Norway 2026
Supported by the Association of Corporate Counsel
General counsel | Saint-Gobain Distribution Norway AS and Brødrene Dahl AS
Head of legal section | Forsvarsbygg (Norwegian Defence Estates Agency NDEA)
Vice president, head of legal, privacy and security management | Intility
VP, General counsel | Adecco/Akkodis Group Nordics
General counsel, personal banking [Head of legal Norway and branch manager] | Nordea
Head of Legal Norway & Iceland | Coca-Cola Europacific Partners
Group chief legal, compliance and HR officer | Viking Assistance Group AS
General counsel and Executive director for legal, compliance, risk and assurance | Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)
VP, legal and compliance | LINK Mobility Group AS
VP Group legal director/general counsel | DNV AS (DNV Group)
General counsel, European and international affairs | Statnett SF
Group EVP and general counsel and chief of staff | KONGSBERG
Head of Legal Telenor Norge AS & Vice President Group Legal Telenor ASA | Telenor
Chief Legal and Compliance Officer | Torvald Klaveness
I am honoured to introduce Legal 500’s GC Powerlist: Norway 2026, recognising leading in-house counsel from across the country. In association with DLA Piper, this year’s edition pays testament to the integral role that in-house counsel play within their organisations and celebrates their commitment and dedication.
Today’s legal and business landscape is characterised by economic, technological and geopolitical change. In-house counsel must guide their organisations through periods of uncertainty, while preserving commercial objectives.
The modern in-house lawyer requires an in-depth understanding of the company, its needs and priorities. ‘A core responsibility for any in-house counsel is to always be curious about the business and have the interest in the business’ success’, explains Fredrick Holm-Hansen, group legal counsel at Avinor AS.
This curiosity that forms the foundation of constructive legal advice. Frode Lillebakken, general counsel at Gelato ASA, agrees: ‘business acumen is one of the most important attributes: understanding the commercial landscape, product strategy and growth levers of the company is essential to delivering relevant, actionable legal advice’.
However, leading businesses through periods of instability often means that legal advice conflicts with commercial priorities. In-house counsel must strike a balance between the legal and the commercial: ‘the goal is rarely to eliminate risk entirely, but rather to enable informed choices that align with the company’s strategy and values’, notes Sigve Reme Sand, chief legal officer at Höegh Autoliners ASA.
It is therefore the responsibility of in-house counsel to ‘quantify, contextualise and prioritise risk in a language that resonates with commercial colleagues’, says Håvard Vikse, general counsel at EY Norge. ‘In uncertain environments, advice that helps the business understand the range of outcomes, enables the business to make risk-based decisions, and suggests alternative solutions is more valuable than just pointing out that something is risky’, he goes on to explain.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is an area that encapsulates this tension. While AI can drive efficiency, it also introduces associated risks: ‘the outcome can be unreliable without rigorous legal validation against trusted sources and professional judgement’, explains Ole Garborg, general counsel at Elkem ASA. ‘The general counsel’s challenge is to ensure efficiency gains do not come at the expense of quality and legal integrity’, adds Ane Løchen Johnstad, general counsel at Alliance Healthcare.
AI should be used to enhance, not replace, the legal function. It is ‘ideal for automating repetitive tasks, accelerating research and handling the straightforward work that does not require nuanced judgement’, says Annette Asper Berg, head of legal at Ringnes. In turn, this frees up ‘lawyers to focus on what only humans can do’, Berg adds, underscoring the enduring and indispensable role of in-house counsel.
Isabel Caine – Editor, corporate counsel
The recent news that elite US firm Sullivan & Cromwell had apologised to a judge over AI hallucinations in a court filing prompted a collective wince from the legal profession.
But while some lawyers remain wary of AI, others are striking a more open-minded note, and at the LexisNexis AI Forum hosted this Wednesday (20 May) by Legal 500 and Legal Business, panelists argued that the risks are far outweighed by the opportunities.
Barbara Zapisetskaya, principal technology counsel at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, made the case that hallucinations and other potential pitfalls can be overcome with a shift in mindset.
‘What makes a difference,’ she said, ‘is empowering your lawyers to take responsibility for AI output – helping them become active AI operators, not just passive AI users. You have agency to decide whether you agree with the output or not.’
Zapisetskaya was among a line-up of leading in-house figures speaking on two panels, which covered everything from practical steps for AI implementation to the key decisions GCs need to be making in the coming months.
Financial Times general counsel Dan Guilford began by stressing the importance of building the right culture for AI adoption. In addition to proactively upskilling himself, Guilford talked about how he had implemented a voluntary weekly ‘show and tell’ meeting for team members to share successful use cases – or an exercise that became a gratifying measure of progress.
Other panelists discussed how increased in-house productivity is altering the dynamic with their external counsel.
While some see the use of AI by law firms as a precursor for reduced fees, Russell Davies, head of global operations for legal and compliance at Dentsu, said that faster results – however they are delivered – are something to be valued.
GSK assistant general counsel Anthony Kenny agreed, saying that while there was an expectation that external counsel would be utilising AI, the focus should be on the value of the output, rather than an overemphasis on identifying AI use as a justification to reduce fees.
Speaking on the second panel, MUFG EMEA general counsel James Morgan stressed the critical importance of education, noting that educating the C-suite on the advantages and risks of AI is just as important as enabling large in-house teams to use these tools.
Shanthini Satyendra, vice-chair of the AI Committee, Society for Computers & Law, CEO and founder of Manisain, offered a reminder of the importance of making the connection between tasks and the purpose behind them, extolling the virtues of identifying use cases for AI that can solve a meaningful problem.
Zapisetskaya concurred, adding that one of the most important tasks for GCs across the next six to twelve months is to create AI playbooks and templates, noting that ‘it is easy for lawyers to see problems – much harder for lawyers to see opportunities.’
There was also broad agreement among panellists that GCs should focus on upskilling their junior lawyers on AI, rather than – as some may expect – cutting back their workforce. As Satyendra summarised: ‘Some people are replacing human capital with AI without thinking about what’s required to make AI work. Retain your people and train them up.’
The panels were moderated by Emma Millington, head of the UK Lexis+ Finance Group, and LexisNexis director of segment management Stuart Greenhill.
