Based on your experiences in the past year, are there any trends in the legal or business world that you are keeping an eye on that you think other in-house lawyers should be mindful of?

What does it mean to be a lawyer in the age of AI, cybersecurity, and digital governance? Over the past year, that question has guided much of my work. In-house lawyers should be particularly mindful of the following interconnected trends.

To begin with, on responsible AI adoption and risk governance, AI is not replacing lawyers; it is reshaping what excellence looks like in our profession. This progress introduces novel legal and ethical challenges, including intellectual property rights for AI-generated content, liability for AI-driven decisions, personal data protection, and the prevention of discrimination and bias. Establishing robust internal guidelines for AI adoption and usage, alongside comprehensive risk assessments, is now a critical imperative for in-house teams.

Regarding cybersecurity and data privacy, cybersecurity threats remain acute, with increasingly sophisticated ransomware attacks and a persistent risk of data breaches through supply chains. Concurrently, data privacy regulations worldwide (e.g., GDPR, CCPA, Japan’s amended APPI) are becoming stricter and more complex. This environment demands increasingly sophisticated corporate responses, particularly concerning cross-border data transfers and employee privacy protection.

Lasting, on the proliferation of legal tech and operational efficiency, the adoption of legal tech tools continues to accelerate, aimed at enhancing operational efficiency and managing costs within legal departments. In-house counsels are increasingly expected to cultivate the acumen to select tools that genuinely address their company’s specific challenges and to establish effective implementation and operational frameworks.

What factors influence your team’s decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate their performance?

Our decision to engage external counsel is guided by a matrix of strategic, operational, and human capital factors.

Firstly, nature and complexity of the matter. High-stakes, precedent-setting, or jurisdictionally novel matters often necessitate the engagement of external firms, especially when specialised courtroom experience or regulatory negotiation skills are essential. Conversely, we typically handle standard or scalable issues in-house to maintain cost efficiency and preserve institutional knowledge.

Secondly, bandwidth and specialisation. When internal bandwidth is constrained or when niche expertise is required, we rely on trusted external partners. We also highly value law firms’ ability to provide second-opinion assessments that sharpen our internal legal thinking and strategic approach.

And, lastly, internal-external synergy. Our outside counsel are not vendors; they are strategic partners. We expect them to understand not just the legal question at hand, but also our products, our risk calculus, and the broader organisational context. The most effective legal advice invariably begins with genuine business empathy.

On the other hand, performance is evaluated on three main dimensions. To begin with, we look at the legal judgment and execution, where the clarity and pragmatism of advice, the thoroughness of risk-weighted analysis, and the quality of advocacy in contentious matters play an important role

Secondly, we take into account collaboration and responsiveness. Their ability to integrate seamlessly with our internal teams and adapt to our business cadence and evolving needs.

Thirdly, we care about cost-effectiveness and transparency. We appreciate firms that proactively suggest alternative fee arrangements and assist us in managing legal spend and litigation portfolios more predictably and efficiently.

Ultimately, we seek to cultivate long-term relationships with firms that demonstrate a commitment to growing with us, not just those that solve isolated problems.