shared that multiple general counsels approached them seeking help to get their departments in order—playbooks missing or incomplete, templates incomplete, contracts messy and scattered everywhere. Perfect articulation of the problem. But whose job is it to fix that when your team is already underwater?  

North American sessions emphasized that cross-functional governance committees should own AI policy: legal, IT, HR, and compliance working together. Excellent structure. But who facilitates those meetings? Who drafts the frameworks? Who trains 5,000 employees on new protocols when your legal department has four lawyers?  

The pattern is consistent: we know what good looks like. We lack the capacity to build it.  

The Capacity Problem No One's Discussing  

The conversations at these conferences revealed something uncomfortable: the traditional answer to capacity constraints—hire more permanent headcount—increasingly doesn't work.  

Budget constraints are one factor, but they're not the only one. Even when headcount is approved, the hiring process takes months. By the time you find someone, train them, and get them productive, the urgent project that justified the hire has either been abandoned or solved through heroic efforts by your existing team.  

More fundamentally, many of these challenges require specialized expertise that doesn't justify permanent headcount. You need M&A contract review expertise twice a year during acquisitions. You need AI governance implementation skills for six months while you build the program. You need crisis response capability when environmental incidents occur, not on payroll year-round.  

One insight from APAC conferences particularly resonated: legal teams thriving in 2025 share key traits, including strategic foresight, operational discipline, AI readiness, and flexible resourcing, leveraging hybrid teams to meet fluctuating demands.  

That last point—flexible resourcing—appeared prominently in APAC discussions but was largely absent from European and North American sessions. Yet it might be the key enabling all the others.  

You can't build operational discipline with lawyers who lack time for systematic documentation. You can't implement AI governance when your team is drowning in routine work. You can't be strategic business partners when you're reviewing contracts manually because you haven't had time to implement the contract management system you bought two years ago.  

Flexible access to specialized expertise—senior lawyers who bring systematic processes without permanent overhead—solves a fundamentally different problem than traditional outside counsel or additional headcount.  

This is where providers like Axiom enter the picture, though it's worth noting that the model matters more than the specific provider. The concept is accessing experienced attorneys who embed in your team for defined periods, bringing not just legal expertise but operational discipline and systematic implementation capabilities. These aren't junior associates learning on your dime; they're former in-house counsel or senior practitioners who've solved these problems repeatedly and can accelerate your timeline from "we should do this" to "it's done."  

When a client needs AI governance implementation, they're not getting someone learning the field. They're getting attorneys who've developed frameworks across dozens of organizations and can bring proven approaches. When M&A due diligence surfaces 10,000 contracts requiring review, they're not getting manual document-by-document reading; they're getting systematic extraction, standardized analysis, and dashboard reporting showing risk concentration.  

The difference between "we have a problem" and "here's the solution implemented" is often a systematic execution capability that overstretched internal teams simply cannot provide, regardless of talent level.  

Five Questions for 2026  

Based on everything we heard across three continents, here are the questions legal leaders should be asking:  

1.  AI Readiness: Do you have validated evidence that your AI tools work as intended, or are you assuming vendor marketing is accurate?
   • Helpful Article: Beyond the Hype: Why 95% of Legal AI Pilots Fail (And Your Roadmap to Success)
2. Small Signal Monitoring: What systematic process captures "minor" issues before they become catastrophic? Or are you discovering problems only after they've exploded?  
   • Helpful Article: Legal Resilience Needs Disruption: Building a Playbook for 2025 and Beyond
3. Capacity Model: When you need specialized capability—M&A, crisis response, AI governance—is your only option: "hire permanent headcount or struggle through"?  
   • Helpful Report: 2026 Global In-House Legal Study
4. Relationship Infrastructure: Are you building relationships with stakeholders before you need them, or scrambling to establish credibility during crises?  
   • Helpful Article:  Legal's Budgeting Journey to Value
5. Execution Discipline: Are your policies backed by templates, training, and systematic monitoring, or do they sit in binders hoping people figure it out?  
   • Helpful Article: What Is Legal Ops? Why Every Legal Department Needs It Now

If you're uncomfortable with your answers, you're not alone. Legal leaders from Sydney to Singapore to Philadelphia are wrestling with identical challenges.  

The difference between those who are thriving and those who are struggling isn't intelligence, resources, or good intentions. It's recognizing that building permanent internal capabilities for every specialized need is neither feasible nor optimal.

The future of legal—globally—isn't just about smarter technology or better policies. It's about honest recognition of capacity constraints and willingness to solve them through models that provide expertise without permanent overhead.  

That's not speculation. It's what we observed across every region, every topic, every challenge in 2025.  

The question for 2026 isn't whether you will face these challenges. The question is: what capacity model will you use to actually solve them?