At LegalTechTalk 2026, a panel discussion on “How to Become a Tech-Powered GC” examined the evolving role of the General Counsel amid rapid technological change and the growing adoption of artificial intelligence across legal functions. Moderated by Mr. Marco Imperiale, Founder and Managing Director of Better Ipsum, the session brought together the following speakers:
-
Ms. Sonya Rogerson, Head of Legal Transformation and Real Estate Operations at Novartis;
-
Mr. Vincent Brugge, Managing Director for Europe and General Counsel for Europe and Asia at ICL; and
-
Ms. Frankie Williams, Chief Legal Officer at DeepL.
Before turning to the substantive discussion, Mr. Imperiale invited the panellists to introduce themselves and reflect on their professional backgrounds briefly. Ms. Rogerson spoke about her experience across industries and her work in team, business and function transformation, noting her recent focus on the “exploding AI excitement”.
Ms. Williams introduced DeepL as an AI language platform providing translation and speech tools, observing that its products integrate with technologies used by legal professionals in their day-to-day work, including legal technology platforms such as Harvey and Legora.
Mr. Brugge, introducing himself as General Counsel for Europe and Asia at ICL, reflected humorously on having once faced a choice between pursuing a career as a professional fighter and studying law.
Setting the tone for the session, Mr. Imperiale observed that the discussion would explore “AI, human side, and all these other wonderful things” before inviting the panellists to reflect on what transformation means in today’s legal landscape.
Defining Transformation in a Changing Legal Landscape
Opening the discussion, Mr. Imperiale invited the panellists to reflect on “what it means to transform something?”.
Responding to the question, Ms. Rogerson observed that transformation is fundamentally associated with change and disruption, whether driven by deliberate organisational strategy or external developments beyond an organisation’s control. She stated,
“Transformation to me is all about change and disruption. It’s either deliberate, intended strategy to change, or it’s forced upon you, or a little bit of both.”
Reflecting on the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence across the legal sector, Ms. Rogerson observed that the focus should remain on the human lawyer and the wider objectives of organisational change rather than on technology in isolation. According to her, AI transformation should be approached in much the same way as other forms of business transformation.
Building upon that discussion, Ms. Williams reflected on the changing nature of legal work and the opportunities presented by technological developments. Drawing upon her own experience as a trainee lawyer, she highlighted how she spent weeks on repetitive exercises like document reviewing, which did not teach her anything particularly useful about her actual day-to-day work, which was all about critical thinking and the assessment and allocation of risk. According to Ms. Williams, the legal profession is undergoing a transformation which is certainly exciting for her, but “it is a huge adjustment”. She remarked,
“we all need to think really differently about what our jobs are going to look like, because they are going to be very, very different from what they looked like in the last decade.”
Agreeing with Ms. Williams, Mr. Brugge added that it’s not only a legal transformation, but also a business transformation, because others serve the same function. Reflecting on the meaning of transformation from both a legal and business perspective, he observed that, for him, transformation means “going from something that was impossible to possible”. He noted that, while transformation may sometimes be understood as improvement or change, particularly in large listed corporations, there is a risk of becoming trapped in corporate inertia, with transformation amounting to little more than rebranding rather than meaningful change.
Turning to the implementation of legal technology, Mr. Brugge observed that the central question is what organisations are designing technology for. Referring to the increasing adoption of AI in legal functions, he questioned whether improvements in efficiency alone, including making legal teams more efficient, amount to meaningful change and invited consideration of whether such developments constitute real transformation.
The discussion progressed from the concept of transformation to the relationship between legal functions and wider business strategy.
Legal Transformation and Business Strategy
Continuing the discussion, Mr. Imperiale invited the panellists to consider the relationship between legal transformation and business transformation and whether the two could meaningfully be separated.
Reacting to the relationship between business transformation and legal transformation, Mr. Brugge observed that the two are different. Reflecting on the role of legal functions and General Counsel, he noted that the way legal teams perform their work and function as a team can have implications for business transformation. Referring to strategy and the growing role of AI, he observed that legal functions should consider whether they are shaping the decisions of the company and noted that legal teams have a seat at the table through their inputs. Mr. Brugge further observed that, in a rapidly changing business environment influenced by geopolitical developments and other external factors, the role of legal is not only to become more efficient but also to participate in shaping business decisions.
Inviting further reflections on the distinction between business transformation and legal transformation, Imperiale asked Ms. Williams whether she agreed with Mr. Brugge‘s observations.
Responding to the question, Ms. Williams observed that the answer depends largely on the organisation. Reflecting on her experience at a technology company, she noted that driving change within the legal team often means “pushing at an open door”, as the business is already comfortable with new technologies and the internal adoption of AI tools. At the same time, she observed that, in some organisations, legal functions may be perceived as more cautious or less innovative and suggested that emerging technologies present an opportunity for legal teams to be ahead of change rather than lag behind it.
