That question is not waiting for anyone. Clients, legal departments among them, are already answering it through what they value, how they buy legal services, the work they choose to keep in-house, and whether they can confidently say where their most sensitive information resides. Law firms, meanwhile, are answering it through how they resource matters, price legal work, and take responsibility for work supported by technology. The only choice is whether to shape those answers or inherit them.

At Lexpo'27, that question sits at the heart of the conversation, because it affects both sides of the legal market. Law firms must decide who takes responsibility for work that technology helped produce, what that work is worth when it takes a fraction of the time, and whether the underlying systems can carry that responsibility. Legal departments must decide the same about their own function: what it is worth to the business, what it should now be doing itself, and who is accountable for how the function uses technology. Neither side can answer these questions alone, because every decision reshapes the other's expectations. That is why Lexpo brings law firms and legal departments together. These are shared questions of direction, delivery and value, and better answers emerge when both perspectives are in the room.

The question does not sit on a single desk. Someone has to set the direction. Someone has to deliver it in practice, against habits, processes and workloads built for a different way of working. And someone has to stand behind the value of the result, both technically and professionally. Being in charge means all three at once, and organisations that treat it as one person's job tend to discover the gap late. The conversation is worth having together, rather than separately and afterwards.

Being in charge is not a brake on innovation. It is what makes confident innovation possible. Across two days, the people already making these decisions will share what they changed, what it cost, what failed, and what they would do differently. Not to promote a theory, but to help others make better decisions, carry them out, and defend them within their own organisations.

Two days to answer the question before someone else answers it.