Diverse team viewing information on the computer

How life sciences legal departments can create financial efficiency

Survey insights reveal four key strategies for in-house legal teams across life sciences to enhance operations and reduce costs.


In brief
  • Surveyed life sciences companies reveal insights into optimizing legal department structures, including aligning with business needs and stabilizing talent.
  • Effective budget management and innovative services, including alternative fee arrangements, can help the legal function navigate financial constraints.
  • Advanced legal technology and strategic external spend management solutions are also driving operational efficiencies and enhancing collaboration.

For life sciences organizations, the in-house legal function plays a strategic role, handling everything from corporate contracting to patent management, tech transfers, litigation and M&A. But in today’s operating environment, legal departments often must do more with less.

Against this backdrop, the Law Life Sciences sector team at Ernst & Young LLP recently surveyed several leading multinational companies in the pharmaceutical, consumer health and medical device industries to better understand the organizational structure and strategy of their corporate legal departments. Our survey also aimed to shed light on how operations like these can function more efficiently. The insights gathered from this survey and our experience serving life sciences corporations highlight four key actions that can drive efficiencies and optimize costs for in-house life sciences legal departments.

 

1. Optimize your organizational structure.

While there is no universally ideal structure for a life sciences company legal department, there are several key strategies to create a more efficient and effective organizational structure, including aligning with the business needs, stabilizing the talent, utilizing a hybrid approach to resource allocation and reducing administrative burdens.

 

First, it must be aligned with the company’s operational needs. The data from the survey shows that within most life sciences companies, the chief legal officer, general counsel or other legal department leader reports directly to the CEO. This relationship is critical in driving consistency between the organization’s operational priorities and its legal strategies, resulting in effective communication and implementation. For those companies that don’t have a direct reporting line from the legal function all the way to the top, establishing clear protocols within the business and regular check-ins will help to facilitate more robust communication and collaboration.

 

In addition, 73% of life sciences companies in the survey are currently maintaining their legal department headcount. With industry leaders keenly focused on reducing internal costs, maximizing the efficiency of the current workforce is a cost-effective approach to managing talent that prioritizes optimizing the existing talent pool rather than dealing with the disruptions of frequent staffing changes. As such, instead of hiring new talent, which can be costly and time-consuming, proactive life sciences companies are investing in upskilling current employees to optimize resources and show employees they are valued, both of which can drive retention.

 

Resource allocation within legal departments is another key focus area. Increasingly, companies are adopting a hybrid model that balances geographical and practice area considerations. This approach is particularly relevant in the life sciences industry, where regulatory and specialized field demands vary significantly across regions. By prioritizing both geography and practice areas, legal departments can tailor their structure to meet the unique challenges they face. The nearly even split in the practice of attorneys reporting outside the traditional law department structure (45% reporting such arrangements) suggests a move toward more integrated legal operations within business units, which can foster a more cohesive legal strategy across the company.

Life sciences legal departments manage a variety of legal areas with finite resources.

ey-copy-of-global-life-sciences-legal-function-survey-Q-14-3840x2560

Addressing high-volume, low-complexity work is a common challenge for legal departments, often diverting their focus from higher-value strategic tasks. In response, many life sciences companies are exploring various organizational structure mechanisms to help them manage workloads. Common mechanisms include internal policies, outsourcing and technologies such as contract lifecycle management (CLM) platforms. An emphasis on policies and standard terms as the most impactful mechanisms indicates a preference for structured approaches that can reduce the burden on legal staff.

Additionally, the sparse use of key metrics to enhance external counsel performance and internal capacity monitoring points to an opportunity for legal departments to adopt more data-driven strategies. By tracking and analyzing key performance indicators, legal departments can better manage their workload, optimize staffing and help maximize value from their external legal partners.

2. Maximize your legal department budget.

Having a transparent and well-managed budget that reflects the true cost of legal services is key for life sciences companies. As such, they must have a clear picture of their total global spend for legal services, both internal and external. The size of the legal department is primarily influenced by budget constraints. Among the legal departments we surveyed, 70% are experiencing a decrease in budgets since the last budget cycle (although many respondents believe budgets will increase due to long-term growth plans). More than 70% of survey participants reported that their legal department’s annual operating budget, including indirectly related functions such as compliance, is less than $250 million. This current financial pressure necessitates a careful evaluation of the department’s structure to confirm that it remains agile and cost-effective. It also demonstrates why many life sciences companies are seeking innovative legal solutions that can deliver high-quality services within tighter budgetary confines. This could involve rethinking the allocation of resources, prioritizing high-impact areas and leveraging technology to streamline processes.

 

For these reasons, charging legal expenses back to the business units that have accrued them is crucial for financial management within life sciences companies. While only 44% of respondents currently implement chargebacks, this method is gaining recognition as a leading practice. By allocating legal costs to the appropriate areas of business activity, companies can foster financial accountability and encourage efficient use of legal resources. This approach leads to a more transparent cost structure, which in turn supports strategic budgeting and forecasting. For the 56% of companies not consistently charging back legal expenses, there is an opportunity to re-evaluate their approach and potentially reap the benefits of this practice, such as enhanced cost control and improved alignment of legal expenses with business objectives.

