Beyond Contracts: Ruud van Herpen on Strategy, Scale and the Future of Legal

Ruud van Herpen is the Global Chief Legal Officer at Xebia, a global AI-first consulting, software engineering, and training company. Based in the Netherlands, the interview touches on the role of legal and on the in-house profession in general.

In practical terms, what does your role cover today beyond the formal job title?

The title General Counsel is actually well chosen, because it really is a general role rather than a specialist one. People outside the legal profession often assume that if you head a legal department, you spend all day doing contracts. My answer is always: that is completely wrong.

Of course contracts are still part of the job, and you have to make sure the legal department runs properly. But the role is much broader than that. You are helping to shape strategy, supporting the executive team, and advising on a very wide range of issues. That includes IP, making sure there are no infringements and that trademarks and other rights are secured. It includes privacy. It can include compliance, especially if there is no separate compliance function. In our case it also includes insurance matters, such as general liability insurance and parts of employee insurance.

So it is a very broad role. You are not just managing legal work; you are helping the business think through risk, structure, and direction. My formal title is Chief Legal Officer, but to me General Counsel still captures the substance of the role very well.

Do you see a real difference between those titles, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel?

Not really. That is mostly semantics. Chief Legal Officer may say a bit more about your place in the organisation, because it signals that you are part of the C-suite. That can mean more direct access and more opportunity to contribute to broader strategic discussions. But the substance of the work is largely the same. Even if my title were General Counsel, I would be doing the same job.

Where does a General Counsel add value today that the business still tends to underestimate?

I do not think the full value is always recognised. The old perception that legal mainly does contracts is still there to some extent. But one of the most important things legal does is look across the whole business and identify patterns that others do not yet see.

A good example is disputes. Disputes come to legal from across the company, so we can spot tendencies early. We may see that a certain type of issue is appearing more frequently in one part of the business. That tells us something is not going well there, even if that is not yet visible to others. We can raise a red flag and say: this needs attention, because if we do not fix it, we are going to lose money.

We have done that internally around delivery issues. We could see there were recurring elements leading to disputes that people had not fully recognised. By identifying that pattern, we were able to help implement changes in the process. That is real value. It is not just reactive legal work; it is helping the business mature and avoid repeat problems.

There is also a strategic side to it. If legal reports to the CEO, the discussion naturally becomes broader and more strategic. If legal reports to the CFO, there is still strategy involved, but it is more often viewed through a financial lens. For me, it is very important that legal is part of the executive discussion, with the ability to contribute across the full spectrum of the business and to be heard when doing so.

What is taking up a disproportionate amount of legal leadership attention in 2026? And where does that show up most clearly in your organisation?

There are two main things. The first is general instability in the market. Things are changing quickly, and that means you need more guardrails to keep the company safe. You have to think ahead and make sure the organisation is prepared for different scenarios rather than being surprised by them.

The second is AI. I was already talking about this several years ago. Back in 2021, I said we were working towards becoming a fully digitised, AI-driven legal department by 2025. We did achieve that. But what happened is that the development of AI moved so rapidly that once you reach one summit, the next summit appears immediately. So it does not stop. The possibilities keep expanding.

That shows up very clearly in how we build and improve legal infrastructure. For example, years ago I spoke about creating a legal front door. At that time, developing something like that would have taken a lot of time and a lot of developers. In 2025, over about two months, our legal department worked intensively with developers in India and we created a much better version of that legal front door. It is still being developed, but it is expected to go into production for the full company very soon.

At the same time, geopolitical developments also demand a lot of attention. We operate in eighteen countries. We have thousands of people in India, offices in the US and the Middle East, and people travel between locations. So when instability increases, legal has to think through not only risks but also possible business effects, including where demand might shift. If you only react after the fact, you are already too late.

What is the difference between leading a smaller legal department and leading a multinational legal function operating across multiple jurisdictions and cultures?

In several roles, I started as the only lawyer and had to build the legal department from the ground up. I like both stages. In a smaller legal function, the work is very hands-on: you are close to the business and involved in everything. As the department grows, however, the role gradually changes. You hire more people, delegate more tasks, and grow into a leadership position.

Where I am now, I am much further removed from the day-to-day legal work and, to some extent, from the team itself. Of course, I remain connected to the legal function, but I now work through four team leads across four different regions. I am no longer directly involved in contracts or similar matters. My role is much more strategic and focused on oversight.

