The evolution of the profession is front and centre at the In-house Lawyers Conference

In a packed venue in Sydney, in-house counsels from a wide range of companies in New South Wales gathered for a day of sessions and networking. For lawyers who tend to work in isolation, it was a chance to mingle and share ideas with their peers.

The proceedings opened with the MC for the day, Gavin Ingram, chief operating officer for Asia Pacific at Global Blue, who set the tone for the conference by addressing the theme that would take over most of the morning: the advent of artificial intelligence, and how it’s changing the role of in-house legal counsels. “The role of the in-house lawyer is evolving”, Ingram said to a full room early in the morning. “[It’s] no longer when we will adapt, but how we will lead this adaptation in our organisation.”

“I’m amongst my own”, started Ronan MacSweeney, who used to be an in-house lawyer before taking the role of 2026 President of the Law Society. “Working in-house is a unique area of law,” continued MacSweeney, “You’re supporting your organisation, as a legal entity (…) and the people who bring it to life; solving legal problems before they erupt.”

“In-house taught me a lot about what it means to find that line between independent advice, your client’s perspective, and the wider commercial context that we in-house counsel operate in.”

MacSweeney noted how much this area of law is changing, from the ethical challenges of AI to the increase in in-house lawyers by over 50 per cent in ten years, led by New South Wales, which represents half the workforce in the country. “As with all legal problems, we should be mindful of going back to first principles”, he continued. “[T]o our professional and ethical obligations as solicitors.”

“[W]e have a great opportunity as in-house lawyers to help our client, and to embrace the challenges and opportunities that in-house work now presents for practising lawyers in NSW.”

Finally, MacSweeney took the opportunity to touch on one of his priorities for the year, the promotion of NSW as a legal hub in the Asia Pacific region. As Australia’s biggest market and largest workforce of solicitors, NSW has the conditions to become a legal hub for the APAC region. “With the convening power that an institution like the Law Society has, in cooperation with lawyers in private practice and in-house corporate teams, coordinating with our government and our judiciary, I think greater opportunities for our profession lie ahead,” said MacSweeney.

MacSweeney remained on stage to moderate the first panel of the morning. Hear from the regulators was a chance for representatives from government regulators to address the attendees directly. MacSweeney was joined by Ram Pardey, principal lawyer at the Australian Taxation Office (ATO); Jenny Stathis, principal lawyer at the Australian Competition Commission (ACCC); and James Calveley, general counsel at the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

The panellists started by going through each organisation’s priorities and current focus, an opportunity for attendees to find out how those priorities overlap with their roles as in-house lawyers. But quickly, the subject turned to new technologies and AI. Calveley talked about APRA’s interest in “the balance of ensuring the fairness of the financial system, while encouraging competitiveness.” The agency is working on an AI strategy for the next couple of years.

On the other end of the spectrum, Pardey stated that the ATO cautioned against embracing AI after Robodebt, and Stathis asserted the ACCC wants AI used safely and transparently.

To conclude the session, each member of the panel talked about the common compliance failures they witness and what in-house lawyers can do to mitigate them.

The second session of the day continued the focus on AI, with a discussion about the challenges in-house lawyers have faced when dealing with self-represented litigants. Moderated by Pouyan Yazdani, Legal Counsel at Vertiv, it included the insights of John Pender, legal counsel at Knox Grammar School; Tiffany Tran, principal lawyer, Governance Risk & Compliance, iCare; Andrew von Köningsmark, general counsel, Defence & Transport at Ventia; and Amy Zhang, executive counsel at Harmers Workplace Lawyers.

The panellists noted an increase in self-represented litigants as artificial intelligence becomes more widespread. Pender notes that this is a large element of access to justice, as AI becomes a viable option for those who cannot afford a lawyer.

Zhang also points out that the ease in bringing legal cases also increases slop, and legal counsels need to sift through more material, which in turn delays the process and uses too many resources. AI can assist here, but its use requires caution. Tran explained how, in her government agency, they use a secure closed system, but for those who cannot afford that advantage, they should have guardrails in place to mitigate any risks against privacy and privilege.

“AI adoption is inevitable, but it’s how we implement it and how we work collaboratively to make sure it complies with the government.”

The conversation on AI continued in the following session: AI – current impacts and future planning, moderated by Barrister Julian Zmood, with the contribution of Wil McCartney, founder of the Australian AI legal tech company Habeas; Shan Mukerjee, expert in AI and analytics; and Stephán van der Walt, legal engineer at Harvey.

Every individual has their own way to use AI tools, so it’s in the interest of in-house lawyers to control the use of the technology. Mukerjee notes, “from risk and compliance, you don’t want to open the floodgates. Working with business leaders to help control exposure to AI, whether you use it or you don’t use it.”

The discussion also addresses the importance of how each tool needs to find the business, and the best way to use these tools, with critical thinking and essential skills to get the best out of the technology.

The final session of the morning, before the lunch break, focused on workplace skills for in-house lawyers. Psychologist Eric Fleming made a fun and relaxed presentation with a series of tips, or as he called them, hacks, for in-house lawyers to develop good relationships in the workplace. Fleming explains that there are two types of people in an office: the partners and the policemen. The former is included and the latter excluded. In-house lawyers, he says, tend to be policemen. So, how can one change that paradigm?

“Building relationships isn’t a waste of time”, he says. “It’s part of your job.”

Upon returning from the break, attendees were treated to an entertaining panel about whistleblowers, framed around the Super Retail Group settlement. Moderated by Michael Guilday, general counsel at the Sydney Fish Market and with the participation of the Honourable Acting Judge Judith Gibson, from the District Court of NSW; Larina Alick, executive counsel for Nine Media Group; and Gina McWilliams, senior legal counsel for News Corporation. McWilliams and Alick provided a thorough and detailed account of the Super Retail Group whistleblower case, from the beginning of the employment dispute to how the media got involved.

Alick noted that a rise in suppression orders can affect the rule of law, but when the order is challenged, it’s successful most of the time.

To wrap up the conference, the last panel asked an important question that in-house lawyers deal with most of the time: Who is your client? Moderated by Ivana Kovacevic, group chief legal officer and company secretary of Corporate Travel Management, with the collaboration of Kathryn Hinde, general counsel and company secretary at Grant Samuel; Luke Furness, special counsel at Clayton Utz; Sissi Chen, lead legal counsel at the Australian Wool Innovation and the Woolmark Company; and Linden Barnes, senior ethics solicitor at the Law Society of New South Wales.

Drawing on the recent ASIC v Bekier case, the panel addressed the ethical responsibilities of in-house lawyers and what to do when the interests of an individual and the committee diverge. “As a lawyer in the organisation, we are strength with our professional ethics standards”, Barnes said. “It’s almost as esoteric and as high-minded as our professional ethical obligations.”

When an in-house solicitor notices they’re advising an individual and not the company, Hinde says, “People appreciate when you’re upfront …clear about where the boundaries lie, [encourage] people to understand your role is to represent the interest of the company.”