{
  "id": 16730658,
  "title": "What in-house legal leaders really think about AI, in their own words",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/27/what-in-house-legal-leaders-really-think-about-ai-in-their-own-words",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-10-27T09:32:32.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Silicon Republic",
    "slug": "silicon-republic",
    "url": "https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/what-in-house-legal-leaders-really-think-about-ai-in-their-own-words"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A new report, 'From AI Adoption to AI Advantage', explores how in-house legal leaders view artificial intelligence in their organizations. The study interviewed legal and compliance leaders from companies including eir, Flipdish, Gilead Sciences, IMRO, Mastercard, Uniphar, and Wayflyer. The findings reveal that AI is not replacing in-house lawyers, but rather freeing up capacity for new work, often drafted by AI itself.\n\nSergey Kinchin, senior counsel at Uniphar, remarked that his thinking on AI has changed dramatically in the past year. He now views it as a tool that unlocks unmet demand rather than reducing headcount. Máire Neary, VP of people and legal at Flipdish, described AI as a \"junior colleague\" that challenges her but ultimately adds value.\n\nThe report also highlights that AI-assisted drafting is now used to handle a majority of incoming disputes, subject access requests, grievances, and customer complaints. However, the cost lies less in reading the material and more in sorting through it to determine what is relevant. This added volume and time can be challenging for legal teams.\n\nSeán Donegan, chief commercial officer at IMRO, warned that the volume and tenacity of queries and complaints may increase exponentially with AI tools. Uniphar's Kinchin shared an example of AI-generated opinions being presented during a call, ultimately confusing the participants.\n\nDeirdre McCarthy, chief legal and people officer at Wayflyer, emphasized the importance of quality over quantity when it comes to AI-generated content. She noted that while AI can produce a large amount of content, it is not always of high quality, potentially leading to increased time spent on revisions and edits.\n\nMany interviewees recognized that AI-generated legal content may require additional human judgment to ensure accuracy and effectiveness. Carlo Salizzo, head of technology and digital regulation at Dentons Ireland, suggested that genuine human expertise could become even more valuable in a world filled with AI-generated legal content.\n\nHowever, determining the return on investment (ROI) for AI adoption remains a challenge for legal teams. Rebekah Dobson, head of international legal operations at Gilead Sciences, pointed out that companies have not been tracking metrics prior to AI implementation, making it difficult to establish a starting point for measuring impact. She compared the situation to using Excel without tracking ROI, emphasizing that simply having AI may not be sufficient.\n\nDavid Kirton, partner at Dentons Ireland, pointed out that legal teams often struggle to record the work no longer required due to AI adoption. This makes it challenging to quantify the value of AI in terms of cost savings.\n\nLastly, the report highlights the issue of increasing costs associated with AI tools. As providers shift from flat license or per-seat fees to consumption-based, token-metered pricing, bills become harder to forecast. Companies like eir fear being trapped in a cycle of continuously paying higher fees, driven by the need to justify substantial investments in these tools.",
  "summary": "Multiple surveys count how many lawyers are using AI. A new report set out to ask what happens to their workload when they do. Read more: What in-house legal leaders really think about AI, in their own words",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}