Scaling Legal Operations for Strategic Business Expansion

A mid-market engineering and construction services firm operating across oil & gas, chemicals, and energy transition sectors faced a critical inflection point in 2024. After decades of family ownership, a new CEO was driving organizational modernization and governance maturity. Simultaneously, the company was pursuing aggressive expansion into a new alliance business segment—a fundamental shift requiring higher contract volumes and dramatically faster turnaround times.

The legal department, led by the Deputy General Counsel and Legal Counsel, operated without any centralized contract repository. Two to three decades of contracts were scattered across legal drives, SharePoint folders, Microsoft Teams channels, and business servers in different offices. Some contracts never reached legal at all, remaining on business servers and creating compliance gaps. A previous attempt to implement DocuShare as a repository had failed due to lack of consistent adoption, leaving the team with outdated, unreliable data no one trusted.

Manual contract review created severe bottlenecks. A six-page contract required 30 minutes just to identify key provisions like warranty terms, liability limits, and indemnification clauses. Complex 55-page EPC agreements took hours. Current turnaround time ran approximately one week, creating operational delays and frustrating business stakeholders who needed legal to be "the easy button" for clients.

The timing pressure was acute. The alliance business expansion over the next 6-12 months would require handling contract volumes without proportional headcount growth. NDA volume alone was expected to double from 3-7 weekly to potentially 14+. The team was already operating at 95-100% capacity with no "staring out the window time" for professional development or handling emergencies. Alliance customers prioritized speed and ease of contracting, and the company competed against smaller firms that often accepted client terms without legal review.

The business had received client feedback about "too much red" on contract redlines, creating tension between legal risk management and sales objectives. Without the ability to quickly reference past precedent—to answer questions like "what limits of liability have I agreed to in the past?"—the team couldn't maintain consistent negotiating positions or efficiently assess incoming contracts.

The new CEO demanded more robust reporting on contract terms, risks, and obligations across the portfolio. Manual contract summarization and report creation for management review took considerable time after the heavy analytical work of contract review was already complete. This administrative work was described as demoralizing low-value tasks that prevented lawyers from focusing on strategic analysis.

‍

The legal team's search for a contract lifecycle management solution actually began two years earlier. In 2023, the company had completed a full evaluation of Leah CLM platform. The team "loved the system and the price wasn't shocking," but organizational budget cuts that year forced them to halt procurement entirely. The evaluation had validated product fit and pricing, with only timing as the barrier.

In early 2024, several factors created the strategic opening for reconsidering the investment. The new CEO, while introducing fiscal responsibility culture, remained explicitly open to technology investments demonstrating clear business value and ROI. External pressure emerged when clients mentioned using AI themselves, prompting internal questions about why the company wasn't leveraging similar capabilities. The business reorganization and alliance segment expansion created compelling "why now" urgency that transcended departmental efficiency goals.

The team also evaluated Thomas Reuters' AI offering but found it severely underwhelming. The solution felt like enhanced Westlaw search capability rather than true artificial intelligence, providing no meaningful advantage over manually searching Westlaw for legal questions. It didn't demonstrate the contract-specific intelligence needed for rapid risk assessment and provision extraction.

What the company needed was fundamentally different from enhanced legal research tools. They needed a solution that could understand unstructured contract language, answer natural language questions without Boolean operators, and deliver instant risk assessment on incoming agreements. They needed precedent research capabilities that would let them query across decades of contracts to find comparable language and terms. They needed to handle volume growth without hiring additional lawyers, while simultaneously improving speed and maintaining sophisticated risk management standards.

The evaluation criteria were clear: true generative AI that comprehends contract context, transparent reasoning that maintains lawyer oversight, natural language question answering, contract-specific functionality beyond general legal research, integration potential for phased implementation, and competitive pricing that reflected delivered value. The solution also needed to address both immediate pain points and longer-term CLM requirements as organizational maturity evolved.

‍

The company's decision to select Leah was driven by several compelling factors that differentiated the solution from alternatives.

Generative AI Superiority: Leah capabilities represented a fundamental advancement over competitive offerings. Where Thomas Reuters felt like keyword search with a better interface, Leah generative AI could take large volumes of unstructured contract data, understand context across all provisions, and answer complex natural language questions. This wasn't enhanced search—it was true contract intelligence.

The Discovery tool particularly resonated with the evaluation team. The ability to configure 20-30 custom questions per contract type—alliance agreements, NDAs, engineering services agreements—and receive instant risk scoring addressed their most acute need: quickly assessing "how problematic an agreement is before we invest hours in detailed review." This capability would enable same-day risk assessments instead of week-long backlogs.

Transparent AI Reasoning: A critical differentiator was how Leah explained its analysis. Rather than providing black-box summaries, the system showed its reasoning and linked directly to specific contract provisions. Lawyers could verify AI recommendations themselves and make informed decisions rather than accepting automated conclusions on faith. This transparency was essential for maintaining professional oversight and quality standards.

Repository Intelligence: Beyond basic filing capabilities, Leah-powered repository search would transform how the team accessed institutional knowledge. Instead of relying on individual lawyer memory to locate past agreements, they could instantly query across their entire contract portfolio for force majeure clauses, limitation of liability terms, indemnification language, or any other provisions. This addressed the precedent research gap that had prevented consistent negotiating positions.

Strategic Alignment and Timing: The timing was serendipitous. The company was re-engaging with Leah precisely when their business strategy was shifting toward alliance work requiring the exact capabilities the platform offered. The Q1 2025 deadline for supporting the new business segment launch created compelling urgency beyond operational efficiency improvements. This wasn't about fixing broken processes—it was about enabling strategic business transformation.

Phased Implementation Approach: The team appreciated Leah flexibility to start with foundational capabilities rather than requiring big-bang deployment. Phase 1 would focus on Discovery, Extract, and Drive (repository) for immediate AI review capabilities and centralized storage. This would prove value and build organizational confidence before expanding to full CLM workflow automation when they were organizationally ready. The team recognized they needed to mature internal contract management processes before leveraging advanced features, and Leah approach accommodated this pragmatic strategy.

Competitive Differentiation Opportunity: In an industry where engineering and construction firms have been slow to adopt CLM technology, early adoption would create competitive advantage. The ability to deliver "easy button" client experience while maintaining superior risk management quality could differentiate the company in the alliance market segment. Legal technology maturity would become a strategic weapon rather than a back-office efficiency play.

Vendor Partnership and Commercial Terms: The evaluation revealed a customer-centric commercial approach that built confidence in the long-term relationship. Leah provided transparent pricing with a 5% annual escalation cap to prevent vendor lock-in concerns, most-favored-nation language ensuring the company would automatically receive improved terms, 10 power users instead of standard 5, and flexible document volume overages rather than strict enforcement. The vendor's willingness to provide business case development consultation and oil & gas industry references demonstrated partnership orientation.

Previous Validation: The fact that the company had evaluated and loved the system two years earlier—with technical approval already secured from IT leadership—meant many fundamental questions about product fit, security architecture, and vendor credibility were already answered. This history created trust and reduced re-evaluation risk.

‍