With your extensive background in law, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in the legal field, specifically in technology law? Was there a particular factor that influenced your decision, or did you gradually develop an interest over time?
My interest in law stemmed from an early fondness for social studies, particularly civics, during school. Recognising that a career in law would allow me to engage more deeply with the Indian Constitution, I chose to pursue it professionally. Although I was initially drawn to subjects like cyber law, I was uncertain about specialising in technology law at the time (2014), given its niche status.
Significant events such as the network neutrality debate and the landmark Shreya Singhal case in 2015 piqued my interest in the intersection of law and technology, prompting me to explore this emerging field more seriously. My selection for the LAMP Fellowship also proved to be critical. It offered the opportunity to engage with experts and mentors in the field and to work alongside like-minded professionals equally passionate about technology law.
Building on this foundation, I gained practical experience by working with an international non-profit organisation dedicated to advancing and protecting digital rights. I subsequently pursued a master’s degree with a specialisation in technology law, further deepening my expertise in the field.
How did your experiences at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law shape your approach to technology law and policy? What were the key takeaways from your time there, and what motivated you to pursue an LL.M. program with a specialization in Technology Laws?
After gaining practical experience in technology law, I recognised the need to deepen my understanding and adopt a global perspective, as the field was rapidly evolving in India. The University of California, Berkeley School of Law’s LL.M. program, with a specialisation in Technology Laws, stood out as an excellent opportunity to achieve this goal. Berkeley Law’s esteemed faculty and comprehensive curriculum allowed me to explore a wide range of subjects, including Fundamentals of U.S. Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Privacy Law, Silicon Valley Antitrust, and Surveillance Law and Technology. Additionally, serving as an LL.M. representative for the Women in Technology Law initiative and contributing to the Berkeley Technology Law Journal provided valuable opportunities to build networks and gain deeper insights into the field.
These academic and professional engagements made my time at Berkeley Law truly transformative. It provided a strong foundation in U.S. law and the US court system, while the program’s diverse cohort and international exposure introduced me to a range of perspectives. This broadened my understanding of legal concepts and their complexities, highlighting the importance of developing adaptable, context-sensitive solutions. The program also emphasised interdisciplinary approaches, deepening my appreciation of the interplay between technology, law, and policy, and teaching me the value of collaboration and nuanced thinking in addressing the challenges posed by emerging technologies.
Overall, the LL.M. program at Berkeley Law significantly strengthened my expertise in technology law and policy and prepared me to engage more thoughtfully and strategically within the field.
In the early stages of your career, you worked with PRS Legislative Research as a Legislative Assistant to a Member of Parliament (LAMP) Fellow. Could you elaborate on your experience and the challenges you encountered while working as a Legislative Assistant? What experiences during that time were pivotal in honing your understanding of technology laws?
My experience as a Legislative Assistant to a Member of Parliament (LAMP) Fellow at PRS Legislative Research was nothing short of extraordinary. The fellowship provided a unique opportunity to engage in the legislative process, working closely with my MP (Member of Parliament) on various issues. Key responsibilities included assessing and reviewing government schemes, framing parliamentary questions, preparing bill summaries, drafting private member’s bills, and crafting interventions for parliamentary discussions. I also provided research support on constituency-related issues, focusing on sectors such as Finance, Agriculture, Sports and Electronics and IT.
During the fellowship, one of the key challenges I faced was navigating the breadth and complexity of issues, particularly those with significant implications for the constituency. Navigating these complexities required a strong understanding of not just local concerns, but also broader policy developments. Recognising this, my MP encouraged me to go beyond desk research by engaging with experts, participating in multi-stakeholder consultations, and helping to formulate informed policy positions.
Participating in stakeholder consultations, particularly those organised by the telecom regulator, was instrumental in honing my skills and understanding as a technology policy professional. These experiences provided valuable first-hand exposure to the policymaking process and the complex considerations involved in regulating digital technologies.
Could you share your insights and experiences from your previous role as a Technology Policy Consultant with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), India? How do you perceive India’s AI strategy in comparison to global AI governance frameworks? What distinctions or synergies have you observed between the two?
As a Technology Policy Consultant working at MeitY, I worked on key mandates such as India’s presidency at the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) and the IndiaAI Mission. I played a key role in India’s GPAI presidency, spearheading key initiatives and contributing to the strategic planning and execution of the GPAI Summit 2023 and the IndiaAI Summit 2024. In addition, I actively supported the IndiaAI Mission, contributing to its core pillars focused on strengthening India’s AI ecosystem.
These experiences provided valuable insights into global AI governance frameworks and India’s evolving approach to technology policy. In contrast to stricter regulatory models, such as that of the European Union which prioritises risk mitigation, transparency, and ethics, India has adopted a more balanced strategy — one that seeks to harness AI for public good, enhance public service delivery, and ensure the equitable distribution of its benefits. This vision is reflected in policy documents such as the National Strategy for AI and the report on AI Governance Guidelines Development. The mission also emphasises upskilling, promoting impactful AI applications across sectors like Agriculture, Healthcare, and Climate Change, and establishing safe and trusted AI practices through comprehensive frameworks and guidelines. While recognising potential risks, India has chosen to prioritise citizen education and foster responsible innovation, rather than imposing stringent controls that might inhibit growth.
Despite differences in regulatory emphasis, there is strong convergence between India’s approach and global frameworks in promoting human-centric AI, embedding ethical safeguards, and advancing AI for social good. This shared commitment positions India to contribute meaningfully to shaping a global, inclusive, and innovation-driven AI governance ecosystem.
Having previously worked with the government and civil society organizations, and now working as the Assistant Manager in Public Policy and Advocacy at InMobi, how do you approach your current role? What key differences have you noticed between this position and your previous ones? Additionally, what regulatory challenges do you perceive in India, and how do you envision these evolving over time?
