Technology and tighter budgets are reshaping how in-house counsel work with external law firms, shifting routine tasks inside while demanding greater strategic value from advisers. Across Asia, they share how collaborations are being redefined with Sheryl Ubana
As Asia’s legal landscape undergoes transformation, in-house counsel find themselves balancing technology-driven efficiency with the timeless need for trusted external advisers. Artificial intelligence, legaltech and shrinking budgets are pulling more routine work inside corporate legal teams, yet the complexities of cross-border disputes, regulatory compliance and high-stakes transactions are ensuring that law firms remain essential partners. The relationship is not so much diminishing as evolving.
What is emerging is a more strategic partnership, where external counsel are expected to bring not just technical brilliance, but also business acumen, responsiveness, and an ability to listen and adapt. From different jurisdictions across Asia, general counsel agree that the value of law firms now lies in their capacity to anticipate risks, offer pragmatic solutions and see around corners that in-house teams cannot. The question is no longer whether law firms are needed, but how they can best thrive in a future shaped by innovation and shifting client expectations.
According to Kenneth Zhou, the head of legal for Asia-Pacific North at SIG Group in China, a system supplier of carton packaging solutions, “with the development of legal technology and increased use of AI in contract review and legal advice, and as internal legal budgets shrink, more routine work will be handled in-house or with AI assistance.” Yet, Akhil Prasad, group general counsel at Boeing in India, believes that the sheer ratio of businesses to law firms ensures that partnerships between in-house teams and external counsel will continue to grow stronger.
Technology takes hold
“Innovation is pushing both sides to redefine their roles – in-house teams are becoming more self-sufficient, while external counsel are expected to add value in more complex and advisory capacities,” says Maprang Sombatthai, a legal director of LINE Company, a mobile messaging platform in Thailand.
Moses Sye, the head of legal at Ocean Winds, a global renewable energy company, notes a similar trend in South Korea. In-house teams are increasingly hiring junior attorneys with strong AI literacy, signalling reduced reliance on external firms. For Zhou, the picture is clearer: Routine tasks are moving in-house, while external firms focus on high-value and complex matters.
Across Asia, innovation is reshaping expectations. In South Korea, Roger Chae, the vice president of the In-House Counsel Forum (IHCF), highlights the emergence of new competitors. “New players in the industry are not new law firms, but SaaS companies, accounting companies and management consulting companies with their own seasoned in-house lawyers that focus on results through technology.” He believes technology is making the industry more responsive and agile.
In Thailand, Sombatthai sees technology redefining roles entirely. In-house teams are becoming more self-sufficient, while law firms are expected to add value in more complex and advisory capacities.
Sahachai Wibuloutai, the regional head of legal at DKSH in Thailand, a market expansion services provider in Asia, adds another layer: “Innovation isn’t only about tools – it’s about mindset.” In his view, AI adoption within firms is part of a broader cultural shift towards proactive, technology-enabled legal services.
Mai Kasuga, general counsel at LegalOn Technologies in Japan, observes that rapid advances in AI allow her team to conduct preliminary research in minutes, a task that once required outside help. Today, they can handle early-stage reviews in-house and when issues are not overly complex, even move projects forward without external advice.
However, while technology improves efficiency in time and resource management, Sye cautions against overreliance. “The risks include incomplete or suboptimal analysis due to missing facts, and AI’s tendency to reinforce the user’s assumption, or even amplify bias.”
While Sombatthai shares concerns about risks, she points to a specific gap. “One area where I wish our external counsel had a deeper understanding of our business is in technology-related operations and data flows.
“As a company in the digital and tech-driven space, many of our legal and compliance challenges come from how our platforms function – how data is collected, transferred, stored and shared – and how these processes align, or sometimes conflict, with complex and evolving regulations.”
What stays in-house
While technology and outsourcing are reshaping the legal function, certain responsibilities remain best handled internally. These tasks demand deep business knowledge, faster response times, or direct insight into regulatory impact.
Contract drafting, review and negotiation. Zhou says that contracts are the most common legal function for in-house counsel, and business knowledge offers a clear advantage, making this work less suitable for outsourcing.
In Japan, Hideyuki Sakamoto, the chief legal officer at Prudential Life Insurance, also handles routine legal tasks, such as contract reviews, internally. “Advances in legaltech have allowed us to manage more complex matters internally, shifting our focus towards strategic and proactive legal advice,” he says.
Investigation of compliance reports. Compliance investigations with clear-cut facts are also typically kept in-house, allowing quicker resolution and tighter control. Zhou explains: “Many cases reported via hotlines have clear legal facts, with the main challenge being evidence collection and compliance interviews, which can be handled by in-house compliance lawyers.”
In Hong Kong, Kat Kukreja, counsel at Polynomial Partners, also manages compliance internally. “I try to do a lot in-house, typically handling day-to-day commercial contracts, employment matters and compliance matters,” says Kukreja.
Privacy impact assessment (PIA). Sombatthai has moved PIAs in-house, given their critical legal dimension amid evolving privacy regulations. Zhou agrees: “With clearer regulations and guidelines on personal information protection, and frequent requests for legal advice from business units, this work has gradually shifted to in-house counsel.”
What goes out
For Wibuloutai at DKSH, while routine work sits best in-house, regional or reputational issues need specialist counsel. “External firms remain vital for cross-border M&A, antitrust, litigation and specialised regulatory issues,” he says.
Arbitration and litigation. Litigation and arbitration remain outsourced for their procedural demands and time intensity. Zhou states, “Dispute resolution is usually handled by specialist lawyers,” says Zhou.
