Global Media Company Cuts Legal Busywork

A global entertainment and media technology company operating across North America, Europe, Canada, and India faced mounting operational challenges within its legal function. The small legal team—fewer than a dozen professionals distributed across six locations—struggled with contract data fragmentation across more than 16 different repositories including SharePoint, Box, and various network drives. This scattered infrastructure made contract retrieval inefficient and compliance responses time-consuming.

Manual contract review and extraction processes consumed substantial attorney time across diverse contract types spanning commercial vendor agreements, entertainment business affairs contracts, and multi-jurisdiction compliance obligations. The team regularly fielded internal requests for contract language examples, forcing lawyers to manually search through past agreements rather than focusing on strategic advisory work.

A particularly acute pain point emerged around GDPR Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) compliance. External counsel charged £10 per page for forensic document review to identify relevant materials and ensure regulatory compliance. With document sets routinely containing tens of thousands of pages, a single DSAR project's legal costs could exceed an annual technology subscription—and the team had multiple similar projects in their pipeline.

As the business recovered from entertainment industry strikes and positioned for growth in 2025, the legal function faced a fundamental question: how to scale capacity without proportional headcount increases. Traditional attorney hiring represented expensive, time-consuming expansion requiring ongoing overhead investment.

‍

The company's search for contract lifecycle management capabilities began against a challenging backdrop. The company had experienced failed multi-million dollar implementations with other enterprise technology vendors requiring expensive third-party integrators. These failures created organizational skepticism about technology investments and established rigorous procurement scrutiny patterns.

The legal team needed a CLM solution that could succeed without costly professional services while delivering tangible adoption results. Key requirements included centralized contract repository consolidation, workflow automation for intake and request management, electronic signature integration, advanced search functionality across document repositories, and—critically—a platform that could evolve with their needs as legal operations maturity developed.

For their 2024 evaluation of AI expansion capabilities, the team's requirements shifted toward automation that could multiply capacity without adding attorney headcount. They needed dynamic extraction capabilities that wouldn't require extensive upfront configuration, conversational AI for contract language search and policy questions, document review automation for discovery and DSAR compliance work, and integration into existing workflows rather than forcing context-switching to separate systems.

The team sought a solution that would enable a fundamentally different operating model: hiring legal operations staff—paralegals and administrators—who could leverage AI capabilities to handle increased volume, allowing existing attorneys to focus on higher-value strategic work rather than routine contract processing.

The company selected Leah CLM platform in 2019 and achieved successful adoption that contrasted sharply with the organization's history of failed enterprise implementations. The platform delivered high user adoption without expensive third-party integrators—a key differentiator that resulted in procurement not scrutinizing Leah spending the way they did other technology investments associated with implementation failures.

Workflow integration proved transformative for adoption. The Word and Outlook plugins were characterized as "game changers" for consistent platform usage. By integrating Leah into the tools lawyers used daily rather than requiring context-switching to a separate system, adoption became organic rather than forced. The team developed structured change management programs including "Contract Pod University" training sessions and professional HubSpot newsletters to drive engagement.

For their 2024 Leah expansion evaluation, specific capabilities aligned directly with their capacity scaling requirements. Dynamic extraction solved the traditional AI limitation of only finding pre-configured data—everything would become reportable without extensive setup work. Conversational AI could surface relevant contract language instantly for policy questions. Document review automation offered a concrete ROI comparison: external counsel costs for a single DSAR project exceeded an annual Leah subscription, with multiple similar projects in the pipeline.

The strategic value proposition centered on headcount economics. Each attorney position represented over $200,000 in fully loaded costs. A paralegal plus AI subscription cost a fraction of that amount while potentially handling similar contract processing volume for routine matters. The AI-enabled operating model would enable attorneys to focus on sophisticated advisory work while legal operations staff managed routine review, extraction, and processing tasks.

The company's legal leadership is building a comprehensive business case for October 2024 budget presentation, comparing external counsel spending to Leah capabilities across DSAR and discovery projects, contract review automation, policy help desk functionality, and entity management. With successful CLM foundation established and quantified cost avoidance opportunities identified, the team is positioned to transform how they scale legal capacity as the business grows.