Category: Slovakia

Alongside blockchain and crypto currencies, the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) has become a much talked-about buzzword in the FinTech world – sparking discussions about a revolution in banking and financial services. One may argue that disruption to established practices may only result from technological advancement and not from (yet another) massive bundle of regulatory rules. However, through PSD2, the shift towards open banking is being fostered by the European legislator to support innovation and improve competition in the payment services area.

With open data and open access as guiding principles of the regulation, PSD2 introduces new payment services. Through the payment initiation service (PIS) a client gives his or her consent to a third-party provider (TPP) to initiate a payment order with the client’s bank, without using a payment card or accessing a payment account. The account information service (AIS), on the other hand, consists of the provision of consolidated information from all client payment accounts kept in various banks. 

Via screen scraping, payment services were available on the market before PSD2. This required clients sharing their login data to allow TPPs to access information from their bank accounts. The risks of misuse of information or unauthorized transactions were borne by the clients, as banks in general did not allow access by TPPs. 

Under Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), screen scraping is no longer allowed, except for specific circumstances defined therein. On the basis of client consent, banks are obliged to allow TPPs safe access to the client’s information and provide for a dedicated interface (API) enabling secure communication channels for sharing information between the bank and the TPP.

For the provision of PIS and AIS, no contractual relationship needs to be established between the bank and the TPP. The banks are obliged to treat the TPP’s requests for payment initiation or for the provision of information without any discrimination, in particular in terms of timing, priority, or charges vis-à-vis direct client requests. Liability for unauthorized payments rests with the bank, which is obliged to refund the relevant amount to the client immediately and can only then find recourse from the PIS provider, who has to compensate the bank for its losses, unless authentication and proper execution of the transaction within its sphere of competence can be proven.

TPPs also have to undergo an authorization process with a competent national authority, typically a central bank. While PIS providers have to obtain a payment institution license, which is subject to the minimum registered capital and compliance with extensive technical and corporate requirements, simple registration suffices for the sole provision of AIS.

Slovakian authorities managed to transpose the Directive without delay on January 13, 2018 through the amendment of the Act on Payment Services. While existing payment institutions were granted a transition period of six months, banks, which have a full-scope license for the provision of payment services in the form of their bank permit, were required to comply with the new rules immediately.

From a market perspective, banks will naturally react with plans to foster innovation and come up with their own PIS and AIS products, including the setting-up of incubators, investments into in-house innovation centers, and cooperative relationships with startups. Slovakia has a well-established and traditionally strong banking sector, and major banks (typically subsidiaries of European banks) will be expected to focus on implementing the group strategies of their parent companies. As Slovak consumers are generally open to online banking, the market provides a decent basis for the testing of new apps and products. Earlier moves can realistically be awaited from smaller, locally owned banks. Moving away from the finance world, large telco operators could become true disruptors, able to fully seize the opportunities provided by PSD2 in Slovakia. They are well positioned to take advantage of their strong market penetration, existing infrastructure and sufficient resources.

Now, half a year after PSD2 entered into force, it appears that the highly-anticipated revolution in payment services will require more time. In order not lose their relationships with clients and overcome possible disintermediation, banks will have to react quickly to the coming changes. FinTechs on the other hand, even in the absence of partnerships with banks, can gain a significant advantage from the inefficient and tedious approach of banks and their regulatory obligation to provide third party providers with access to client information (subject to client consent). Ultimately, given the risks of sharing sensitive financial data, the nature of banking will depend in the future on winning clients’ trust with secure, effective, and user-friendly solutions.

By Silvia Hlavackova, Partner, and Dominika Gricova, Associate, Taylor Wessing Slovakia

This Article was originally published in Issue 5.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

After undergoing healthy levels of Corporate/M&A activity in recent times, as we move towards 2019 we expect the Slovak market to remain stable. A notable exception, however, is in the logistics asset class, where we project inbound investment to soar.

After historically lagging behind the likes of the Czech Republic and Poland in terms of market maturity, it seems Slovakia is catching up at a rapid pace. The economic forecast remains healthy and stable, unemployment figures are low, and greenfield investment is at an all-time high. Underlying this excitement for investment in the region is apparently  the sentiment that the market is no longer as distinguishable from its CEE neighbors as it was five to ten years ago.  

