Rethinking Law and AI: The Transformative Vision of QA’s General Counsel

This is a conversation between Lilian Breidenbach, Flank's CEO,  and Philip Young, General Counsel at QA. QA is the UK's leading provider of tech training and skills development. Lili takes us on a journey through Phil's early influences, his decision to pursue law, and his transition into a general counsel role. We'll also dive into how Phil came to pioneer internal AI adoption at QA and his vision for the future. 

...the role of the in-house legal function has gone from supporting corporate strategy to shaping corporate strategy. With the advent of AI, where legal contractual terms might be automated, and negotiations streamlined, the GC has to think about how to best apply their knowledge and general commercial acumen to give counsel.

Lilian Breidenbach:  Okay, well, maybe we'll kick off by learning a little bit about how you grew up and some of your early perceptions of the legal profession.

Phil Young: Sure, yeah. I grew up in Northern Ireland, hence the strange accent. I grew up in a small rural community, about 40 minutes northwest of Belfast. Looking back on my childhood and teenage years, everything I did was within a very small radius. My primary school was less than a five-minute drive, my secondary school less than 10 minutes, the local rugby and cricket club 10 minutes, and the beach was about 30 minutes away. My early perception of the legal profession was shaped by my first work experience with a high street solicitor in the local village. I remember sifting through mountains of documentation, everything from property disputes to farming issues. That was my first introduction to the legal profession.

LB: Amazing. How old were you then?

PY: I’ve got to thank my parents a lot for their influence and prompting me to go out and get work experience, even locally in the high street firm - it was around 15 or 16, during my GCSEs. My parents encouraged me to get work experience, probably to keep me busy during the summer. But yes, that early exposure was crucial. Later, I did an internship with a Queen's Counsel, which was more litigious and advocacy-focused. Then, through a work shadowing scheme via the Institute of Directors in Belfast, I interned at a commercial law firm. These experiences helped me understand the legal profession better.

LB: Yeah, interesting. Was it clear to you that you would study law from there?

PY: No, it wasn't. I did those internships because I thought law was a good generalist thing to pursue. I enjoyed solving problems. I enjoyed analyzing issues. I enjoyed thinking critically. I felt that a legal career had the potential to fulfil that kind of enjoyment. But it wasn't set in stone that I would become a lawyer. I studied law at Queen's in Belfast, seeing it as a good platform for something else. Many years later, here I am, a lawyer. And I guess what I'd say to others, like looking back on it, is probably do what you enjoy. Sometimes, we don't pursue what we enjoy because there's a pressure to conform to the status quo or do what your friends are doing or because you have an aspiration for a certain lifestyle. You kind of go down a route which maybe isn't what you enjoy. Thankfully, after studying it, engaging with it and doing more work experience, I really enjoyed it. So, it was great for me that problem solving and critical thinking meshed into the career which I'm now in.

LB: Yeah, I think it's interesting. Back in the day, what you studied often set you up for your career. But now, with a broader education, you can develop skills like analytical thinking and problem-solving that can take you far.

PY: Yeah, massively so. In our careers, we’re ultimately dealing with people. If you're working in something you enjoy, that's broader and more generalist, it helps you relate to others in different lanes, better. No one wants to be in a room full of just lawyers. Trust me, I've been there. Right.

LB: Pfft!

PY: But yeah, I think it's really important to cover. Do what you enjoy. And I think it's good to be a generalist and to have certain areas which you know, but in a broader context. And that's like when I went to America and studied out there, I did my masters in law, but it was the most non-law thing I've done, strangely, because I'd qualified as a solicitor in the UK. And I thought, well, I'm going to be doing this probably for the rest of my life, but I want my educational experience in the U .S. to broaden my horizons into business, economics, government. So that was really important for me from an education perspective then when I did my masters, even though it is a masters, it was a masters in law.

 LB: Yeah, I saw that on your LinkedIn. I stumbled across it because I was like, okay, town in Ireland, then University in Belfast, then Harvard Law in Boston. So I'm very curious about like, how that was for you?

