Krista Lynn on judgment, execution risk, and business
- Cosmonauts Team
- 3 days ago
- 4 min read
As AI and contract technology become embedded into drafting, review, and negotiation workflows, the role of the contract lawyer is evolving, rapidly.
The real question is no longer whether AI will replace lawyers. It’s whether lawyers are operating at a level that justifies being irreplaceable.
In this Future Contracts Miami Q&A, Krista Lynn, Director of Legal at Airbus U.S. Space & Defense, offers a direct, business-first perspective on AI, risk, judgment, and what will distinguish excellent lawyers from average ones in the years ahead.
Enjoy the interview below.
Do you believe the legal profession is naturally resistant to innovation, or is that a misconception? What experiences have shaped your view?
Lawyers aren’t resistant to innovation. We’re resistant to unmanaged risk. There’s a difference.
I’ve spent 15 years in-house - FedEx, Airbus, embedded in supply chain, government programs, operational pressure. When you’re the one whose name is attached to a contract that impacts aircraft delivery or export compliance, you don’t get to “move fast and break things.”
So no, we’re not anti-innovation. We’re anti-undefined downside.
What I’ve seen: when you show lawyers how a tool reduces friction, increases visibility, or prevents surprises - they adopt quickly. When you sell them vague efficiency with no accountability model, they dig in.
That’s not resistance. That’s judgment.
Do you think reliance on digital tools risks weakening core legal skills, or does it strengthen them?
Tools don’t weaken skills. Bad lawyers do. If your value is spotting indemnity clauses and running redlines, yes - AI will expose you.
If your value is:
• Translating risk into business impact
• Structuring leverage
• Understanding operational execution
• Knowing when to escalate
AI strengthens you.
It handles the mechanical work. You handle the judgment. What weakens legal skills isn’t technology. It’s overreliance without understanding. If you can’t explain why a clause matters without the tool, that’s a problem. Technology should amplify expertise, not replace thinking.
Can data-driven decision-making coexist with professional legal intuition? How should the balance be struck?
It has to coexist. Data tells you what has happened. Judgment tells you what might.
In supply chain, I look at:
• Cycle time
• Dispute frequency
• Deviation trends
• Renewal patterns
That’s data.
But deciding whether to hold firm or concede on a limitation of liability? That’s context, power dynamics, program sensitivity, stakeholder appetite.
You use data to inform - not override - judgment. If you’re using intuition without data, you’re guessing. If you’re using data without intuition, you’re hiding. The balance is: data frames the field; judgment makes the call.
Are smart contracts a genuine transformation of contract law or mainly a technical extension of traditional agreements?
Most “smart contracts” today are automation wrappers around traditional agreements. Let’s be honest. The transformative part isn’t self-executing code. It’s enforceability tied to systems.
The real shift happens when: Performance data triggers payment automatically, Non-performance locks access, or Obligations integrate into operational systems. That’s not rewriting contract law. That’s embedding it into execution.
The law still matters. The negotiation still matters. The allocation of risk still matters. But enforcement gets faster and less emotional. That’s the evolution.
What ethical challenges arise most frequently in discussions about legal innovation, particularly AI and automation?
Overconfidence. AI gives answers in a tone of certainty. That’s seductive.
The risks though, are significant. Delegating judgment without understanding the output. Using AI on confidential data without governance. Letting “the tool said” replace accountability.
Another uncomfortable one: junior lawyer development. If AI handles first drafts and issue spotting, how do we train people to actually think?
Innovation without governance is chaos. Governance without innovation is stagnation. Ethics sit in the middle: clear policies, audit trails, and human ownership. Always human ownership.
What will distinguish excellent lawyers from average ones in the future?
I’ve been telling my students and clients this since I started: Business literacy is the differentiating factor.
Excellent lawyers will understand P&L impact, speak operational language, know where the leverage actually is, use tools intelligently, and make decisions under ambiguity.
Quoting policy, hiding behind process, over lawyering low hanging fruit, or failing yo appreciate execution risk… that keeps you average.
AI will make drafting easier. It will not make judgment easier. The gap between checkbox reviewers and strategic advisors is about to widen dramatically.
When attendees leave Future Contracts Miami, what is the most important idea they should take away?
Stop asking whether AI will replace you. Start asking whether you’re operating at a level that justifies being irreplaceable.
Your value is not formatting contracts. Your value is protecting the business while enabling it to move. Technology is here. Data is here. Automation is here.
The question is whether your judgment is sharp enough to matter when the noise is removed. If it is, you’ll be fine. If it’s not, this is your wake-up call.
Join Krista in Miami
Krista will speak at Future Contracts Miami in a fireside chat titled:“AI Won’t Replace Contract Lawyers - But It Will Expose the Bad Ones.”
The session will explore what AI can automate, where human judgment remains critical, and how contract lawyers can adapt their skills to stay relevant in an execution- and data-driven contracting environment.
February 24 - Opening Reception | 6pm - 8pm
February 25 - Conference Day | 8.30am - 7.25pm
Newman Alumni Center, University of Miami
