Many general counsel find themselves on the margins of their organizations’ artificial intelligence strategy, even as AI adoption accelerates across corporate functions. Coverage by Law.com Corp Counsel highlights this trend and offers guidance on how legal leaders can re-engage with strategic AI planning. According to the article, legal departments often lack a defined role in shaping companywide AI governance, leaving critical decisions about risk, compliance and ethics to technologists or business units without adequate legal oversight.

The situation reflects broader challenges faced by in-house teams in balancing enthusiasm for new technology with professional obligations. Research from the Thomson Reuters Institute has found that while many general counsel recognize AI’s potential to improve efficiency and simplify workflows, adoption within legal departments often remains slow and incremental. Nearly three-quarters of GCs see potential benefits but report only modest progress in implementing new tools, in part because technology decisions are being made without meaningful legal engagement.

The gap between legal leadership and AI strategy is not merely procedural; it carries substantive risk. Absent legal input, companies may press ahead with tools that introduce regulatory, contractual or ethical exposure that the legal team is later expected to manage. Experts note that GCs are uniquely positioned to architect internal frameworks for AI governance that align with corporate risk tolerance and regulatory requirements, turning what might otherwise be a compliance afterthought into a proactive strategic function.

Closing the gap requires legal leaders to assert their stake early in the AI lifecycle. That means articulating clear legal expectations for AI use, educating business partners on legal and regulatory implications, and anchoring AI decisions to enterprise-wide compliance and risk priorities. It also involves elevating legal fluency about AI within the department so that legal professionals can contribute meaningfully to discussions about tool selection, vendor contracts and governance frameworks.

For legal operations and in-house professionals, reasserting influence over AI strategy also presents an opportunity to reshape the GC role itself. Rather than functioning solely as compliance monitors, general counsel can position their teams as architects of responsible AI adoption, bridging technical, legal and business considerations. In doing so, they not only protect the organization from risk but also demonstrate the legal function’s strategic value as corporate AI strategies evolve.