Desiree Sainthrope stands at the intersection of high-stakes international trade and the intricate nuances of global legal compliance. As a recognized authority on the architecture of cross-border agreements, she has spent decades deconstructing the language that keeps the wheels of global commerce turning. In an era where a single misplaced word can lead to years of litigation, her expertise in intellectual property and the evolving implications of artificial intelligence has made her an indispensable resource for general counsel navigating the complexities of 2026. From the boardrooms of the Am Law 100 to the emerging markets discussed at the General Counsel Conference in Africa, her insights provide a roadmap for maintaining stability in an increasingly unpredictable regulatory environment.
The following discussion explores the critical hierarchy of contract language, specifically focusing on how forum selection clauses are interpreted when permissive and mandatory terms collide. We examine the geopolitical shifts in legal practice across Africa and the Middle East, the transformative impact of AI-enhanced trend detection on modern litigation, and the importance of professional recognition within the legal community. By deconstructing the tension between optionality and exclusivity, this interview provides a comprehensive look at the current state of global legal strategy and the meticulous drafting required to protect corporate interests in today’s market.
When a contract contains both permissive language, such as the word “may,” and a phrase like “submission to exclusive jurisdiction,” how does a court typically resolve the inherent tension between those two seemingly contradictory instructions?
In the modern legal landscape of 2026, courts have become increasingly sophisticated in identifying the true intent of parties when they engage in what I call “linguistic hedging.” When you see a clause that states a party “may” bring an action in a specific forum but follows it with a “submission to exclusive jurisdiction,” the latter acts as a powerful anchor that typically overrides the optional nature of the word “may.” It is a classic case of specific, mandatory language trumping general, permissive terms. From a judicial perspective, the “exclusive jurisdiction” phrase is viewed as a definitive waiver of the right to litigate elsewhere, effectively transforming the “may” into a “must” once the choice of that forum is exercised. I have seen countless litigators sit in a cold sweat during oral arguments when they realize that their “permissive” clause was actually a one-way street, leading directly to a forum they desperately wanted to avoid. This hierarchy is essential for maintaining contractual certainty, as it prevents parties from forum-shopping after a dispute has already crystallized.
Given the upcoming General Counsel Conference in Johannesburg on September 4, 2026, and the event in Dubai on October 15, how are these interpretations of jurisdictional clauses shifting the way legal teams approach trade agreements in emerging markets?
The shift we are seeing in 2026 is truly remarkable, as legal power centers are no longer confined to the traditional hubs of New York or London. At the General Counsel Conference Africa this September, the conversation is heavily focused on how local jurisdictions are asserting their own authority through these very same exclusive jurisdiction clauses. In the Middle East, particularly with the premier gathering in Dubai on October 15, there is a palpable sense of confidence; legal departments are no longer reflexively deferring to Western courts. They are meticulously drafting agreements that ensure disputes are resolved locally, using the “exclusive” tag to lock in their home turf and minimize the astronomical costs of foreign litigation. For a general counsel, this means the drafting process is no longer a “copy-paste” exercise from an old template, but a strategic negotiation where the choice of forum is as valuable as the price of the goods being traded. You can feel the weight of these decisions in every negotiation room—there is a sensory gravity to it because the stakes in these growing markets now involve billions of dollars in infrastructure and technology transfers.
With the rise of tools like AI-enhanced trend detection and the “Artificial Intelligence Glossary” being used by firms, how is technology specifically changing the way we identify and mitigate risks in forum selection and compliance?
Technology has moved far beyond simple keyword searches; in 2026, we are using sophisticated tools like Law.com Radar to achieve real-time alerts on new litigation that could signal a shift in how a particular judge views jurisdictional “exclusivity.” These AI-enhanced platforms allow us to track thousands of case digests and jury verdicts simultaneously, providing a heat map of where certain clauses are succeeding or failing. For example, if a specific court in the mid-market begins to lean toward a more permissive interpretation of “exclusive” language, our legal tech trackers catch that trend within hours, not months. This allows a legal department to be proactive rather than reactive, adjusting their standard contract templates before a single complaint is ever filed. There is a certain adrenaline rush in being able to see a litigation wave forming on the horizon and steering your organization’s entire portfolio of trade agreements into safer waters through data-driven precision. It transforms the practice of law from an art of intuition into a science of predictive analytics.
As we look toward the New York Legal Awards on September 3, 2026, and the New England Legal Awards in Boston on October 8, what do these moments of professional recognition tell us about the current standards for excellence in litigation and contract drafting?
These ceremonies, like the one at the Ziegfeld Ballroom in Manhattan on September 3, are more than just social gatherings; they are the litmus test for what the industry considers “gold standard” work in 2026. When we honor a Distinguished Leader or a Lifetime Achievement winner, we are essentially codifying the best practices that everyone else will follow for the next decade. The attorneys being recognized are those who have successfully navigated the “Law Firm Disrupted” era by combining traditional legal scholarship with an aggressive embrace of new tools like Law.com Compass. Excellence today is measured by the ability to draft a clause that is so airtight it never sees the inside of a courtroom, or by winning a case where the jurisdictional math seemed impossible. In Boston on October 8, the focus on professional excellence within the New England legal community will likely highlight those who have mastered the nuances of intellectual property in the age of generative AI. There is a profound sense of pride and professional weight to these awards because they represent the triumph of meticulous, careful thought over the chaos of modern global commerce.
Considering the rapid evolution of global trade and the increasing complexity of international compliance, what is your forecast for the future of forum selection clauses over the next few years?
My forecast for the remainder of 2026 and heading into 2027 is that we will see the total obsolescence of “permissive” forum selection clauses in major commercial agreements. The risks of ambiguity are simply too high in a world where litigation moves at the speed of an automated alert, and I expect “exclusive jurisdiction” to become the mandatory default for any contract valued over a certain threshold. We are moving toward a “hard-coded” legal reality where jurisdictional certainties are baked into the contract with the same rigidity as a software protocol. Furthermore, as the Global 200 firms continue to expand their footprint in the Middle East and Africa, we will see a harmonization of how these clauses are interpreted, leading to a more unified global standard for contractual “submission.” The era of the “optional” forum is ending, and the era of the “unambiguous” forum is here to stay, driven by the need for absolute predictability in a volatile market. Legal departments that fail to tighten their language today will find themselves trapped in jurisdictional limbo by tomorrow, facing the very litigation they thought they had avoided through “flexible” drafting.
