What are the key projects that you have been involved in over the past twelve months?

Over the past twelve months, I have been involved in a range of key projects across the Ferd group, primarily within financing and M&A.

I have acted as a legal and commercial advisor to three privately-owned portfolio companies in connection with their refinancing processes, supporting both negotiations and overall transaction execution. In addition, I have served as an internal advisor on financing and refinancing matters within Ferd Eiendom, contributing to the structuring and implementation of debt arrangements.

I have also been closely involved as internal legal counsel in several exclusive and structured M&A processes led by Ferd Capital and Ferd Eiendom, providing support throughout the transaction lifecycle, including due diligence, negotiations and documentation.

Furthermore, I have advised Ferd Capital in relation to our listed investments, including companies such as Nilfisk and Elopak, on relevant legal and governance matters.

Overall, these engagements have involved a combination of transactional execution, strategic legal advice, and close collaboration with internal stakeholders and external advisors.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into legal teams, and the pressure grows to ‘do more with less’, how can GC balance efficiency, quality and human judgement?

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into legal teams, the role of the General Counsel is evolving towards balancing efficiency gains with the preservation of quality and sound human judgement.

Over the past few years, legal AI tools have improved significantly and now play a meaningful role in day-to-day legal work. In an in-house setting, AI can enhance efficiency across a number of areas, including drafting key clauses, tailoring agreements based on internal templates, supporting project management, and quickly identifying and summarising key risks in complex documents. It is also a valuable tool when encountering unfamiliar legal issues, providing a useful starting point for further analysis and enabling faster orientation.

At the same time, AI enables more effective use of external counsel. Instructions can be more precise and targeted, allowing external advisors to focus on high-value, complex issues rather than more routine work. This not only improves cost-efficiency, but also enhances the overall quality of output by combining internal insight with external specialist expertise.

However, maintaining quality requires clear guardrails. AI outputs must be critically assessed, and legal judgement remains essential, particularly in areas involving commercial trade-offs, risk appetite and strategic decision-making. Human oversight is key to ensuring that advice is not only technically correct, but also contextually appropriate and aligned with the business.

To strike the right balance, GCs should focus on: embedding AI within well-defined workflows and approval processes; ensuring that the legal team develops the skills needed to use AI critically and responsibly; safeguarding confidentiality and data security; and maintaining a strong culture of professional scepticism and accountability.

Ultimately, AI should be seen as a force multiplier rather than a replacement, freeing up time for in-house lawyers to focus on higher-value work where human judgement, experience and business understanding remain indispensable.

What key trends – and challenges – should in-house lawyers be monitoring over the next year?

Over the next year, in-house lawyers should closely monitor a combination of technological, regulatory and commercial developments that are reshaping the legal function.

A key trend is the continued rapid advancement and adoption of AI in legal work. While AI offers significant efficiency gains in areas such as drafting, document review and knowledge management, it also raises important challenges around quality control, data security and the risk of over-reliance. Ensuring that AI is used responsibly, with appropriate human oversight and clear internal guidelines, will be critical.

Another important development is the increasing regulatory complexity across jurisdictions. This includes evolving frameworks around data protection, compliance in general, sanctions and corporate governance. For in-house teams, staying ahead of these changes — and translating them into practical, business-relevant advice — will require both strong internal processes and selective use of external expertise.

Geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty is also likely to remain a key challenge. Volatile markets will continue to impact transaction activity, refinancing processes, and overall risk exposure. In-house lawyers will need to play a more strategic role in assessing and mitigating these risks, particularly in M&A and financing contexts.

In addition, there is a continued expectation to “do more with less.” Legal teams are under pressure to deliver faster, more commercially focused advice while managing costs. This places greater emphasis on prioritisation, standardisation (e.g. templates and playbooks), and smarter use of both technology and external counsel.

Finally, capability development within legal teams will be increasingly important. In-house lawyers will need to combine strong legal skills with commercial understanding, technological literacy, and the ability to communicate clearly with business stakeholders.

Overall, the key challenge will be balancing efficiency with quality and judgement, leveraging new tools and ways of working while ensuring that legal advice remains robust, pragmatic and aligned with the organisation’s risk profile and strategic objectives.