Legal Changes Affecting Mergers of Companies

Without question the most significant legislative change is an extensive amendment to the Commercial Code. Most changes came into effect on January 1, 2018, though certain provisions will apply from September 1, 2018. The changes relate to various corporate issues including business transfers, capital funds,liquidations, and the responsibilities of statutory bodies.

In order to address issues surrounding the unfair merger of companies, there are stricter rules with respect to mergers, demergers, and amalgamations. Additionally, the protections provided to creditors and shareholders participating in a merger will be enhanced. 

According to the amendment, in order to undertake a merger in Slovakia in accordance with the Commercial Code, the following criteria must now be satisfied: (1) the dissolving company must deliver notice of the drawing up of the draft merger agreement within 60 days of the General Meeting approving the draft merger agreement to: (i) the respective Tax Administrator; and (ii) the pledgee (if its ownership interests are subject to pledge); (2)  the companies participating in the merger are not subject to liquidation, bankruptcy, restructuring, or court proceedings of dissolution; (3) the value of the assets of the successor company exceeds the value of its liabilities (excluding subordinated debts) as of the effective merger date,confirmed by an auditor’s report attached to the petition for registration of the merger with the Commercial Register; and (4) the petition to register the merger in the Commercial Register by all companies participating in the merger is filed within 30 days after the date of approval of the merger agreement by General Meetings of the companies.

The new rules were adopted in response to the current application issues associated with chain mergers, which have been used as a means to evade the statutory obligations that are applicable in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy of a company.

Should companies participating in the merger not fulfill the above-mentioned conditions, their executive directors shall be liable for damage caused by the merger to the creditors.

It is expected that the amendment will increase the administrative burden on companies participating in mergers and will result in greater liability for executive directors. Nevertheless, it appears it will bring more legal certainty to the Slovak business environment and help prevent unfair practices when dissolving companies.

By Helen Rodwell, Managing Partner, CMS Prague and Bratislava, and Petra Corba Stark, Counsel, CMS Bratislava

This Article was originally published in Issue 5.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

The demand for residential real estate is currently experiencing an unprecedented boom in Slovakia. According to official market surveys, the average price of flats has already exceeded the levels recorded before the outbreak of the world financial crisis, and further price increases are expected due to lagging supply and readily available sources of cheap funding from domestic banks. Not surprisingly, these conditions have resulted in a significant increase in the indebtedness of private households, which are currently the highest in the CEE region.

Both the rising real estate prices and the increase in indebtedness require corrective measures in order to prevent the formation of price bubbles and to ensure that domestic households are able to service their loans even in case of a downturn in economic activity.

Stricter Rules for Disbursement of Mortgages

On May 29, 2018, the Slovak National Bank approved a measure to counter the situation prevailing on the finance side of the real estate market. This measure includes: (i) a change to the allowed peak ratio between the value of pledged real estate and the relevant loan (“loan-to-value,” or LTV), and (ii) the introduction of a loan ceiling of eight times the net yearly income of the loan applicant (“debt-to-income,” or DTI).

Under the new regime lenders will be capped at providing loans for only 90% of the value of the pledged real estate (down from 100%). Furthermore, loans which exceed 80% will be granted only under special conditions and can only make up a specified percentage of the lender´s total volume of loans secured by real estate. That percentage will initially be 35%, but will have to be reduced to 20% by no later than July 1, 2019. This change will force residential borrowers to save some money before applying for a loan.

The debt-to-income ratio is a newly introduced instrument intended to counter the very high mortgage debt ratio and to lower the risk that the borrowers will not be able to service their loans as a result of changing economic conditions. The granting of loans in which the value exceeds the cap of eight times the net yearly income of the loan applicant will also be limited. In this case the percentage will decrease from 20% until it reaches 5 + 5% on July 1, 2019. When assessing the customer’s overall level of indebtedness, all his or her loans (including pending mortgages), as well as credit cards and overdraft facilities on current accounts, are taken into consideration. Exemptions will apply only to borrowers up to 35 years of age with an income not exceeding 1.3 times their average wage; these borrowers can be granted loans which do not exceed the cap of nine times their net yearly income.

The aforementioned changes will apply as of July 1, 2018 to new housing and consumer loans. It is worth emphasizing at this point that the implementation of these measures has already been anticipated by the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and Standard & Poor’s.