Having previously worked with the government and civil society organisations, and now serving as an Assistant Manager – Public Policy and Advocacy at InMobi, I approach my current role with a focus on bridging perspectives across stakeholders. My earlier experiences equipped me with strong research skills and a deep understanding of the government’s objectives, particularly its emphasis on public interest and social impact. However, transitioning to a corporate environment required a strategic shift: understanding business priorities, anticipating regulatory risks, and proactively engaging to shape policy outcomes that enable responsible industry growth.
A key aspect of my current role is balancing regulatory compliance with the need for innovation and business growth. While I am familiar with the workings of government and civil society, I am actively building a deeper understanding of industry challenges to better align public policy objectives with sector-specific needs.
In terms of regulatory challenges, I see several critical areas emerging in India’s technology policy landscape, including AI regulation and liability frameworks, platform governance and digital competition, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection, and the regulation of emerging technologies such as quantum computing and the metaverse. As these sectors evolve, sustained engagement between government, industry, and civil society will be crucial to developing agile, evidence-based regulations that balance public interest with India’s ambition to lead in emerging technologies.
With your vast expertise, what advice would you offer to aspiring lawyers and law students who wish to build a successful and impactful career in Public Policy and Advocacy? Are there specific resources, mentors, or strategies you would recommend for their professional development in today’s rapidly evolving legal landscape?
As a lawyer, you already hold a significant advantage when building a career in public policy and advocacy. Legal training provides a strong foundation by equipping you with the ability to read and interpret laws critically, understand the legislative process, and navigate regulatory frameworks with nuance. This inherent understanding positions you well to engage meaningfully with policy issues even before they take final shape as a legally binding statute.
One piece of advice I would offer is to pick an area of interest early on and start examining it through a policy lens — understanding its broader societal, economic, and regulatory implications. Doing so not only builds a multidisciplinary outlook, which is increasingly essential in public policy work, but also provides a clearer sense of direction for your professional growth. Additionally, start writing about your unique solutions to problems as you explore your area of interest, and hone your research and writing skills. This will help you develop a strong voice and perspective in the field.
There are numerous resources available today to help build a career in public policy. Platforms such as Public Policy India (PPI) and LinkedIn communities offer valuable guidance and list internship opportunities. I would also recommend signing up for newsletters from leading public policy institutes, consulting firms, and law firms, and listening to relevant podcasts to stay updated on sectoral developments. It is important to stay abreast of developments not only within your chosen sector but also across broader national and global trends, as policy is often shaped by larger socio-political contexts.
Finally, surround yourself with like-minded individuals and build a strong, supportive network. Being in an environment that encourages discussion, debate, and continuous learning can be just as critical as formal knowledge.
Maintaining a healthy work-life balance is often a challenge for legal professionals. How do you manage to balance the demands of your legal career with your personal life, ensuring both aspects thrive without one compromising the other?
Achieving a healthy work-life balance is an ongoing journey, and one I am still navigating. While there is no one-size-fits-all formula, I have found that prioritising tasks and optimising work hours are essential. This approach allows me to carve out time for my family, which I consider just as important as my career. I consciously strive to maintain this balance, recognising that both aspects are interdependent and crucial for overall well-being. It is a continuous effort, but one that’s worth making to ensure neither work nor personal life suffers at the expense of the other.
In your profile, you described AI as a “young associate” in the legal field. Could you elaborate on how AI is redefining traditional legal roles and the kinds of responsibilities we might pass on to AI? How can lawyers adapt to this shift?
I came to law from a manufacturing and engineering background, which gave me a unique perspective. The legal industry differed dramatically from manufacturing and engineering—specifically the accountability and lack of measurement. Much of law is learned through apprenticeship, which is vastly different from the formal training in engineering. In fact, I felt law school left me far less prepared for my career compared to the preparation engineering school provided for engineers.
When I entered the legal field, I realized law practices could be more efficient. I compared it to medicine, where patients now play an active role—researching symptoms, diagnosing themselves (sometimes overly so), and bringing their questions to healthcare professionals. Medicine became somewhat democratized, allowing patients to take ownership of their health, for better or worse. This shift hasn’t happened in law on the same scale.
Most of my career has been in corporate law, and I observed real changes in other corporate departments, like accounting and finance, which moved away from manual tasks toward insightful, risk-based processes supported by software. By contrast, legal departments stayed static for many years. While there were incremental innovations, such as moving from typewriters to word processors or shepherdizing cases online, none of these fundamentally transformed the legal industry.
One significant development came with Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs), which began specializing in areas like eDiscovery in litigation. They didn’t threaten traditional lawyers because these tasks were in untraditional fields. Similarly, in-house legal operations began to introduce the idea of running law as a business, but even that didn’t fundamentally change legal practice, which remained heavily relationship-driven.
We also saw the rise of skilled paralegals, legal process-outsourcers, and other support, but the core practice of law didn’t evolve significantly. In the U.S., access to justice remains a major issue. A large portion of the population can’t afford legal assistance unless they are at a very high-income level. While many dedicate themselves to justice-based work, the problem persists.
Where I see generative AI playing a significant role is in finally shifting some of the ways legal services operate. Generative AI has the potential to fundamentally change the role of outside counsel by improving productivity, reducing rote work, and allowing legal professionals to practice at the top of their expertise. It could bring greater satisfaction to legal roles by enabling lawyers to focus on higher-level thinking, problem-solving, and client strategy. I’d like to believe this will make the field more engaging—and even more fun.
Many lawyers fear AI might take over the legal profession. You’ve been teaching AI engineers to understand “how humans do law.” What surprising or challenging aspects of this collaboration have you encountered? How has your legal and engineering background shaped your perspective?
I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a “professional” engineer, but my engineering mindset informs everything I do. Regarding AI, I understand the fear—that it might replace lawyers. But I see it differently. As AI reduces costs and improves productivity, legal services become more accessible. More people will be able to afford legal help, and demand will rise. In turn, lawyers will manage more clients while performing at a higher level.
AI isn’t going to take over the legal profession. It’s going to be a tool—a partner and an enabler. This means lawyers can focus on preventing problems, conducting root-cause analyses, and understanding systemic issues instead of repeating the same tasks or racing against time. That’s why I encourage younger associates not to fear AI but to embrace it, adapt to the inevitable pace of change, and maintain a mindset of continuous learning.
