In this interview with Stephanie-Kate Bratton, General Counsel AgriFutures (former Senior Corporate Counsel at Amazon), we dive into the world of digital transformation and in-house efficiency, drawing from her extensive experience at Amazon and AgriFutures Australia.
Stephanie defines successful digital transformation as the standardisation and automation of repetitive processes, underpinned by continuous education, regular review, and ongoing improvement. Stephanie offers valuable advice to legaltech vendors seeking successful collaborations with legal departments and large enterprise tech businesses, emphasising the importance of sharing innovative solutions and embracing a culture of continuous improvement.
Bradley Collins: Hi Stephanie, great to speak! To kick things off, I’d love to know what successful digital transformation means for you, reflecting on your time in-house at Amazon and Agrifutures Australia.
Stephanie-Kate Bratton: The most powerful digital transformations I’ve seen are those that standardise and automate repetitive processes, defining clear escalation paths to lawyers and business leaders for variable matters or edge-cases. Most importantly, these transformations continue to evolve over time through the education of stakeholders (a process is just a process unless people follow it, plus – in the legal landscape – a failure to properly follow the process could create legal risk for the business), regular review of the process (the law or business’s appetite for risk may change) and continuous improvement (a process may break over time as the business evolves).
The impact of these transformations is felt by both business and legal stakeholders, who gain a clear view of the business’s risks, risk appetite and preferred mitigation mechanisms. With this knowledge and efficient processes in place, business stakeholders can move quickly in their day-to-day matters and legal teams can focus on high-value, strategic work. In large organisations, digital transformation of legal processes helps to deliver consistency across legal teams and business activities, and brings comfort to leaders by the regular review of standard positions and appropriate escalation of edge-cases.
Bradley Collins: That’s really awesome! I’m also interested to hear your views on risk appetite Vs reward when it comes to improving in-house efficiency – what are the pros and cons when it comes to building an agile business/machine?
Stephanie-Kate Bratton: It seems logical that a higher risk appetite might lead to higher reward when it comes to in-house efficiency, but I believe the relationship between risk and efficiency is more complex.
Businesses aren’t operating in a vacuum and there are a range of reasons businesses will be called upon to take risks (e.g. resource constraints, competing priorities, compromising to close a contract). There are also a range of risks businesses are exposed to (e.g. legal, financial, reputational, relationship, strategic) and sometimes mitigating one risk means living with another.
For example, a business that has a low appetite for legal and financial risk; that takes firm, favourable (to itself) positions in contract negotiations and refuses to compromise, may end up carrying business or relationship risk if suppliers are unwilling to agree to their terms. Conversely, a business that is focused on minimising risk to strategic partnerships may get comfortable with carrying a higher degree of contractual or financial risk in order to move those relationships forward. From a strictly legal perspective, one has a higher risk appetite than the other.
Despite that, both of these businesses could have efficient in-house legal processes that give effect to their respective risk positions. The former may have standard terms that business stakeholders discuss with counterparties, a small list of clauses that are open to negotiation and be otherwise willing to walk away from any deal that doesn’t meet those terms. The latter may have comprehensive insurance policies, strong internal compliance measures and clearly documented procedures for addressing concerns that could turn into disputes.
In my view, at the core of efficient in-house teams is a deep understanding of the business they advise and a desire to minimise repetitive or low-risk/value work. This drives those teams to identify opportunities to automate, standardise or simplify processes while also properly advising the business in respect of its risks.
Bradley Collins: Finally, what would you say to legaltech vendors that look to collaborate successfully with legal departments and huge enterprise tech businesses?
Stephanie-Kate Bratton: One thing I’ve learned by focusing on efficient processes is that there’s always room for further improvement so don’t be shy about sharing your solutions!
Key Takeaways:
1. Continuous transformation: Successful digital transformation involves standardising and automating repetitive processes while maintaining flexibility for variable cases. Regular education, process review, and continuous improvement are essential for sustained impact.
2. Complex relationship between risk and efficiency: The relationship between risk appetite and efficiency in legal processes is nuanced. A high risk appetite in one area may coexist with a low risk appetite in another. Efficient legal teams understand these complexities and aim to minimise low-risk, repetitive work while managing various types of risks effectively.
3. Open collaboration: Legaltech vendors should proactively share their solutions with legal departments and enterprise tech businesses. There’s always room for improvement in enhancing legal processes, so don’t hesitate to engage in collaborative discussions and share innovative solutions.