That is the major difference. I genuinely enjoy both stages. It is rewarding to be on the ground, establishing structures, creating processes, and building something from scratch. Once that is done, however, the role moves into a new phase: becoming more of a strategist. At times, I do miss the closer connection with the team and the experience of working alongside colleagues more directly. But at the same time, organisations also need someone who can stay at the top level, hear everything, and maintain an overview. That is a different skill set, and not everyone enjoys it or is suited to it.

We have seen that in our own company as well. Some people very much prefer working on operational matters day to day rather than taking on a strategic leadership role. As the company grows and the function changes, they may decide that it no longer suits them.

Where are the hardest judgment calls for in-house legal teams at the moment? What makes those calls difficult in practice, and what is usually pushing in the other direction?

The hardest calls usually arise when you are dealing with major uncertainty but still have to make decisions in real time. You cannot predict everything. Some developments, especially geopolitical ones, simply cannot be foreseen with precision. But you still have to anticipate scenarios and prepare the company.

What makes those calls difficult is that you are balancing several things at once. You are trying to protect the business, but you also do not want to paralyse it. You need to build in enough protection without creating unnecessary obstacles. And at the same time, there is always pressure from the business to move, to grow, to keep operating, to seize opportunities.

So the real challenge is not just identifying risk. It is judging how much risk the company can take, what needs to be built in now, and how to stay ahead of change rather than reacting once it has already hit you.

What led you to choose an corporate legal career?

I worked as an attorney for three years, which gave me a very strong foundation. I could have continued on that path, but I deliberately chose to become a corporate lawyer instead. That suited my style of working better. I enjoyed being an attorney, but I recognised that an in-house corporate legal role was a better fit for me.

I had also had a wide range of roles over the years. I had my own company for eleven years. I taught students business law and corporate law. I served as director of an arbitration institute and worked in arbitration and mediation. I also worked with partners in a mediation company. That breadth of experience was very valuable. It helped me see the bigger picture, understand what organisations need, and determine more clearly what suited me best.

More generally, what is it like to work as a corporate lawyer in the Netherlands, in terms of the legal system, the regulatory environment, and the broader business climate?

Overall, the Netherlands offers a very strong environment in which to work as a corporate lawyer. We have a sound judicial system, and that is extremely important. Because we operate across eighteen countries, I see many different legal systems in practice, and that comparison makes me appreciate the Dutch system even more.

What I value most is the rule of law and the degree of legal certainty it provides. In the Netherlands, and more broadly in Europe, the legal framework is generally stable and predictable. It is not a situation where the rules are one thing today and something entirely different tomorrow. That predictability matters greatly for companies, for legal advisers, and for society more broadly.

I remember the chair of ECLA giving an excellent presentation on the importance of legal certainty. That is something we do have in Europe, and certainly in the Netherlands, but it is not something we should take for granted. We need to preserve it, protect it, and actively defend it. Around the world, we can see that it is not guaranteed.

If you want a stable society and stable businesses, you need a reliable legal framework. Companies need to know where they stand. Without that certainty, it becomes very difficult to operate effectively.

Of course, no system is perfect, and the Dutch system is no exception. There are always areas that can be improved. But overall, I believe it is one of the best legal environments in which a lawyer can work.

What has not changed about being an excellent in-house lawyer throughout your career?

Staying human. That has not changed at all. We are all people. You need to talk to people, show respect, be honest, be straightforward, and not play games. People immediately know when you are playing games, and then you are out of the game before you know it.

This is a people business. You have to build teams, choose people well, and work with people across the company. If you lose touch with them, you lose connection and you lose oversight. For me, that has remained constant throughout all the decades. In fact, more experience makes it easier to focus on what really matters.

What will define the strongest legal departments over the next five years?

The strongest legal departments will be the ones that can combine technology with human skill. Both matter. The strongest legal departments will be the ones that can combine technology with human capability. You need both: the tools, and the human side – skill, judgment, and soft skills.

You can automate intelligence to a remarkable extent. We are seeing that happen very quickly. But the fine art of negotiation, the people skills, the ability to read a room, the ability to lead, to persuade, to decide when to push and when not to push — you cannot simply automate that.

That is why lawyers will still need to stay in control. I like the term agentic AI for that reason. It is an agent beside you. You are still at the steering wheel. You decide where to go and what the agent should or should not do.

So the lawyer of the future, and the strongest legal departments, will be the ones that are smart enough to combine those things: legal expertise, technological capability, and strong human judgment. Education also needs to reflect that. It cannot be only about technical legal training anymore. It also has to include technology and soft skills, because that combination is what will matter most.