What have been the most important skills or mindsets you developed while working on more than 35 M&A deals across 13 countries? How did you navigate the cultural and demographic differences in those deals?
Every culture, country, and even corporation has its own personality. Two key lessons stand out from my experience: humility and collaboration. I don’t assume I know everything. For example, even if I’ve done M&A work globally, the local counsel advising me always knows far more about the nuances of their jurisdiction. They bring priceless insights that I wouldn’t have on my own. Similarly, I’ve learned to be transparent about my preferences, expectations, and objectives while fostering trust.
In any negotiation, it’s critical to show truth, trust, and vulnerability to create an environment where others feel safe to reciprocate. That allows for the best possible collaboration and outcomes.
You’ve negotiated with Fortune 100 companies and Big Four banks. What challenges and rewards have you faced in those negotiations, and how have those experiences influenced your role as a mentor?
The hardest part of negotiations is working with someone unprepared, especially when you’re doing most of the work for both sides of the deal. It doesn’t make for great results. On the other hand, negotiating with the Big Four banks was challenging but rewarding. They were experts—specialists who deeply understood nuanced regulations like credit reporting laws. Collaboration required me to respect their expertise and remain concise and factual while educating them on where our roles aligned.
In negotiations, preparation and confidence are essential. But you must also align closely with your team and communicate openly to achieve success.
You heavily emphasize mentorship and learning. What’s the most impactful piece of advice you’ve received that you pass on to mentees?
Be true to yourself. Focus on developing your strengths rather than obsessing over weaknesses. I believe we’re all given unique gifts. While it’s important to address our shortcomings, trying to “fix” them at the expense of our strengths does more harm than good. The key is to leverage your natural abilities while minimizing distractions from your weaknesses.
You seem to live a life of continuous learning. How do you practice implementing new knowledge in both your personal and professional life?
The key is repetition. Whether it’s a new skill, concept, or even something as simple as someone’s name, using it consistently helps retain it. Skills, particularly technical ones, are perishable if not employed regularly. Teaching, in particular, has been a way for me to cement what I learn. When I share knowledge with others, I not only reinforce what I know but also open myself to learning from their insights.
Your profile mentions a love of backpacking. How has that hobby helped you manage stress or shaped your approach to life and law?
Backpacking forces me to unplug. It takes me back to the essentials of life: reaching the destination, managing supplies, and supporting those hiking alongside me. The simplicity is both grounding and rejuvenating. It reminds me to keep stress in perspective and appreciate the privilege of the work I do.
You’ve had a diverse career across industries like fintech, MedTech, and law. How has this versatility shaped your perspective?
My career has been a journey of curiosity and learning from diverse environments. Moving between fields allowed me to bring insights from one industry into another. For example, working across corporate governance allowed me to see how brilliant leaders approach complex issues. These experiences have helped me ask better questions, foster collaboration, and apply versatile approaches to newer challenges.
Ultimately, people matter more than tasks. Empathy, kindness, and respect guide my interactions, whether I’m working with a Fortune 500 CEO or a junior colleague. Maintaining humility and staying true to these principles is essential.
As technology and societal shifts disrupt the legal profession, how are you preparing for the next decade? How do you mentor others to adopt a similar mindset?
The legal profession is undergoing the most significant inflection of my lifetime, and I’m excited to be part of the generation ushering in this change. To prepare, I focus on continuous learning—keeping up with technology, gaining simulation-based experience, and staying abreast of fast-paced changes.
Personally, I see the democratization of justice as a key issue for the next decade. I hope to leverage my skills and technology to support pro bono efforts and improve access to justice. While the system is imperfect and broadcasts its flaws, history shows us that societies cannot exist without the rule of law. Ensuring we uphold and adapt that system responsibly is a challenge I’m ready to embrace.
You started your educational journey with the University of Cape Town (UCT), and then went to the University of Warwick, and from there went on to do your master’s at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Was law a planned choice for you and what were the challenges you faced in law school?
To be honest, I really didn’t want to study law, let alone be a lawyer of any kind.
But the BA degree I took at UCT gave me a much broader education, majoring in English and Comparative African Government and Law. This allowed me to study in depth English language and literature, and the rise of African independence movements and the politics of liberation. Some of the lecturers on those two courses were inspirational – and brave. In my final year, I was taught by Mary Simons (both of whose parents were major figures in the ANC and were then in exile) while she was under a succession of 90-day banning orders. I have her to thank for the most important part of my education there – or anywhere. In summary, being a student at UCT at that time, and opposing Apartheid, I faced challenges just being there.
The BA I took was part of the (then) South African legal qualification, leading to a second, LLB, degree. During my BA, I was exposed to some legal studies, as we had to take Roman Law, Roman Dutch Law and Constitutional Law. Roman Law was historically and intellectually interesting and challenging as it also required university-level Latin, but bore no relationship to the socio-political, economic and human reality of Apartheid SA. As I saw it, Roman Dutch law was equally irrelevant to the lives of most South Africans.
I knew that I wanted to leave South Africa because of my views on Apartheid. And I was lucky enough to have British nationality, so the UK was, thankfully, my first and only choice. I left SA forever as soon as I could, soon after graduating from UCT.
I had become interested in English law – mainly through my constitutional law studies at UCT (which were largely based on UK constitutional law). So, when I arrived at Warwick to study for the LLB degree, I was committed to studying law, and about four-five years older than most of my undergraduate class. Being a mature student, I understood why I was there and was committed to my UK legal studies. Warwick had (and still has) an exceptional and pioneering Law School – having developed its “law in context” approach to studying law. I had several inspirational teachers, too. It was at Warwick that I became so interested in English law that I then seriously considered an academic legal career.
The main challenge I faced at Warwick was settling into a very different institution, approach to teaching and studying law, and, of course, learning what it was actually like to live in the UK – a challenge that many international students are likely to face when arriving in the UK for their studies. I had no doubts about being there, studying law, or the value of its LLB degree. And it didn’t take too long to settle.