PY: My inroads into the States were formed a few years previously. I did an internship in Congress when I was 18. That was during my first year, actually my first summer at university. It was really one of those strange situations where I had seen, at the time, that there was an individual, Euan Blair, the former prime minister’s son. He had done an internship in Congress and I thought to myself, I'd love to do that, right, so I literally fired off a couple of letters to the clerk of the House of Representatives and some other committees in Congress, but it was so random, I had no connections, I was guy from Northern Ireland, growing up in a rural community, who didn't have any prior interest in government in the US. So, I sent those letters off at the start of my first year at university and completely randomly after months of silence, the night before my first law exam at Queen's University as I was studying,  an email popped up on my screen from the Office of Congressman Joseph Pitts from the 16^th District in Pennsylvania! Clearly they were just looking for staff, right? The former intern had pulled out and they were scrambling so had a whip round of the mail box, but they saw that this guy from Northern Ireland was looking for a job. And, listen, long story short, I had to write two essays. The first one was: “Describe your political philosophy and how that relates to the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania”. I didn’t even know where Pennsylvania was – q google! But I still have the essay and they seemed to like it, and a few weeks later after my exam and a skype interview (remember that?!), I was on a plane!

LB: I was going to say, I'm amazed that you were able to pull that off at 18.

PY: So, that’s how I interned out there and that set me off on a bit of a trajectory, right? Which was US law, US law firms. In my mind, it was getting an equivalency of education because I thought I might work in the US at some point. So, I applied to Harvard and I managed to get there as a Frank Knox fellow, which is a fully paid for period of study out there. But again, for me, it was like I said, doing stuff kind of outside of the fairway, so I cross registered, which is very common for a lot of international students  at Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School. The biggest difference was the Socratic method of learning. There were other individuals and international students there who would have been used to that from their university experience. For me, my university experience was slightly more kind of big lecture hall style and then simulation of what the professor said at the front,  then do the exam. Now, clearly you had your seminars in your small groups where you had more discussion based exercises. But one of the big things I  realized when I was out there, was here I am in a massive lecture theatre and you basically have to argue with your other classmates in front of everyone. And you're marked on that and you're judged on it. That was completely different for me.

It's like being a doctor; you may specialize in one area, but you still need to apply general principles to different issues. As a GC, it's about applying your legal knowledge and general commercial knowledge to provide counsel.

LB:  Yeah…I went to a small liberal arts college in Portland, Oregon and I had the same experience. Most of my classes were just like, you just chatted and then maybe you had one essay and that's what you were graded on. So, for me, as a bit of an introvert, it was hard to get used to, but at some point it was good. 

PY: Yeah, it really sharpens you, right, because you had to think on the spot quickly. 

LB: Definitely…Even in some biology classes I took this was the case. I was used to just learning everything by heart but there, all the exams were open book. So, you didn't have to memorise anything. You just had to make a good argument. You basically had to make a good argument and write well, even in Mathematics. It was very interesting. But yeah, super cool. So, then from Harvard onwards, can you share some of your early experiences working as a lawyer after you graduated?

PY: I started my training contract on September 1, 2008, just before Lehman Brothers collapsed on 15 September 2008. It was an incredible time to work in a large international law firm during a global recession.  Looking back, I think that naturally prompted a significant amount of fear amongst trainees and junior lawyers at the time because of job retention. I think many individuals were prompted by a mindset of ‘what can I do to keep my job’ rather than ‘doing whatever I can to do my job’. There’s a nuance there. The former promotes behaviors which aren't entirely necessary or the most efficient way to get your highest and best use. So, was it really necessary to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? You know, that kind of classic junior lawyer where you just get in the taxi home at 3 AM and you're back into the office at 8 AM.  That was an expectation and I know it still happens. So, like most junior lawyers, we worked extraordinarily long hours and there was a real insistence on perfection. That being said, I recognise that this does drive resilience and good quality output drove some really good qualities which hopefully I still have -  I do think it drives resilience, not the whole, but part. That desire to have a really good quality work product, but hopefully not being driven from a place of fear. A desire to just get stuff done and do it well

LB:  Yeah, I read this study which popped up on my LinkedIn. It said that in a survey carried out 10 years ago, 50 % of junior associates wanted to make partner. Now, it's down to 10%. I thought that was very interesting. I'm not a lawyer, so I've never gone through it, but what I gather, at least from some of my friends who are now associates, is that there’s real value for work-life balance more than making partner. So, I'm curious - when you were in private practice, what were your thoughts around this? Was there ever a moment when you decided you wouldn’t go down the partner route? 

