Legal leaders discuss why innovation stalls despite unprecedented AI investment, the future of legal judgement, and the evolving relationship between lawyers and technology. Artificial intelligence has become one of the defining forces shaping the future of legal practice. Yet, despite growing investment in legal technology and increasing pressure on legal teams to modernise, many innovation initiatives continue to struggle.
This challenge was explored during the session titled “Why GC-Led Innovation Stalls: The Barriers Beneath the Surface” at LegalTechTalk 2026. Moderated by Auraellia Wang, former Competition Counsel at Google, the panel brought together Monica Risam, Group General Counsel at Starling Bank; Rachel Gonzalez, former Chief Legal Officer of GE Vernova and former General Counsel of Starbucks; Sapan Gupta, Group General Counsel at ArcelorMittal; and Guy Shahar, Founder and CEO of Blee.
Over the course of the discussion, the panellists examined why legal innovation often stalls despite widespread enthusiasm for AI and agreed that the greatest barriers to transformation are not technological but human, organisational and cultural.
The Legal Industry has passed the technology inflection point
Opening the discussion, Auraellia Wang reflected on the title of the session and observed that it reflected the legal industry’s current reality: a profession confronting a new frontier of change.
Guy Shahar argued that the legal sector has already passed the technological inflection point. In his view, the central question is no longer whether technology can perform legal tasks but whether organisations are capable of absorbing and implementing it effectively.
According to Guy, legal departments are facing pressure from executives, competitors and business stakeholders to adopt AI-driven solutions. However, many organisations remain focused on technology while overlooking more fundamental questions relating to people, processes and organisational readiness.
He noted that the legal industry has quickly shifted from being “data-driven” to becoming “AI-driven”, but many organisations are still struggling to understand how they should redesign workflows, knowledge management systems and operating models to support successful implementation.
Monica Risam similarly observed that the legal profession is traditionally conservative and is now being forced to adapt to a pace of change unlike anything experienced previously. She explained that many lawyers view AI as both exciting and intimidating. While some embrace technology as a tool that can enhance productivity, others remain concerned about the implications for jobs, legal training and professional development.
For Monica, however, AI is no longer optional. She stressed that lawyers must learn to embrace technology while ensuring they continue to develop the skills that make legal professionals valuable.
Rachel Gonzalez described the current pace of transformation as unprecedented. While organisations are investing heavily in technology, she argued that successful transformation depends upon leadership and vision rather than technology alone.
According to Rachel, innovation initiatives often struggle because organisations fail to clearly define the problem they are attempting to solve. Unless people understand the purpose behind change and feel personally invested in it, they are unlikely to support transformation efforts.
Sapan Gupta shared a similar perspective, describing the current period as one of the most exciting phases of his career. Having spent more than two decades working primarily with Microsoft Word and Outlook, he observed that lawyers are now witnessing a technological revolution that is fundamentally reshaping legal practice.
While questions previously focused on whether AI would survive and whether it posed ethical or societal risks, Sapan noted that those debates have largely subsided. The legal profession has accepted that AI is here to stay. The focus has now shifted to determining how AI should be used and how organisations can effectively integrate it into their operations.
He further noted that significant investment in legal technology over the last eighteen months has accelerated innovation and increased pressure on legal departments to move beyond experimentation towards effective adoption.
Why innovation efforts often fail
As the discussion moved to the barriers preventing successful transformation, Guy Shahar identified what he described as “orphan ownership” as one of the most significant obstacles.
According to Guy, many organisations have no shortage of people who support innovation in principle. However, far fewer individuals are willing to take ownership of transformation initiatives and assume responsibility for driving implementation.
As a result, projects often struggle to gain momentum because accountability remains unclear.
Guy also highlighted expectation management as a major challenge. He observed that organisations frequently become excited during demonstrations and procurement discussions but fail to appreciate the work required after a solution has been selected.
Questions relating to implementation, workflow redesign, project management, knowledge management and change management are often overlooked. Enterprise technology solutions rarely function effectively straight out of the box, and successful adoption requires considerable planning and organisational alignment.
