A Document Management System (DMS) should make your legal team’s life easier. Yet for many in-house teams, DMS projects fall short. If only they knew these how to avoid 5 common mistakes.

Waste reduction isn’t a one-time fix. Learn how legal teams can embed Lean thinking, leverage the right tools, and empower their people to drive lasting impact.

In-house legal teams are expected to do more than provide legal advice—they’re now essential business partners. But with growing demands and limited resources, even high-performing teams risk losing efficiency due to hidden workflow waste.

Waste is often invisible in legal operations—but its impact is not. Missed deadlines, backlogs, slow approvals, and overwhelmed teams all point to process inefficiencies that quietly erode performance. That’s where the DOWNTIME comes into play.

Under increasing pressure to do more with less, legal departments must transform from reactive cost centers into proactive business enablers. Significant inefficiencies can arise in the workplace Those sources of waste are summarized by DOWNTIME acronym.

Your new Document Management System (DMS) is live. But a month later…emails slow, users revert to old habits, and your shiny new tech feels more like a shelf ornament than a transformation. You’re not alone. The post-go-live slump is one of the most common and frustrating pitfalls for legal ops teams.

A staggering 39% of corporate legal teams report that poor communication is a major barrier to their success. But there’s good news a legal work orchestration solution is purpose-built to resolve this pain point.

Legal operations teams are often tasked with solving complex workflow and resourcing challenges—yet when it comes to choosing the technology meant to solve those problems, too often they’re sidelined.

Change is inevitable in any organization—but for in-house legal teams, the pace and impact of change are particularly intense. So, how do you future-proof your legal tech investments and keep your team agile, engaged, and effective?

Change is inevitable in any organization—but for in-house legal teams, the pace and impact of change are particularly intense. So, how do you future-proof your legal tech investments and keep your team agile, engaged, and effective?

Legal teams under pressure often reach for tech as the fix. But too often, what looks like progress becomes a long-term liability—thanks to technical debt.

Legal departments are under pressure—staffing is tight, workloads are rising, and tech investments often promise more than they deliver. But it's not because the tools themselves are inherently flawed.

In-house legal teams are drowning in complexity, overwork, and burnout. Technology promises relief—but too often delivers more frustration. Why?

Legal departments are spending more on technology than ever before—yet stress, burnout, and turnover continue to rise. WTF?

Legal tech spending is on the rise, yet most teams still face the same frustrations: burnout, inefficiency, and tools that don't deliver. The problem isn’t always the tech—it’s how we choose it.

Legal departments are under pressure to deliver more value with fewer resources. But too often, tech tools fail to solve core problems. Why?

In-house legal departments are under immense pressure. Growing workloads, understaffed teams, and increasing demands from the business have made burnout and attrition more common than ever. It’s no surprise that many legal teams turn to technology as a lifeline. But more often than not, these tech investments fail to deliver meaningful improvement.

Why? Because we’re focusing on the wrong thing.

When assembling an in-house legal team for a sports organization, the parallels between your athletes and your attorneys are surprisingly apt.

We’ve all seen it in sports: the superstar team that loses to a less talented but fundamentally sound opponent. Flashy plays can’t compensate for missed assignments and a lack of cohesion. The lesson?

A recent Axiom Global survey shows that 39% of legal teams struggle with communication. That’s nearly 4 in 10 teams where critical information is misunderstood, misdirected, or missed altogether.