PY:  I initially wanted to be a partner, like most of my cohort. That was the trajectory of travel. It isn’t uncommon (and certainly wasn’t) that everyone in this space is likely a highly motivated individual. Everyone had great grades, were high performers. And so the prevailing natural trajectory of that and that attitude is to reach the top, right? At the time, I think people were also prepared to put up with all the challenges that come with that, because there was this real focus on achievement to hit that height. But the reason I actually left private practice was because I wanted to do something more generalist. I saw a US law firm trajectory of crazy work hours and decided to pursue a broader role. Moving in-house gave me that opportunity. I wanted to do something slightly more expansive and work within the context of a business and within the context of a company. Because like I said, that reflected the reasons why I did certain courses in my studies and my background. I didn't want to just be a subject matter specialist. 

But everyone has different aspirations and goals. For me, it was a combination of wanting to do something slightly more generic. I think being in-house gives you that opportunity. If you're a specialist in intellectual property law, that's fine and great if you love it.

One of the interesting things now, as a general counsel asking for legal advice from law firms, is recognizing that the norm has shifted. When I was a junior associate, we had to respond really quickly. One of the best pieces of business development advice I ever heard was at a firm in New York. A partner said, "Answer the phone before the third ring." That's all he said, but it was incredible advice. Now, as a GC, I agree with it, not from the mindset of giving an immediate full proof answer but acknowledging the call and the issue. You could say, "I'm busy right now, but I've noted your issue and will get back to you in a few days."

LB: That makes sense.

PY: Back in the day, the expectation was to give an answer within hours. Now, my expectation is still to answer the phone before the third ring, but I'm cognizant that people are busy and there's a work-life balance to be had. This mindset shift has happened over time.

LB: It shows a good relationship. You can just pick up the phone and say, "This seems urgent, but it can wait." So, I think that's fair. Now, you're a general counsel at QA. Can you talk a bit about that transition going in-house, what that was like? Maybe some of the learnings, what you expected, what you didn't expect.

PY: When I first moved in-house, my background was in capital markets and M&A. On my second day in-house, someone handed me two jet leasing agreements and asked questions about them. I thought to myself, "I know about the rental agreement on my flat in Clapham, but jet leasing agreements?" That was an inflection moment. It made me realize that in-house lawyers need to adapt to various subject matters, quickly. It's like being a doctor; you may specialize in one area, but you still need to apply general principles to different issues. As a GC, it's about applying your legal knowledge and general commercial knowledge to provide counsel. And I'm a big believer in this approach. What I tell my team is, if there's a problem and you don’t have the precise answer, apply your basic principles and legal understanding, give me your proposal on the solution, and then we can refine it together.

I also see the role of the GC as being a generalist. I read somewhere recently that the role of the in-house legal function has gone from supporting corporate strategy to shaping corporate strategy. With the advent of AI, where legal contractual terms might be automated, and negotiations streamlined, the GC has to think about how to best apply their knowledge and general commercial acumen to give counsel. Your primary job as a lawyer is to know the law and advise the business, but with new tools, the question becomes, what's the highest and best use for a GC within a company?

LB: Yeah, and I think that was actually one of the first conversations that we had that I really thought was insightful. As a general counsel, you really have a horizontal view of the company and the processes, unlike pretty much any other role, except maybe the COO or the C-suite. You can understand what's going on horizontally in the whole company.

PY: Yeah.

LB: And so you can make proposals and decisions that can be very impactful because you understand the intricacies of how things work together.