Mindset change and organisational buy-in
Drawing on her experience at Starling Bank, Monica Risam explained that successful implementation often begins with challenging long-standing assumptions about how legal departments operate.
After joining the digital bank, Monica observed that despite working in a technology-focused organisation employing thousands of engineers, the legal function was still operating in a relatively traditional manner.
During early testing, members of her team encountered AI hallucinations when using existing tools for legal queries, raising concerns about reliability and prompting a search for solutions specifically designed for legal work.
Following evaluations of several platforms and an extended pilot programme, the legal team selected a solution that integrated effectively with the organisation’s infrastructure.
However, securing approval required convincing senior stakeholders that legal technology could generate meaningful value.
Monica explained that discussions with the Chief Information Officer and other senior leaders often centred on a simple question: why does legal need its own technology?
To justify investment, Monica focused on demonstrating how AI could help lawyers eliminate low-value administrative work and devote more time to areas where human judgement remains essential.
She also noted that finance leaders inevitably wanted to know how much money would be saved. As a result, legal leaders increasingly need to demonstrate measurable returns on investment if they hope to secure support for innovation initiatives.
Fear, resistance and surprising sources of innovation
The panel acknowledged that fear remains a common feature of technology adoption.
Rachel Gonzalez noted that many lawyers worry that increased efficiency could eventually result in pressure from finance departments to reduce headcount. Concerns about job security and uncertainty remain significant barriers to adoption.
At the same time, Rachel shared an example that challenged conventional assumptions. Within GE Vernova, a legal team embedded within the company’s software business collaborated with engineers to build its own legal technology solution. The resulting tool proved so successful that it was later adopted by other business units across the organisation.
For Rachel, the experience demonstrated that legal teams are not merely consumers of technology but can also become active innovators.
Sapan Gupta observed that resistance often manifests differently within legal departments and across wider organisations.
Within his own legal team, adoption proved stronger among senior lawyers than younger lawyers. According to Sapan, senior professionals often feared being left behind if they failed to engage with emerging technology, whereas younger lawyers frequently assumed they could learn the tools later when necessary.
To encourage meaningful adoption, Sapan explained that software usage was monitored and licences were reallocated where tools were not being actively used. This helped create accountability and encouraged lawyers to engage with available technology.
Beyond the legal department, however, organisational resistance frequently emerged from information technology teams and procurement processes. Technology departments often preferred building internal solutions rather than purchasing external products, creating lengthy evaluation processes.
Sapan also highlighted the challenges associated with proof-of-concept exercises. Just as one concern is resolved, another issue frequently emerges, prolonging decision-making and delaying implementation.
Another challenge, according to Sapan, is the sheer volume of legal technology providers entering the market. Legal departments are increasingly exposed to constant marketing from vendors, making it difficult to determine which solutions genuinely offer value.
To address this issue, ArcelorMittal hired a dedicated legal operations and legal technology specialist. Sapan noted that having a non-lawyer focused exclusively on legal technology significantly improved the organisation’s ability to evaluate and implement new tools.
The future role of lawyers
One of the most significant discussions focused on how technology is changing the role of lawyers.
Auraellia Wang suggested that legal professionals may be experiencing an identity shift as technology assumes responsibility for a growing number of traditional legal tasks.
Monica Risam argued that the future value of lawyers will increasingly lie in judgement, experience and wisdom rather than routine process-driven work.
Reflecting on her own career, Monica noted that previous generations of lawyers developed expertise by reading documents, reviewing precedents and analysing risks manually. AI can now perform many of these tasks within seconds.
While acknowledging the efficiencies generated by technology, Monica expressed concern that younger lawyers may not have sufficient opportunities to develop judgement if they become overly reliant on AI-generated outputs.
According to Monica, the legal profession is still searching for the right balance between leveraging technological efficiency and preserving the experiential learning necessary to develop future leaders.
Rachel Gonzalez built upon this point by reflecting on her early legal training. She recalled a time when lawyers were required to understand how legal research tools arrived at their conclusions rather than simply accepting the answers provided.
For Rachel, understanding the reasoning behind a legal conclusion remains as important as the conclusion itself. Lawyers must continue to understand context, logic and business realities if they are to provide effective advice.
