The True Cost of Unrealistic Legal Deadlines

Arbitrary Legal Deadlines 

Legal deadlines dictate the pace of work for in-house legal teams, but what happens when we are asked to meet artificial deadlines? Surely not everything was needed yesterday.  
 
In many cases, internal clients impose legal deadlines without considering the actual effort required to produce high-quality work. The result? Resourcing challenges, missed opportunities, increased risk, and spiralling costs. 
 
Lawyers worldwide run hard and fast to meet the legal deadline set by internal clients. We are good at it.  However, it becomes a problem when the deadlines are not realistic – in which case they can often function as a chaos agent - constantly disrupting workflows, creating inefficiencies, and driving up costs . 
 
If your team is constantly firefighting last-minute requests, it’s time to challenge the way legal deadlines are imposed. Let’s explore why arbitrary deadlines are damaging and how to regain control over your legal workflow. 

The Hidden Cost Of Unrealistic Legal Deadlines 

Much of the in-house legal workload is dictated by deadlines set without input from the legal team. These legal deadlines often reflect internal client convenience rather than actual project needs. This often results in inefficiencies and unnecessary costs. 
 
When a legal deadline is unrealistic, the damage extends beyond the legal team: 

◼️ Compromised legal quality: Rushed work increases the risk of errors and poor documentation. 

◼️ Reduced negotiation leverage: Speeding through contracts means weaker protections and increased liability. 

◼️ Increased costs: External counsel fees skyrocket when deals are rushed unnecessarily. 

◼️ Mismanaged resources: Poor legal time management forces senior lawyers to drop high-value tasks for last-minute requests.

◼️ Higher risk of disputes: Poorly drafted contracts due to artificial deadlines lead to costly legal battles. 

◼️ Damaged Team Morale: lawyers are bright and talented – they have choices – and they wont stay in roles that they do not like.  

 Does any of this sound familiar? If so, it’s time to shift the conversation around legal deadlines and push back against unrealistic expectations. 

 
Why Internal Clients Set Arbitrary Legal Deadlines 

Let’s face it, many internal clients impose legal deadlines without fully considering whether they are possible or even necessary. But why? 

◼️ Lack of understanding: They assume all legal work happens at the speed of email. 

◼️ Control and urgency: Some see setting tight deadlines as a way to push things through quickly. 

◼️ Poor planning: Deadlines are often imposed because other stakeholders delayed their input. 

◼️ Power dynamics: Legal teams are often expected to comply, no questions asked.

But here’s the hard truth: Accepting every legal deadline without question sets a dangerous precedent. If your team constantly absorbs the inefficiencies of others, you’ll always be the bottleneck. You might not be the original cause of the problem – but you may become perceived as being the problem.  

Sensible Legal Deadline Management - How to Push Back 

To reclaim control, in-house teams must shift from passive acceptance to proactive legal deadline management. Here are some universal arguments to help persuade internal clients to adopt a more realistic approach: 

1. When we sign is not as important as what we sign - You know that, right? 

2. Rushing means fewer options and more risk - things get missed. Are you okay with that? 

3. Moving fast needs funding - Will you cover the extra resources? 

4. Speed kills leverage - why weaken our position? 

5. Good work takes time - what’s the real downside of waiting? 

6. Other stakeholders must deliver for us to close this. What’s your plan for them? 

7. This deal takes X weeks to do it right for good reason. Are you happy being an “outlier”? 

8. If we miss something just to meet this deadline, how do we explain rushing it? 

9. Rushed deals frequently mean big/expensive problems later - is it worth it? 

10. Rushed contracts only ever favour the other side - are you okay with that? 

11. Are we setting a bad precedent for future deals? 

12. One bad deal can kill margins - are we betting the P&L on speed? 

13. Poor negotiation weakens protections - how much liability can we absorb? 

14. When has “rushing” like crazy ever served us well? 

15. If leadership asks why we missed risks - what’s our answer and who will own it? 

Each of these points forces internal clients to think critically about the legal deadline they’re imposing. The goal isn’t to say “no” to deadlines but to ensure they are aligned with strategic priorities and risk considerations. 

Rewriting the Legal Calendar - A Smarter Approach 

Effective legal time management is crucial in pushing back against arbitrary deadlines. In-house teams need to document workflows, measure turnaround times, and highlight bottlenecks to demonstrate how deadlines impact output quality. 
 
Start by: 
◼️ Tracking historical turnaround times to set realistic expectations. 

◼️ Educating stakeholders on the risks of rushed legal work. 

◼️ Using a centralised legal request system to log and prioritise work. 

◼️ Negotiating better deadlines by aligning legal workflows with business objectives. 

◼️ Setting internal SLAs to define reasonable timeframes for different types of work. 

◼️ Proactive project planning by working with stakeholders ahead of time to set achievable goals. 

◼️ Enforcing intake protocols to standardise how legal instructions are submitted. 

◼️ Regular check-ins to keep legal deadlines aligned with broader project timelines. 

When the legal team controls the date, the business benefits from higher-quality legal work, better risk management, and improved operational efficiency.