PY: Yeah, absolutely. It's that horizontal and vertical view. You see a lot across a business and an organization. You might not have the depth that your chief marketing officer has in marketing, but you can see how the marketing relates to sales and then how sales relate to the contract and then its execution at the end of the process, which is where you and your team come in. Bringing those stakeholders together is something you definitely see in the GC role. There's also the vertical element, from the day-to-day operations to the upwards relationship with investors and the board. As a GC, owning that and having knowledge of it is crucial. Your duty of care is to the company. You hope personal interests align with the company, but as a GC, you need to provide advice that's in the best interest of the company. Knowing that horizontal view is key to giving that advice.

LB: That's very true. You already mentioned AI. When was the first time you came across ChatGPT, and what question did you ask, if you remember?

PY: I'll take a step back first. One of my good friends is a leading voice in AI. He's written a book called "Robot Rules" and is a barrister. We met at Harvard, played rugby together, and have kept in touch ever since. I realized the importance of AI earlier than most in terms of general adoption, probably back in early 2022. There was something on the horizon, and the first launch of ChatGPT was in November 2022. But before that, I invited my friend to QA to speak about the regulation of artificial intelligence, focusing on the law. His talk sent me down a rabbit hole into AI. As a lawyer, I believe you should not only know the law but also understand what's behind it. So, I delved into the technology behind AI, like the transformer principle, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, etc, coding etc -to grasp how it works.

When ChatGPT came out, the first question I asked was, "Who is Philip Young?" I wanted to see what information it had about me. Thankfully, there wasn't much. It mentioned a motorsport racer in the UK with the same name! But that experience showed me the potential of AI for asking specific questions and getting concise answers. It was incredible to see how this tool could be used for legal research, where typically you get a trove of information and have to sift through it. With ChatGPT, you can ask a specific question and get a relatively precise answer, saving time and increasing efficiency. Of course, there are concerns about bias, truth, and accuracy, which are extremely important for a general counsel to consider. But for me, the potential was clear in terms of commercial application and speed.

I immediately thought about AI's role in two ways: offensively and defensively. Offensively, how can we leverage AI to pioneer a unique learning experience for clients and learners that can't be replicated? Defensively, how do we use AI to expedite data-driven decisions, elevate standards, and drive performance? Any CEO, COO, or board would want to elevate standards and drive performance. If there are tools on the market to help achieve that, everyone should be all in (in a legally compliant manner!)

I immediately thought about AI's role in two ways: offensively and defensively. Offensively, how can we leverage AI to pioneer a unique learning experience for clients and learners that can't be replicated? Defensively, how do we use AI to expedite data-driven decisions, elevate standards, and drive performance?

LB: It's interesting. When we first met, there were two mysteries for me. First, you are a three-person legal team for a 3,000-person organization.

PY: Yes, including zero-hour and contractors, we are a disproportionately small team relative to the size of the organization.

LB: I thought it was interesting that you didn't just manage that but also took it upon yourself to think horizontally about QA's processes and pioneer AI usage internally in a defensive way. What was the impulse for that? It's quite courageous, especially in a risk-averse role.

PY: When we started, our interaction with Flank was about how your tool could help my function and areas I was responsible for, like data protection, information security, governance, procurement, and bids. When we first  looked at your tool, you remember, I was just like, okay, this is a game changer. Generally speaking, people work very manually, right? I thought that if we can have collateral on a system which extracts information, which can be refined, which can provide better answers in a shorter timeframe, that's just a no brainer to me. It goes back to what I said at the very start, which is how can you provide a better client service? As a legal team, we want to provide a great service quickly, efficiently, and with great quality to internal stakeholders. So when I looked at your product, that was the use case. It was very selfish, initially. It was about how it could help my role, but it quickly became clear that other business areas could benefit. For example, how about automating responses to HR or policy questions? Or providing quick information on regulations or our own product for junior sales? It was a no-brainer to roll out AI tools across the business. As a leader,  there are different verticals within the business that have the same problems that maybe legal functions have, or they have a lot of information which sits in silos. That’s generally information that people want access to. So we had a discussion internally about opportunities for automation across the business as a whole. Instead of contacting the people team and receiving a message saying they will get back to you within 72 hours, how about something which is much quicker to respond? With your solution, in 20 seconds, the agent can come back to that individual who asked the question or in sales. We've gone through proof of concepts in different areas. But again, I like to solve problems so I’m enjoying the process. I think any leader wants to make things better. If you don't then you shouldn't be a leader, right? That’s  why I wanted to drive the adoption of AI within the business, both in the offenses and from the defensive.

