This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
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!
Get in touch with Mark Lewis-
