P2P

84 However, while MCP technically is designed to reduce friction, interoperability introduces strategic tension. Those who shape standards can shape value capture. If MCP becomes widely adopted, influence over its evolution also has competitive implications. Firms must therefore architect for flexibility, rather than lock themselves into a single evolving standard. Further, interoperability is not frictionless or risk- free. Authentication, token lifecycles, delegated permissions, and prompt injection risks remain complex. Security and AI governance frameworks such as ISO27001 and ISO42001 that reinforce that expanded capability must sit within disciplined risk management structures. In short, MCP does not eliminate complexity, but it does reorganize it, and in some cases, it abstracts complexity and provides a standard for interoperability. THE IN-HOUSE ACCELERATION EFFECT No one will dispute that AI is already disrupting how organizations consume services, including legal services. In the dynamic between law firms and their clients' in-house teams, the disruption is likely to be accelerated faster by a standard such as MCP. To understand why, consider how an in-house team might approach a common task. For example: A multinational client expands a service line into a new EU jurisdiction and needs to update its standard data processing agreement (DPA). Historically, the client's in- house team would review its template and instruct their external counsel (the law firm) for a jurisdiction-specific memorandum covering statutory nuances and enforcement trends. Research, drafting, and commentary were bundled externally. In an AI-enabled architecture grounded in a governed knowledge layer, the dynamic and the workflow changes. On the client (in-house team) side, an internal knowledge layer contains structured templates, fallback clauses, negotiation histories, and prior regulatory interpretations. The client's AI assistant retrieves and synthesizes from that internal layer using native controls. The assistant generates a structured comparison between the existing template and the new jurisdiction's requirements. Rather than commissioning a full external memorandum, the client performs targeted cross-checks. Through MCP, as the boundary protocol, the assistant can query: • A specialist know-how system • Regulator guidance feeds • Structured insights exposed by a law firm In effect, two knowledge layers now interact: • The client's internal knowledge layer drives execution. • The firm's expertise layer provides validation and interpretation. While the external counsel may still be engaged, it will be a narrower and more precisely defined engagement. I believe this is the general direction of operation we will shift to. Empirical research outside of legal services reinforces this shift. In a large 2023 People stopped asking "What can this tool do?" and started asking "How do we make this the default?"

• Cover