I also wanted to deeply understand how it's being applied, how it's being used, or why the business wants to use it so that I can make sure that that it is done within the regulatory construct that is evolving. As a GC, and as a legal function, we're in a unique position to have that vertical and horizontal view - so if you’re going to apply a transformative technology to a business that solves problems, you should equip the problem solvers with the solutions to direct their application.

It was very selfish, initially. It was about how it could help my role, but it quickly became clear that other business areas could benefit. For example, how about automating responses to HR or policy questions?

LB: Yeah, I think it's super interesting. We actually work with a lot of companies where the GC was probably the first person to actually deploy AI at scale outside of engineering, co -pilot, etc. How did these conversations go internally, and how did you get buy-in from other stakeholders?

PY: Legal functions often joke about being the department for the prevention of business. So, proposing a new product for revenue generation and operational efficiency can be surprising. My inflection point was recognizing how fast the tech was evolving and anticipating regulation. We set up AI governance committees and impact assessments, similar to GDPR. This proactive approach helps us be ready for future scrutiny. The challenge is balancing speed with good governance. Moving fast within a great framework ensures compliance and prepares us for future questions. Now,  I’m delighted that we have an AI lead within the business.

As a leader,  there are different verticals within the business that have the same problems that maybe legal functions have, or they have a lot of information which sits in silos. That’s generally information that people want access to. So we had a discussion internally about opportunities for automation across the business as a whole.

LB: Yeah, definitely. So, you've got three kids. If you look at their lives and the world that they're growing up in, do you have any specific concerns about their future in the world that is increasingly influenced by AI?

PY: In terms of learning, intelligence might become commoditized as tools make coding and analytics more accessible. For my kids, I believe their the focus should be on values, soft skills, and leadership abilities. AI isn't there yet in these areas, so we need to accentuate human qualities. Schools and universities will change, and learning will start earlier. AI can help bring forward knowledge and skills. I'm excited about the potential for faster learning and the importance of values and leadership. I also believe my children will learn in a way which is more applied rather than theoretical – I’m still considering whether that belief is actually better. There is a danger that if we learn just through situations and practice, in a more linear manner, we neglect the horizon and context which bring broader concepts and principles that can be applied to problems. i.e. does AI give us a principled framework to deal with the problems and issues my kids will encounter growing up, but all to hastily just point to linear and un-emotional answers – because that’s not relational.

As a GC, and as a legal function, we're in a unique position to have that vertical and horizontal view - so if you’re going to apply a transformative technology to a business that solves problems, you should equip the problem solvers with the solutions to direct their application

LB: Final question: What do you think the role of General Counsel will look like in five years?

PY: It will be much more operational and cross-functional. Standardization and automation will take care of many day-to-day tasks. GCs will need to understand strategy, balance sheets, and P&Ls. The role will be more wholistic, providing oversight, governance, and risk management – particularly in data protection and cyber security. Also, AI adoption makes the GC’s role even more important as guardians of the company's interests. But GCs will need to embrace the future and lead AI integration within their organizations. We will be (even) busier. Less will be outsourced. Technology will present legal and regulatory challenges (as in some cases the regulation will be retro-fitted!), so the people that understand that are the ones that will thrive, so a GC who knows AI, knows the tech., and who can relate to stakeholders, from the position of trust and confidence, are the individuals who will thrive – lawyers are well placed to do that.

LB: Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. It's been really great. We've talked about a lot of these things already, but it's always fascinating speaking to you about AI and the role of the GC. 

PY: Thank you, Lilian. You guys have helped me a lot as well in the way I think about these topics.

Here's another interesting conversation Lili had with Andy Cooke, GC at TravelPerk, on the future of the legal profession with AI.

Curious about Flank? You can speak to us here.