In my final year at Warwick, I realised that I wanted, if possible, to take a master’s or equivalent degree to broaden my legal thinking and to allow me to study and think about subjects that weren’t available to me as an undergraduate. Financial constraints meant that it had to be a one-year degree course.
The LSE was my first choice, mainly because of its outstanding reputation as an institution and because of the quality and fame of its Law Department. Again, I was lucky to have some inspirational teachers and mentors. I studied the law of restitution and English legal history. I was also able to study in much greater depth constitutional and administrative law and wrote my dissertation on administrative law. (It was subsequently published in The Modern Law Review in 1984.) Again, I had no doubts about being at LSE.
The challenges I faced as a law student were different at each of UCT, Warwick and LSE. Those I faced at UCT are obvious from the way I have outlined my background. The main moral challenge I faced at UCT is that you can’t divorce law from its place in its social, political, economic and human contexts, and that, as in Apartheid SA, it was an instrument of oppression for the majority. The Law Faculty at UCT did what it could under very challenging circumstances. As I said, some of my teachers were trying to live and teach under a series of banning orders (in effect, house arrest, and under near constant surveillance). Others were arrested, charged and imprisoned for serious offences in resisting Apartheid.
At Warwick, I had to settle into a new country and a very different university and academic life. Those challenges were more personal. By the time I arrived at LSE my challenges were mostly financial, especially as I had then decided to become a barrister. I knew I was going to have to find ways of keeping myself for some time beyond LSE, at the Inns of Court School of Law for my Bar Final Examination studies, and into 12 months’ pupillage in London barristers’ chambers. I was fortunate – and I am grateful to this day – that the Law School at Warwick offered me extensive part-time lecturing and tutoring, and the LSE Law Department engaged me as a part-time teacher, too. These, among other jobs I held while studying at LSE for my LLM and at the Inns of Court School of Law, kept me afloat.
More broadly, one challenge I have come across often is trying to answer the question asked by many in the UK who are contemplating a legal career: should I study law at university, or something else?
There are two opposing schools of thought here: one is that it is better to have a broader education than the typical, three-year, UK undergraduate law degree offers, and to take the law conversion course later, and then the professional examinations. The argument is that this creates a more rounded individual with broader perspectives to bring to legal practice. There are many, including some of our most senior judges, who advocate this thinking.
The other is that it is better to immerse yourself in law from the start to get a deeper understanding of, and grounding in, law as an academic discipline. And besides, that saves you taking a law conversion course, so there is a timing and financial advantage, too.
I realise that, for many prospective law students in India and elsewhere, this may not be a dilemma, but I thought this challenge may resonate for some.
You’ve been involved in the technology and outsourcing sectors since the mid-80s. How have you seen the landscape evolve, particularly in terms of regulation, client needs, and technology advancements like AI and cloud computing?
The information technology landscape has evolved markedly from product (think mainframe computers that occupied entire buildings) to software and applications and then to IT-enabled services, including IT and business process outsourcing (which has of course, led to the dominance of India as an offshore IT services destination). This isn’t to say that the infrastructure – information networks and systems and their components – aren’t important. Obviously, they’re critical, as we’re now seeing at GPU level in AI compute. It’s just that, over the years, there’s been greater focus on software and services, especially from market and client perspectives. This broad evolution has obviously led the focus of regulatory responses and client needs from a product-supplier perspective leading to a service-service provider perspective.
To illustrate this evolution from hardware to software – cloud computing is a good example of a business model – less a technology (though some may argue with that), that has evolved to become all-pervasive “as a service”..
AI has been and is evolving all the time and will continue to evolve. To be honest, I think it’s too early to call how AI will evolve.
But, based on experience of tech hype cycles to the point where tech ultimately delivers real value, I think we must take the long view of all technology developments. This means that it’s probably wrong to take either of the extreme views that, on the hand, AI spells the end of humanity as we know it and should be regulated accordingly, while, on the other, AI will be the saviour of humanity and should, if it’s regulated at all, be regulated as lightly as possible. AI’s actual benefits, risks and challenges will become clearer over time. This makes regulation today, and even client needs, much more difficult to formulate – and to deliver.
Today, the greatest challenge facing governments and regulators with AI – as with any significant, fast-developing technology – is if, how and to what extent to regulate it. We can see at either end of the spectrum the US approach (broadly, don’t regulate federally or we’ll stifle innovation) and the European Union response evidenced in the recent and comprehensive AI Act, with which I am sure all your readers are familiar. The UK is perhaps somewhere in the middle, for now. It’s hard to read the direction of travel that the current UK government and our sector regulators will take. For those interested in this subject, have a look at writings on “the Collingridge Dilemma” and “the Pacing Problem” in technology regulation.
Can you walk us through your journey from starting your career with the UK Civil Service to your current role? How has your career evolved over the last 40 years, and what were some pivotal moments that shaped your path?
In the 1980s while in the UK government, I was lucky enough to have access to some leading-edge information technologies, systems, and products. I became fascinated by them and their potential. I also started to understand – at a very basic level – how those technologies, products and systems were supposed to work and what their implications might be for the mission-critical networks and computer systems then deployed by the UK government and its agencies – and for the outputs and outcomes of those networks and systems. At the same time, in the mid- and late-‘80s, I found myself as probably the only lawyer in the UK government having to advise on some leading-edge technology applications and the start of what we’d now call outsourcing (then, we called it “facilities management”).
I had to learn very quickly to apply traditional legal rules and principles, that had no apparent application to the transactions before me, to developing technologies and the services around them, where there were no textbooks or precedents – in fact, no guidance at all, either from the UK, the USA, or elsewhere. So, I learned the hard way, and certainly made some big mistakes of various kinds along the way. Those mistakes were all my own.
I found this challenge both daunting, but also exhilarating and fascinating, and I still do today, for example, when I must think about and advise on AI. That’s what drew me to becoming a technology lawyer. IT law and the challenges of being an IT lawyer aren’t for everyone. But they were pivotal for me and made me want to practise “computer law” (I am not sure it even had a name then) when I left the UK government and went into legal private practice in the City of London. And so I became a highly specialised (some would say, too narrowly specialised) advisory and transactional commercial lawyer, focusing on the strategic and operational aspects of IT and related regulation. As I am today.
