For decades, a move in-house was considered the remedy for lawyer burnout—the way to improved work-life balance, more stable hours, and the ability to concentrate on a single client. Yet for too many in-house counsel today, that much-hyped balance remains elusive. The job has changed radically, and with the change has come increased pressure, expanded responsibility, and the loss of clear distinctions between work and life.
Today’s in-house lawyers aren’t merely counsel. They’re expected to don many hats—HR issues, compliance, risk, corporate governance, and crisis management, usually all simultaneously. According to Chris Drummer of the Association of Corporate Counsel, general counsel and chief legal officers in large companies are working under tremendous stress, with increasing anxiety about personal liability if the wheels ever come off. The psychological burden doesn’t end when they go home—it persists, with a long shadow falling across their own time and well-being.
And the cost is taking its toll. In the last year alone, over 20 of the top 100 general counsel at Australia’s largest corporates have left—a staggering turnover that testifies to how unsustainable the job has become for so many. Surveys reflect a similar trend globally, with a significant number of legal professionals considering stepping away from executive roles to preserve their health and happiness. Words like “exhausted,” “overwhelmed,” and “burnt out” are becoming far too common in conversations across the legal field.
Yet, despite growing awareness, mental health remains a taboo topic in the profession. 41% of lawyers wouldn’t be at ease raising wellbeing issues with their employer, largely because they fear it may affect their careers, as reported in a global survey by the International Bar Association. Over a third confessed that their work has a negative or even highly negative effect on their mental health. Such silence only exacerbates the issue, and it becomes more difficult to achieve change on an organizational level.
So, how do in-house lawyers start to take back control?
Delegation is perhaps their greatest tool. Offloading routine or low-risk work to junior attorneys, paralegals, or legal operations professionals can unlock precious time and cognitive capacity. It also allows others to develop into new roles. Legal ops teams can facilitate the mapping of which projects are best to delegate or automate, providing a better picture of where time and resources are being stretched too thin.
Outsourcing is also a principal strategy. Not everything must be done in-house. Through careful consideration of what work needs external advice or can be reallocated to other legal service providers, law firms can drive more strategically. Reviewing past data and results will allow the development of a wiser, cheaper outsourcing model that alleviates pressure without inflating budgets.
Simplifying day-to-day work can also make a significant impact. That means cutting down on repeated effort, deploying self-service solutions for routine legal requests, creating accessible knowledge repositories, and eliminating repetitive administrative tasks. Matter management platforms that consolidate matter handling and provide AI-enabled solutions, such as invoice review, can reduce time-consuming tasks and make team workloads more transparent.
But technology is no magic bullet. While tools like generative AI can automate routine work, they also carry risks. Unchecked AI can create more work instead of less, especially if it must be extensively vetted or edited. Young lawyers worry about being replaced outright. The trick is to use tech strategically, allowing high-value, meaningful work to occur without overloading teams with half-cooked automations.
Prioritization is at the heart of all this change. As David Field of Canon Oceania so insightfully puts it, traversing a career as an in-house lawyer is not about doing it all—about achieving everything—it’s about understanding what not to do. Establishing legal priorities aligned with business risk and open, candid communication when resources are limited is vital. Understanding when to say “no” is often as important as understanding when to say “yes.”.
Lastly, all of this hinges on the right organizational culture. An environment that is perceived as psychologically safe, allows for open dialogue to exist, and actively encourages wellbeing can be the game changer. Leaders must hear workloads, especially for newer or remote teams, and ensure that people have the tools and the space to produce their best work without sacrificing health.
Finally, restoring balance does not mean sacrificing excellence or ambition. It means building smarter systems that cultivate wiser decisions and a culture that values people as well as outcomes. The pressures in-house lawyers face are real—but so are the opportunities to remake the role into something more sustainable, caring, and rewarding.