The legal profession is in the midst of a profound transformation. Rapid digitalisation, emerging technologies, complex regulatory regimes and globalisation are reshaping not just legal practice, but what organisations expect from their legal teams and leaders.
On 13–14 March 2026, the 3rd edition of the Global Legal Convention 2026 will take place at the Four Seasons Hotel in Mumbai, India, under the theme “Law Goes Digital: The Rise of the Digital Lawyer”. The two-day summit will convene general counsels, senior legal leaders, policymakers and global experts to examine how digital transformation, governance, AI, cross-border regulation and enterprise risk are redefining the role of law and legal leadership in a rapidly evolving world.
Against this backdrop, Hemant Kumar, Group Legal Advisor at Larsen & Toubro and Chairperson of the Global Legal Convention, speaks to editor Nimitt Dixit about the realities behind the rise of the digital lawyer, how legal teams should prioritise risk, the evolving CEO–GC partnership, and what organisations often overlook when crossing borders.
Nimitt Dixit (ND): This year’s theme, “Law Goes Digital: The Rise of the Digital Lawyer”, signals a major shift in legal practice. The phrase “digital lawyer” is used often, sometimes loosely. From your vantage point as a General Counsel, what has genuinely changed in how legal teams operate over the last few years, and what do you think still hasn’t been fully understood?
Hemant Kumar (HK): The idea of the “digital lawyer” is no longer aspirational; it is now embedded in how effective legal teams operate. Over the last five years—particularly post-2020—technology has played an enabling role, not by disrupting legal functions overnight, but by steadily reshaping how teams engage with stakeholders.From my perspective, three shifts stand out:
Automation:
There is a clear move towards systematising routine work—contract drafting and review, compliance tracking, and reporting. Within our group, contract lifecycle management tools are embedded across businesses. The real gain is not just speed, but consistency and visibility. This allows in-house lawyers to move beyond repetitive processes and focus on complex advisory work where judgment truly matters.
Collaboration:
The pandemic normalised virtual working, but its long-term impact has been more significant. Courts adopted digital filings and virtual hearings, and senior counsel became more accessible through online briefings. For a diversified conglomerate operating across jurisdictions, this has improved responsiveness and reduced decision-making friction.
Enablement:
First-level research, drafting, and document review are increasingly supported by digital tools—many of which are now accessible beyond expensive enterprise platforms. This democratisation of legal technology enables teams of varying sizes to benefit. By addressing foundational tasks, technology frees lawyers to concentrate on risk assessment, strategic advice, and business alignment.
That said, some aspects remain underappreciated, especially in India’s complex regulatory environment. Technology cannot replicate imagination, ethical reasoning, or accountability. The lawyers who will truly thrive are not merely tech-savvy, but those who use technology thoughtfully—to ask better questions, collaborate effectively, and take ownership of enterprise risk. That transition is underway, but far from complete.
ND: The agenda brings together issues like AI, cybersecurity, ESG, and regulatory change—all of which now land on the GC’s desk simultaneously. How do you decide which risks deserve immediate legal attention and which are still evolving?
HK: Prioritisation is never ad hoc. It rests on a clear understanding of the businesses we support, a structured risk assessment framework, and close alignment with the legal regimes applicable across jurisdictions. Often, the real challenge is not choosing between risks, but responding within regulatory timelines while keeping pace with business execution.
We do consider familiar lenses such as severity, likelihood, and speed of crystallisation. However, in a diversified and highly regulated conglomerate, the same issue can have very different implications depending on where it arises.
- Artificial Intelligence: As we deploy AI across technology-led verticals, we closely monitor evolving questions around intellectual property, data protection, and contractual risk allocation. The opportunity is significant, but so is the need for careful governance.
- Cybersecurity: In businesses engaged in critical infrastructure—such as nuclear power, defence systems, and smart cities—a cyber incident can have operational consequences, not merely data implications. Here, the response framework must be immediate and robust.
