The Human Edge of In-House Legal in the Age of AI

As technology reshapes the legal profession, in-house leaders are being asked to balance legal expertise with business strategy, people leadership, and operational resilience.

Marco Marchesi, Head of Legal Italy at Xiaomi Technology, shares his perspective on how AI is changing legal work, why human judgment remains essential, and how legal teams can build sustainable, future-ready ways of working.

In this Q&A, Marco reflects on leadership under pressure, burnout prevention, AI governance, and the growing importance of curiosity, critical thinking, and trust in modern legal teams.

Enjoy the interview below.

---

1. The head of legal role has expanded significantly beyond pure legal advisory work into strategy, risk, technology, and people leadership. How do you personally manage that breadth without losing the legal sharpness and judgment?

The expanding scope of the legal counsel role requires now that legal expertise be viewed as a guiding principle for strategic decisions rather than a boundary within which such decisions are made. I stay sharp by protecting time for deep legal work, continuous learning, and direct engagement with complex matters. At the same time, I approach business strategy, risk, technology, and people leadership as disciplines that strengthen and enhance, not dilute, legal judgment.

Working cross‑functionally forces me to understand the business at a granular level, which ultimately improves the quality of my legal assessments. I also rely on structured decision-making frameworks and a strong team culture: delegating with clarity, coaching consistently, and creating space for diverse viewpoints.

Technology plays a key role as well. I use data, automation, and digital tools to reduce noise and free up bandwidth for value-added analysis. In the end, maintaining legal sharpness is about discipline and curiosity: staying close to the business, close to the law, and never assuming that yesterday’s expertise is enough for tomorrow’s challenges.

2. What strategies do you use as a legal leader to prevent burnout in your team? Can AI help or create pressure?

Preventing burnout starts with designing a legal function that doesn’t rely on heroics but on sustainable processes. I focus on building strong foundations, workload visibility, clear prioritization, and honest conversations about capacity. When people know what truly matters, they can let go of the noise. I also invest heavily in psychological safety and decision-making processes: a team that feels safe raising concerns early is far less likely to reach a breaking point.

AI plays an important role, but only if introduced thoughtfully. When used well, in addition to eliminating repetitive tasks, it can provide guidance and accelerate research. When used poorly, in addition to being misleading, it can create frustration and increase the workload rather than reduce it. I like to think of AI as a potentially excellent “sparring partner”: if you adopt the right “moves,” it can not only help you hone your skills but also improve your critical thinking.

3. In your opinion, what are the biggest risks of integrating AI into legal work? What is your advice on how to prevent or mitigate them?

The greatest risks associated with integrating AI into legal work stem from over-reliance and a lack of critical analysis of the output it produces. AI can speed up research and drafting, but if legal professionals do not learn how to use the tool correctly and at the same time treat the results as definitive, they risk encountering inaccuracies, the famous “hallucinations”, and subtle flaws in reasoning that only human judgment can detect. There is also a significant risk in terms of confidentiality: using tools without adequate governance can expose sensitive data.

Another challenge is viewing AI as an all-knowing system. When AI makes the work appear flawless, it becomes harder to spot weak analysis or missing context. And at the organizational level, AI can unintentionally widen the skills gap if junior staff rely on it before developing their own legal instincts.

My advice is to adopt AI with a clear framework: human-led review, strict data management rules, and transparent documentation of how AI is used in every workflow. Train teams to question the results, not just consume them. Start with low-risk use cases, measure the impact, and scale only when controls are mature.

AI should enhance legal judgment, not replace it. The safeguard is the culture: curiosity, critical thinking, and the discipline to verify before trusting. This is, in my opinion, the essential foundation for the growth of every legal professional.

4. What is the most important thing you have learned about yourself as a leader through holding this role: something that genuinely surprised you about how you operate under pressure, make decisions, or relate to the people around you?

One of the most important things I have learned about myself as a leader is how central listening is to the way I operate, especially under pressure, and how it must be balanced with real assertiveness in decision-making.

I used to think of leadership mainly in terms of taking responsibility and making clear, timely decisions. To my pleasant surprise, I have come to see that listening is the essential second half of that process. Having the courage to make a call and own it is still crucial, but it is the quality of the listening that precedes and follows those decisions that really strengthens, rather than weakens, assertiveness: when I take the time to understand people and context, I can be more decisive, transparent and aligned with the team in the choices we make.

This role has also shown me that, as technology and complexity increase, soft skills become more and more important: empathy, clarity of communication, the ability to create psychological safety and to give honest feedback. At the same time, teams look to their leader for focus and courage: someone who can say “this is the way forward” and explain the why behind it.

What surprised me most is that people do not remember only the outcome of a decision, but how it was reached, whether they felt heard, respected, and still saw you taking a firm, responsible stance. That balance now shapes my leadership more than any formal process or tool.

5. Looking ahead, how do you see technology transforming the legal profession? Will AI change the expectations placed on in-house lawyers, the way they deliver legal advice or the skill set required to remain effective in the future?

AI will change how legal advice is delivered, becoming more automated, data-driven, and embedded into workflows, but it won’t replace the need for someone who can interpret ambiguity, balance competing risks, and make decisions the company can stand behind. In this future, the legal team becomes “the orchestrator”: designing governance, validating AI reasoning, and ensuring responsible use of autonomous agents.

Even with superhuman AI, the in-house lawyer’s role evolves, not to do the work AI does better, but to ensure that technology, people, and judgment come together to create outcomes that are not only efficient, but wise.

Expectations will shift from “tell me if this is legal” to “help me decide what is wise, ethical and strategically sound, using the best data and tools available.” 

Stakeholders still need someone who can translate complexity into strategy. That means less time spent producing long memos and more time in cross-functional discussions, scenario planning and explaining complex issues in clear, practical terms. 

In short, AI will amplify the technical side of law, so the differentiating factor for in‑house lawyers will be their human qualities: curiosity, integrity, sensitivity and sensibility, business acumen, the ability to build trust and make sound decisions under uncertainty.

6. What do you hope to take away from your time at the Future Lawyer Europe - Italy conference?

I am truly delighted to be taking part again in the Future Lawyer Europe - Italy conference in Milan and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this community. My main hope is to keep the conversation very pragmatic: to share concrete experiences, tools and examples that participants can take back to their organisations and actually use the next day.

At the same time, I do not see myself only as a speaker, but of course also as a learner. Being surrounded by in‑house lawyers, law firm partners and legal tech experts from different fields and countries is a valuable chance to challenge my assumptions and discover new ways of working.

I hope to gain fresh ideas on how to combine technology, legal judgement, and human skills more effectively, and perhaps a few “small changes” that could have a significant impact in practice.

All the conditions are in place for this to happen, and I have no doubt that it will!

---

Marco’s insights reinforce an important shift for in-house legal teams: as AI becomes more embedded into legal work, the real differentiator will not be technical capability alone, but the ability to combine technology with sound judgment, leadership, and human understanding.

Marco will be joining Future Lawyer Europe Italy 2.0 Day 2 for the panel “The Future Business Partner: Redefining In-House Legal in the Age of AI”, exploring how legal teams can evolve into more strategic, cross-functional business partners while navigating the opportunities and risks created by AI.

Register now to join the discussion at Future Lawyer Europe - Italy 2.0.