Patrick Callinan, Associate General Counsel at Sprout Social, joined our latest live Platforum9 session to unpack how in-house teams are changing the way they engage external counsel—what they’ll pay for, what they won’t, and what “great service” looks like when budgets, speed, and regulatory complexity collide.

What’s changed: in-house teams are doing more (and asking better questions)

Callinan described a clear shift: as in-house teams grow and diversify (including more UK/EU-qualified lawyers), they’re increasingly doing the “foundational” work themselves—reading the legislation, forming an internal view, and drafting a memo-level understanding before calling a firm. The goal is to avoid paying external counsel for information that the in-house team can reasonably source on its own, and instead reserve spending for judgment, context, and market-tested insight.

A recurring theme was question quality. Callinan advocated approaching firms with informed, specific asks: “This is our understanding; here are A, B, C, D; tell us if we’re missing something.” That framing, he argued, leads to better advice, less drift, and tighter cost control.

What external counsel is for: consensus, comfort, and high-value judgment

Callinan was blunt about where external counsel earns their keep:

• Greater comfort on high-risk interpretations.
• Market consensus: what peers and competitors are doing, and where practice is landing (especially on emerging regulation).
• Expert colour: sector-specific experience that goes beyond the black-letter law.

He gave the example of live debates around the EU Data Act and how different interpretations can materially affect commercial positions—precisely the kind of uncertainty where external expertise can de-risk decision-making.

Relationship beats logo: panels feel increasingly dated

On panels, Callinan’s position was pragmatic: for some organisations, they may still exist, but the strict “on-panel/off-panel” model feels increasingly out of step with today’s regulatory breadth and the speed at which new specialisms (AI, data, platform regulation) are emerging.

The bigger point: it’s often about the person, not the firm. If you trust the lawyer—and they move—many in-house teams will follow the relationship rather than the brand. Flexibility wins, particularly where specialist expertise is scarce.

What “good” looks like: proactive, relevant, human

Callinan outlined the behaviours that keep a lawyer front-of-mind without feeling salesy:

• Regular, low-pressure check-ins (a call, a coffee, a quick “how are things?”).
• Relevant updates and training at the right cadence for the sector.
• Targeted insight, not “spray-and-pray” newsletters. If you instructed a firm on data protection, don’t flood your inbox with pensions or construction updates.

The underlying logic is simple: when an issue lands, in-house counsel will often go “first to the lawyer who has stayed close, been useful, and demonstrated genuine understanding of the business.”

Pricing expectations: predictability requires precision

On fees, Callinan stressed that predictable spend doesn’t happen by magic—it requires explicit scoping and shared expectations.

His preferred approach:

• Define exactly what’s included in the fixed fee (or fee quote).
• Ask the firm to list what’s excluded so boundaries are clear.
• For document negotiations, agree how many turns are included—and what happens after (e.g., a discounted hourly rate beyond an agreed number of mark-ups).

This isn’t about being difficult; it’s about avoiding surprise bills and preventing disputes when matters evolve.

AI in legal services is a useful tool, not a toolbox

Callinan was cautious about over-reliance on AI—both in-house and in firms. He acknowledged the utility, but highlighted the risk of errors and “confident nonsense” appearing in outputs (including irrelevant citations). His expectation was straightforward: if firms use AI, a human must properly verify the work, and clients should not be paying premium fees for what amounts to “running it through software”.

He also pushed back on the emerging pattern of clients asking firms to validate AI outputs—likening it to asking someone to “fix” or check work you didn’t ask them to do in the first place. Better, he suggested, to ask the question cleanly and compare answers yourself.

On training junior lawyers, Callinan flagged a longer-term risk: if AI displaces too much early-career work, the profession could face a future “experience gap”—fewer associates developing the judgement needed to become the next generation of experts.

The fastest way to lose trust: the non-negotiables

Callinan’s “no-nos” were crisp:

• Sloppy mistakes in advice or drafting.
• Asking for information already provided (signalling poor attention).
• Template errors, including another client’s name left in documents.
• Lawyers who don’t listen or who default to “no” rather than problem-solving.

Given the fees involved, he expects polish, care, and an outcomes mindset.

Who stands out: the future rainmakers

Interestingly, Callinan said he often looks past the “checked-out” seniority and seeks the rising stars: senior associates/counsel on the way up—hungry, engaged, and deeply fluent not just in the law, but in the industry (security, data flows, tech stack realities). Those are the people who go the extra mile, build trust quickly, and become long-term partners to in-house teams.

Practical takeaways

• In-house teams increasingly want high-value judgment, not paid legal “Wikipedia”.
• Bring firm-specific questions and your internal view—save time and money.
• Panels matter less than trusted individuals and sepecialist fit.
• Stay close as external counsel: relevant updates + human connection beat hard selling.
• Predictable fees require a tight scope, explicit exclusions, and agreed iteration limits.
• AI can speed work, but verification is the product—errors erode trust instantly.