From Client Expectations to Practical Action: Raising the Bar in Global Legal Service
At WLG | regional NYC, two senior in-house counsels —Anca Paraian of GE HealthCare and Joseph Wiltse of H.B. Fuller—shared candid reflections on what truly matters when working with outside counsel across multiple jurisdictions. Moderated by Luc Attlan of Faegre Drinker (Illinois, USA), the discussion was both practical and pointed: global networks and global firms alike succeed or fail not on their brand, but on the people, the coordination, and the way engagements are managed.
Both panelists emphasized a consistent theme: clients require guidance that advances their business. They don't want a restatement of the law; they want clear views on risk, cost, and timing. When it comes to structuring multi-jurisdictional deals, they value a single point of accountability, but not if that person becomes a bottleneck. Transparent scoping, itemized billing, and reasonable project management charges are musts. And generic client alerts? They go straight to the trash. What lands instead are short, targeted updates tied to the client's actual matters.
On the people side, clients expect outside counsel to curate the right local teams and explain why those lawyers are a fit—rather than pushing the question back to the client. A global logo on the letterhead doesn't guarantee quality; the performance of individuals does. Post-closing debriefs, initiated by firms themselves, were highlighted as a way to differentiate and build stronger long-term relationships.
AI was another recurring theme. Both panelists noted that while AI can be valuable for efficiency—such as drafting summaries, parsing large datasets, and automating administrative tasks—clients are not yet ready for AI-only legal outputs. They expect efficiency gains but still require human judgment and quality control. Some are even beginning to request AI usage parameters in engagement letters.
Taking the Conversation Further
Following the panel, Gemma Allen of Mason Hayes & Curran (Ireland) led delegates in a workshop designed to turn these client messages into action. To set the tone, she drew on her background in improv, encouraging participants to role-play negotiations using exaggerated cultural stereotypes—from German directness to Japanese patience. The exercise quickly revealed how communication styles can clash or complement one another, and how lawyers must adapt when working across borders.
In small group discussions, delegates shared personal experiences where cultural differences complicated a matter—or where personality, more than culture, was the real challenge. Some described aggressive litigation styles that backfired in more consensus-driven courts. Others noted the difficulty of navigating client disrespect or bias, including situations where women lawyers were excluded by clients from certain jurisdictions. Several groups agreed that firms need clear policies on when to "fire" a client whose conduct crosses the line.
Delegates also discussed the fine balance between authenticity and adaptability. As one participant put it, being effective across borders often means "translating" your natural style into the one that best serves the client’s interest. That might mean softening an aggressive stance in Quebec or adding extra politeness when working with corporate services teams. The workshop reinforced that there’s no single correct approach—success lies in anticipating differences, adjusting in real time, and debriefing afterward to capture lessons learned.
Finally, the conversation circled back to AI. While some saw promise in tools that could predict litigation outcomes or streamline compliance, others raised concerns about the risk of false confidence, as clients might rely on AI outputs without proper legal oversight. The consensus was clear: AI may reshape how lawyers work, but relationships, judgment, and persuasion remain irreplaceable.The Bottom Line
Across both the client panel and the workshop, one message stood out: technical expertise is assumed; what differentiates outside counsel is how they manage relationships, communicate across cultures, and deliver business-focused advice. Clients want efficiency and clarity, not memos. They value lawyers who coordinate seamlessly, tailor communication, and step back after the matter to ask, "What can we do better next time?"
For WLG, this feedback underscores the strength of the network model. Independent firms bring deep knowledge of their own jurisdictions, while the connections across the network enable global coordination with a shared understanding of client needs. That balance—local insight supported by trusted international relationships—positions WLG lawyers to navigate cross-border matters with both precision and cultural fluency.