Who Shapes the Rules of Tomorrow? Insights from the Global Legal Forum 2026

The law no longer moves at the pace of statutes and courtrooms alone. It now moves at the speed of technology, geopolitics, climate risk, and economic disruption. In this environment, the question is no longer simply what is legal but who shapes the rules of the future.

The Global Legal Forum (GLF) is where that question is confronted directly. Here, lawyers, inhouse counsels, corporate leaders, and innovators gather not merely to discuss the law, but to challenge it, test it, and redefine its role in a rapidly changing world.

Visiting the Global Legal Forum in The Hague means stepping into a space where uncomfortable questions are welcomed: Are our legal systems equipped for artificial intelligence? Who protects justice when power, technology, and capital evolve faster than regulation?

When AI Meets the Legal Profession

One of the most engaging sessions of the forum carried the ambitious title “From Counsel to Innovator: How Tech is Reframing Client Expectations.” Leading the discussion was Shruti Ajitsaria of A&O Shearman, who addressed a topic dominating nearly every modern legal conference: artificial intelligence. Yet rather than focusing on futuristic scenarios or technical demonstrations, Ajitsaria offered a more grounded observation. Innovation without strategy, she argued, rarely leads anywhere useful. As she put it succinctly: “No strategy, no results. If you don’t know what you’re doing, you won’t get there.”

It was a remark that drew both nods and quiet laughter from the audience. The legal world has spent the past two years enthusiastically discussing AI but enthusiasm alone does not create transformation.

The conversation quickly became interactive. One audience member from a law firm noted that internal discussions about AI often stall when the topic turns to client data and confidentiality concerns. An in-house counsel in the room offered a pragmatic counterpoint: many clients are not fundamentally opposed to AI at all. They simply want to see clear value in return, for example: faster delivery of work or lower costs.

Ajitsaria added another layer to the puzzle. Even when general counsel approve the use of AI tools, the next obstacle can appear in an unexpected place: procurement departments, which may block implementation due to internal policies or vendor concerns. In other words, the path to legal innovation sometimes winds through the most unlikely terrain.

Ajitsaria concluded by highlighting Fuse, A&O Shearman’s innovation hub, as an example of how law firms can experiment with technology in structured ways rather than merely discussing its possibilities.

The exchange revealed a recurring theme of the forum: the barriers to AI adoption are rarely technological. Put differently, the biggest challenge for AI in the legal profession may not be the machines, it may be us.

What Cannot Be Automated

Another session addressed a question that has quietly unsettled many lawyers over the past few years: what remains uniquely human in legal practice?

In “What Can’t Be Automated: Rethinking Legal Leadership in the Age of AI,” Nishat Ruiter, General Counsel at TEDlaw, explored the qualities that will define legal leadership in the coming decade.

The legal leaders of the future must excel at collaboration, critical thinking, and communication. Above all, they must cultivate a quality that lawyers have not always been famous for: humility.

Ruiter observed that lawyers often enter meetings convinced they already know the answer. In reality, the most valuable advisors increasingly begin by asking questions; about the client’s business model, its risks and its strategy.

In short, the modern lawyer must first understand the business before advising it. This observation produced a wave of knowing smiles in the room. Legal training encourages certainty and precision. Yet the most effective lawyers today often demonstrate the opposite instinct: curiosity before certainty.

Rethinking the Law Firm–Client Relationship

If technology is reshaping legal work, it is also transforming the relationship between law firms and their clients.

That dynamic took center stage in the panel “The New Partnership: How GCs and External Counsel Can Redefine Collaboration in the Age of AI.” Moderated by Julia Taddei, General Counsel at Petrobras Netherlands, the panel featured Aminata Ba of Menzies Aviation, Edith Nordmann of AGG International, and Rita Paukšte of ILTE Bank.

The conversation quickly moved beyond technology to the fundamentals of client relationships.

Edith Nordmann emphasized that lawyers ultimately exist to serve the business, but doing so effectively requires understanding how that business actually operates. “Every company has its own working culture,” she said. “You have to add value, not dictate how things should be done.”

Aminata Ba agreed, noting that general counsel increasingly expect external lawyers to behave as true business partners, not simply providers of legal opinions.

Rita Paukšte provided a practical framework for why companies engage external counsel at all. According to her, the reasons typically fall into three categories: additional capacity for routine work, specialized expertise unavailable internally and a second opinion, sometimes humorously described as “paying for the letterhead”. Across all three scenarios, clients evaluate law firms based on three basic factors: speed, quality and cost.

Transparency is also becoming increasingly important, particularly regarding the use of AI tools. As Nordmann noted, law firms must be clear about how technology fits into their work and what it means for pricing.

One of the session’s most memorable analogies came from Paukšte, who compared legal services to hotels. Sometimes a client needs a five-star experience, she said. But for other matters, a comfortable three-star solution is perfectly adequate.

This metaphor struck a chord because it addressed an uncomfortable truth in legal services: not every legal problem requires luxury treatment. In fact, many routine tasks are better delivered efficiently rather than elaborately.

Designing the Future Legal Department

If the relationship between law firms and clients is evolving, so too is the structure of corporate legal teams themselves. The panel “What a Future-Ready Legal Department Looks Like” explored how organizations are adapting to technological change and rising demand for legal services.

