Sudeep Sharma, Head Legal & Compliance at Antara Senior Care in India, discusses the mindset shift from litigation to in-house leadership – and why today’s GC must move beyond identifying constraints to enabling practical, business-focused solutions.
What has been the most defining moment of your career as an in-house lawyer so far?
One of the most defining moments in my career was actually a shift in mindset rather than a single transaction or dispute.
I spent close to a decade in a reputed law firm environment, where the approach is naturally anchored in litigation thinking, analysing what is legally permissible, how a court would interpret a situation, and where the risks lie from a judicial standpoint.
When I transitioned into an in-house role, I carried that same lens with me.
I recall a particular instance where I was handling a high-stakes matter and was in a strategic discussion with the CEO. On one of the points raised, my response was that what was being proposed was not legally possible, as there was no clear provision supporting it. The CEO responded very calmly, but in a way that stayed with me. He said, “You are not a litigating lawyer anymore, you are a corporate lawyer, so think like that.”
That single statement triggered a deep introspection. It made me realise that my role was not limited to identifying legal constraints, but to finding viable pathways within or around them, without compromising on compliance.
That moment marked a clear shift in my approach. I consciously started moving from a position of legal interpretation to one of solution-oriented thinking, working towards enabling business continuity while still managing risk.
Over time, this evolved into a broader philosophy. The role of an in-house lawyer is not just to say what cannot be done, but to help the business understand how something can be done responsibly. That transition, from a litigation mindset to a business-enabler mindset, has been the most defining aspect of my journey.
How do you envision the GC’s function evolving over the next five to ten years?
Technology will fundamentally reshape the General Counsel’s role over the next decade. It will no longer be sufficient for GCs to engage with technology only from a regulatory standpoint. They will need to develop a direct and practical understanding of how technology functions within the organisation.
This includes building familiarity with AI systems, automation tools, and digital platforms that drive business operations. The expectation will not be to become technologists, but to reach a level of fluency where legal judgment is informed by how these systems actually operate, where risks originate, and how decisions are being made within them.
At the same time, the regulatory landscape around technology is expanding rapidly. Data privacy, AI governance, cybersecurity, and digital accountability will become central to legal oversight. These will not remain niche areas but will move to the core of business strategy, particularly in data-driven sectors.
As a result, the GC’s role will extend into shaping how organisations design their systems, handle data, and embed accountability into technology-driven processes. Legal will increasingly intersect with product design, operational architecture, and customer trust.
How do you foster innovation and agility within your legal team?
For me, agility in a legal team is closely linked to how effectively we use technology. I strongly believe that without technology, no function, including legal, can operate at its highest potential.
The starting point is building systems that reduce manual effort and improve consistency. This includes using standardised templates, clause libraries, and increasingly, leveraging legal tech tools and AI to streamline drafting, review, and knowledge management. The objective is to free up the team’s time from repetitive tasks so that they can focus on more strategic work.
At the same time, technology alone is not sufficient. It needs to be supported by clarity in thinking. The team should move away from binary responses. Instead of simply saying yes or no, the focus should be on providing structured options with clear risk implications. When this approach is combined with the speed that technology enables, it significantly improves turnaround time and quality of decision-making.
Another important aspect is predictability. I often say that a strong legal team should function like an early indicator for the business, with the ability to anticipate outcomes, identify potential risks, and provide clarity well before issues materialise.
When legal can reliably forecast how a situation is likely to unfold, whether from a regulatory, contractual, or dispute perspective, it enables the business to act with greater confidence and avoid unnecessary uncertainty.
What qualities do you believe distinguish truly impactful GCs from good ones?
The distinction, in my view, lies in how one approaches the role.
A good in-house lawyer focuses on identifying and mitigating risk. An impactful GC goes a step further and helps the business navigate that risk in a practical way, often anticipating issues even before they are fully visible to others in the room.
Commercial understanding is critical. It is important to recognise which risks are material and require intervention, and which can be managed without slowing down the business. That balance is what allows legal to remain both relevant and effective.
Another key quality is the ability to provide clear, actionable guidance. At a senior level, simply outlining risks is not sufficient. The business expects direction. At the same time, it is equally important to maintain a clear distinction; the role of the GC is to identify risks, suggest mitigation strategies, and outline the potential impact. The ownership of that risk, however, always rests with the business.
In practice, this distinction is often blurred. There is a tendency within organisations to treat legal clearance as a transfer of risk, where once legal has provided a view, the accountability is assumed to shift. In my experience, one of the responsibilities of an effective GC is to actively correct this mindset, ensuring that while legal enables informed decision-making, it does not become the default owner of business risk.
Finally, credibility is what brings all of this together. When leadership sees legal as a trusted partner in decision-making, rather than a checkpoint, the impact of the GC’s role becomes significantly stronger.
How do you balance the pressures of your role with personal wellbeing and resilience?
The role does involve sustained pressure, particularly in situations involving complex disputes, reputational sensitivity, regulatory exposure, or time-critical decisions.
Over time, I have found that managing this effectively requires a structured approach. Prioritisation is key, not every issue requires the same level of attention or escalation. A significant part of the role is the ability to anticipate how a matter is likely to unfold. When you are able to foresee potential outcomes early, it brings a certain level of clarity and reduces reactive stress.
On a personal level, maintaining a consistent routine, including physical activity, plays an important role in sustaining focus and energy. It helps create balance, especially in a role that demands constant decision-making.
Experience also contributes significantly. Having dealt with complex situations over the years, one develops the ability to stay composed and approach challenges with a measured and balanced perspective.
Ultimately, I see handling pressure as an evolving skill. It is not something that can be mastered overnight, but something that develops over time through experience, discipline, and reflection.
If you could change one perception about the in-house legal profession, what would it be?
One perception I would like to change is the idea that in-house legal teams are the cause of delays.
In reality, an effective legal function does the opposite. By identifying risks early and structuring transactions thoughtfully, legal reduces last-minute disruptions and avoids the need for reworking decisions under pressure. It brings clarity at the right stage, which ultimately improves speed rather than slowing it down.
The real issue is often timing. When legal is involved late in the process, it may appear as a bottleneck. When involved early, it becomes an enabler of smoother and more efficient execution.
The shift, therefore, is from viewing legal as a control function to recognising it as a strategic partner in decision-making. That is where the true impact of the role lies.
