A fascinating piece on digital transformation, which immediately made me ask myself:  to what extent can Legal, as typically a centralised, control function, escape being (a perceived) barrier to such transformation?  

However much we as individual lawyers see ourselves as business enablers (and I certainly do), part of the mission is keeping the client on the right side of law, regulation, or a defined risk appetite, and the processes/controls Legal put in place to control this are likely to cause friction in an agile, transformative enterprise environment.  

If one follows the logic of the piece quoted, then I'd see NewLaw services as able to play a valuable role, acting in partnership with the central function as a flexible 'sub-routine' that can be quickly deployed and scaled up or down as demand dictates, and freeing up the internal Legal function to move towards a more agile and distributed interaction with the enterprise at all levels.  

But to truly add value, any such external 'sub-routine' will need a robust feedback channel; two-way informational exchange with the internal function about practice and problems experienced/overcome,  leveraging the experiences and perspectives of each.  Correctly architectured, I'd argue the sub-routine will be able to play a key role in enabling the Legal function itself to continually evolve.