Recognising that I had chosen such a narrow path in my legal career, as soon as I’d established myself as an IT legal practitioner, I realised that I needed to broaden my perspective. It wasn’t common then – and it’s still relatively uncommon – for lawyers like me in private practice to represent IT suppliers and service providers. But I decided that I should represent some selected suppliers and service providers, because this would broaden my transactional perspectives, my legal, contractual, and negotiating experience, my practice base, and my career prospects. And I thought it would make me a more rounded, effective IT lawyer.
Also, I started to engage with others in the IT ecosystem, for example, management and procurement consultants, business advisers, corporate financiers, banks that debt- funded IT companies and projects, and private equity and venture capital houses – all of which increased my networks, live connections, and opportunities. That isn’t to say that I became a corporate, corporate finance, finance or any other kind of lawyer – but I was (and am) able to introduce my colleagues who were (and are) to those IT-market and client-related opportunities. So, this was a career- and practice-enhancing pivot.
Another major development in my career comes from, and is about, India. When India started opening up economically in the early 1990s, its IT sector became recognised, and Jack Welch at GE had decided to site GE’s back-office operations in India. This eventually opened a very important new practice for me. It came about because my team and I were often instructed by Western organisations to advise on the newly emerging offshore outsourcings from India to our client locations, as well as to represent our Western clients in the development and operations of Indian-based captive and build-operate-transfer structures. This took me to India frequently, and I came to know the giants of the Indian IT sector: Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro, HCL, Satyam (as was) and Tech Mahindra, along with most of the other major IT and newly emerging business process service providers like L&T Infotech (as was), NIIT Technologies (as was), WNS, Genpact and EXL Service. Consistent with my desire to broaden my practice and client base, I started representing many of those Indian Tier 1 and 2 service providers in their first major IT and outsourcing transactions in the UK and Europe, as well as being involved in their first M&A transactions in the UK. India being India, and with such a highly networked business community, I found myself drawn into a wide range of Indian transactions and opportunities, irrespective of my legal experience. I have spent many happy years travelling in India, also on family holidays, from the far North to the deep South.
Another one of those unexpected developments that proves to be pivotal in a career: while I was making my way as a partner in Stephenson Harwood (where I started my IT private practice legal career in earnest in the 1990s), a fellow SH partner and I were approached by the UK firm of Coopers & Lybrand, then one of the global accountancy practices, to set up and lead their first associated UK law firm. So we established Tite & Lewis. This meant learning new, very different, and much broader management skills alongside running an IT law practice and serving clients. Coopers & Lybrand very soon merged with Price Waterhouse, to become what is now PwC. We became, in effect, PwC Legal. So, my co-founder and I, along with our T&L colleagues, saw a massive, complex, global merger at close quarters. All I can say is that it was quite an experience, and not an especially comfortable one, either.
The direction of travel and aspirations for PwC’s legal practice changed, but not in a way that appealed to all of us. So, when Ernst & Young (EY) UK approached us to create their first associated UK law firm, we moved shop and created Tite & Lewis a second time. I learned much from the experience, too, as this was a complete start-up that needed to scale up rapidly and, on the EY side, it was led with a different senior management style to PwC’s. Again, I had to combine senior management learning with running a successful IT law practice and serving clients, often in places like Europe, the USA, Hong Kong and Australia. That experience came to an end because of Enron, the demise of Arthur Andersen, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and changes in SEC public audit rules, all of which meant that a standalone UK legal practice was no longer viable for EY.
So, I returned to mainstream legal private practice as an IT specialist and held various practice leadership and senior partnerial positions. And I now find myself – very happily – back where I started my specialist IT legal career, at City of London and international law firm, Stephenson Harwood LLP, but this time, as senior consultant, not a partner.
Finally, another direction that proved pivotal for me has been serving as a non-executive director and adviser to various companies, including chairing a UK plc. The first opportunity arose because an important academic client needed someone to represent it on the board of a funding body operating in the medical and scientific technology areas. I had never served on such a board. So I learned.
The next, much more significant, opportunity arose because a client who had become a close friend had been appointed chief executive of one of Europe’s leading IT and outsourcing advisory groups and wanted me to support him and the board as non-executive chair. The other directors interviewed me and agreed. As this was a UK public company, I had to learn, understand, and apply corporate governance rules and London Stock Exchange regulations, as well as – and most challenging of all – boardroom dynamics and politics. This was a powerful and valuable, if occasionally unnerving, experience, from which I learned more than I could have imagined. As the company I chaired operated in the IT and outsourcing markets, often involving my clients, I had to consider and negotiate my way through potential conflicts and other legal practice governance rules. But, overall, my part-time, non-executive, chairing and later non-executive director role at this company complemented my legal private practice very well and helped me to develop my skills and experience.
Other corporate and academic non-executive director and senior advisory roles followed, all of which were complementary to my practice as an IT lawyer, and actively enhanced my career. I had to ensure that none of these roles was going to cause difficulties for my work as a private practitioner, which was always top priority.
Based on my experience, are there any messages for readers? Maybe these:
broaden your networks and horizons,
learn from your colleagues, your clients, and others you meet along the way,
keep an open mind about the opportunities that may come your way (some which you may make for yourselves, some of which may be entirely fortuitous),
be open to taking up those opportunities, even if you decide, ultimately, not to take them,
consider all opportunities and roles that are complementary to, and will enhance, your personal, business, and legal skills and experience,
think about helping, giving opportunities to, and nurturing others when you can. It’s rewarding in so many ways, and
above all, it’s really important that you enjoy your work and your role(s), accepting that there will inevitably be moments that are definitely less enjoyable.
In your experience, what are the key legal or regulatory risks that companies face when outsourcing critical IT services or adopting cloud computing solutions.
