AI is changing how legal work gets done. But the shift for in-house lawyers is not simply about technology. It is about the skills, behaviours and leadership qualities that will matter more as routine legal work becomes faster, more automated and more accessible.
In a recent Lawcadia webinar, A Candid Discussion On What In-House Lawyers Need To Do Differently, Lawcadia co-founder Sacha Kirk spoke with Archana Acharya, Chief General Counsel at Gallagher Bassett, about how the in-house role is changing and what lawyers need to do differently to remain effective, influential and valuable to the business.
Archana brought a practical perspective shaped by more than 25 years working across insurance, banking, financial services, governance, risk, transformation and regulated environments. While AI was a central thread in the discussion, the conversation kept coming back to something more human: judgement, adaptability, relationships and leadership.
Legal Expertise Still Matters, But it is No Longer Enough
Early in her career, Archana said she wanted to be “the smartest lawyer, the one that knew everything about the law.”
Over time, her view changed.
Her experience across different organisations, industries and roles showed her that technical legal knowledge is only one part of effective in-house leadership.
As Archana explained:
“Skills like your judgment, adaptability, and relational skills are equally as important for in-house leaders as legal expertise.”
That is an important distinction for in-house lawyers.
The value of an in-house legal team is not measured only by the quality of legal analysis. It is measured by the function’s ability to help the business make better decisions, manage risk in context and move forward with confidence.
That requires more than technical expertise. It requires lawyers who understand the business, communicate clearly, build trust and know when a matter needs deep legal input and when it needs a practical, commercially sound answer.
AI is Shifting the Work from Drafting to Reviewing, and from Research to Advice
One of the clearest shifts Archana is seeing is a change in the nature of legal work itself.
AI tools are already being used by her team to support contract reviews, extract relevant provisions, prepare summaries, create chronologies and produce first drafts.
As Archana said:
“For a small team like us, it has had significant productivity and efficiency gains.”
But the point is not simply that AI can produce work faster. The point is that lawyers now need to focus more sharply on the work that sits above the task.
Archana described the shift clearly:
“For me, I’m seeing that it’s less drafting and perhaps more reviewing and judgment, less research and more advising.”
That shift makes judgement even more important. AI can generate a first draft, identify clauses and summarise information. But it cannot take responsibility for the advice. It cannot fully understand organisational context, stakeholder dynamics, risk appetite or strategic priorities.
That responsibility remains with the lawyer.
Archana was direct on this point:
“Human in the loop controls are essential. That’s not optional.”
AI can support legal work, but the lawyer remains accountable for the accuracy, relevance and quality of the advice.
Stop Chasing Perfection at the Expense of Progress
One habit Archana believes in-house lawyers need to rethink is the pursuit of perfection.
This can be a difficult adjustment, particularly for lawyers who have moved from private practice into an in-house role. Many lawyers are trained to produce work that is highly polished and technically comprehensive. But in-house, the business often needs clear, commercially sound advice within a short timeframe.
As Archana put it:
“What the business needs is commercially sound legal advice in a very timely manner. Not something that is 100% perfect, that takes you much longer to provide. The business needs commercially sound advice delivered in a timely manner”.
There will always be matters where technical detail is critical. But there are also many situations where the business needs a fast, practical view so it can make a decision and keep moving.
The skill is knowing the difference.
Effective in-house lawyers are not the ones who make every issue more complex. They are the ones who understand the level of rigour required, apply judgement and help the business act.
Influence Comes from Relationships, Not Isolation
A strong theme throughout the conversation was the importance of relationships.
In-house lawyers cannot build influence from the sidelines. They need to be connected to the business, close to decision-making and trusted by stakeholders before issues become formal legal problems.
Archana said:
“I can’t emphasise enough how important it is to have those relationships, because that’s how information comes to you.”
This is where influence starts.
When people trust the legal team, they are more likely to raise issues before they escalate. They are more likely to ask for input before decisions are locked in. They are more likely to see legal as a partner rather than a blocker.
