Architects of change: the rise of the creative GC

For years, in-house legal fought for a seat at the table. To be brought into the fold earlier. To be part of the decisions that shape the business, not just the ones that protect it.

Now, in many organisations, that seat is there.

Three-quarters of in-house legal leaders surveyed by LexisNexis earlier this year now have considerable or some influence on board-level decisions. Nearly half are advising across a wide range of strategic issues. It’s a genuine shift. But if you are in the role, it probably doesn’t feel like a moment to pause and reflect on how far things have come. It feels like something else entirely.

Being closer to the business means you’re in the room earlier - but also looked to sooner. You’re expected to pressure-test decisions, call out risks, and help shape the path forward, even when the details are still shifting.

And often, it all lands at once: more questions coming in, decisions already in motion, and very little time to properly dig into the detail.

The role of the GC continues to change and it’s a shift reflected in our latest ‘Architects of Change’ report. Not in being asked for answers, but in helping the business find a way forward. And increasingly, that is where creativity comes in. The GCs who stand out are the ones who can look at the same constraints and still find a way through, reframing problems, spotting solutions early, and helping the business move forward without losing control of risk.

The gap between influence and impact

On paper, legal has made real progress. In LexisNexis’ latest research, 49% of in-house lawyers say legal leaders advise on a wide range of board-level decisions, with a further 27% saying they have some influence. Only a small minority say they are brought in only when needed or when something goes wrong.

But influence doesn’t always translate into impact.

Almost half of in-house lawyers describe their teams as “overstretched”, “cautious”, “siloed” or “hard to access”. This isn’t a small minority, and it reflects the day-to-day reality of teams managing growing demand without the structure or capacity to keep up.

At the same time, much of legal’s time is still spent on work that is essential but not always aligned with where teams want to focus. Just over half of teams are currently prioritising checking data use and privacy in digital projects. Nearly half are managing regulatory risks in supply chains and automation. Yet only around a third say these should be priorities going forward.

There is a clear disconnect between where time is going and where legal can add the most value.

Business pressure and the impact on legal

When you look at where the business is really pushing legal, a pattern emerges. It is not only about volume. It is about visibility. Knowing where risk sits, how it is moving, and being able to step in early rather than catch up later. You can see that pressure showing up in what teams are trying to put in place.

Take AI. Around 39% of in-house lawyers say establishing rules and safeguards is a priority, with a similar number already working on it. Not because it is a nice-to-have, but because without clear guardrails, it is hard to move at pace with any confidence.

It is the same with risk visibility. The same proportion say dashboards to track legal and business risk should be a focus, but only 26% have implemented them. Which means many teams are still being asked to advise without a clear, shared view of what is actually happening.

Contract work tells a similar story. 37% want to prioritise automation and digital templates, but only around a third are doing it today. Among General Counsel, the gap is even wider. The intent is there, but the day-to-day reality has not caught up.

You see it in how decisions play out. Being asked for a view while things are already moving, without a clear line of sight on the risk. The teams that are getting ahead are fixing that. Putting the right structures around risk, decisions, and contracts so they can step in earlier and give a view with something solid behind it.

AI in the legal workflow

AI is already part of how legal teams work.

74% of in-house lawyers are using it for legal research, 69% for drafting internal documents, and 68% for summarisation and analysis. It is also being used in contract drafting and knowledge management, often in the parts of the workflow that are most time-consuming.

The gains in speed are clear. But speed on its own is not the goal. Not in legal. Because when decisions need to be made quickly, the real question is not just how fast you can get to an answer, but how confident you are in it.

That is where the tension sits. 82% of in-house lawyers say they are concerned about inaccurate or fabricated outputs. At the same time, 85% say they feel more comfortable relying on AI when it is grounded in legal-specific solutions.

So, the conversation isn’t really about whether AI is being used. It already is. It’s about what sits behind it. Whether the information can be trusted. Whether the outputs can be relied on. Whether legal can stand behind the decisions it helps shape.

Because without that confidence, speed doesn’t help. It creates hesitation. 

It is why more teams are leaning towards AI grounded in legal sources. The kind built on case law, legislation, and expert commentary, so what comes back can be traced and checked. It is an approach LexisNexis has taken, starting with the law and building AI on top of it, as you see in solutions like Lexis+® with Protégé™.

Creativity under pressure

All of this leads to the same place. Legal has more influence, the pace is faster, the stakes are higher, and the conditions are not changing. 

So, the question is no longer whether legal is involved, but how it operates when it is. The GCs who are making the most impact are not the ones with fewer constraints. They’re working within the same pressure, the same workload, and the same expectations as their peers. What sets them apart is how they respond. 

Creative GCs are those who can reframe risk, align legal thinking with commercial objectives, and help the business move forward with confidence.

In practical terms, that might mean identifying legal risks earlier in the lifecycle of a project rather than at the point of launch, shaping commercial models to reflect risk allocation from the outset, or acting as a strategic partner in decisions around market entry or product development.

It also means bringing a different kind of perspective to the table. One that balances legal rigour with commercial awareness, and that recognises the role legal can play in unlocking opportunity. This is where creativity shows up, in how problems are approached, in how trade-offs are navigated, and in how legal helps the business move forward even when the answer isn’t clear. 

Increasingly, that also means having the right support behind the decision-making itself. 

While many AI tools have been adapted to legal work, Lexis+® with Protégé™ took the opposite approach - built on legal foundations first, grounded in case law, legislation, and expert commentary, then designed to connect drafting, research, and review in one workflow. 

See what this looks like in practice here.