Corporate clients are increasingly demanding clear, actionable advice from external lawyers, with little tolerance for ambiguity, said Deputy General Counsel at Vedanta Limited Preet Sethi at a panel discussion during London International Disputes Week 2026.
Sethi was responding to a question on what she expects from external counsel today that she was not asking for five years ago, at a session organised by Stewarts and Brick Court Chambers under the theme General Counsel – or Global Counsel.
She highlighted a growing frustration among in-house teams with overly cautious legal advice from external counsel.
“What I particularly am asking from external counsel is clear-cut advice. With yes or no answers and black and white answers. I do not like when external counsel caveat everything with, 'it may happen and it may not happen' and try to be all evasive without actually giving you a clear decision on the query which has been asked,” she said.
She added that while legal complexity is unavoidable, external lawyers must still provide direction.
“We will deal with the grey areas but external counsels have to be very precise and clear. Without disclaimer."
The panel - moderated by Sherina Petit, Head of International Arbitration and India Practice at Stewarts and Chintan Chandrachud of Brick Court Chambers - brought together in-house leaders and practitioners to examine how the role of general counsel and their interaction with external lawyers is shifting in a cross-border business environment. The speakers included Neena Gupta, Arnaz Kotwal, Osman Aboubakr and Pallavi Saluja.
External counsel, typically law firms or independent advocates engaged by companies for specialised legal advice or dispute representation, have traditionally been central to handling complex legal matters.
However, as the discussion highlighted, their role is increasingly being redefined by more empowered in-house teams, greater access to information and rising expectations around speed, clarity and commercial relevance.
Neena Gupta, CEO of Miiro Hotels and former Group General Counsel at InterGlobe Enterprises, framed the changing expectations in terms of speed and efficiency. She particularly took note of the changes in a landscape increasingly shaped by technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI). She advised,
“Reduce your fees and come to the decision faster than you do. I think that would be my very strong advice.”
She suggested that external lawyers should prioritise early directional advice over lengthy analysis, noting that clients increasingly expect speed alongside substance.
"Use whatever tools that are available to come to a first, very helpful advice, before a client will ask for a detailed analysis once they get a the direction. So a direction first and analysis later," said Gupta.
Arnaz Kotwal, General Counsel at VFS Global, pointed to predictability and transparency, particularly around costs and risk, as critical to maintaining client confidence.
“My specific thing would be no surprises. Absolutely none with regard to the costs. Absolutely none with regard to when you're giving the advice if there is something which is a risk I would need it to be very clearly stated out...no ambiguousness in the memo,” she said.
She stressed that what companies ultimately seek goes beyond transactional legal advice.
“I think for judgment and trust is what I would want from my external counsel. And a partnership as opposed to just the legal advice,” she said.
Osman Aboubakr, co-founder of Argentum Law, framed the issue more broadly in terms of client needs in a post-AI environment.
“From the perspective of what clients want from lawyers that are providing me advice...is lawyers to help them make better decisions They want speed as you said before commerciality coordination and...when things get difficult they want lawyers who will stay in the trenches with them throughout the process not just send the advice and then disappear,” he observed.
He further cautioned that focusing solely on legal success can undermine trust.
“Lawyers lose credibility when they confuse legal success with business success. You know lawyers shouldn't just answer legal questions. They just have to provide that additional layer.”
A significant portion of the discussion centred on whether and how external counsel should use AI. Petit asked panellists if they now expect outside lawyers to adopt AI tools and how that would impact the quality of advice.
Gupta and Aboubakr both acknowledged AI’s role in improving efficiency, with Gupta suggesting that clients themselves are already using such tools.
"Please assume that your the client would have already put the query in the AI and got the answer. So (they are) obviously looking for something more nuanced," she observed.
Kotwal supported the use of AI but stressed the need for human oversight, citing mixed experiences.
"I absolutely think that law firms should be using AI. But I think that the advice would need to be re-looked at before it's sent out... I've had some misses and hits with regard to AI...I think if it is used responsibly it would be hugely enhancing and cost saving," she said.
Sethi, however, took a more sceptical view, drawing a distinction between internal use of AI and reliance on it by external counsel.
"I am paying for a human mind. I should get the human mind to think and give me the answer...When you are approaching an expert external counsel, after I have my 70 member team...few of the best lawyers and legal minds have gone through the query. Then I am asking that particular individual or lawyer or law firm to answer. And if I see that it has been made through AI, I wouldn’t be very happy about it,” she said.