Each critical IT outsourcing or cloud computing transaction raises legal and regulatory risks depending on specific contexts and conditions, including on the customer side, for example its operational readiness for the transaction and the strength of its IT and compliance functions. It would be wrong and potentially misleading to set out a long list of specific legal or regulatory risks in such situations. Instead, based on my experience, I’ll list some of the most common key legal and regulatory risks concerned.
Regulatory compliance, especially in the UK and Europe, with the financial services sector outsourcing and cloud controls under, for example, the European Banking Authority outsourcing guidelines, the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the UK Operational Resilience requirements.
Similar regulatory compliance in the EU critical national infrastructure (CNI) sectors, under the Network and Information Systems Directive (NIS2). The UK should soon be legislating to introduce similar rules in our CNI sectors. NIS2 has important implications – and obligations – for the IT, data centre, internet infrastructure, managed services and outsourcing markets.
Third-party supply chain transparency, especially in the context of cloud sub-outsourcing, clearly identifying where the cloud service provision is in the customer supply chain and putting in place suitable contractual governance.
Concentration risk in contracting with one of the small group of cloud hyperscalers, and how to relocate and ensure continuity of service in the cloud-delivered services in the event of a hyperscaler service outage or failure.
EU and UK GDPR compliance, including in cross-border data transfers outside Europe.
The application of the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD) and its UK equivalent, the TUPE Regulations (TUPE), effecting the mandatory transfer of in-scope staff on outgoing employment terms to the new outsourcing service provider or back to the customer where it takes the outsourcing back in house, especially where certain contractual pensions and enhanced redundancy rights are included in the transfer. It has not (yet) been established conclusively that the ARD and TUPE will apply to cloud computing transactions (especially public or hybrid deployment models), but in principle these rules could apply to certain kinds of cloud outsourcing.
Exit provisions to ensure efficient and timely migration of IT and cloud services on the expiry or termination of the outsourcing or cloud service provision.
As a trusted advisor to boards of some of the world’s largest corporations, what are the key strategic factors you emphasize when advising companies? Additionally, could you describe a particularly complex IT or outsourcing transaction you’ve been involved in, and how you approached overcoming the challenges associated with it?
In my experience, corporate boards do not usually call on external counsel in my practice area early enough in transactions or projects to advise on key strategic factors. Maybe they should, but usually that advice has been given before by a combination of external consultants and internal stakeholders.
When I’m called on to advise boards, it’s most often in the final stages of a transaction or technology implementation, when the board wants an external counsel’s view, delivered face-to-face and supported in writing, on the particular material risks in the IT or outsourcing transaction or project, and how those risks are being mitigated by contract, operationally, or in some other way. The board wants final legal sign-off. The key strategic risk factors vary from transaction to transaction, and from board to board. There is no one list of these factors, so it would be misleading to list them here.
In many cases, my role is to support board and corporate governance to enable the board to reach a critical “go/no-go” decision. You may think that it seems too late for such a decision, and you would be right, but that’s often the way it is. Usually, I’m able to give the legal assurance sought.
One exceptional (in every way) transaction that fell into the above category was a massively complex, business- and mission-critical IT outsourcing and data migration project for a UK bank. Because of the history of the bank, its financial situation, and its standing in the UK retail banking market, for the first time in my experience, this outsourcing project was under the regular, direct supervision of the three UK financial regulators – the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. Such was the importance of this outsourcing in the UK retail banking market, that I was interviewed personally by the three regulators on the risks of the outsourcing to the bank concerned, and how they were being mitigated.
I was then asked to attend a full board meeting of the bank with the bank’s then general counsel to address those risks and the mitigation. My team and I prepared a graphic chart to illustrate and clarify the transactional risks to the bank’s board – this helped to explain and emphasise the issues and concerns. The board questioned me and, finally, the chair asked me directly if I would sign the outsourcing contract in its present form, given the legal and contractual risks we had identified and the mitigation in place. I said I wouldn’t unless certain contractual and operational measures were put in place, which was consistent with the advice we had been giving as the outsourcing progressed.
The board did not sign off the transaction until, sometime later, we had been able to negotiate various additional risk and operational mitigations with the outsource service provider and other entities. When these had been achieved and the documentation was finally agreed, I was able to confirm to the board that the outstanding risk areas had been addressed in contractual and operational mitigation.
The deal signed and is still considered one of the most effective banking technology and data migrations and outsourcings in the UK market.
As a Visiting Professor in Practice at LSE Law School, you teach subjects like AI, cloud computing, and legal technologies. What do you think are the most pressing legal issues in the realm of advanced technology today, and how do you prepare your students to tackle them?
LSE’s motto is “rerum cognoscere causas” meaning “to know the causes of things”. I am going to apply the motto broadly in answering this question.
In the realm of advanced technologies today, I think – and it’s a personal view that others in LSE Law may disagree with – that what serves our students best is an intellectual framework to help them “know the causes” of advanced technologies and their implications, and understand and analyse the most pressing legal issues that follow from those causes. So when I am preparing and delivering lectures, I have in mind a framework, which I hope will help our students to know and to understand the following kinds of things (this is not intended as an exhaustive list):
the way(s) that the advanced technologies concerned work
their macro and micro impacts, positive or negative or both, on the world, for example, the environment, society at large, on human activities and interactions, and in all relevant contexts, including in the commercial sphere(s) concerned. For example, in the context of AI in retail financial services markets, how bias in datasets and skewed algorithms might result in denying credit to particular, say ethnic, groups in society,
the specific risks and harms, as well as the positive impacts, associated with those technologies (see the example in (2) above),
the main providers of such technologies and their market position, for example, if those providers are dominant, as the hyperscalers are in the cloud infrastructure markets, and especially if this creates systemic concentration risk in, say, the regulated financial markets,
the ancillary issues and considerations that may arise from such technologies, for example, the impact of the growing cyber risk on the insurance markets, how AI and sovereign actors and their proxies may be contributing to that risk, and the decreasing insurability of certain kinds of cyber risk, or the private right of self-defence in response to cyberattacks,
the geopolitical consequences of advanced technologies, for example, the so-called “arms race” for GPUs in AI, and the rush to acquire alternative energy sources to drive the increasing power demands of data centres in AI compute, as well as the strategic importance of AI in the “Third Offset”,
how current law and regulation may apply to those technologies and those risks, especially in unintended or unexpected ways, and
how proposed law and regulation may apply to those technologies and those risks.
