From the Inside Out: Meet our former in-house counsel, Emily Sadler  

At Harper James, many of our solicitors have faced the same challenges as our clients, serving as the legal counsel in fast-paced and often resource-stretched businesses. They understand the pressures, trade-offs and practical realities of in-house life because they’ve lived it. 

Our interview series, From the Inside Out, shares the perspectives of the Harper James lawyers who have made the move from in-house counsel to private practice. These conversations offer a behind-the-scenes look at what it’s like to be embedded in a business, and how that first-hand experience continues to shape the support they now give to GCs and in-house lawyers. 

Emily Sadler is a Senior Solicitor in our Commercial team. With secondments at two global companies, Emily has supported a small in-house team and helped lead the rollout of a national distribution project. 

What kind of business were you in, and what was your role? 

‘I’ve had two periods working in-house on secondment, each lasting around six months,’ says Emily. ‘The first was with Randstad, a recruitment agency, where I supported a small legal team. My focus was primarily on reviewing contracts, and I gained hands-on experience with the compliance and regulatory requirements specific to employment businesses and agencies. The second was with Schneider Electric, where I joined the in-house legal team to support a major project: rolling out formal distribution agreements across all UK distributors.’ 

What’s one thing you know now, as an experienced solicitor, that you wish you’d known when you first went in-house? 

‘My first in-house role was over a decade ago, and I was still quite junior at the time. I tended to approach matters primarily from a legal standpoint and always focused on perfect drafting and minimising risk wherever possible. 

‘As I gained more experience, I came to understand that in-house legal teams often need to take a more pragmatic approach, balancing legal risk with the commercial realities of the business. That’s something that applies across the board, whether you're in-house or in private practice, and it’s a skill that develops and refines over time.’ 

Can you think of a specific moment or challenge in-house that significantly changed your approach or mindset to practising law? 

‘During a major contract negotiation with a key customer, the sales team was under significant pressure to close the deal quickly. However, the customer’s draft terms included several high-risk clauses, including unlimited liability for certain breaches, which went against the company’s contracting policy,’ Emily explains. ‘My initial instinct was to push back firmly on all the risky provisions – but I quickly realised that timing and securing the relationship were just as important as limiting legal exposure for the business.’ 

‘That experience taught me the importance of aligning legal advice with commercial priorities. I focused on highlighting the genuine ‘red flag’ issues and worked to find balanced solutions, such as introducing liability caps with specific carve-outs, that protected the business without blocking the deal.’ 

Emily adds, ‘It’s an approach I still follow in my work at Harper James. My role is to clearly explain the risks and available options, but ultimately, it's the client’s commercial decision to make. If they’re comfortable with the position, then they’ve made an informed choice that works for their business.’ 

When you were in-house, what was one practical change you made that genuinely made your life easier? 

‘At Schneider, during the distribution agreement project, a new centralised contract management system was introduced. It significantly improved visibility over key obligations, renewal dates, and termination options, making ongoing contract oversight much easier. 

‘The legal playbook at Randstad made my job reviewing commercial contracts much easier. It gave me an at-a-glance view of the company’s approach to certain matters, such as liability limits and acceptable concessions they were prepared to make. It also outlined when issues needed to be escalated and to whom. Now that I’m working at Harper James, I have been involved with helping clients put their own legal playbooks in place.’ 

What do you think is the most underrated skill or knowledge area for someone who is working in-house? 

‘One of the most underrated skills for an in-house lawyer is the ability to communicate complex legal concepts clearly and concisely to non-legal stakeholders,’ explains Emily. ‘Legal advice is only valuable if it can be understood and actioned by the business.  

‘This means avoiding legal jargon, distilling key issues, and focusing on practical next steps. Strong communication builds trust and collaboration with senior management and operational teams, empowering them to make informed decisions. Time needs to be spent building relationships with non-legal stakeholders within the business and face-to-face, wherever possible.’ 

How do you think your in-house experience makes you a more effective external partner for in-house legal teams? 

‘Having worked in-house, I understand the pressures legal teams face – they’re often juggling multiple priorities with limited resources and are expected to deliver clear, commercial solutions quickly. In that environment, there’s little room for lengthy legal analysis or overly cautious advice. 

‘Now in private practice, I focus on delivering practical, commercially minded support that aligns with each client’s business strategy. I make it a priority to understand their industry, objectives and approach to risk, so the advice I give is relevant and actionable. In-house teams also need external lawyers they can rely on to be responsive and adaptable 

When you think back to a crunch moment in-house, what difference would a service like our Extend Plan have made? 

‘I think the Extend Plan would have been a great fit for the legal team during my second in-house role. At the time, they were working with traditional law firms and paying high hourly rates, which meant needing internal approval every time work was outsourced. Getting estimates and going through the sign-off process for each individual instruction was time-consuming and costly. 

‘With the Extend Plan, the team could have set an outsourced legal budget for the quarter or year. That would have allowed them to access legal support more flexibly, without the added bureaucracy, and to get timely, reliable advice from a dedicated team who already understood the business.’