3. Manage external spend and suppliers.

The EY survey also found that external spend varies widely, with respondents indicating that it comprises as much as 90% of the legal department’s budget, underscoring that there is no universal approach to spend allocation for external legal providers. Yet, having a formal sourcing strategy for legal resources, relying on alternative legal services providers and adopting alternative fee arrangements can help maximize external spend.

Our survey data also indicates that nearly half of life sciences companies lack a formalized sourcing strategy for legal resources. Of the companies that do, they primarily focus on maximizing in-house capabilities and selectively engaging external counsel as needed for more complex matters. Interestingly, a progressive minority is emphasizing panel diversity over consolidation, recognizing the long-term benefits of reduced risk and secured advantages through such an approach. With 36% of the companies we surveyed outsourcing more than half of their process-based legal work, there’s a clear trend toward leveraging external solutions for routine tasks, thereby enabling significant efficiency gains and supporting legal departments through managed services or outsourcing solutions.

Nearly all survey respondents use billing guidelines for external law firms and alternative legal services providers (ALSPs), with 91% employing these measures to manage legal costs and provide billing transparency. This practice is critical for maintaining financial stewardship and avoiding inconsistent billing practices. Moreover, many companies have established panels of firms for specific types of matters, allowing for the consolidation of expertise and the potential for improved service quality and cost efficiencies. This strategic management of external counsel, including regular reviews of the panel, can help drive alignment with the company’s evolving legal needs.

Alternative fee arrangements by type

ey-copy-of-global-life-sciences-legal-function-survey-Q-38-3840x2560

The adoption of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) among survey participants signifies a transformative shift in the legal industry, away from billable hours and toward more predictable and value-aligned pricing models. The infrequent use of contingency fees may be attributed to the nature of legal work in life sciences, which often involves complex, ongoing matters rather than timely, win-or-lose outcomes. The survey also showed that companies that use AFAs typically achieve savings of 10% to 20%. Notably, 22% of respondents stated that their company had realized savings in excess of 30%. If your life sciences legal department isn’t using AFAs, it is worth consideration.

Savings due to alternative fee arrangements

ey-copy-of-global-life-sciences-legal-function-survey-Q-38-3840x2560

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.


4. Get the most out of your legal technology.

Our survey also indicates that there is a diverse landscape in the funding, implementation and maintenance of legal technology, with a notable trend toward hybrid models. The shared funding approach by IT and legal in 45% of organizations surveyed suggests a collaborative strategy that recognizes the interdepartmental impact of legal technology. For legal operations professionals, these findings emphasize the importance of cross-functional collaboration and the value of flexible, tailored approaches in managing legal technology, excluding enterprise solutions where these hybrid models are less common. The data advocates for clear delineation of roles and responsibilities to enable the effective funding, implementation and ongoing support of legal tech that meets the unique demands of the life sciences sector.

Despite this collaborative strategy within organizations, many legal departments still face issues with technology integration, with the number one issue from the survey being difficulty in exposing data as it is held in silos. This issue was followed closely by a lack of integration between data source systems leading to split processes. Cross-functional collaboration helps break down these silos, and a clear reporting structure that promotes integration with business objectives is needed for strong technology integration.

The survey’s findings on artificial intelligence (AI) governance reveal that legal departments are commonly involved in cross-functional discussions about AI deployment across the organization, indicating recognition of the legal implications and the need for compliance and ethical considerations in AI initiatives. This involvement is essential as AI technologies increasingly intersect with regulatory frameworks, privacy concerns and intellectual property rights — areas where legal insight is widely deemed critical.

Regarding AI use, however, the fact that only 20% of organizations are actively experimenting with AI in legal suggests a cautious approach in adopting these technologies for legal operations. In many cases, there is desire to use AI, but it is not complemented by a thoughtful, underlying strategy for deployment. This discrepancy may reflect a nascent stage in the understanding and trust of AI’s capabilities within the legal context or a lack of clear use cases that demonstrate the value of AI for legal functions. It also highlights an opportunity to lead in the exploration and implementation of AI solutions that can drive efficiency, enhance analytical capabilities and provide strategic advantages.

Summary 

Life sciences legal departments play a strategic role in the business, requiring alignment across functions and collaboration with other company departments as well as external vendors. Our survey of the industry leaders in the sector showed that there is room for greater operational efficiency in the legal function.


Article originally published on Life Science Leader: https://www.lifescienceleader.com/doc/four-ways-for-legal-departments-to-create-financial-efficiency-0001

Article includes contributions from Pennie Valentine, Senior Manager, EY Law, Ernst & Young LLP; Michael White, Manager, EY Law, Ernst & Young LLP; Lisa LaMotta, Associate Director, EY Insights, Ernst & Young LLP.

About this article

Related articles

What pharma supply chain transformation means for tax

Businesses looking to create visibility and resilience in their supply chains must loop in tax and transfer pricing teams early in the process. Learn more.

How tech and trust transformed a tax operating model

Global pharmaceutical player Boehringer Ingelheim is reimaging its tax operating model to boost quality and efficiency. Learn more in this case study.