How do I try to prepare our students to tackle these issues? By encouraging them to think about them, to discuss them in class and, if students wish, to write about some or all of these issues in their summative essays.
You may be surprised that I follow this approach. I think that having a framework to “know the causes of things”, then trying to understand and think more about the impact of those things, is a more adaptable, flexible and useful approach in considering the most pressing legal issues in advanced technologies like AI, which are constantly evolving and changing. Our thinking needs to be able to keep track, and to evolve, too.
You’ve played significant leadership roles at firms like PwC and EY. How have you navigated the challenges of managing large teams of lawyers while maintaining a focus on technological innovation and client service?
The honest answer is that it was a struggle, though an exciting and rewarding one in many, though not all, ways. And it remains so for all senior lawyers in private practice and, similarly, for general counsel in corporate roles. There is an inherent and constant tension in balancing the following:
developing new and maintaining existing client relationships,
delivering the best possible legal service to clients,
being aware of, and deploying, new technologies, processes and techniques in legal service delivery,
nurturing, managing and retaining teams,
taking difficult decisions about people and the business,
general management, and
interacting with other, non-legal, colleagues.
I don’t mean this to be a complete list.
There is another, more personal and, maybe for your readers, more important challenge here. I allowed work to come first. Because of those challenges, I wasn’t at home much, I wasn’t around to support my wife much of the time and missed my three children growing up. While being an international technology lawyer looked, and was, exciting and took me all over the world serving household-name clients, I was away from my family and home for long periods over many years.
So, as I say, while it was exciting for me, and materially rewarding for my family, there were significant downsides in trying to balance these challenges. If I had my time again, I hope I would do, and be more able to do, things differently in that respect.
Your career spans across both legal practice and academia. How do you balance the practical demands of being a Senior Consultant at Stephenson Harwood LLP with your academic pursuits and publications?
These roles are actually quite complementary. My main academic commitments, which involve lecturing to the LLM and LLB classes in LSE Law, are concentrated in a relatively short period, around which I can plan my legal practice and academic work. I also have an understanding, supportive and inspirational leader in LSE Law, Professor Andrew Murray, who happens also to be one of the foremost academic lawyers globally in IT law and regulation.
My title at LSE says it: Visiting Professor in Practice. What LSE expects from me is exactly that – perspectives from practice. It says much about the LSE Law School that it recognises that a perspective in practice benefits both undergraduate and taught postgraduate students.
More importantly, I find that the learning and experience I have from my practice and academic careers enhance each other. I have the chance to think more widely and deeply about subjects like cybersecurity, cloud computing and AI when I’m preparing and delivering my lectures. This, in turn, brings additional perspectives and also opportunities to my private practice work, both substantively and in offering new and creative ideas to clients.
At Stephenson Harwood, I’m grateful to Simon Bollans, Technology practice global lead partner, and Dan Holland, overall practice leader, for their vision, understanding, and the opportunity to work in their team.
Given your involvement in legal innovation and technology, do you have any personal projects or initiatives that you’re particularly passionate about in the field of legal technology?
I’m going to interpret “legal technology” here as it applies to legal practice thinking and operations, and to client delivery of legal services in the broadest and narrowest senses.
In answer to this question, I wouldn’t single out one single personal project I can say I am particularly passionate about.
What I am passionate about is an initiative, both in my private practice and academic roles, which starts from this proposition: all lawyers, especially those studying law at university or elsewhere, and those coming into legal private or in-house practice, need to understand as best they can, and to embrace, developing legal technologies and processes, wherever and whenever they have the opportunity to do so. A current example is AI in legal use cases and applications, legal analytics, document assembly tools, workflows, and so on.
All lawyers today need to be aware of and to manage the implications of legal technologies and new processes for their clients, their markets, their own legal careers, and for their effectiveness as lawyers, especially in the age of artificial intelligence.
And, as senior lawyers, whether as practitioners or academics, we have a responsibility to our junior colleagues and students to provide them with opportunities to help them understand, and to embrace where suitable, legal technologies and processes. This doesn’t mean that all lawyers should become legal technologists, software developers and coders, or data scientists – just that all lawyers nowadays must understand the impact of these technologies and processes on their work to be able to operate effectively as lawyers, in whatever capacity.
This is a subset of the much wider challenge of AI in society: to have a future, we must try to understand the impact of AI on our lives, working and otherwise, and to harness AI by working with it. If it will let us!
In your career, you’ve mentored numerous lawyers and young professionals. What advice do you typically offer to those considering starting out as technology lawyers?
While I’m often glad that those who approach me are considering becoming technology lawyers, I feel dutybound to point out that, whether they intend to be and remain in legal private practice or work in-house, they are choosing a narrower career path for themselves than many others for lawyers.
To be blunt, in legal private practice IT law is not mainstream in most law firms, unless they are IT law boutiques. And even in boutiques, there is likely to be a need for more broadly based practitioners, for example those who can advise clients on VC or PE deals, fundraising, IP rights protection, as well as on operational IT commercial work.
So, the first piece of advice I give anyone thinking of starting out as a technology lawyer is this: understand that you would be choosing a much narrower career path than other areas of legal practice. I discuss the obvious and real implications of that choice, whether in private practice or in-house practice, including a smaller range of career opportunities, more limited opportunities for career advancement, and in many scenarios, lower levels of remuneration. I also emphasise the upsides of choosing IT law as a career, which I hope everything I’ve said here supports. But obviously it’s a personal decision.
If anyone then remains determined to pursue a career in technology law, I encourage them to find ways of broadening their perspectives, markets and market opportunities, networks, and potential client bases, and I explain how (as I have earlier in this interview) this could benefit them. Above all, my message to them – and to you – is that you need to have fun!