Archana described the value of being involved early:
“Being part of the strategic discussions so that you can influence them before decisions are made that you have to react to.”
If legal is only brought in after the decision has been made, the role becomes reactive. Influence is reduced. Options are narrowed.
AI may create productivity gains, but those gains should not simply be absorbed into more work. Some of that time should be reinvested into relationship-building, stakeholder engagement and deeper business understanding.
That is where legal teams will create more value.
Technology Confidence is Now a Leadership Skill
Not every legal leader sees themselves as highly tech-savvy. Archana was clear that this should not be a barrier.
As she said:
“I am a user, not an advanced one, but I am curious, willing to experiment and happy to learn from others. You don’t need to code. All you need to be able to do is understand what AI can do for you and try to lead its adoption within your function.”
This is an important leadership message. In-house lawyers do not need to become technologists. They do need to understand enough to ask the right questions, identify appropriate use cases, manage risk and help their teams adopt tools responsibly.
The teams that adapt well will be the ones that build confidence collectively. That may include identifying internal champions, sharing prompt examples, discussing use cases and creating safe ways for the team to learn together.
Productivity Gains Should Be Directed Towards Higher-Value Work
AI and automation create the opportunity to improve legal delivery, but only if teams are deliberate about how they use the time saved.
Archana put it this way:
“It’s about using technology and automation to continuously improve your legal delivery.”
That means using technology to reduce the time spent on routine work, then redirecting that capacity into work that has higher value for the business.
As Archana explained:
“If you can automate the routine legal work, the first drafts, the research, you then get the ability to focus on the high-value strategic work and the relationships.”
This is also where legal teams need to be honest about what work deserves their time.
Understanding the business helps lawyers identify which matters require deeper investment and which do not. Not every matter carries the same level of risk or strategic importance. Not every task should be treated as though it requires the same legal effort.
She said lawyers need to focus on:
“Really understanding your business and what matters to the business, what is actually going to move the dial.”
The most effective in-house lawyers will be those who can prioritise based on business impact.
In-House Lawyers Need to Advocate for Their Own Development
Another important point from the discussion was the need for lawyers to take ownership of their development.
Archana reflected that earlier in her career, she assumed hard work and long hours would be enough for recognition and progression.
As she said:
“I was of the belief that if I worked really hard and put in the long hours, my boss would appreciate that what I wanted to do was get promoted and get recognised.”
Over time, she realised that was not enough.
“Leaders aren’t mind readers. They don’t really know what’s going on in your heads.”
As Archana said, it is up to lawyers to:
“Speak up about your goals, your contributions, your ambitions, and also to invest in your leadership capability.”
They also need to invest in the skills that will make them more effective leaders, including stakeholder management, coaching, communication, commercial judgement and AI capability.
This is particularly important in the current environment.
The role is changing quickly. Lawyers need to be active in identifying what they need to learn, where they need feedback and how they want to grow.
AI is Changing What In-House Teams Expect from Law Firms
The expectations placed on in-house teams are also changing what they expect from external counsel.
Archana was direct on this point:
“Responsiveness is going to be non-negotiable.”
With legal AI tools now available, it is harder to justify work taking longer than it should.
Archana also raised billing transparency as a pressure point, giving the example of receiving an invoice that was double the quoted estimate, with no advance warning.
As AI creates efficiencies, in-house teams will increasingly expect those efficiencies to be reflected in pricing, predictability and delivery.
As she said:
“With the proliferation of AI, in-house teams will increasingly expect that those efficiencies will pass to companies in the pricing and also the invoices should be more predictable.”
Law firms will need to be more disciplined.
That means clearer communication, better matter management, stronger budget control and a sharper understanding of the client’s business.
The firms that remain most valuable will not simply be technically strong. They will feel like an extension of the in-house team.
Archana described the firms she values most:
“The best firms, you know, the ones I really like working with, they feel like an extension of our own team.”