It is expected that the new regulation will have a throttling impact on the rising outstanding loan levels of Slovak households (which exceeded 38% of GDP in 2017, according to information published by the Slovak National Bank). During the commenting proceedings for the new regulation, the Slovak Bank Association expressed its opinion that the approved changes will have a serious impact on the housing and consumer loans sector as well as on the Slovak real estate market.

New Construction Act in the Making

The proposed measure of the Slovak National Bank is only a part of the solution on the financing side. A full solution requires the resolution of the lag in supply as well. Addressing the causes of the sharp decline in completed projects (mainly in Bratislava) and restoring normal supply is also an important factor in reducing the overall risks. Currently, expert groups are preparing a new Construction Act to help speed up the formal process by reducing the average length of the approval procedures, which is currently estimated at 286 days (while the European average is only 165 days).

However, as the new Construction Act is not yet finished, and its approval is uncertain, an increase in construction activity may be the only way to at least partially satisfy demand in heavily urbanized areas. 

By Pavol Rak, Partner, Martin Stelcl, Associate, Noerr Slovakia

This Article was originally published in Issue 5.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Against the backdrop of concerns that changes in technology may cost law firms jobs come reports that law firms in Slovakia are having trouble finding the skilled law school graduates to fill their associate ranks. Whether because of a decrease in the perceived attractiveness of a career in a law firm, a prolonged mandatory traineeship period, or some other reason, many see a serious problem developing.

A Noticeable Change

Veronika Pazmanyova, the Head of the Slovak office of Glatzova & Co., says the problem affected her recent efforts to expand her team. “While we had couple of great candidates for mid-level and senior associates and for students looking for part-time legal jobs, we struggled to find junior associates,” she says. “Ten years ago, we would have had hundreds of CVs for this type of position. Now we received only around twenty.” 

And the change in the level of interest was apparent even among those that did apply, Pazmanyova says. “Some of the candidates didn’t even show up for arranged interviews or get back to us – and we hear similar stories from other law firms. This is despite the attractive package being offered.”

This transformation in the market is puzzling, Pazmanyova says, as good opportunities abound. “The legal market is doing well in general,” she reports. “Our law firm doubled its revenue over the past three years, which forced us to expand our team – but it took a lot of effort to find the right candidates.” In short, she sighs, “there is great demand for good lawyers on the market, but there are fewer and fewer motivated law school graduates.”

Andrea Erdosova, Vice Dean for the Bachelors and Masters Studies at the Faculty of Law of Bratislava’s Pan European University, also sees “less quality and less motivation” among fresh law school graduates, even though she believes an increasing number of law firms in Slovakia means that “the possibilities to find a good job really exist.” But young lawyers are less interested in working at law firms 

than before, she says, due to the demanding law firm environment and what she describes as low pay for the first few years of practice. 

Not everyone is put off by that environment, of course, and Erdosova is quick to point to the graduates from her school who are excited about law firm opportunities. “It depends on the personality,” she says. “I have dozens of examples of young highly motivated, smart, and hardworking graduates, who perceive being a good lawyer as a mission, not just a job.”

Slovakia’s Extended Traineeship

In addition to the high number of hours demanded of young lawyers, many point to the Slovak Bar Association’s 2013 extending of the mandatory traineeship period from three years to five (described extensively in a special report in the October 2014 issue of the CEE Legal Matters magazine) as a reason for the decreased number of private practitioners coming out of Slovak law schools. 

Roman Vydra, a legal trainee in the Bratislava office of the BBH law firm, says the extended traineeship period was felt acutely in his class. “When the extension was just introduced nobody knew where it would lead us,” he says. “It caught many students by surprise, including me.” He suggests the result was impossible to deny. “We are already seeing the consequences, and I am afraid the real impact will be felt dramatically in the upcoming years, because current students are already aware of the situation and that has impacted on quality and quantity of students, significantly decreasing its number.”  

In addition to requiring all would-be lawyers to commit another two years to their traineeship before passing the Bar, many believe the five year traineeship period imposes a particular burden on young female lawyers. As Martin Magal, Partner at Allen & Overy in Bratislava, explains, “many young women choose not to go down that road, as they would have to invest a lot of time in establishing their reputation and career and then either take a break to have a family or really sacrifice their private lives and pursue their career, which most are unwilling to do.”  