Participants included Volker Weisshaar (Managing Director at Weisshaar Legal), Thomas Barothy (CEO & Legal Tech Investor at Partner Lex AG), Marita Rance, Kerry Westland (Partner & Head of the Innovation Group at Addleshaw Goddard) and Claudio Elia (Group Vice President at STMicroelectronics).

One theme quickly emerged: the legal department of the future will likely be smaller, more agile and more multidisciplinary. Instead of teams composed entirely of lawyers, departments are increasingly integrating professionals with expertise in data science, legal engineering, process management, technology and automation.

Kerry Westland emphasized the growing importance of data-driven decision-making, while Thomas Barothy argued that successful transformation requires more than technology. Organizations must also build the right culture, strategy and systems.

Claudio Elia from Italy provided the session’s most colorful moment. Drawing on Italian fashion houses, he suggested that legal departments should think of themselves like designers. In the world of Armani or Valentino, designers create the vision while skilled tailors execute the details. Legal departments, he suggested, should operate similarly: lawyers design the strategy, while processes and technology handle the repetitive work.

Barothy concluded with a reminder that despite automation and AI, the demand for legal services continues to grow. Which means legal departments must learn to scale intelligently, not simply expand. And this insight may be the profession’s biggest paradox. Technology promises efficiency, yet the complexity of modern business ensures that legal work is increasing rather than shrinking.

Beyond the AI Hype

The second day of the forum began with four parallel tracks addressing the evolving landscape of legal practice, from compliance to intellectual property.

One particularly compelling session came from Manuel Mesquita of MM Legal: “Beyond the AI Hype: Legal Operations as a Mindset for Digital Transformation.” Mesquita argued that the real driver of change is not technology but mindset.

He outlined several principles for modern legal teams: Pragmatic curiosity (experiment with purpose), Operational humility (fix processes before automating them), Continuous learning (improve through short feedback cycles), Radical clarity (ensure ownership and transparency) and Governed courage (move quickly while maintaining guardrails).

Mesquita described legal operations as the bridge between strategy and execution. Artificial intelligence may accelerate change, but legal operations determine where that acceleration leads.

Mesquita’s remark about fixing processes before automating them drew perhaps the most knowing laughter of the day. Anyone who has worked with digital transformation projects understands why: automation does not fix broken processes, it simply accelerates them.

Innovation Inside Legal Departments

Later discussions returned to the challenge of innovation within corporate legal teams.

In “Challenges to Legal Innovation in an Organization,” Nishat Ruiter, Isabel Cervantes of Volkswagen Group, and Marita Rance (former Group General Counsel at Glovo) examined why innovation initiatives sometimes stall.

Setting the tone for the conversation, Marita Rance emphasized what she sees as the central mission of any legal department: supporting the business while maintaining independent judgment. “That balance,” she noted, “is the essence of the job.” Innovation, however, looks different in every organization. As Ruiter explained, culture and structure shape what is possible.

Cervantes highlighted three key ingredients for innovation: deep understanding of the business, careful analysis of processes and the courage to challenge established practices. Rance added another essential element: internal sponsorship. Without a senior champion, innovation rarely survives.

The obstacles were equally familiar: resistance to change, limited time and a profession that naturally prefers control. Innovation, by contrast, requires experimentation.

Ruiter closed the session with an elegant metaphor. Referring to the two Spanish women on the panel, she compared innovation to dancing flamenco: it requires rhythm, grace and passion. Those same qualities, she said, are exactly what organizations need to bring innovation to life.

The Rise of Data-Driven Legal Teams

The forum concluded with a panel on building data-driven legal departments, featuring Alexandre Schaff, Marielle Reints, Claudio Elia, and Rita Paukšte.

Schaff presented a case study from Socomec, where the legal team implemented a contract management system designed to improve efficiency, security, and visibility. His practical advice included involving internal stakeholders early, conducting thorough testing and using data to demonstrate efficiency gains.

Marielle Reints shared how her organization’s approach to compliance evolved over time. When she joined the company, compliance was not a primary focus. As regulatory expectations increased, however, the legal department had to expand its oversight. Data became essential in tracking progress and demonstrating value.

The panel concluded with a simple question: Is a data-driven legal department only relevant for large companies? The answer from all speakers was clear. Absolutely not. Organizations of every size benefit from understanding their legal workload, measuring performance and improving processes through data.

Perhaps the most important function of legal data is not operational, it is strategic. Data gives legal departments something they historically struggled with: a clear way to demonstrate their value to the business.

The Future of Legal Leadership

Across the two days of discussions, one theme consistently resurfaced. As technology reshapes the legal profession, the qualities that matter most are becoming profoundly human: humility, collaboration, curiosity, strategic thinking and a deep understanding of business.

Artificial intelligence may transform how lawyers work. But the future of the profession will ultimately depend on how lawyers adapt and how willing they are to rethink long-standing assumptions about their role.

Events like the Global Legal Forum make one thing clear: the legal community is aware of the challenge. But the real test will not happen in conference halls in The Hague. It will happen back in offices, legal departments and boardrooms, where lawyers must decide whether they want to shape the future of the profession or slowly be shaped by it.