Lawyers are known for breaking down barriers, and Ana-Maria is no exception. What makes her a Shaper is her ability to push past the challenges of working in law with grace. From moving to a new country while continuing her career in law, to embracing continuous collaboration across disciplines, she is a champion of the evolving legal profession. Her passion for technology, navigating complexity, and deep care for her clients inspires us.

Ana-Maria has navigated a remarkable journey from being a litigator in Romania to becoming an expert in data privacy and AI regulation in Sweden. In this interview, we discuss her vision for the future of the law, the challenges of adapting to new technologies, and the importance of constant self-development.

What made you want to become a lawyer?

Well, my journey began with a rather idealistic vision of helping the little person with big problems. That started when I was a child. When everyone else wanted to become a teacher or doctor, I thought, no, I want to be a lawyer. For me, law was a tool to give a voice to those who would not otherwise be heard. But what really made me fall in love with the legal profession is its dynamic nature. Every case is unique, which means the work never becomes boring.

Moreover, I think it's quite fascinating to see how the legal field has changed over the years—from a very traditional and conservative world to one that has opened its doors to new tools; for example, AI. I would say that this combination of idealism, intellectual challenge, and technological innovation really drives my love for law.

You come from Romania originally. What was your journey like from Romania to Sweden and to Bird & Bird?

Thirteen years ago, I became a lawyer in Romania. I worked mainly as a litigator there, dealing with civil law and also criminal law. After a few years, I felt it was time to do something different. I became frustrated with how the system worked there—or didn't work. There was also so much talk about the digital transformation in legal globally, but it was difficult to engage with this topic in Romania.

The country didn’t invest much in innovation at the time. But ten years ago, one of the countries that did was Sweden. It started with companies like Spotify and King. I thought, why not take a year, go to Sweden, enroll in a master's program, and see what happens?

And once you were here?

I met my husband, who is Swedish. So it became quite an easy decision. For love's sake, I decided to move to Sweden.

You could say it was for both love of your husband and love of the legal profession.

Exactly. I was unsure in the beginning, thinking about how traditional this profession is. I was unsure whether I would find a job, since I hadn't studied in Sweden. In my master's program at Stockholm University, I had chosen a course in English in Intellectual Property—European Intellectual Property. But after a few months, it felt boring to just read and do PowerPoint presentations. I wanted to see how everything worked in practice.

I applied to Bonde Advokater and said that I just wanted the opportunity to work at a firm in Sweden to see how it works. I didn't need money or anything, I was there to learn. And so I started as an intern there.

What happened after that?

After a few months, when I finished my studies, they told me that I was welcome to continue working with them. They were satisfied with my work; I was satisfied with my projects. So it was kind of love at first sight.

You mentioned you recently received a deadline on a project you're working on. Can you tell us something about that project (without going into sensitive details of course)?

Absolutely. I work a lot with data privacy, and that project was a personal data incident. When clients call or send information, they are usually very stressed because we have 72 hours to assess whether we need to report it to the Data Protection Authority, and so on. So we usually sit in meetings, help them do risk assessments, and determine what we need to do. It also means prioritizing it and putting everything else aside.

Do you create some kind of war room then? Barricade yourselves until you've reached a conclusion?

It's both. The client also needs time to do their own investigations and discuss it with, for example, their IT department. But they usually expect that when they call, we answer and handle it immediately. It's exciting because, as I mentioned, we do risk assessments, and often it's difficult for one person to do alone. There's a lot of brainstorming within our team too, within the commercial group. It's fun to see how different people have different perspectives on things. Something that might not be so serious for my colleague might be critical for me.

And what's the feeling when you get such a case—that there's been an incident and you have 72 hours?

The first thing is to try to calm everyone down and assure them that 72 hours will actually be enough. We don't need to collect all information immediately because we can always supplement the report afterward. Then, we need to be very clear in our questions. Often, the client has so much information, but because they are so stressed, they can't organize it. They can't tell you what's important for you or not. So a big part of our work is to be clear about what we need and to understand their business.

