This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
With over 11 years of experience across commercial law, technology, and AI, what drew you to this unique intersection as your niche? Were there specific moments or projects early on that sparked this direction?
This niche was never planned. It was a series of opportunities seized at the right time and a passionate deep dive into whatever crossed my path. I have never been one to restrict myself to just scratching the surface. On the contrary, I have always been a business-oriented legal professional. I went down the rabbit hole in any new opportunity, and each one became a moment of evolution. I still can’t say for certain that this is the finishing line. I continue to learn and evolve. In fact, I would take a step further to say that AI itself will not remain a “niche” for too long. It has already started to become mainstream. The world will soon see specialized domains being created within the supposed “niche” of AI. So what part of it I would end up being drawn to is for time to tell. As of now, I am just learning.
As for specific moments, there have been many. At the beginning of my career itself, I had a front-row view of the impact of regulatory compliance issues on the overall business and sustenance of a company. I had joined Unilever as an in-house counsel, and my entry coincided with the infamous MSG/ash in instant noodles fiasco, which had hit 3 of the largest FMCG conglomerates in the country. I was posted in UP at the epicenter of it all. While it was an incredible opportunity, the impact on business was palpable. That continued through Covid when I was with Coca-Cola when boilerplate clauses like force majeure became the biggest game-changer for a company, followed by my role in Qyuki coinciding with the TikTok ban, which had shaken the entire creator economy. Qyuki, however, was my first tryst with technology in which my seniors encouraged me to go down the NFT rabbit hole and explore synergies from a legal and business perspective between content and the metaverse. I ended up writing a white paper on it, which was dropped as an NFT at All About Music in a session in which we presented it. As a certification and security mechanism, blockchain is one of the primary drivers of AI. I continued my journey with Qyuki as a consultant while also building a legal technology product powered by AI. From concept to pivot to funding and building the beta version of the product, it was not only a journey down a rabbit hole, but also a massive learning curve for me. But there are darker truths behind the shiny veil of startups, and most startups are not able to make it. So that’s when I considered going back to a job and joined Dentons as a Partner for the AI and technology practice. Yet, a traditional law firm environment is not the right environment for someone who has gained interdisciplinary skills to thrive and grow in. That’s what led to the birth of The AI Lawby. I had already spent enough time in the creator economy and learned to create content. Governance of AI was jumping out as the most pressing issue. While the world kept talking about privacy, I was creating diagrams on a mind map to go to the roots of the product and evaluate it from a multi-lens perspective: Brand building, Compliance, and Technology.
From founding a venture-backed legal tech company to shaping AI governance frameworks for global teams, what motivated your shift from traditional legal roles to innovation-driven leadership?
As I said, it was never by design but always an accident. I grabbed opportunities, thought out of the box, and kept discovering my path as I kept carving it. It’s not over yet. I am always a work in progress, and I would like to be so till my last day. There’s nothing as empowering as discovery and a realization that there is so much more to learn and do. Also, I never liked being placed in a box anyway. Most people believe that an in-house counsel’s role is that of a postman. There could be nothing farther from the truth than that. I chose to become an in-house counsel because that enables you to be entrenched in the business. You are both a lawyer and a client, and you can see the consequences of decisions you take directly on the client’s business. From a bird’s-eye view, it grounds you in reality. So I always used strategy over theory. That was my DNA. So I don’t think I was ever in a traditional legal role. At every stage I have embraced challenges and opportunities at the intersection of law and business. As technology kept invading our lives, the lines of traditional roles kept blurring. I firmly believe that we are in a day and age where interdisciplinary skill sets are the need of the hour while also having a specialization in one field. For instance, in law, I choose to specialize in technology—not just AI, but data privacy, intellectual property, product liability, and so many other aspects of technology—and I would not trade that to dip my fingers into a practice of M&A or banking or ESG, etc. However, at the macro level, beyond law, I am a complete generalist—be it UX, brand building or brand development, content writing, optimizing user journeys and efficiency, strategies in product funnels, etc. So when I work with a client, it is well beyond just legal advice – I am in the trenches with them.
You’ve worked closely with creators, artists, and founders to solve cutting-edge legal challenges. Can you share an experience which was the most interesting to you?
I honestly don’t know where to start—there have been so many. I think the “most” interesting challenge is the one I am solving for and advocating aggressively—AI governance. Most people make the blunder of considering governance as a policy document being created, and the benchmark for them is a privacy policy, which is generally a boilerplate clickwrap agreement. But AI has pushed boundaries in incredible ways, and every use case is a separate one and mandates an extremely curated approach. The type and level of governance is influenced by so many variables—industry/sector, geography, unit economics, whether they are manufacturers or providers or deployers of technology, the specific use case in the industry, and so on. There can never be a one-size-fits-all approach, and unlike most lawyers, I dive extremely deep into product features specifically and entire workflows for every feature. My role does not end with just an assessment of the risk but extends further to providing solutions basis the resources and existing incentive/operational framework of the organization. So each one is honestly a fresh learning altogether for me.