Sombatthai adds: “Litigation often demands specialised expertise, consistent follow-up, and a strategic approach that may not align with the day-to-day responsibilities of an in-house legal team.”
Chau Ho, the head of legal and compliance at Sony Electronics in Vietnam, agrees that these matters are time consuming and require specific expertise in court procedures. Sakamoto, at Prudential, adds, “We rely on external counsel for specialised areas like litigation and complex regulatory compliance, where their expertise is crucial for staying abreast of evolving laws and industry practices.”
M&A. Zhou says that M&A and other highly complex projects, including new legal issues critical to the company, are also usually handled externally. Glynnis Acosta, general counsel at telecoms tower operator Protelindo in Indonesia, outsources legal work that requires delving into new regulations or involves expansion to a new type of business or investment in a different industry.
“A good law firm will have a more objective view of the regulatory landscape and can protect us from our blind spots,” she says, adding that it is also more cost-efficient to use external legal support for complex deals that are heavily negotiated and time sensitive.
Complex legal tasks. Kristian Nico Calugay Acosta, general counsel and the head of legal at GUESS Philippines, routinely outsources legal work related to audit and tax compliance. “These areas need outside counsel support to ensure that we are aligned with existing relevant and dynamic rules and regulations on audit and tax compliance,” he says explaining that “these rules and regulations have rapidly evolved over the past years in a way that they adapted to post-pandemic technological developments and ESG trends.”
Aside from litigation matters, Ho, at Sony, also relies on external counsel for high-stakes issues that need a full legal team or specialised knowledge. “Although this can be quite costly, it’s often necessary to manage legal risk effectively,” says Ho. “This approach has stayed the same over the years – it continues to be the most practical and reliable solution.”
In India, Prasad from Boeing highlights regulatory limitations: In-house teams cannot represent clients in court, reinforcing the necessity of external counsel.
Choosing the right partner
With routine work shifting in-house, the selection of external counsel has become more strategic. Strong legal knowledge alone is insufficient. Trust, contextual understanding, strategic insight and market knowledge are essential.
Practical business solutions. Wibuloutai observes that the best firms do not just cite the law – they help clients find a way forward. Glynnis Acosta underscores the importance of a practical perspective. “The best lawyers understand our risk tolerance and recognise our strategic goals. They offer not just technically correct legal advice but also very practical business solutions,” she says.
While Sombatthai highlights the value of market intelligence, Sye warns against advisers who prioritise winning mandates over sound advice, offering agreeable answers that downplay risk. He says this “erodes trust”. He recalls a government affairs matter where most firms proposed direct or legislative approaches. “Only one suggested a creative alternative route that proved effective – all while staying within the bounds of the law,” he says. “In another case, the winning firm went beyond textbook arguments and constructed a convincing narrative that explained the underlying motives of the opposing party.”
Daniel Choo, general counsel at Bruker in Singapore, a biotechnology research provider, summarises his new expectation: Strong technical skills are a baseline, while true value comes from commercial understanding, responsiveness and solution-focused guidance.
Trust and visibility. Zhou asserts that trust forms the foundation of all business relationships. Once a law firm is chosen, it is rarely changed, fostering trust and alignment with company needs.
Meanwhile, Prasad highlights visibility. “We network and attend conference events … We also review articles the lawyer has authored. Strong contributions to local and international publications can generate interest and enhance their professional visibility,” he says.
Expertise and alignment. Specialisation, experience, responsiveness and fees remain key criteria for Ho. “I choose firms based on their expertise … I also consider my past experience working with them, their reputation in the field, their responsiveness, and of course, the fees they charge me,” she says.
For others, business alignment is decisive. Kukreja values “greater business literacy [which] leads to more tailored and pragmatic advice”, while Chae, of IHCF, emphasises strategic problem-solving, saying external lawyers must use both legal and business insight to propose viable solutions.
Character and integrity. Sye underscores professional chemistry such as acumen, tone and work style over personal rapport. “Perfect advice a minute too late is of little use in most cases,” he says. “Associates leaving to seek work-life balance are not the client’s concern. Either manage expectations or risk losing clients regardless of your firm’s name.”
Kristian Acosta at GUESS Group sums the situation up: “It is not enough for an external legal adviser to have a brilliant mind that thinks, and a sharp tongue that speaks. To be an effective external legal adviser, he must also have ears that listen and a heart that feels.”
The next chapter
Looking ahead, law firms will need to demonstrate value beyond execution. Zhou predicts a shift towards strategic partnerships, where law firms collaborate with in-house counsel to create legal value.
In the Philippines, Kristian Acosta highlights technology’s increasing role. AI literacy and digitisation will shape the collaboration between in-house teams and law firms.
Sombatthai foresees a more diversified sourcing model. In-house counsel are increasingly seeking agile, specialised firms that bring niche expertise, providing flexibility, tailored advice and faster integration.
Chae believes that while litigation and compliance-related investigations remain with external lawyers, “law firms that incorporate technologies and have seasoned lawyers to verify the output will shape the way in-house counsel works with law firms”.
Kasuga says that when law firms “bill on a time-charge basis, clients may start requiring them to use legaltech or other technology to reduce costs when preparing advice. Alternatively, law firms that actively adopt legal tech to showcase their efficiency may find this becomes a prerequisite for being chosen by corporate clients, at least in the field of corporate law.”
She explains that, “this is because companies are required to strictly manage costs, and payments to outside counsel may be subject to the same scrutiny”.
For Sombatthai, despite the increasing impact of technology, “overall, innovation is not diminishing the relationship with external counsel – it is reshaping it into a more strategic and focused partnership”. It seems, for most counsel, that technology efficiencies are reshaping the profession, but trusted external legal partners remain indispensable.
