[author: Tanya Crosse]
Outside Counsel Guidelines (OCGs) are more than static billing recommendations; they are living and breathing instructions that align teams with corporate values, risk tolerance, and operational expectations. While other members of the legal department may update and enhance OCGs, General Counsel (GCs) are ultimately responsible for ensuring the guidelines embody these expectations. As teams face mounting pressure to stay current amidst evolving industry standards, legal teams that align their values with OCGs stand to build trust, deepen relationships, and win more work with clients. Three critical considerations when developing strategic OCGs are responsible AI adoption, DEI commitments, and timekeeping.
Best Practices for Legal AI Adoption
With AI tools becoming commonplace for legal teams, corporate legal departments are embedding AI provisions into their OCGs. As the amount of sensitive data stored online proliferates, these provisions address risk management as legal teams evaluate the operational and strategic effects of AI adoption.
The key is to strike a balance between embracing AI advancements and adhering to ethical standards. Outlining standards for AI implementation in OCGs, including the creation of legal documents, legal research, drafting legal opinions, and providing legal advice, is a critical component of responsible AI adoption.
Some organizations require outside counsel to safeguard client confidentiality and ensure that the use of AI does not compromise the security of their information. For example, many choose to specify that information classified as Internal or Restricted is prohibited from being uploaded on any public AI platform. This includes client data, Personally Identifiable Information (PII), software code, and more. It is essential to prioritize analysis and review of AI outputs to ensure legal accuracy, compliance with applicable laws, and consistency with legal precedents.
For this reason, users deploying AI tools must diligently verify the accuracy, reliability, and legality of AI outputs. Outside counsel should receive training on the use of AI technologies to understand their capabilities, limitations, and ethical implications.
OCGs must be periodically evaluated and revised to meet today’s changing standards as technology advances and legal and ethical standards evolve. This evaluation may include soliciting feedback from legal professionals, clients, and relevant stakeholders to improve and update the policy as necessary.
DEI Provisions That Align With Corporate Values
In recent months, many legal departments have expressed confusion and concern over DEI language in their OCGs. Some organizations have chosen to remove DEI provisions entirely, not out of opposition to executive orders, but due to a lack of clear guidance and the potential for regulatory scrutiny. This sentiment was echoed at CLOC 2025, where legal professionals engaged in “temperature taking” conversations: What are others doing? What’s safe? What’s next?
This uncertainty stems in part from recent federal actions. Executive Orders such as EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and EO 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” have directed agencies to deprioritize enforcement of policies based on disparate-impact liability. These shifts have led teams to re-examine DEI programs, especially those with measurable targets or specific language that could be interpreted as preferential.
If your organization includes DEI provisions in your OCGs, they should be intentional, defensible, and aligned with your corporate values and business goals. The current environment offers companies an opportunity to revisit their motivations for implementing such policies in the first place. This is a chance to move away from generic, boilerplate DEI language and prepare a more effective set of guidelines that align with the company’s values and ethics and simultaneously support business goals.
Timekeeping Best Practices: Precision That Builds Trust
As legal departments face pressure to demonstrate value, timekeeping has become more than a billing function. Now, it reflects a firm’s professionalism, transparency, and respect for the client’s business. Legal departments are no longer satisfied with vague or inconsistent time entries. They expect precision, clarity, and a demonstrable connection between the work performed and the value delivered.
One of the most common frustrations among in-house teams is a lack of detail in time entries. Descriptions like “reviewed documents” or “conference call” offer little insight into what was done, why it mattered, or how it advanced the matter. Today’s OCGs increasingly require lawyers to provide clear, specific narratives explaining each task’s purpose and outcome. This level of detail supports internal reporting and budgeting while helping legal departments justify external spend to finance and business stakeholders.
Another area of focus is the elimination of block billing. Combining multiple tasks into a single time entry makes it difficult for clients to accurately assess efficiency or allocate costs. Many OCGs now prohibit this practice outright, requiring each task to be recorded separately with its time allocation. This shift encourages greater accountability and allows clients to evaluate time spent across different phases of a matter.
Ultimately, timekeeping is a trust-building exercise. Opaque billing practices erode confidence and jeopardize long-term relationships. When firms demonstrate discipline and transparency with client expectations, they reinforce their value as strategic partners.
Outside Counsel Guidelines as a Strategic Lever
OCGs are not just administrative documents; they reflect your company’s strategic priorities. Law firms and corporate legal departments should treat them as an opportunity to build trust, deepen relationships, and win more work. Thriving firms will not only deliver excellent legal work but also operate as true business partners and stand out in a competitive environment.