- Regulatory Change: With substantial engagement in public procurement and sovereign projects, changes in procurement norms or labour laws require prompt legal analysis, as they directly impact project execution and long-term viability.
- ESG: Though often viewed as emerging, ESG can quickly become urgent—particularly when linked to access to capital, lender expectations, or shareholder scrutiny.
Our approach is pragmatic. Where legal frameworks are crystallising, such as under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, we act early and decisively. Where policy is still evolving, we focus on preparedness and capability-building, while keeping other developments on our active radar. Ultimately, prioritisation is about aligning regulatory immediacy with business reality, ensuring growth remains anchored in governance and compliance.
ND: One of the core discussions is around the CEO–GC Partnership 2030. In your experience, how is the role of the General Counsel evolving from a traditional compliance focus to a strategic business enabler?
HK: In today’s complex environment, the General Counsel’s role has moved well beyond compliance and risk management to that of a strategic business enabler.
From Gatekeeper to Strategic Partner:
GCs are no longer seen merely as legal checkpoints. They actively contribute to strategy, long-term planning, and major business decisions. Legal insight is translated into commercial outcomes, helping unlock value rather than simply preventing risk.
Deep Collaboration with the CEO and C-Suite:
The modern GC–CEO partnership is built on early involvement in strategic discussions. GCs are increasingly part of the executive leadership team, ensuring legal considerations are integrated into decision-making from the outset.
Business-First Mindset:
Leading GCs frame advice in commercial terms—growth impact, shareholder value, risk appetite, and operational cost—aligning legal strategy with market entry, M&A, product launches, and expansion plans.
Proactive Risk and Governance Leadership:
Today’s GCs anticipate regulatory shifts, geopolitical developments, and emerging risks such as cybersecurity and data privacy. They strengthen governance frameworks and serve as trusted advisors to the CEO and board.
Technology and Cross-Functional Influence:
By leveraging legal technology and data analytics, GCs enhance efficiency and demonstrate measurable value. They also work closely with finance, operations, ESG, and digital teams, embedding legal thinking into core business processes.
Ultimately, the evolving GC is both a strategic partner and a guardian of integrity—driving growth while safeguarding governance and long-term enterprise value.
ND: You are chairing conversations that include both Indian and global perspectives. Several sessions focus on cross-border regulation and global expansion. From experience, what do companies most often underestimate when they move from domestic compliance to operating across jurisdictions?
HK: When companies expand beyond their home market, they often underestimate how complex and nuanced regulatory environments can be. What appears manageable domestically can become significantly more layered across jurisdictions.
Complexity of Local Frameworks:
Organisations sometimes assume existing compliance systems can simply be extended overseas. In reality, each jurisdiction has distinct laws, enforcement styles, and compliance cultures. Even subtle differences can create material risk.
Need for Local Expertise:
On-ground legal insight is critical. Entity setup, licensing, reporting, and regulatory engagement often require specialist local counsel. Without this, companies risk delays, non-compliance, and unexpected costs.
Regulatory Change and Monitoring:
Unlike relatively stable domestic regimes, cross-border operations demand constant monitoring. Data privacy, tax, employment, and sector-specific regulations evolve frequently, requiring agile response mechanisms.
Cultural and Interpretative Nuances:
Legal obligations are shaped by language, regulatory practice, and local expectations. Misinterpretation—whether linguistic or cultural—can result in unintended exposure.
Cross-Functional Coordination:
International compliance intersects with finance, HR, tax, IT, and operations. Companies often underestimate the need for strong internal coordination to ensure consistent implementation across markets.
Strategic Impact and Reputation:
Across borders, compliance is not merely operational—it influences market entry timing, pricing, contracting structures, and brand perception. A failure in one jurisdiction can quickly escalate into a global reputational issue.
In essence, global expansion requires a shift from checklist compliance to a deeply integrated, strategic, and locally informed approach to governance.