Responding to the same question, Ms. Rogerson observed that, while the distinction between business transformation and legal transformation may appear straightforward, it is more complex in practice. She reflected that business transformation may involve organisational decisions such as acquisitions, carve-outs or other structural changes, whereas legal transformation involves looking at the legal function itself and considering how to optimise it for better outcomes, greater impact and lower costs. Referring to AI and legal technology, Ms. Rogerson observed that legal functions should think more broadly than simply acquiring a tool that reduces a particular number of hours or automates specific tasks.
Learning from Technology Adoption and AI Implementation
Turning the discussion towards the practical challenges of technological and organisational change, Imperiale observed that professional conversations often focus on successes rather than setbacks and invited the panellists to reflect on the lessons they had learned from their own experiences. Referring to the significant changes in technology and AI adoption in recent years, he asked the panellists what they might have done differently in relation to technology, artificial intelligence and managing people.
Responding to Imperiale‘s question, Mr. Brugge reflected on the lessons his team had learned through their own technology and transformation journey. While observing that they were now in a good place, he acknowledged that the process had involved significant internal learning. Looking back three or four years, Mr. Brugge observed that his team had come to realise that “tech is not the transformation”. In his view, organisations should not simply purchase a solution because it is available, but should first identify the work they are trying to address, noting that it is possible to acquire and implement technology only to discover that it does not fit the way a team actually works.
Reflecting on the rapidly changing environment in which legal functions operate, Mr. Brugge observed that the challenge is not only becoming a tech-powered General Counsel, but designing processes for a world shaped by AI and other changing circumstances. He stated that one of the most important lessons for his team had been that “we need to design for the fog”, explaining that organisations should avoid designing solely for their current position because changing business conditions may render those optimisations irrelevant.
Mr. Brugge further observed that his team seeks to “treat judgement now as the constraint resource” and emphasised the importance of having people who are prepared to question almost everything, including technology and AI platforms, rather than allowing the platforms to do the thinking. Reflecting on the team’s experience over the previous three to four years, he acknowledged that it had been a difficult journey involving significant investment, but observed that they had reached a position where they were happy with the foundation they had built for the future.
Responding to the same question, Ms. Williams reflected that she had been fortunate at the beginning of her legal transformation journey in a previous role to receive a mandate to consider how to build a future-proof team. She observed that, before implementing technology, she sought advice from professionals working in larger organisations and legal teams, asking what they would do differently and what lessons they had learned from their own experiences. According to Ms. Williams, this allowed her to benefit from considerable practical advice before introducing new tools and processes.
Building on Mr. Brugge‘s observations, Ms. Williams agreed that the most important consideration is identifying the problem an organisation is trying to solve. At the same time, she observed that, in an environment where technology is evolving rapidly, agility becomes equally important. Reflecting on developments in artificial intelligence, she noted that, although many legal technology conferences over the previous three or four years had focused on AI, much of that discussion had remained speculative or hypothetical until recently. In her view, the pace of change over the last twelve months had been extraordinary, with developments such as vibe coding tools for lawyers demonstrating capabilities that many would not have anticipated only a year earlier.
Also Read: How AI is rewiring the in-house legal function: Key takeaways from LegalTechTalk 2026 | SCC Times
Reflecting on the implications for legal teams, Ms. Williams observed that, while it is impossible to “see round the corner”, organisations should remain “curious and agile and ambitious” in considering new technologies. She stated that “being curious and agile and ambitious about what you’re thinking about using is the most important thing”, observing that “the pace of change is so extreme”.
Responding to the same question, Ms. Rogerson observed that organisations should be realistic about the setbacks they are likely to encounter during transformation journeys. In her view, the way an organisation intends to reach its objectives, and even the outcome itself, may not unfold as originally planned because of factors beyond its control, including regulatory developments, feedback and changing practical circumstances. Building on Ms. Williams‘ observations about the accelerating pace of change, Ms. Rogerson noted that, in the context of AI, the technology, partners, vendors and the wider environment are all likely to evolve over time. She observed that the technology an organisation chooses to adopt, and its approach to AI transformation, may ultimately look very different from what was initially envisaged, particularly given the rapid pace of technological change.
Conclusion
As the formal discussion drew to a close, the session concluded with an interactive question-and-answer session. Participants engaged with the panellists on practical aspects of technology adoption, organisational transformation and the changing role of legal functions, extending the conversation on many of the themes discussed during the panel.
The discussion underscored the practical opportunities and challenges associated with technological change and reflected upon the evolving role of General Counsel and legal teams in increasingly complex business environments.
Also Read: NASA’s Lessons for Law Firms: John Saiz Keynotes LegalTechTalk 2026 | SCC Times
