When AI can review a contract in seconds, what happens to the judgment that lawyers used to build by reviewing contracts themselves? For in-house counsel, this is more than a question about legal tech. It is about developing the instincts to recognize risk, understand context, and advise the business when there is no obvious answer. Legal tech for in-house counsel can create efficiency, but it should support, not replace, the experiences that build legal judgment.
In a recent conversation on Notes to My Legal Self, Alexandra Sepulveda, Associate General Counsel at Trust & Will, shared a perspective relevant as legal departments adopt AI: AI can accelerate legal work, but it cannot replace the experience required to know what to look for. As routine tasks become automated, in-house legal teams have to think carefully about using technology without losing the experiences that build judgment.
Watch the full conversation with Alexandra Sepulveda here:
The Risk of Going AI-First
AI can be incredibly useful for first drafts, summaries, and routine legal tasks.
But there is a catch. If junior lawyers always let AI take the first pass, they may lose opportunities to develop their legal instincts. Alexandra describes a human-AI-human approach: first, the lawyer thinks through the issue independently; then AI supplements that analysis; finally, the lawyer reviews the output and asks what may have been missed.
How Legal Judgment Develops Through Context
Consider an NDA. An AI tool can explain confidentiality provisions, flag unusual language, and suggest revisions. But what if the counterparty is also a potential acquisition target? The context could change how the lawyer approaches the review.
This is where in-house counsel have a unique advantage. They understand the business, its people, systems, priorities, and risks. Their value is not only identifying what a clause says, but understanding what the business is actually trying to accomplish.
Routine legal work can also create “reps”, the experience that helps lawyers recognize patterns and develop legal judgment. As AI takes over more routine tasks, legal departments need to think about where those learning opportunities will come from.
Make Room for the Human Work
The goal of legal tech should not simply be to process more contracts faster. It should create capacity for better legal work.
In the conversation, Alexandra explains that time saved through AI can give lawyers more opportunities to work directly with business teams, including employees who are new to working with legal. Those conversations can help lawyers develop legal judgment, understand what to expect from legal, and prevent issues before they become urgent.
For legal leaders, this creates an important opportunity. Instead of measuring AI only by how much work it removes, consider what the team can do with the time it gives back. Can lawyers spend more time advising the business? Can junior professionals receive more coaching?
AI may change how legal departments work, but it does not eliminate the need for thoughtful lawyers. If anything, it makes judgment more important. The most valuable in-house counsel may not be the person who can produce an answer fastest, but the person who knows when an answer is incomplete, what question should come next, and when to pause before acting.
As Alexandra’s closing advice makes clear: stay curious. The work will continue to change, but your professional judgment is still something worth building.
Watch the full conversation here: Notes to My (Legal) Self: Season 15, Episode 1 (ft. Alexandra Sepulveda)
Join the Conversation
At Notes to My (Legal) Self®, we’re dedicated to helping in-house legal professionals develop the skills, insights, and strategies needed to thrive in today’s evolving legal landscape. From leadership development to legal operations optimization and emerging technology, we provide the tools to help you stay ahead.
What’s been your biggest breakthrough moment in your legal career? Let’s talk about it—share your story.