Judgement, control and human agency
The discussion repeatedly returned to the themes of judgement and control.
Guy Shahar argued that many concerns about AI are frequently misunderstood.
In his experience, lawyers are often less worried about being replaced than about losing agency and control over their work.
According to Guy, lawyers are trained to exercise independent judgement and maintain accountability for decisions. As a result, technologies that appear opaque or difficult to explain naturally generate resistance.
To address these concerns, Guy argued that legal technology providers must prioritise explainability. Lawyers need to understand how outputs are generated and be able to trace recommendations back to underlying rules and knowledge sources.
Only by maintaining transparency and preserving user control can organisations build the trust necessary for widespread adoption.
Sapan agreed that judgement and control will remain central to legal practice. However, he suggested that organisations will increasingly need to determine how much judgement can appropriately be delegated to technology.
In his view, the future legal model will involve an evolving balance between human oversight and AI-generated recommendations. Clients, law firms and legal departments will all need to determine the level of reliance they are prepared to place on AI depending on the nature and risk profile of the work involved.
AI Is changing relationships with external counsel
Monica Risam also discussed how AI is beginning to reshape relationships between legal departments and law firms.
She described a situation involving employee notifications across ten jurisdictions following an internal restructuring exercise.
When external counsel provided a substantial fee estimate for jurisdiction-specific advice, Monica instead used AI tools to generate an initial analysis outlining the relevant legal requirements and best practices across each jurisdiction.
The resulting analysis was then sent to external counsel for verification.
According to Monica, the law firm confirmed the analysis without charging additional fees, demonstrating how AI can enable in-house teams to perform work that was previously outsourced while allowing external lawyers to focus on validation and specialist expertise.
Efficiency Gains, Cognitive Load and the Future of Legal Work
The panel remained broadly optimistic about the future impact of AI.
Sapan Gupta argued that AI should be viewed as the next stage in a long history of technological progress. Just as lawyers adapted from typewriters to computers, they will adapt to AI.
Rather than reducing legal work, Sapan suggested that technology could dramatically increase output. Lawyers may be able to handle more transactions, more disputes and more complex matters than ever before.
Rachel Gonzalez agreed that the opportunities are substantial but raised concerns regarding cognitive load.
As routine and repetitive tasks become automated, lawyers may find themselves spending most of their time dealing with highly complex, strategically significant issues.
While this may increase the value of legal professionals, Rachel warned that it could also create challenges relating to mental workload, decision fatigue and sustainable performance.
The Legal Technology market is still in its infancy
Looking ahead, the panellists agreed that the legal technology sector remains in the early stages of development.
Guy compared the current moment to the period shortly after the invention of electricity, suggesting that the industry is only beginning to understand the transformative potential of AI.
He observed that developments are occurring so rapidly that assumptions formed only a few months ago may already be outdated.
Rachel echoed this sentiment and reflected on the remarkable improvement in AI capabilities over the last twelve to fifteen months.
She recalled that legal technology tools previously struggled to perform complex contractual analysis and risk allocation exercises. Today, those same tasks can often be completed with a level of sophistication that would have been difficult to imagine only a short time ago.
For Rachel, this demonstrated that AI tools are currently at their weakest point and are likely to improve significantly in the years ahead.
Sapan, however, cautioned that the legal technology market itself remains highly volatile.
New companies continue to emerge, valuations continue to rise, and it remains uncertain which providers will ultimately survive. Given the finite size of the legal services market, Sapan questioned whether current levels of investment and enthusiasm can be sustained indefinitely and suggested that market consolidation may eventually become inevitable.
Conclusion
Concluding the discussion, Auraellia reflected on the breadth and depth of the issues explored by the panel and observed that legal innovation is far more complex than a simple technology adoption exercise.
Throughout the session, the panellists consistently emphasised that successful transformation depends not only on technological capability but also on leadership, culture, organisational readiness, stakeholder alignment and trust.
While artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming legal practice, the discussion highlighted that the future role of lawyers will continue to centre on judgement, context, experience and accountability. The challenge facing general counsel is therefore not simply adopting new tools but leading organisations through a fundamental shift in how legal work is performed, valued and delivered.
