The change we’re building from the inside

Watching a technology company emerge

I’ve been at Thomson Reuters long enough to remember when “technology company” felt more like an aspiration than a description. Today, it feels like a fact, one that we earn every day through the work we actually ship, not the language we use to describe ourselves.

I co-lead the legal product portfolio here. I started my career as an M&A lawyer at a large New York City law firm, then became one of the founding employees of Practical Law in the U.S., and have been building legal technology ever since. I’ve watched this industry from a lot of angles, and what I see at Thomson Reuters right now is something genuinely different: a company that is doing the hard, unglamorous work of becoming what it says it is. 

That transformation doesn’t announce itself. It happens in product reviews and architecture decisions. It happens when a team pushes back on a roadmap because the underlying model isn’t ready to be trusted at scale. It happens when editorial experts and data scientists sit in the same room and argue, productively, about what “accurate” means and then come out the other side with a completely new approach to AI evaluations. That’s the Thomson Reuters transformation I experience, not a rebrand, but a rewiring. 

Why trust has always mattered

Those years in M&A practice taught me something that still shapes everything I build: the stakes in legal work are not abstract. A poorly drafted clause, a wrong interpretation, a confident answer that turns out to be wrong, these have real consequences for real people and real organizations. That instinct for precision and accountability followed me when I joined Practical Law in its early days in the US. 

Practical Law was built on a clear premise: legal professionals deserve tools that are backed by real expertise, maintained with rigor, and designed to be trusted. Technology was always in service of that commitment, not the other way around. We scaled with technology, but we never let scale become an excuse for cutting corners on quality. That philosophy is not old-fashioned, it’s exactly what the legal market needs now, more than ever. 

Which is why, when I took on the rebuild of CoCounsel, I wasn’t interested in incrementalism. 

The old product had strengths. But I’ve learned, that knowing when to start over takes more courage than knowing how to iterate. We made the decision to rebuild CoCounsel from the ground up, designed for power, designed for flexibility, and built to a standard I’d describe as fiduciary grade. 

That phrase matters to me. Fiduciary grade means the AI isn’t just useful, it’s trustworthy in the specific way that legal work demands. It’s transparent about what it knows and doesn’t know. It’s grounded in the authoritative sources that Westlaw and Practical Law represent, not just the open web, not just pattern-matching on training data, but the deep legal knowledge that our editorial teams have spent decades curating. It holds itself accountable the way a lawyer holds herself accountable. 

The market is responding to that framing because they recognize what it means. When you’re advising a client, filing a brief, or structuring a deal, you can’t afford AI that is merely impressive. You need AI that is reliable. Legal work product that looks good but has substantive issues is dangerous. 

Innovation is a team sport

None of this gets built alone. The rebuild of CoCounsel happened because of a team that was willing to think differently together. I brought a perspective shaped by legal practice and product leadership. My engineering colleagues do the work that makes complexity invisible, building across intricate systems so that what the user experiences is clean, fast, and reliable. Our data science team is where I look when I want to understand where this technology is actually going. They are not just validating what we’ve built, they are inventing it, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, and asking the questions that keep us building for the future rather than the present. That orientation, always probing the frontier, is part of what makes the work credible. Editorial brought the domain authority that makes every answer more than a guess. Design kept us honest about whether real users could actually navigate what we were building. 

That is what I mean when I talk about the Changemakers narrative from where I sit. Change in a company this size doesn’t come from a single visionary at the top making pronouncements. It comes from people at every level who are willing to challenge the assumption that the way it’s always been done is the way it has to be done, and then do the patient, collaborative work of building something better. 

I’m a woman leading a significant portfolio in an industry that has become increasingly aggressive and male-dominated. I believe that the teams doing the most interesting work tend to be the ones that build differently, that bring in diverse perspectives not as an HR exercise but because the problems are genuinely hard and you need every angle you can get. That’s how I’ve tried to build, and it shows in what we’ve shipped. 

Building for a profession in transition

Thomson Reuters is a company in genuine transition. The legal professionals we serve are also in transition, navigating an AI landscape that is moving faster than any prior technology shift in their industry, with higher stakes and less margin for error than most. 

What gives me confidence is that we are not selling them hype. We are building tools grounded in the same values that have defined this company’s relationship with the legal profession for generations: accuracy, trust, expertise. We are doing it with new technology and new ambition, but the foundation hasn’t changed. 

That’s the transformation I’m proud to be part of. Not the press release. The product. 

The right technology can change everything

The best don't just do their work. They change what is possible.

See how ↗