Majernik & Mihalikova Partner Katarina Mihalikova does not mince her words. “In my view it discriminates against women.” 

The declared goal of the Slovak Bar Association in extending the traineeship period was to improve the quality of attorneys in the country. According to Andrea Erdosova, “the Slovak Bar Association claimed that the three year traineeship was not enough, as many of the [law firms] did not provide the proper preparation to trainees to help them pass very difficult exams, nor to prepare them for the demanding profession.” 

Martin Magal believes that the change implemented by the Bar Association was necessary – and he be suggests that, if the current dearth of quality lawyers coming out of law school is the result, it may be a good thing. “We saw an unhealthy influx of new lawyers that started 15 years ago and lasted for a decade, and supply by far exceeded the needs of the market,” he says. “The current situation could be perceived as a correction of the unhealthy recent past, and the numbers we are starting to see now are a more accurate reflection of the market’s needs.”

In any event, Magal doesn’t believe the shrinking supply of quality young lawyers is properly attributed to the extended trainee period. “Those who are more determined to become advocates and to be in a private practice will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal,” he says. “So at the end of the five-year period, you will have young attorneys who are more knowledgeable and passionate about the work.” Viewed properly, he proposes, the extended traineeship period simply weeds out those who aren’t serious about a law firm career to begin with. “Three years looks like an interesting alternative and a trial period. You cannot have the same attitude with a five-year traineeship period.” 

Roman Vydra, who was among the first to face the five year traineeship, and who acknowledges that the traineeship extension may have dissuaded some of his classmates from pursuing a career in private practice, agrees that the difference between three and five years is ultimately not significant. “If you want to do this job for the rest of your life, this change should not impact your choice of studying law. Thus, even if the traineeship were seven years I would still do it.”

In addition, Vydra says, the extended traineeship period doesn’t affect the ability of young lawyers to do good work anyway. “From my experience, if you are good enough and you perform well, you can have a good position at a firm and do responsible and interesting work, even if you are formally just a trainee,” he says. “This does not really matter, because your performance is what matters at law firms – not the status.” He points out that, although he will only complete his traineeship in the fall and take the Bar exam in winter, at BBH he already holds the position of Senior Associate.

Finally, while noting the problematic nature of the extended traineeship on women, Erdosova evinces a similar skepticism about its affect on the market for young lawyers overall. “To become a good attorney is not a question of the length of the practice, as the whole professional life might not be enough if you are not personally built and ready to perform for it. There are many other instruments to raise the quality of the preparation than the length of the traineeship.”

Educational and Professional Opportunities Across the Border

Some believe the declining numbers of quality young law school graduates is more properly attributed to the better educational and professional opportunities waiting for Slovak law students across the border in the Czech Republic. Slovak Jana Vydrova, a corporate associate at Allen & Overy in Prague, reports that she conducted research on the quality of law schools in Slovakia and the surrounding CEE countries before deciding where to study. She says her choice of Charles University in Prague – she received her Master’s degree from that Czech university in 2011 – ultimately was based on its reputation, its curriculum, and its support system for students, as well as what she believes are its more attractive partner universities (such as the University of Sheffield in England, where she spent one year). After considering all these factors, she reports, “studying in the Czech Republic was an easy decision.”

Financial concerns do not play a significant role in that analysis, as Slovak students are able to attend Czech universities on the same financial terms as their Czech classmates. According to Vydrova, “if you study in the Czech language, you don’t have to pay tuition in the Czech Republic.” In fact, in 2001, based on the 1997 Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region, an intergovernmental agreement was signed asserting the Mutual Recognition of the Equality of Educational Documents issued in the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic, guaranteeing the same conditions for Slovaks in the Czech Republic in studies and admissions, allowing Vydrova to say, “Slovak and local students are treated the same in this respect.”

With financial concerns put aside, many believe the quality of legal education to be better in the country to the west. Timotej Usak is another Slovak who chose to study in the Czech Republic – in his case at Masaryk University in Brno. “The reason I decided not to study in Slovakia,” he says, “was that I thought – and I still think – that the quality of Czech universities compared to the Slovak ones is much higher, which can be proven by university ranking within the top 500 universities worldwide.” Indeed, according to the US News and World Report’s 2018 Best Global Universities ranking, three Czech universities are listed among the top 500 worldwide (Charles University at #196, Czech Technical University at #410, and Palacky University Olomouc at #479), while no Slovakian universities make the list.

