Topic
Legal Operations stands for running a legal department like a business in its own right: with processes, budget, metrics, vendor management and the right tools.
The term originates from the legal departments of large corporations. The international association CLOC (Corporate Legal Operations Consortium) defines twelve core competencies for it – ranging from financial management and data and metrics to technology management.
Legal departments of every size face the same question: which requests come in, how long do they take, what do they cost – and how can this be explained to senior management?
Legal Operations is therefore less about software and more about a way of working. First the process is clarified, then the tool is chosen. With AI comes a new task: many legal departments now coordinate how the entire company uses AI in a legally compliant way.
Starting point
Requests arrive by email, phone and in the corridor. No one knows exactly how many there are, who’s handling them or how long they take.
How technology helps
A central intake point – a form or ticketing system – records every enquiry with a category and urgency. AI can pre-sort enquiries, suggest responsibility, and refer standard questions to approved answers.
Starting point
Invoices from different law firms are structured differently and hard to compare. The budget only becomes visible at year-end.
How technology helps
Matter and billing management allocates costs to matters, checks invoices electronically against the firm’s own billing guidelines, and compares budget against actual spend per matter.
Starting point
Management asks what the legal department costs and what it delivers. The answer often consists of individual examples.
How technology helps
Data from intake and matter management generate overviews: enquiries by practice area, processing times, internal and external costs, and recurring topics.
Starting point
Business units are rolling out AI tools, often via updates to existing software. The legal department is expected to ensure compliance with the AI Act.
How technology helps
An AI register records which systems are used for what. This is supplemented by a risk classification, a usage policy and a training plan for AI competence under Art. 4 AI Act.
| Topic | What applies | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Co-determination | Technical systems capable of monitoring employees’ behaviour or performance are subject to co-determination requirements. | § 87(1) No. 6 BetrVG |
| Experts in AI | When assessing the introduction of AI, involving an expert on behalf of the works council is considered necessary. | § 80(3) BetrVG |
| Remuneration of external law firms | Fee agreements must be made in text form. | § 3a(1) RVG |
| Privacy | Software providers that process personal data need a data processing agreement. | Art. 28 GDPR |
| AI competence | Companies using AI are taking steps to build their staff’s AI competence; since 2 February 2025. | Art. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 |
| High risk in HR | AI used for recruitment, promotion, dismissal or performance evaluation is high-risk; operator obligations apply from 2 December 2027. | Annex III No. 4, Art. 26 AI Act; Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 |
| Supervision | The competent market surveillance authority is generally the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur). | § 2 KI-MIG |
Inner Circle
The Inner Circle brings together decision-makers from law, technology and innovation in a small setting – over dinner with an opening keynote, under the Chatham House Rule. It's a space to ask openly how other legal departments manage enquiries, select law firms and coordinate AI within their organisation. Places are limited; each request is reviewed individually.
Request a placeUse case
“AI is rarely the real project. The real project is the processes.”
In conversation with Dr Lasse Milinski, one thing quickly became clear: the greatest potential in the legal market doesn't come from individual tools, but from the interplay of technology, processes and data.
As Head of Delivery and Products at eagle lsp | Legal Tech Service Provider, Lasse brings a perspective still rarely heard in the Legal Tech space: that of an industrial engineer.
We talk about,
– why many companies first need to get their data and processes under control before AI can unlock its full potential,
– why the real challenge is often not the technology but the implementation,
– how a processing time of three to five days can suddenly shrink to under two hours,
– and why the market is currently shifting from pure tool enthusiasm towards genuine use cases.
Of particular interest: the discussion on how legal teams and legal departments should view AI not in isolation, but as part of an end-to-end business process.
A conversation about automation, scaling and how legal work can be made more efficient in future.
Interview: Sebastian Bluhm · Produced by KSB INTAX
Yes, just on a smaller scale. A single point of contact for enquiries, straightforward billing rules for external law firms, and two or three key figures already create an overview. A dedicated legal operations role isn’t necessary for this.
Where the system is capable of monitoring employees' conduct or performance, an existing works council has a right of co-determination (§ 87(1) No. 6 BetrVG). This should be reviewed regularly for systems that record processing times per person. Clarify this early with HR and the works council.
Often this involves taking stock of the AI systems in use, implementing AI literacy measures under Art. 4 AI Act (in force since February 2025), the transparency obligations under Art. 50 (in force since August 2026), and preparing for high-risk applications, for example in HR. Following the amendment to the AI Act, these obligations apply from 2 December 2027.
In the Inner Circle, legal departments speak openly about governance, budget and tools. For help finding the right solution, there's the Concierge.