Those firms understand the organisation’s strategy, regulatory environment, risk profile and operating context. That is where external lawyers will continue to differentiate themselves.
Junior Lawyers Need to Develop Judgement Earlier
AI also raises a serious question for the development of junior lawyers.
If AI can perform some of the tasks traditionally given to junior lawyers, such as extracting clauses, preparing tables, summarising documents and producing first drafts, then the legal profession needs to be more deliberate about how judgement is developed.
Archana challenged the idea that the lawyer’s value lies in pulling a clause from a contract.
As she said:
“If lawyers think that their role is to pull clauses from the contract, then they’ve really sold themselves short.”
The real value lies in interpretation, judgement and advice.
Archana explained:
“What I think distinguishes lawyers from others is that our experience and our training have made us able to exercise judgment.”
That has implications for law firms and in-house teams. Junior lawyers will still need training, supervision and exposure, but the focus may need to shift earlier towards judgement, context and decision-making.
In Archana’s view, law firms should be focused on:
“Developing the junior lawyers to be able to harness that at much earlier stages than I would have in my career.”
This will require mentoring and more intentional work allocation. It may also accelerate the development of junior lawyers who are given the right opportunities and guidance.
Experience, Resilience and Grit Still Matter
Technology may be changing legal work, but experience still matters deeply.
Archana spoke candidly about the impact of a non-linear career path, including working across industries, countries, cultures, business models and different roles.
As she said:
“I have worked across many industries, different countries, been exposed to different personalities, business models, and different cultures. So that has taught me adaptability and being comfortable in uncertainty.”
She also shared a personal career setback, which at the time felt like a major setback. In hindsight, it helped build resilience and grit.
Archana said:
“That setback taught me more about resilience and the power of grit.”
As she put it:
“Experience, whether it’s linear or not in your career, always helps build judgment. And I don’t really think you can teach judgment.”
Judgement is built through exposure, mistakes, feedback, difficult decisions and observing how others navigate complexity.
For in-house lawyers, the role often requires decisions in uncertain conditions, with incomplete information and competing stakeholder interests. Technical legal knowledge helps, but judgement is what turns that knowledge into practical advice.
What Will Distinguish Effective In-House Lawyers Over the Next Three to Five Years?
The core skills that make a good lawyer will still matter: legal expertise, commercial judgement and the ability to communicate complex matters clearly.
Archana said the lawyers who stand out will still need “commercial judgement alongside the legal expertise.”
But the next few years will place greater emphasis on adaptability and technology confidence.
She said:
“The thing that I think will be different for the next three to five years is you need to be tech-savvy.”
That does not mean every lawyer needs to become a technical expert. It means lawyers need to be willing to engage with the tools, understand how they affect legal delivery and maximise the time saved by focusing on work that matters.
Key Takeaways
- Legal expertise remains important, but it is not enough
The most effective in-house lawyers combine technical knowledge with judgement, adaptability and strong relationships. - Judgement becomes more valuable as work accelerates
AI can support drafting, research, extraction and summarisation. Lawyers still need to review, interpret, advise and take responsibility for the outcome. - Influence requires business engagement
Legal teams build influence by working closely with the business, identifying issues early and contributing to strategic discussions before decisions are made. - Technology confidence is now part of legal leadership
In-house lawyers do not need to code, but they do need to understand how AI can improve legal delivery and where oversight is required. - External counsel relationships need stronger discipline
Responsiveness, billing transparency, business understanding and predictable delivery will become more important as expectations shift. - Junior lawyers need deliberate development
If AI changes the work traditionally given to junior lawyers, the profession needs to be more intentional about developing judgement, context and advisory capability earlier.
Final Thoughts
AI is not reducing the need for in-house lawyers. It is changing what the business will value most from them.
The in-house lawyers who stay effective and influential will be those who combine legal expertise with commercial judgement, strong relationships, clear communication and a practical understanding of technology.
AI may change the work. It will not replace the need for trusted legal leaders who can help the business make better decisions.
Listen to a recording of the webinar here.