Why
In-House
Teams
Keep
Running
Into
The
Same
Friction
In-house
lawyers
are
swimming
in
best
practices.
Every
vendor
offers
them.
Every
consultant
references
them.
Every
policy
framework
promises
alignment
with
them.
Yet
in
the
daily
work
of
partnering
with
product,
engineering,
risk,
or
operations,
something
doesn’t
line
up.
The
guidance
that
looks
solid
on
paper
often
collapses
when
applied
to
real
decisions
inside
a
fast-moving
business.
Most
best
practices
were
designed
for
an
environment
that
moved
slowly.
They
assume
stable
processes,
predictable
systems,
quarterly
release
cycles,
and
long
planning
horizons.
That
world
is
gone.
Today’s
companies
ship
continuously.
They
integrate
AI
into
everything
from
customer
interactions
to
internal
workflows.
They
operate
in
regulatory
conditions
that
shift
every
few
months.
And
they
manage
risks
that
don’t
look
anything
like
the
static
models
we
learned
earlier
in
our
careers.
This
mismatch
creates
friction
that
no
one
talks
about
directly.
Legal
is
asked
to
uphold
standards
that
no
longer
map
to
how
the
business
works.
Product
teams
try
to
comply
with
guidance
that
feels
both
rigid
and
outdated.
Leaders
think
they
are
aligning
with
norms,
only
to
discover
those
norms
were
built
for
a
different
era.
How
‘Best
Practices’
Quietly
Become
Legacy
Practices
The
trouble
with
best
practices
is
that
once
they
earn
the
label,
organizations
treat
them
as
settled.
They
become
permanent
fixtures
in
policies,
playbooks,
and
approval
workflows.
They
stop
evolving.
And
the
more
static
they
become,
the
more
out
of
sync
they
get
with
what
the
company
actually
needs.
Even
strong
legal
teams
fall
into
this
trap.
They
rely
on
best
practices
because
they
feel
defensible.
They
simplify
decisions.
They
reduce
the
burden
of
reinventing
guidance
when
the
environment
changes.
But
over
time,
these
practices
harden
into
a
kind
of
institutional
muscle
memory.
Everyone
follows
them
because
they
exist,
not
because
they
still
make
sense.
The
result
shows
up
in
subtle
ways.
A
template
that
once
protected
the
company
now
slows
teams
down.
A
policy
that
once
clarified
accountability
now
hides
it.
A
process
built
for
a
lower-risk
era
now
introduces
new
risk
because
it
blinds
the
organization
to
emerging
signals.
No
one
intends
this
to
happen.
It
happens
because
static
guidance
rarely
survives
a
dynamic
system.
Why
Next
Practices
Offer
A
More
Realistic
Path
Forward
Next
practices
are
not
the
opposite
of
rigor.
They
are
a
recognition
that
rigor
only
works
when
it
reflects
reality.
Instead
of
treating
guidance
as
fixed,
next
practices
treat
it
as
living.
They
acknowledge
that
technology,
markets,
and
behaviors
shift
faster
than
policy
cycles.
They
aim
to
keep
legal
aligned
with
what
the
company
is
actually
facing,
not
what
it
used
to
face.
For
in-house
lawyers,
this
is
not
an
abstract
concept.
It
is
a
practical
one.
Next
practices
help
you
evaluate
whether
the
assumptions
under
your
current
frameworks
still
fit.
They
help
surface
where
your
templates,
intake
forms,
or
decision
paths
reflect
a
world
your
business
no
longer
operates
in.
And
they
help
you
spot
where
outdated
“good
standards”
are
creating
risk
instead
of
managing
it.
This
is
work
that
happens
quietly
in
the
background
of
every
modern
in-house
function.
It
is
the
work
that
keeps
legal
relevant.
Where
Legal
Teams
Feel
The
Gap
Most
Strongly
The
gap
between
best
practices
and
next
practices
is
easiest
to
see
in
places
where
the
environment
is
changing
fast.
AI
governance.
Adaptive
products.
Global
data
flows.
Rapid
sales
cycles.
Third-party
risk.
User
consent.
Automated
decision
systems.
The
topics
may
differ,
but
they
all
share
the
same
pattern.
The
guidance
that
worked
last
year
doesn’t
quite
fit
anymore.
The
underlying
assumptions
have
shifted.
And
the
more
tightly
teams
cling
to
“proven”
standards,
the
more
mismatched
the
work
becomes.
This
is
not
a
failure
of
the
team.
It
is
a
signal
that
the
environment
has
evolved.
In-house
lawyers
feel
this
mismatch
first
because
they
bridge
the
gap
between
business
ambition
and
operational
reality.
When
the
friction
grows,
it’s
usually
a
cue
that
the
team
is
relying
on
best
practices
that
no
longer
reflect
the
company’s
actual
needs.
Why
I
Created
A
Next
Practices
Resource
for
Legal
Leaders
I
authored
the
resource
“Next
Practice
Instead
of
Best
Practice”
because
I
kept
seeing
the
same
pattern
across
legal
teams
I
advise,
partner
with,
or
lead.
Smart,
thoughtful
lawyers
were
doing
everything
“right,”
yet
their
frameworks
did
not
hold
up
under
the
weight
of
modern
product
cycles
or
emerging
tech
shifts.
They
weren’t
doing
anything
wrong.
They
were
using
guidance
built
for
a
different
world.
The
resource
is
meant
to
help
in-house
lawyers
examine
where
their
current
materials
may
no
longer
reflect
reality
and
where
evolution
is
overdue.
It
is
not
about
throwing
out
structure.
It
is
about
making
sure
the
structure
still
maps
to
what
the
business
needs
today.
If
you
want
to
explore
it,
you
can
find
it
here.
Next
Practices
Are
Not
Optional
For
The
Modern
GC
Whether
you
support
product,
privacy,
operations,
risk,
or
corporate
strategy,
your
guidance
will
eventually
drift
out
of
alignment
if
it
stays
static.
The
pace
of
technology
guarantees
it.
The
only
question
is
whether
your
frameworks
evolve
with
the
business
or
lag
behind
it.
Next
practices
help
you
stay
in
sync.
They
help
you
recognize
when
to
update
assumptions,
when
to
revise
templates,
and
when
to
retire
norms
that
no
longer
serve
the
company.
They
help
legal
become
a
partner
in
navigating
change
rather
than
a
steward
of
outdated
advice.
And
they
strengthen
the
GC’s
voice
in
executive
conversations
where
the
company
needs
clarity,
not
historical
standards.
A
Quiet
but
Powerful
Shift
In
In-House
Practice
The
companies
that
navigate
emerging
technology
well
share
a
common
trait.
Their
legal
teams
stay
grounded
in
reality,
not
nostalgia.
They
align
their
guidance
with
what
they
are
actually
seeing,
not
with
what
was
once
predictable.
They
anchor
decisions
in
judgment,
not
old
frameworks.
They
build
guidance
that
moves
with
the
business.
This
shift
doesn’t
require
fanfare.
It
requires
awareness.
If
the
idea
of
next
practices
helps
you
revisit
where
your
guidance
may
have
gone
stale,
it
has
already
done
its
job.
In-house
leaders
do
not
need
more
rules.
They
need
frameworks
that
move
with
them.
Best
practices
were
built
for
the
world
we
had.
Next
practices
are
built
for
the
world
we
are
entering.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty. A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics. She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.