Team size : 6.5 FTE

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

I led the partial exit for our existing owners and the onboarding of new investors on the legal side through to completion, balancing the demands of an incoming investment against the need to keep the business moving.

We also have a renewed and deliberate focus on IP protection to match the pace of the R&D across our business; our products and technology are genuinely ground-breaking. My team is tasked with ensuring that the protection we have is enough to guard that significant investment in innovation.

I have also been managing critical litigation in the US. The constant throughline across all workstreams has been immersion in decision-making rather than advising from the sidelines – one of the key benefits of working in-house.

Please provide a brief description of any internal transformation/development projects within your legal team over the last twelve months.

Our team has been deliberately stable; across Rayner, low turnover is the goal. For the Legal team in particular, my development focus has been on tools rather than headcount. We already run internal policies and controls designed to protect the business, particularly around cyber security, but the real task has been balancing that defensive posture with being genuinely agile on AI adoption. We aim for constant improvement so that we are faster and more responsive to the revenue-generating parts of the business. AI for the Legal team will be critical to how we address the central challenge every high-growth company faces: the asymmetry between the growth of the business at large and that of the legal function. AI is how we intend to absorb that ever-increasing gap without diluting quality.

What are the most important attributes of the modern GC and what advice would you give to those aspiring to be an in-house lawyer?

No big surprises, but commercial awareness and pragmatism are essential, underpinned by highly attuned risk analysis. Not everything can be dealt with, so ruthless prioritisation is critical. I’d also say that rationality and composure are hugely valuable – a GC who is steady and unflappable in the face of a potential crisis can be invaluable. Equally important is accepting the role of a leader within the organisation. An effective GC will not simply keep their head down and grind work out, but will acknowledge the importance of generating positive energy, motivating others and coaching and developing the team around them.

My advice to aspiring in-house lawyers is to drop the notion that in-house is the easier option. It is not less work; it is different work. You are embedded in the decision-making, often at the forefront of driving deals to completion, and you frequently make the decision rather than only advising on it. It is a different style and a different set of expectations for how you engage with your clients.

How do you manage situations where legal advice and commercial objectives conflict?

It is not always possible, but for me the best approach is to stop the conflict arising in the first place! Good early positioning avoids most stand-offs. Beyond that, it helps to remember that, redlines aside, what we do is advise, and genuine ones are rare. A line that has stuck with me: “Lawyers should consider whether they can achieve more by stepping out of the way.” Provided the hard limits are not crossed, most decisions are commercial ones for the business to make. Our value is in making the risk visible and the choice fully informed, laying out clearly where the risk sits, so no one is surprised later. Other business leaders can then decide with their eyes open.

How do you use AI within your legal team to improve efficiency while maintaining quality, governance and integrity? How do you think AI will impact in-house legal functions more widely?

We run light-touch guidelines rather than heavy prohibition: no confidential information goes in, everything AI produces is checked in full and one golden rule: if you are not competent to do the task without AI, you are not competent to do it with AI. Within that framework we use it widely: for first drafts, low-level contract review, file notes, drafting and pressure-testing advice, checking our own reasoning and document summary. It is augmentation, not replacement. Mark Cuban put it well: there are people who use AI so they never have to learn anything, and people who use it so they can learn everything. I want Rayner Legal to be firmly in the second camp. It is incumbent on me to make sure we are not left behind on AI usage. If I am not encouraging and guiding my team on how to use this technology, I think I would be doing them a disservice to their personal development and leaving productivity gains untapped for Rayner.

Have you had any particularly unique or defining experiences during your legal career? What has been your biggest career challenge or highlight?

Being a part of the leadership team and playing a meaningful part in re-establishing a great British company at the forefront of its industry has been my career highlight. During my time at Rayner, we have moved from being a niche operator with historic family ownership to being among the leading companies in ophthalmology. Successive private equity backing has allowed us to scale the business in line with our ambition, acquiring and in-licensing key technologies, funding strategically important acquisitions and establishing a direct presence in key markets. Growth has been industry-leading, but with the ambition of our current leadership and owners, the job is nowhere near done. There are always new mountains to climb, but taking stock and reflecting on what has been achieved to date has to be the highlight.