Early at university, a tech-minded professor nudged her toward the field and opened doors to ‘real’ work before graduation. This took the shape of a research paper for the OECD on software patents across the Nordics, and then a first job at the Ministry of Justice focused on technology law. “I liked the public sector,” Eva says, “but I was impatient. In a law firm, the pace is faster.” 

A move to private practice gave her exactly that, and a widened lens. These days, she adds, “almost every company calls itself a tech company, which means a single week might span health, finance, HR, and telecoms –  but the common thread is data.”

From GDPR to the Data Act: where the work really happens

Eva has written extensively on GDPR and still tracks case law closely. That’s where the real movement is, she argues: practical interpretation at scale. Looking ahead, she expects data portability and cross-system data use to dominate client questions, such as how to extract data from one platform and use it safely and lawfully in another, between companies and with consumers in the loop. The EU’s “tsunami” of new digital rules only raises the stakes. “We’re entering a period of trial and error while these frameworks bed in,” she says. “Lawyers will need to think carefully before advising. The Data Act in particular will demand fresh reading time. “It’s fascinating and complicated. You really have to sit down with it.”

What AI already changes (and what it doesn’t)

The last 18 months have quietly rewritten parts of Eva’s job. “Not all tasks, but many are much faster,” Eva says. The sweet spot is document analysis with large review sets, structured questions, and clear constraints. Translation is another unexpected superpower. Her team now drafts in English and can deliver work in Nordic-language versions with only minor edits.

But none of this replaces judgement. “You have to verify responses,” she insists. “Taking AI results for granted is dangerous. They won’t be perfect, and that’s okay.”

“The solution is training plus clear, readable guidelines”, something Eva has helped implement internally. “You’ll have early enthusiasts, a few sceptics, and many in the middle. The middle needs support to get the most out of AI. Lawyers need these tools. They help us give deeper analysis, faster, if we use them responsibly.”

Calibrating client expectations

As clients adopt AI, the conversation is changing. Some now ask firms to justify their toolsets, and occasionally over-index on generic tools. “We’ve seen contracts run through a public model and come back with triple the comments, not all sensible,” Eva says. “Part of our job is to calibrate expectations: what AI is great for, and what still requires legal judgement.”

Where will AI-enabled services take hold first? “In the repetitive, patternable work”, she predicts, “the parts of legal service delivery that benefit most from consistency and scale.” But the bigger point is cultural. “To be an up-to-date lawyer today, you can’t look away from AI,” she says. “Learn how the tools behave, and how to get sensible answers.”

Advice to junior lawyers

Eva’s guidance for junior lawyers is pretty blunt: become the best at using AI tools. “Some partners are superb with them, some aren’t. Either way, it’s going to be a must. Learn the differences between tools and how to prompt for reliable results. AI won’t replace legal thinking; it will expose the lawyers who can apply it thoughtfully.”

Setting precedents

If she could set one new norm for the profession, it would be a mindset shift: embrace the possibilities and move forward with proof. “Law firms can be old-fashioned,” she says. “We can’t hide from the tools our clients use. Document compliance, manage risk – and keep going.”