Can you share with us your journey into the field of law? What initially inspired or motivated you to pursue this career path?
My journey into law was less about being a lawyer pr pursuing a career in law and more about pursuing something that I thought might be interesting and engaging to study. And here I was not wrong. While I was unaware of what the practice of law entailed, I was fascinated by the study of it! I took it up as a challenge and as a way to study something I enjoyed while I took the time to find my “true” career. My love for the field and its practice developed later, as I began to study more and engage with the subject matter in a more practical manner.
I discovered that I thrived on navigating the nuances of law and developed an analytical outlook on issues. I also found that I would get easily bored when things become monotonous, which is not the case with legal practice.
I’m always on the lookout for new challenges and the field I started my law career in (IPR) just happened to be one where things are constantly evolving. I also got to be at the forefront of new technologies and legal issues arising from them. The law was being developed in real-time as real-world problems from compliance and business issues emerged.
This dynamic environment, where I could apply the word and spirit of the law and provide practical, often creative solutions, was something I thoroughly enjoyed and loved. This passion has driven me forward for the last 16 years, keeping me engaged and motivated in a constantly evolving legal landscape.
You’ve had an impressive career trajectory. Could you walk us through some of the key milestones or experiences that shaped your journey in the legal profession?
Over the years, I have had the chance to explore various fields of law. My outlook as well as my career has been shaped by these diverse experiences and have significantly contributed to my growth as a legal professional. While the initial years of my journey were at a law firm, I have since worked in-house for several years as well.
Being at a law firm was quite a rigorous experience in the intellectual and purely legal aspects of my field. This is where I developed technical legal skills, gaining deep insights into Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and understanding how it applied to different fields.
The transition to an in-house counsel role was, on the other hand, transformative. It required not only a shift in mindset but also your approach to problems. Working closely with business teams, I learned to integrate legal advice with business objectives, which in my opinion can only make you a more well-rounded practitioner.
This experience was incredibly rewarding as it allowed me to view legal issues through a business lens. The opportunity to collaborate with teams from diverse business areas and on multiple projects broadened my understanding of multifaceted legal issues.
These experiences naturally steered me in the direction of establishing WSA Legal, a niche practice focusing on IPR, technology, media, and data protection. Additionally, I have a keen interest in legal tech and developing processes that utilise legal acumen to make technological advancements in law. This has led me to work with the brilliant team at Curated LegalTech on developing some amazing legal-tech products.
These cumulative experiences have provided me with a broad perspective on the legal field and expertise, but also keep me engaged and fascinated.
Many people view law as a challenging and rigorous field. What were some of the challenges you faced early on in your career, and how did you overcome them?
The practice of law is both challenging and rigorous. Early in my career, one of the primary challenges I faced was the steep learning curve and the demanding nature of legal work. Handling large volumes of work with a high degree of intellectual engagement requires significant time management skills. You need to shift from looking at problems as hurdles and instead embrace a growth mindset.
Balancing physical and mental well-being in such a demanding field is also important and for most of us, not as easy as it sounds. In this, the role of mentors cannot be understated. They can help you thrive and achieve results even when you doubt yourself. I have been fortunate to have a strong and capable set of mentors and friends to guide me at all stages of my career – whether or not they come from the legal background.
Again, the change in outlook necessitated shifting to an in-house role was also quite challenging initially. Unlike before, my viewpoint had to expand and incorporate an understanding of business processes and goals into legal advice. You are called upon to be precise in answering complex questions and decisive in the way forward that you guide business in. You need to be engaged with your stakeholders and clients and can overcome these challenges if you grasp the business side and can communicate and collaborate with diverse teams.
Your expertise spans across different areas of law. Could you tell us about a particular case or project that you found particularly impactful or memorable in your career?
One of the most impactful projects in my career involved navigating the complexities of AI and its use by business in a specific area of operation which was earlier broken down into multiple steps and tedious and expensive review. This area was particularly challenging because the law is still in its nascent stages, and there were practically no precedents to guide new practices.
We had to innovate and provide resolutions, trusting that our advice would stand the test of time. The project required us to create a comprehensive framework, and SOPs and integrate risk mitigation for AI-driven solutions, ensuring compliance with existing laws while anticipating future regulatory developments. This meant developing novel legal strategies and creative solutions from scratch.
Working on AI from such an early stage was challenging but also incredibly rewarding. This experience also reinforced the value of integrating legal expertise with business strategy and working closely with technical experts, demonstrating that innovative legal solutions can drive business success even in uncharted waters.
In your opinion, what are some of the essential qualities or skills that aspiring lawyers should cultivate to succeed in today’s legal landscape?
Aspiring lawyers should cultivate strong analytical skills to navigate complex legal issues, excellent communication abilities to interact effectively with clients and colleagues, adaptability to respond to rapidly changing legal environments, a thorough understanding of technology and its implications on law, and a commitment to continuous learning to stay updated with evolving legal trends and practices.
The legal profession is known for its continuous evolution. How do you stay updated with the latest developments and trends in your area of expertise?
Staying updated on legal developments is crucial, but what I find truly enriching is engaging with individuals from diverse fields and gaining their perspectives, regardless of their connection to law. This fosters an open-minded approach and helps anticipate and adapt to changes that keep you at the forefront of your field. These interactions also cultivate a mindset that is innovation-enabling. Additionally, I believe it’s important never to be too proud to seek the guidance of mentors, whose insights and experience can provide invaluable direction in navigating complex challenges and seizing opportunities.
As someone with substantial experience in the field, what advice would you give to recent law graduates who are just starting their careers?
I would advise recent law graduates to focus on building a strong foundation of legal knowledge and skills through practical experience. Seek out mentors who can provide guidance and insights based on their experience. Stay curious and continuously seek opportunities to learn and grow professionally. Interacting and building relationships within and outside the legal profession can also be crucial for career development. Lastly, maintain a strong work ethic, integrity, and a commitment to delivering high-quality work—it’s often these qualities that set apart successful lawyers in the long run.
