A seemingly innocuous vendor email recently caught my attention with its poignant message: “Legal teams often get blamed for slowing things down — even when the real issue is unclear contract ownership.” This statement not only resonated with me but also mirrored a challenging experience from my past.

Years ago, I spearheaded the adoption of a new contract management system within our organization. After navigating through the complex budget and approval processes, we successfully implemented the system. However, the issues began almost immediately, not with the system's functionality, but with the perception of ownership. Since I had championed the initiative, the legal team was viewed as the de facto owner of the system, saddling us with every related process, question, and delay.

What ensued was a transformation of our role from advisors to administrators, overseeing the minutiae of contract management rather than focusing on our primary role of guiding and safeguarding the organization through legal expertise.

The core of the problem was an unclear demarcation of contract ownership. This ambiguity led other departments to default their responsibilities back to the legal team, making us the reluctant central hub for all contract-related issues. The incremental buildup of these responsibilities shifted our focus from strategic legal advising to operational contract management, a role we were neither intended nor optimally suited to fill.

This shift in role taught me a critical lesson: the importance of clear ownership and defined roles within any system. It wasn't the technology that failed us; it was our planning. Assuming that the system’s efficiency would naturally clarify roles was a misstep. Instead, the lack of explicit responsibilities led to increased reliance on the legal team, turning us into a bottleneck.

To remedy this, we needed a strategic realignment. Business teams should manage the relationships and deals, initiating and driving the contracts forward. Legal's role should focus on reviewing, advising on terms, and assessing risks. Meanwhile, operational teams, like procurement, should handle the administrative tasks associated with the system's workflow.

This restructuring allows the legal team to thrive in its advisory capacity, leveraging our expertise where it adds the most value, rather than getting bogged down by procedural tasks.

For other in-house lawyers considering new systems or processes, take this as a cautionary tale. Champion for tools that enhance efficiency but plan meticulously who will own each part of the process. Clear, written definitions of each team's responsibilities from the outset can prevent many headaches and ensure that legal teams can focus on what they do best: advising, not administering.

This experience, sparked by a simple vendor email, underscores a profound truth: sometimes, the most significant insights come from the most unexpected sources. For legal teams, it's a reminder that while we support the business, we must ensure we do not become the business.