Slovak lawyer Katarina Mihalikova affirms the appeal of the law schools across the border. “Czech universities offer better education, a hands-on approach, and qualified teachers” she says. “All these combined together, and given the proximity of the languages and the proximity of the legal order in the past, attracted many Slovak lawyers.”

Unsurprisingly, Andrea Erdosova, at Bratislava’s Pan European University, resists the claim that Czech universities are better, as evidenced, she says, by the Czech nationals who choose to study in Slovakia. “We count a fairly large number of Czech students in our Pan European University – they like the dynamics of the private law school, they like Bratislava with its great location and a friendly environment of still existing common spirit of the historical federation (the former common state) and, let’s say, the brotherhood between the nation of Czechs and Slovaks.” 

Perhaps. Still, many believe that, after studying in Czech universities, it is inevitable that many Slovaks will choose to stay in the country on Slovakia’s western border. As Mihalikova notes, “once they start building up a professional career through studying in the Czech Republic, it makes sense to look for jobs there after graduation.”

Vydrova agrees, reflecting on her own path. “It was pretty natural at that time to stay in the Czech Republic, as I already had network and practical experience here.” Internships are part of the process, she says, noting that she worked in the legal profession during her studies, and that “played a role as well.” Ultimately, she says, “There are more job opportunities for graduates and qualified lawyers in the private sector in the Czech Republic, mainly due to the size of the market.” 

Roman Vydra puts is simply. “Prague is a big and multinational legal market, which is developed much more than Slovakia,” he says. “After Prague, Bratislava is too small.”

And the Czech legal market is larger, and offers more offices of international law firms – with at least 11 offices of law firms based in the US, UK, or Germany – than its Slovakian counterpart, which offers only six. “It is a regional hub for many companies, [and] the opportunities and competition are much higher,” Mihalikova says. “Given the size of the market, the salaries might be much higher and cost of living are comparable.”   

But Martin Magal expressed skepticism that there’s a new trend of Slovak lawyers working in the Czech capital that can account for the current dearth of quality fresh graduates in Slovakia. “Czech colleagues are always complaining about the ‘invasion,’ but this has been happening for the last 30-40 years,” he says. “You can easily find 50-year-old Slovak lawyers working in Prague.” 

And as Magal notes, most Slovakian lawyers stay at home. “They are well-aware of the fact that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. They want to stay closer to home by setting up the basis for their career where their families’ roots are.” 

In fact, of course, the fact that the two countries share a border makes it possible to be simultaneously abroad and close to home. Indeed, Roman Vydra explains that his decision to study in Brno was influenced by its proximity to his home. “It was rather a geographical decision,” he says. “I wanted to stay in touch with my home, where I had personal connections: family and friends. Brno was a compromise: getting a Czech quality education but being only one and half hours from home by train.” 

Political Considerations

Of course, there are other factors influencing student decisions beyond Slovakia’s extended traineeship period and the potentially superior educational and professional opportunities in the Czech Republic. Timotej Usak, who moved to Prague after graduating from Masaryk University in Brno this year, pointed to the continuing fall-out from the February 25 killings of Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancee, which – among other things – led to the Slovak Prime Minister’s resignation. “One of the reasons [for my move] is the political factor, as the situation in Slovakia is extremely bad. I have a feeling there is a motion to sweep everything under the rug. So, for me there is no motivation to go back to such a country.” 

Reversing the Change

There’s no suggestion the situation is irrevocable, of course, and according to Glatzova & Co.’s Veronika Pazmanyova, many are calling for the traineeship period to be put back to its previous three-year form, although, she says, despite “several initiatives to achieve it, [there is] no real political will yet.” She, for one, hopes those calls are heard. “Changing it [traineeship] back would help the legal market. I don’t think lawyers should be afraid of a little competition.” She insists that, instead of pushing law students away from the profession, it is up to law firms to adapt to the changing requirements of young people about to enter the market. “Their sense of purpose and ethical values may shape the way business is done around the world in the future,” she says.

