You’ve led legal functions across some of the most tightly regulated and innovation-driven sectors. How has your definition of leadership evolved through these contexts?
My definition of leadership has evolved meaningfully as I’ve transitioned through diverse roles throughout my tenure, from law firm practitioner to in-house counsel. Each role—from law firm practitioner to in-house counsel across pharmaceuticals, finance, and now technology and life sciences—has immensely helped me broaden my perspective.
In law firms, the work environment is more fast-paced, wherein leadership is rooted in precision, responsiveness, and technical excellence. My share of takeaways from my firm experience was about moving with discipline, client empathy, and the value of clear, concise advice under pressure. Moving in-house was a transformative step—it allowed me to align legal strategy more closely with business objectives. I embraced the shift from reactive problem-solving to proactive risk management and strategic partnering.
Over time, I’ve come to see leadership as being fundamentally about empowerment. It’s about building trust, fostering cross-functional collaboration, understanding the team requirements vis-a-vis, balancing them with the company’s goals and objectives, and guiding all business teams with clarity and purpose.
In the life sciences space especially, where innovation and compliance must go hand in hand, effective leadership means inspiring teams to see legal not as a blocker, but as an enabler of responsible progress.
Today, I define leadership as the ability to listen deeply, lead with integrity, and create a shared vision where legal contributes meaningfully to sustainable business growth.
Your work intersects with deep tech, but your DEI advocacy keeps the human at the centre. How do you hold space for both?
While technology is evolving at an unprecedented pace, I firmly believe it’s true progress is grounded in the people who build it. The most transformative innovations come not just from advanced algorithms or cutting-edge platforms but from diverse teams that bring varied perspectives, lived experiences, and emotional intelligence to the table.
For me, holding space for both deep tech and DEI is not a contradiction—it’s a complement. Inclusive environments foster psychological safety, which in turn fuels creativity, collaboration, and resilience.”
Especially in sectors like life sciences and tech, where cross-disciplinary innovation is vital, having team members from different cultures, backgrounds, and identities is a strategic advantage.
As legal counsel, I see it as my responsibility not only to guide the organization on complex regulatory and commercial matters but also to advocate for the legal and ethical foundations that support DEI. That means embedding equity into workplace policies, ensuring legal awareness around anti-discrimination laws, and championing inclusive leadership as a risk mitigant and growth enabler.
How do you approach IP protection when innovation is increasingly collaborative and cross-disciplinary?
As the Associate General Counsel of a global company, I see IP protection as a strategic enabler of innovation—especially in today’s collaborative and cross-disciplinary environment. The approach is fair and simple, i.e. to build clear, practical frameworks that support innovation while protecting one’s company’s rights. This means defining IP ownership and usage upfront in all partnerships, whether internal or external and ensuring teams understand their roles in safeguarding innovation. Clearly define the IP terms in the Agreement and enable provision that accommodates technology transfer amongst internal and external collaborators while ensuring the right IP owner maintains the proprietary rights. Additionally, it is also essential to raise the awareness of employees across all levels as well as vendors by way of conducting periodic training and awareness across functions about the legal nuances with relatable examples (let’s also appreciate that not everyone working at the company is a lawyer and can decipher complex legalese), translate it in terms of company product or tools, possible hypothetical situations of breach and how can it be avoided etc.
According to you, where is the threshold between enabling innovation and curbing overreach?
Looking at the recent trending innovative tools with the buzzword # AI, I believe there’s a fine line between pushing the boundaries of innovation and stepping into overreach.
To make this more relatable, let’s take the example of AI. The line between using AI to fuel innovation and crossing into overreach comes down to responsible use. AI has incredible potential—it can accelerate drug discovery, streamline routine tasks, refine communication, and summarize vast amounts of information in seconds.
But as I’ve embraced AI in my work, I’ve also noticed moments where it risks overstepping—like relying too heavily on overly polished language or losing the nuance of the human touch. At the end of the day, AI is only as intelligent as the prompts we give it, which means it still needs careful human oversight.
If we don’t have the right checks in place—and skip the sanity checks or due diligence, AI can produce outcomes that aren’t fair, accurate, or safe. So, for me, enabling innovation is about encouraging creativity and smart adoption but with clear boundaries: how data is used, who it impacts, and how we monitor outcomes.
It’s like building a high-performance car—you want it to go far and fast, but you still need brakes, rules, and a skilled driver. That’s the balance I aim to uphold.
Data protection laws are evolving rapidly across Asia. How do you build scalable data governance in such a fragmented environment?
Building scalable data governance in Asia’s fragmented regulatory environment starts with a deep understanding of the applicable laws in all jurisdictions where the business operates. Given the significant variation in data protection regimes across the region, it’s essential to identify these frameworks’ commonalities and divergences. At the core, the by and large requirement is to develop and implement robust internal data protection policies at the company and group levels. The key also lies in how such policies are drafted. These policies are designed with progressive language broad enough to accommodate future legal developments yet specific enough to comply with current local requirements. Further, for the majority of companies, such processes are managed by multidisciplinary teams including legal and information security teams. These teams work closely together, serving as the custodians of data governance. They ensure compliance, lead awareness initiatives, and drive periodic sensitization programs to educate employees about regulatory obligations and the implications of data breaches.
Additionally, technical safeguards, such as firewalls and data segregation protocols, are recommended to classify and protect different categories of data—whether it pertains to the company, employees, or third-party vendors and customers. This comprehensive approach allows companies to remain agile and compliant, even as data protection laws continue to evolve rapidly across Asia.
What’s one legal or regulatory trend in life sciences you think will fundamentally reshape the sector in the next decade?
One of the most exciting and transformative trends in the life sciences sector is the use of computation in the drug discovery process. AI and machine learning combined with physics enable previously unimaginable breakthroughs—rapid identification of drug candidates, predictive modelling for efficacy and safety, and even virtual clinical trials.
These advancements are accelerating time-to-market and opening new frontiers in personalized medicine.
From a legal and regulatory standpoint, this innovation is being met with thoughtful progress. Regulators globally are beginning to craft frameworks that support responsible AI use without stifling innovation. The proposed EU AI Act, for example, aims to establish clear guidelines for high-risk AI applications, like those in healthcare, while countries across Asia—such as Singapore with its Model AI Governance Framework, India’s recent “AI for ALL” initiative to craft and AI policy for India to establish safe and trusted AI pillars—are developing flexible, forward-looking regulations that encourage safe experimentation and deployment. All such efforts of regulators worldwide will help align innovation and bridge it with evolving global standards while ensuring that trust, transparency, and ethics are built into every stage of the drug development lifecycle. It’s a space where law and science can collaborate to drive meaningful impact.
*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are solely of the author and do not represent the views of any organization with which they are or have been associated with.
About Nishtha Sharma:
Nishtha is the Associate General Counsel at Schrödinger India Private Limited (a subsidiary of Schrödinger, Inc., New York), where she leads the legal function across India and the Asia-Pacific region. In this capacity, she plays a strategic role in advising on legal, regulatory, and compliance matters while also contributing to cross-functional, business-enabling legal projects at a global level.
With a strong foundation as a corporate commercial lawyer, Nishtha brings extensive experience from both law firm practice—covering corporate, litigation, and arbitration—and in-house counsel roles spanning the pharmaceutical, manufacturing, technology, and life sciences sectors.
She holds a B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) in Business Laws from KIIT School of Law, KIIT University, and an LL.M. from National Law University, Jodhpur, with a specialization in Corporate Laws and International Trade.