We’ve heard that you have a particular interest in personal data and data transfer between different jurisdictions, which is complex with EU regulations. Would you say the complexity is increasing, or is it becoming more straightforward, as GDPR has been around for a while?

I would say it's becoming more complex, difficult, and unclear. We now have so many regulations at the EU level, which were supposed to be like parts of a puzzle. But in reality, they don't always complement each other well. In practice, we need guidelines from authorities to interpret certain things, for example, from data protection authorities.

The problem is that data protection authorities say, "We only give general recommendations. We can't take a specific situation and help you assess it; it's up to the data controller," which creates a lot of frustration. They'll also impose sanctions in the end.

So you mean there's a reluctance from the authorities to take a more holistic and active role?

Yes, exactly. I often read legal texts about these regulations and wonder whether those who wrote them understand how everything works in practice. It's theoretical. If you look at the AI regulations, for example, they are written by people who don't understand the technology. I'm not saying I fully understand it, I think, "Okay, this is unclear. I will ask someone in technology to explain it to me to see if this will work or not."

Who do you ask in these situations?

I start with my husband, who is an IT nerd. I ask, for example, "Can you explain how algorithms work?" I also have a large group of friends who work in this area, and I also take courses.

Sounds like it pays off not only to have a network of lawyers but a complementary network as well.

Absolutely. I was at a competition a few years ago in Switzerland in which we were tasked with meeting startups that wanted to use AI. It was called the Grand Challenge of St. Gallen University.

We interviewed these people and then did risk assessments of their AI solutions based on the AI regulations. We had a super-holistic team: one was a software developer, one came from an academic perspective, I was the lawyer, and there was also someone who worked with compliance. Very different perspectives. It was great fun. We learned so much from each other and noticed that we don’t always use the same language or terminology. It was a good exercise.

The competition in Switzerland sounds valuable. How can a firm like Bird & Bird participate in these opportunities more often?

I think it has a lot to do with the network you have. For example, I heard about that competition from a colleague, who heard about it from a contact who worked with standardization. People should talk about these opportunities and share them. Sometimes we have this mentality of "this is mine; I'm not going to share so much with others." But we can learn much more if we start talking about it. This is the future.

I understand that many lawyers think that AI will replace them. That's not what's going to happen. It's a tool that will make your life and your client's life better. You cannot resist the change.

Even though you're a fully trained lawyer, your learning never stops. Do you have a methodology that you follow to ensure that you know what you need to know and can identify knowledge gaps?

Yes, I try to read as much as possible and attend as many trainings as possible. We often prioritize cases and neglect to develop ourselves. When you mingle at an event, for example, you don't need to just talk about fun stuff but also, "What do you work with? What is the trend now in your projects?" So I would say, first, understand that you always need to develop yourself.

If you had ten more hours every week, what would you spend them on?

I would always prioritize my clients and my cases because what I do affects their business. I don't want to risk doing something wrong that impacts them. So out of ten hours per day, for example, I would put six-seven hours on clients and the other hours on education and networking.

Which part of a typical process do you feel you often don't have as much time for as you'd like?

I would say the actual dialogue with the client from the beginning. Many of us are perfectionists and would like to spend more time on formatting. The client doesn't want to pay for that, and soon an AI can do it for us. They likely prefer to pay for an hour's conversation where we ask questions and try to understand what they need help with and what their strategy is for the next three years. What can we do now to help them in the future? That dialogue can be difficult to have when you're at the beginning of your career as a junior associate.

What are the qualities that a future lawyer needs to cultivate to be competitive in the new era of legal work?

I would say an ability to adapt—to understand that this is a very dynamic area and that you need to change your language, learn new terminology, start talking with people from other sectors, learn, and read much more. Many have that mindset of "Okay, I've read these books when I was a student, and that's it." But I would say that's not enough.

It’s important to start working with different AI tools. For me—I would say that Legora helped me understand, "Oh wow, this [technology] has so much potential." Of course, we've heard about OpenAI and ChatGPT, but to have a solution that is specifically adapted to lawyers—that was completely new. It opened my eyes a lot. This is not just benefiting my clients or industry companies; it's benefitting me as well.