Katarina Mihalikova also believes the current dearth of quality law school graduates seeking to enter the legal profession can be fixed by shortening the traineeship period, but she points to a need to improve the country’s educational system as well – though she concedes that “it is not an easy and quick solution.”

Conclusion

Ebbs and flows in the market for good young lawyers are hardly uncommon, and trying to parse the reasons for changing interests and motivations in fresh graduates is an imprecise science, at best. In Slovakia, at least, the market is ebbing … and that science is a subject of hot conversation.   

This Article was originally published in Issue 5.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

When I was first asked to write an Editorial for CEE Legal Matters, I was told that it should be something personal or funny. As “funny,” by definition, does not get along with the legal profession very well, I will have to stick to reflecting on my 20-year career. I will share a few thoughts on the dilemma of whether to pursue a legal career in London or in Bratislava and on the changing world around us that impacts (and arguably, enhances) the lives of legal practitioners in one of the CEE countries.

When I started to work for a large international law firm in Bratislava 18 years ago, it was a shock. I realized that I knew nothing about law, my English was not good enough, and I was learning everything from scratch. I was completely flabbergasted when on the first day I was left on my own to handle a phone call with an English-speaking client. The overall situation on the market did not help either. It was the era of privatizations of state enterprises – once-in-a-lifetime transactions – and we were literally camping in the office. Hence, the learning process was happening on the go. Even if it was a tough lesson, I benefitted from the experience. It was then that I started to appreciate the jump-into-the-water-and-swim attitude.  

My secondment to London was like leaving for holidays. I was filling in figures and names in template facility agreements and bond documentation, and although I was working on deals of enormous value, I felt like an assembly line worker. I thought this was the way it worked in London. For a couple of weeks it was nice, but after a while it started to get boring. Of course, today I know that I was handling the most junior work. And of course, today I know that there are tons of extremely sharp lawyers in the City, and for sure, assembly-line work is not what they do. 

Five years of working 16-hour shifts (including weekends) left me tired and burned-out. I considered quitting the law, but instead I went back to school. After earning my Master’s degree in London I considered staying and re-starting my career in the City, and I qualified as a solicitor of England and Wales. Someone told me that, ultimately, I had to choose between being a large fish in a small pool and being a small fish in a large pool. The decision-making process was long and painful. At the end I returned to Slovakia and started my own law firm. 

Th legal profession in this “small pool” post-communist country has its pros and cons. On the one hand, we are frustrated by the failures and inefficiencies of public institutions, the lack of communication within courts, a lack of openness, by a generally-accepted “take a shortcut” attitude, and by a skepticism and cynicism about political and civic involvement. We are tired of explaining the unexplainable to foreign clients: “this is the way it works here, and you have to accept it.”  

But I realize that there have been changes for the better, and I have to concede that indeed there have been positive developments – even though, given our limited lifespans, the speed is agonizingly slow. 

I believe that the smaller pool enables those who want to exert more influence on shaping the legal environment. As a result, for instance, while fifteen years ago a simple transfer of shares in a limited liability company took half a year to register, today I can make the filing from behind my desk and have it processed within a few days. Throughout the region, we have had to become familiar with legal, financial, business terms, and structures and institutions that did not previously exist in our markets, and we were required to adapt them and make them work in our own legal system. Thus, we now have our own legal system, which we played a major role in creating. This was indeed an exciting and adventurous journey. 

By saying this, I have to admit there is no clear answer as to whether to pursue a professional career in Bratislava or London. It is certain that both worlds influenced me profoundly and made me who I am today. I am grateful for the people I have met on my professional journey, the transactions I have worked on, and the challenges I have had to face. Regardless whether it is London or Bratislava, no matter how large the law firm is and how many zeroes appear in the transaction value, clients have their expectations, and in order to meet them lawyers must be one hundred percent committed. 

Technologies, new generations of lawyers, life-work balance, artificial intelligence – all of these will pose new challenges for us. The great thing is that the world once locked behind the Iron Curtain has now been freed – and hopefully it will remain that way. Nothing contributes to personal and professional growth as much as an involvement with different people, cultures, ideas, and points of view. 

By Katarina Mihalikova, Partner, Majernik & Mihalikova

This Article was originally published in Issue 5.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.