June 2026

The hidden problem draining legal teams

By David Curtain

It’s not always a workload problem

When I speak with GCs about the challenges facing their teams, the conversation almost always finds its way back to workload. The symptoms are familiar: too many requests, competing priorities, pressure from the business and a constant sense that there is never quite enough time to get to the work that really matters.

What’s interesting, though, is that legal workload is often not the real problem.

In many cases, the issue is that legal teams have gradually become responsible for an ever-expanding range of activities, some of which require legal expertise and some of which simply ended up in Legal because no one made a deliberate decision about where else they should sit. The distinction is important because, over time, those small decisions accumulate and begin to shape how the entire organisation interacts with Legal.

How work finds its way into Legal

Consider how many requests arrive with good intentions but questionable ownership. A team wants reassurance before proceeding with a low-risk decision. A document is sent to Legal because “it’s always been reviewed by Legal.” An orphaned area responsibility which has nothing to do with Legal quietly lands in the team. None of these situations seems particularly significant in isolation, which is often why they are so difficult to manage.

The challenge is that low-value work rarely presents itself as low-priority work. It often comes wrapped in urgency, risk or process. It feels easier to review the document, answer the question or attend the meeting than to stop and ask whether Legal is actually the right team to be involved.

Over time, however, that pattern creates consequences.

The best teams are clear about their role

The legal teams I see operating most effectively are not necessarily the largest or best resourced. More often, they are the teams that have developed a shared understanding of where Legal creates value and where it doesn’t. They have clear views about which matters deserve legal attention, which can be handled through templates or self-service resources, and which belong elsewhere in the business altogether.

Capacity starts with choices

Organisations frequently jump straight to solutions such as new technology or additional headcount. Those things can absolutely help. But they are unlikely to solve the problem if the team hasn’t decided what work it should and shouldn’t be doing.

I’ve seen legal teams implement sophisticated intake systems only to discover they have simply become more efficient at processing work that adds little value. I’ve also seen relatively small teams create significant capacity by establishing clearer boundaries and giving the business practical alternatives for routine requests.

The art of redirection

‘No’ lands better when framed as a redirect. Use language that recognises the request and points to a solution. Some version of: “We’re not the right people to solve this, but here are the resources and steps you can take to own the outcome.” That approach shifts Legal from being a blocker to being a practical guide. 

How to put this into practice:

• Audit the various work types Legal currently does. This is easier if you have a matter management system, but if not, just make a list based on a representative sample e.g. 2-4 weeks.
• Of those work types, ask – what needs legal qualifications? What doesn’t belong here?
• Define the core responsibilities of Legal. You can break this into categories like:
  • Definitely for Legal 
  • Definitely not for Legal
  • Borderline 
• For anything ‘borderline’, decide how you want to deal with these issues e.g.
  • Can you prepare guidance to help stakeholders do this work?
  • Can you use available tech tools to automate part/all of it?
  • Should Legal act as an escalation point if they get stuck? 
• Document these responsibilities at a level that is easily understood both within Legal and by stakeholders, including signposts to access relevant guidance/tools and when and how to escalate to Legal.
• Tell people about the adjustment to these responsibilities. This requires discussion and alignment with impacted stakeholders, and clear communications with a good explanation of why they’re happening. 

Making these changes  is likely to involve trial and refinement. Get feedback to understand what’s working and what needs to be adjusted. This is easier if you can capture data to help track how well things are working.  

Protecting attention

None of this is about making Legal less accessible or creating barriers between lawyers and the business. In fact, the opposite is true. The strongest legal functions are deeply embedded in the organisations they support. But they are much more intentional about how their expertise is used.

Managing workload is less about finding ways to do ‘more of the same’, and more about being deliberate where attention is spent. Legal expertise is a finite resource. Every hour devoted to a low-priority task is an hour unavailable for a strategic project, a complex negotiation or assessing a tricky risk issue.

The teams that navigate this well understand that protecting capacity requires clear priorities, clear ownership and, perhaps most importantly, the confidence to recognise (and tell their stakeholders) that not every problem is a legal problem.