What In-House Candidates Want To Know About Cos.' AI Plans

Key Takeaways

AI strategy is becoming a two-way test in the executive legal hiring process, with companies evaluating candidates’ practical AI experience while candidates assess how seriously prospective employers are approaching the technology. In her Law360 Pulse op-ed, Pamela Salling argues that a company’s AI strategy is increasingly part of its employer value proposition for senior legal talent.

• Senior legal candidates increasingly need to demonstrate how they have applied AI to specific business problems, managed implementation and delivered measurable results.
• Candidates are also evaluating prospective employers’ AI maturity, including the legal department’s influence over governance, implementation and enterprise strategy.
• Companies do not need fully mature AI programs, but they should be candid about what is funded, what is being piloted and where a new legal leader would have an opportunity to shape the strategy.
• An organization’s approach to AI-enabled outside counsel, efficiency and pricing can signal how forward-looking its legal function is.
• Interview teams should present a consistent picture of the company’s AI priorities, investment and expectations for the incoming legal leader.

Artificial intelligence adoption in corporate legal departments has reached a turning point. According to an Association of Corporate Counsel survey published in late September, 85% of legal departments now deploy AI, compared with 53% just one year earlier.[1]

The effects of this extend beyond legal workflows. As AI becomes embedded in the way departments operate, it is also reshaping how companies select legal leaders and how those candidates decide where they want to work.

For legal departments, general familiarity with AI is no longer enough. Hiring teams increasingly expect senior legal candidates to explain how they have applied the technology to a specific problem, managed implementation and produced a measurable result. "I use AI" is becoming as incomplete an answer as saying, "I understand the business."

Candidates are applying the same scrutiny in the other direction, using interviews to evaluate an organization's AI strategy and the legal department's role in shaping it. A company's vague or inconsistent answer can weaken an otherwise attractive opportunity.

At the senior level, where candidates are assessing the scope and influence of a role as carefully as its compensation, it may even cause them to walk away.

Much as workplace flexibility became an essential part of corporate culture several years ago, a company's approach to AI now signals how willing it is to invest, adapt and rethink established ways of working.

As a result, for legal departments competing for strong general counsel, chief legal officer and chief compliance officer candidates, AI strategy has become part of the employer value proposition. Companies should prepare to explain it with the same rigor they expect from candidates.

Start with the problem, not the platform.

Saying that a company has deployed a particular AI tool is the corporate equivalent of a candidate saying, "I use AI." The technology matters less than the business problem it addresses.

A stronger answer identifies the legal workflow the organization wanted to improve, how it evaluated possible solutions, what it implemented and what changed. Did the initiative accelerate routine contract review? Did it improve the way the department identifies or communicates risk?

The answer should also explain what lawyers can do with the time AI gives back, whether that means supporting more complex transactions, advising business leaders earlier or applying judgment to matters that cannot be automated.

Candidates do not need a product demonstration. They need evidence that the organization has connected its technology investments to the work of the legal team and the priorities of Pamela Salling the business.

Explain the legal department's role.

Senior candidates also want to understand where legal sits in the company's broader AI strategy. Is the legal department helping establish governance across the enterprise, or reviewing policies developed elsewhere? Is its mandate limited to controlling risk, or is it also expected to identify ways AI can create business value? Who owns implementation, and how are decisions made when legal, technology and business priorities conflict?

For a general counsel or chief legal officer candidate, the answers provide a preview of the position's actual authority. They also reveal the risks, expectations and internal relationships the new leader would inherit.

Many legal leaders want a seat at the table on AI strategy and governance, and a role that doesn't offer them that opportunity can be a harder sell.

Show candidates where they can make their mark.

Companies do not need a fully mature AI program to attract sophisticated legal talent. In some cases, the opportunity to build that program may be part of the role's appeal.

For many legal leaders, an AI program that's still taking shape isn't a drawback — it's an opportunity. The chance to take on that challenge, expand the role's remit and put their fingerprints on something new can be one of the most compelling parts of a prospective role.

Companies should be specific about where that opportunity lies, whether it's building AI governance from the ground up, deciding which tools the department adopts, or setting expectations for how outside counsel use the technology.

Candidates don't need to be sold on a polished AI program. They need an honest picture of where the company is today, where it wants to go and how much ownership the new hire will have in getting there.

Organizations should distinguish between what has been funded, what is being piloted and what remains aspirational. Saying that AI is a strategic priority carries little weight if interviewers cannot explain who is responsible for it or what the company has committed to doing.

Once they're hired, a candidate who has a realistic picture of a company's AI program will be better positioned to build on an existing plan, or develop a new one.

Have a point of view on outside counsel.

A legal department's AI strategy also extends to how it engages law firms. In-house teams have traditionally asked whether they have the right firm and the right staffing model. Increasingly, they are adding a third question: Are we, and the firms we work with, using the right technological tools and partners?

Senior candidates may ask whether the department expects outside counsel to demonstrate AI-enabled efficiency, how those efficiencies affect pricing and whether the company is capturing the value created by the technology.

A company that has not considered these questions may appear unprepared for the changing economics of legal services. Candidates see only a narrow slice of a company during interviews, so how the legal department uses AI, and what it expects from outside counsel and vendors, becomes a litmus test of how forward-thinking the department — and the business as a whole — really are.

Align the interview team.

Finally, every interviewer should tell a consistent story. If the general counsel calls AI a strategic priority, but the finance leader cannot identify a budget and lawyers on the team say they are not permitted to use the tools, candidates will remember the contradiction.

Companies expect a candidate to show up the same way in every interview, and candidates expect the same of companies.

Of course, a company's AI policy and its day-to-day practice don't always match. For instance, every team has its superusers and its skeptics, and different functions move at different speeds. But the interview panel still needs to present a coherent picture.

Before interviews begin, the panel should agree on the organization's current posture, its goals and the new hire's expected role. That alignment should begin before the first interview and carry through the position description, panel discussions, and finalist conversations about budget, ownership and priorities.

Conclusion

Companies spend the interview process deciding whether a candidate is prepared for the way legal work is changing. The candidate is conducting the same assessment in the other direction, often with far less information. The companies that win the best legal talent will be the ones that can answer the AI question as well as they ask it.