Have you had any experiences during your career as a lawyer that stand out as particularly unique or interesting?

This was not just my most complex transaction. It was the moment I learned what legal responsibility actually means.

One of the most formative moments of my career came when I joined a Polish company with a global, fast-paced business as its – at that time – sole in-house lawyer. I was responsible for the full spectrum of legal matters, including compliance, while also maintaining a strong operational presence within the organisation. The business was dynamic, international in scope, and at a stage where decisions could not wait.

At that point, the company was actively considering different routes for further development and growth, including potential large-scale transactions. The challenge was not to replace what already worked, but to professionalise Legal in a way that respected the organisation’s pace, culture, and entrepreneurial energy. From the outset, this required close cooperation with the owner, the management, and other key stakeholders, and an approach that combined legal rigor with practical business understanding.

I joined the organisation as an already experienced lawyer, aware that Legal could add value only if it was embedded in how the business operated. Legal effectiveness depended on understanding how decisions were made, how risks translated into operational reality, and how legal input could support momentum rather than interrupt it. Authority did not come from formality, but from reliability, sound judgment, and the ability to engage constructively with the business on real issues.

As the organisation continued to grow, it became increasingly important to think beyond individual execution. While building a Legal team was a natural step, the broader focus was on shaping how Legal and compliance would function within a demanding, evolving environment. This meant developing processes, ways of working, and decision frameworks that could scale with the business, support day-to-day operations, and remain effective in more complex strategic scenarios – without over-formalising or losing proximity to the organisation.

That experience reinforced a fundamental lesson: Legal earns trust when it enables momentum without compromising judgment, and when the business feels both supported and protected at the same time. Decision-making is inherently collaborative, but responsibility ultimately has a human dimension. Even within strong teams and well-designed processes, there are moments where someone must take ownership, exercise judgment, and stand behind the outcome.

Crucially, trust in Legal is built through actions rather than words. People may not always agree with a legal position, but they need to believe in the integrity, intent, and competence behind it. When that trust exists, Legal becomes a genuine partner rather than a perceived obstacle.

This experience fundamentally shaped how I approach my current role – combining strong individual accountability with the deliberate design of scalable Legal teams and systems. While organisational contexts may differ, the principle remains constant: Legal must be closely connected to the business, grounded in human judgment, and capable of operating effectively under real-world conditions.

It taught me that the role of a general counsel is not defined by visibility, but by the significance, impact, and timeliness of the decisions an organisation makes with Legal materially and genuinely at the table – especially when it matters most. Legal creates value when it sharpens decision-making, enables progress on defensible terms, and earns trust through what it delivers, not what it declares.

What do you think are the most important attributes for a modern in-house counsel to possess?

The role of the general counsel has moved far beyond legal expertise or procedural oversight. In organisations operating under constant pressure and across multiple jurisdictions, Legal is increasingly defined by the quality of decisions it enables. The modern GC is not the guardian of rules, but the designer of decision velocity.

This shift does not imply trading caution for speed. It reflects the reality that risk is best governed through clarity rather than control alone. Legal adds the most value when it sets the conditions under which decisions can be taken confidently, consistently, and with a clear understanding of consequences.

A core attribute of the modern GC is risk literacy. Legal authority starts where risk stops being theoretical. Risk becomes manageable only when it is understood, priced, and owned. For in-house counsel, this means translating legal exposure into decision-ready insight that business leaders and boards can act upon without distortion or delay.

Equally important is operational courage. Operational courage is not about approving more; it is about designing decisions that survive pressure. In practice, this often requires choosing simplicity over legal perfection and standardisation over bespoke solutions that do not scale. A GC who cannot say “no” clearly will eventually lose the right to say “yes”. Authority in Legal is built not by blocking progress, but by defining boundaries that are respected because they are robust.

Another defining attribute is AI fluency. AI does not weaken legal authority. Lack of understanding does. As AI becomes embedded in contracting, compliance and risk triage, legal judgment does not disappear – it becomes impossible to obscure. The modern GC must understand how AI shapes legal outcomes to preserve accountability, transparency, and control. This is not just about replacing human judgment, but also about ensuring that it remains visible and owned.

Finally, modern in-house counsel must demonstrate radical accountability. Modern GC are not paid for opinions; they are trusted for decisions. Authority in Legal is earned by standing behind outcomes, not disclaimers. This approach does not diminish the value of legal advice – it elevates the responsibility attached to it and embeds Legal more deeply into the organisation’s decision-making framework.

Taken together, these attributes redefine the GC role as one of leadership rather than support. Legal is no longer a backstop function; it is part of the organisation’s decision engine. Speed without judgment is recklessness. Judgment without speed is irrelevance. The modern GC exists to prevent both.

AI is increasingly being integrated into legal teams to maximise efficiency. How can in-house counsel ensure the successful incorporation of these tools without compromising the human element?

The rapid adoption of AI in legal teams is often framed as a question of efficiency. In reality, it is a question of leadership. AI doesn’t replace judgment; it exposes where judgment is missing. For in-house counsel, the challenge is not whether to adopt AI, but how to embed it in a way that strengthens legal responsibility rather than diluting it.

AI does not remove the human element from Legal. It moves it to where responsibility truly sits. It makes responsibility impossible to hide. As automation increasingly takes over execution-heavy tasks such as document review, contract standardisation, and risk triage, the role of the human lawyer changes fundamentally. Execution scales; ownership does not. The human contribution in Legal becomes smaller in volume, but heavier in consequence.

This shift changes the relationship between execution and legal responsibility, without breaking it. AI will not make Legal less human. It will reveal who actually owns legal decisions – and whether Legal has lawyers who can exercise judgment, and leaders who can govern it. Strong lawyers will not disappear because of AI. Leadership disappears only when it stops owning decisions. In an AI-enabled Legal function, judgment cannot be absorbed by systems or processes; it must remain clearly attributed and consciously exercised.

For this reason, successful AI integration starts not with tools, but with legal design. AI should be treated as legal infrastructure, not as an add-on layered onto existing complexity. The real risk is not adopting AI. The real risk is either ignoring it – or letting it shape Legal without design. When Legal lacks structure, AI amplifies inconsistency. When Legal is well designed, AI reinforces clarity, predictability, and control.

This is why good AI doesn’t create chaos; bad legal design does. Clearly defined frameworks – such as calibrated risk approaches and decision thresholds – allow AI-enabled processes to operate with speed while remaining defensible. Control does not come from checking everything. It comes from knowing what truly matters, and from designing boundaries that scale across teams, transactions, and jurisdictions.

Importantly, preserving the human element does not mean resisting automation or slowing the organisation down. It means being explicit about where human judgment is indispensable and where technology can safely take over. AI scales decisions. Leadership owns them. In this model, the role of the GC is not to oversee every output, but to ensure that responsibility for outcomes remains visible, intentional, and accountable.

Ultimately, AI is not a test of technology. It is a test of leadership. It will expose not only how Legal is automated, but how it actually works – and how it is led. The in-house teams that succeed will be those that use AI not to distance humans from decisions, but to anchor responsibility more clearly than ever before at the heart of the Legal function.