You’ve supported businesses with fundraising, IP governance, and workflow automation. What are some of the key legal or ethical blind spots you see in today’s AI adoption and how do you guide clients through them?
There are two elements to this question. From a pure play compliance point of view, I would say there are three broad issues: data privacy/cybersecurity, intellectual property, and product liability. As I said I not only dive deep into every feature workflow but I interview at least a sample set of the entire value chain of stakeholders (internal and external) and every inquiry, whether for the product or the stakeholder, is curated to the nature of the business. For example, if the client is in fintech, I would explore their ways of protecting customer data as well as an inquiry into the training data set to see if the system can be misused to cull out personal data once deployed.
From the ethical blind spots point of view in terms of the consequence of using the tools, I would say that there are issues of bias stemming from the systemic bias of the data set on which the model is trained or even the cognitive bias of the individuals training the system. security is another massive blind spot. And here i dont mean just cyber-security but even the safety of using the product – consider the crashes of autonomous vehicles. So ethical blind spots depend on the nature of the product, the use case, and the industry.
You’ve co-authored a first-of-its-kind e-book on art law and worked on complex issues of art estate and provenance. What are some legal challenges unique to the art-tech intersection, and how do you approach them strategically?
I don’t see any specific challenges unique to the art-tech intersection. The art industry has some unique challenges—provenance, counterfeits, art financing, and royalties from the art estate, such as exclusive merchandise. These problems simply get accelerated with technology and are also countered with technology. For instance, AI has made it easier to detect counterfeits in the market and also create counterfeits seamlessly. Rights management has similarly moved from physical rights of a visual art piece to digital rights management wherein NFTs are created based on the artwork, or prints are sold through e-commerce without a royalty being passed on to the creator and without any licensing arrangement in the first place. So technology has simply added complexity to the existing issues in the art-tech space. However, one issue that personally disturbs me is of Generative AI – take the case of The Next Rembrandt – while it was a scientific experiment to identify how far AI could go, it has paved the way for so many iterations and developments, which I personally believe are unethical for the art ecosystem. The Next Remmbrandt is a new painting completely generated by AI in the style of the legendary artist Rembrandt after training an AI model on the enormous volumes of his original works. Technically, it’s a new piece. But has come into the picture with old pieces having been used as a base. The same thing happened with Ghibli Studio. This is not just personal inspiration. This is a usage of creative intellectual pursuits for commercial gain without a license. Strategy is different for each of these – for instance the Gen-AI problem is very well solved by a licensing arrangement which would propel AI and incentivise artists to continue creating breathtaking work.
You’ve held leadership roles in prominent firms and companies. What led you to establish your own independent practice and what were some key experiences from that transition?
Most importantly, I would clarify that The AI Lawby is not a traditional private legal practice. And that itself is what powered the shift. If I get an opportunity tomorrow to play a part (even temporarily) for a futuristic organization that paves the way for me to leverage my skills appropriately, I would absolutely go for it. The old structures and paradigms are giving way to new ways of working, and progress lies in embracing the new. The present day demands agility, and I would continue to evolve as a multidisciplinary professional. What I offer to my clients through The AI Lawby is not legal practice. It is strategic consultation with an added feather of legal specialisation.
You’ve moved seamlessly between domain law firms, media-tech, AI governance, and art law. How has your legal philosophy evolved through these transitions, and what values ground your work at The AI Lawby today?
The values that ground me are the same ones that I started my career with a decade and some ago: the willingness to be a perpetual student, the one to jump into the trenches with a solution-oriented mindset whenever a problem arises big or small; and resilience to spring back up after every setback. These remain consistent and actually more entrenched with every passing day.
With your expertise in legal tech and automation, how do you envision the role of technology transforming legal advisory over the next five years? What advice would you give and what skills should the next generation of lawyers start building now?
The progress in legal technology is phenomenal but there are limitations inherently to legal tech. I think it’s a futile exercise for legal tech companies to create workflows that provide analyses. That cannot become helpful until we reach significant success in AGI (Artificial general intelligence) and we are far from even an entry into that as of now. However, in terms of document extraction and automating mundane tasks I think legal technology is already revamping the profession. It has multiple implications – TAT for lawyers should come down resulting in the need to focus on volume as the unit revenue from a mandate would be significantly reduced. Further, clients would also come with more awareness and not be at the behest of the lawyer. The change is inevitable.
My advice to new lawyers is to start with humility and be on a constant pursuit of new skills and learning. If they don’t develop interdisciplinary skills they will be left behind. However, this works even for those in more advanced stages of their career. The legal profession has always been called “an old boys club” and it’s time for those who continue to remain stringent in their perspectives and models to wake up and smell the coffee.
Get in touch with Nayona Roy –
