Interim Lawyer secondments in 2026: how legal leaders can reduce spend whilst increasing quality
Discover how interim lawyer secondments help General Counsel reduce legal spend by 20–40% while increasing quality, flexibility, and diversity of talent.
For many General Counsel and Chief Legal Officers, the conversation about legal resourcing is framed as a trade-off. Reduce spend or protect quality. Increase flexibility or maintain control. Do the right thing or stay commercially competitive. At SJP, we believe that framing is outdated, and increasingly unsupported by the evidence.
The myth that still drives
buying decisions
One of the most persistent myths in legal services is that cost reduction inevitably leads to a drop in quality. In practice, this belief has encouraged:
- Over-reliance on traditional law firm leverage
- Paying for layers of supervision that add little incremental value
- Restricting access to senior legal talent based on pedigree rather than capability
For in-house teams under pressure to deliver more with less, this model is no longer sustainable.
What happens when you remove
unnecessary layers
When legal teams buy interim lawyers directly and intelligently, rather than through multi-layered firm structures, the outcomes are consistently stronger. Across our client base, we see that removing unnecessary layers leads to:
- Lower overall spend, without reducing seniority
- Higher-calibre interim lawyers working directly on the matters that matter
- Greater transparency over who is doing the work and why
- Faster delivery, particularly in BAU pressure, regulatory change, and transformation programmes
This is not about cutting corners. It is about buying closer to the source of value.
The data GC teams care about
For General Counsel and Chief Legal Officers, the question is not whether interim lawyers can work – it is whether the model stands up to scrutiny. The data is clear:
- Interim resourcing typically delivers 20–40% cost savings compared to equivalent law firm delivery, once leverage and write-offs are removed.
- Legal teams gain access to greater seniority per pound spent, with experienced lawyers operating hands-on rather than in oversight roles.
- Interim lawyers embed within teams, improving knowledge transfer and continuity, rather than extracting value and exiting.
Perhaps most importantly, teams that use interim lawyers as a planned capability – and not an emergency fix – report higher satisfaction and better outcomes.
Quality, cost, and values are not mutually exclusive
Another common assumption is that ethical considerations sit in tension with commercial ones. Our experience suggests the opposite. By supporting a resourcing model built on access and social mobility, not just traditional pedigree, legal teams can:
- Improve diversity of experience and thinking
- Widen access to high-quality legal careers
- Reinforce a profession that rewards capability and delivery
Doing the right thing, it turns out, is also a smarter buying decision.
What this means for modern legal leaders
GCs and CLOs are no longer passive consumers of legal services. They are active shapers of the market. Every resourcing decision signals what is valued:
- Outcomes over optics
- Capability over convention
- Value over volume
Smarter interim resourcing is not a compromise. It is a strategic choice.
If you would like to explore how removing unnecessary layers could reduce spend, improve quality, and support a better legal profession, we would be pleased to talk.