Category: Issue 11.8

From relying on chemistry to counting on reputation being representative, Zito Director of Legal Affairs and General Services Tamara Mohoric Selak talks about how she picks her external “firefighters” and how she nurtures long-term collaborations with them.

CEELM: What types of legal work does your team tend to externalize?

Selak: I often make a joke about my work: I enjoy answering the question of “What is actually your job?” by saying “I am a firefighter.” Legal departments are usually the contact when something goes wrong and a fire has already started. As an in-house lawyer, your work is extended to almost all issues of the company and you are the key contact person in almost every project.

Most of the time you have to act quickly, so I usually externalize legal questions on which our team does not have enough expertise and we need a solid and quick fix to our fire.

CEELM: Is appealing to external counsel quicker than addressing it internally?

Selak: Yes, when we don’t have the expertise or knowledge in-house – definitely. When an internal advisor gets an issue that they are not acquainted with, it takes a lot of time to go through all the research to get the needed answer. As we’re firefighters, many things do come up and we can’t be a one-man solution to absolutely everything – that’s simply not possible for a generalist in-house counsel. In theory, external lawyers have the opportunity to specialize and should be equipped to address specific issues that come up.

CEELM: What are the most important criteria you look at when picking which firm/lawyer you’ll be working with on a project?

Selak: First and most important to me is the chemistry in our communication. If there is good chemistry, I know my team will be able to work with that external lawyer successfully.

At the same time, I prefer working with firms that have larger teams because of the similar assumption that no one person can be an expert in everything. If they are a full-service firm, they should be able to cater to the full range of issues we might need to handle.

CEELM: On the flip side, what are the main things you don’t really care about when you receive a proposal from a firm?

Selak: In a recent search for a new external law firm to work with I was often asked if I prefer to receive legal advice prepared directly by a senior lawyer, their Partner, or from a junior lawyer. This is the one thing I do not really care about. When I order legal work, I expect it to be reliable and professional regardless of its source. As I result, I do not actually care who prepares it.

CEELM: We’d assume they ask because that influences the end bill though…

Selak: Of course, but Slovenia is a small country where reputation really matters. When I get any advice, I need to know I can commit to it and rely on it. I don’t care if it’s a lawyer who has decades of experience or a junior who does the drafting – the same standard applies. And firms know that and how much reputation matters so they will make sure it is serviceable advice anyway. Ultimately, by taking this position, you do get solid advice but it is also a way to get a lower cost at the end of the day.

CEELM: What best practices have you developed over time in instructing a law firm for a new mandate?

Selak: My instructions to external law firms are actually really simple. When we have a new case, I expect to receive suggestions and explanations for various options, eventually getting the ultimate advice on which option is best. My own management expects to receive various options as well, which we then discuss and make a decision on how to work on a case. If a law firm delivers this, they are on a good path to getting subsequent mandates from me.

CEELM: And what steps do you take to ensure the firm has a strong grasp of the case you are dealing with? Or do you expect them to do their own research?

Selak: I usually provide all the information I think they might need to know in an email and I stress that I need several options. It might be stemming from the luxury of working with strong firms only in the past but lawyers tend to be more than able to take it from there and do the legwork necessary to cover our needs. Ultimately, lawyers tend to want recurring business and know that if they fail to deliver, we’ll simply stop working with them in the future. I think that as long as you make sure to convey clearly what your needs are off the bat and you have the right incentives of a promised long-term collaboration in place you are in good hands from there.

CEELM: What is your preferred billing structure when it comes to external counsel? And what steps do you take throughout the mandate to limit budgets going over?

Selak: While working with external lawyers and law firms for more than 10 years, I find that the most suitable billing option is working under a blended hourly rate model. The best way to limit budget is to make it clear from the start and before giving a mandate what you expect to see (or not) in the billing process. For example, in a long-term cooperation, I do not expect every short e-mail and short call to be billed. I always make this clear and confirm this kind of cooperation is something our external counsels understand and are comfortable with. I’m not unreasonable of course – my assumption is always that I will be billed for one additional hour here and there but I simply don’t want to see a bill landing on my desk for every single email. I’ve had that happen with some firms in the past but those are the firms I no longer work with.

CEELM: Why do you believe a blended hourly rate is the best approach?

Selak: First, it allows me to comfortably explain what I mentioned earlier – I don’t care about the seniority of who is involved in the advice as long as it is solid. And firms can assign matters internally as they deem fit and it makes sense for them as long as that metric is achieved.

Second, in the process of dealing with a new firm, I get to tell them that we’ll use an hourly rate but I want a good rate. As an in-house counsel, I know roughly how many hours I’ll need and a blended hourly rate then feels like a clean way to negotiate. If a firm wants to work with you in the long term, you usually receive a discount.

CEELM: Do you internalize input from external counsel in some form of a knowledge bank? If so, how?

Selak: Yes of course. Sometimes, I personally need reassurance if my understanding of a legal matter is correct and therefore ask an external counsel for further advice. Subsequently, the external advice received is used as part of our internal knowledge bank. For example, in our weekly legal team Jour Fixes meetings, we discuss external legal advice received so that everybody in the team gets familiar with it and maybe gets a new perspective in handling those sorts of legal issues going forward.

INSS Legal Director Elena Bosnidou shares her tips and tricks on selecting and instructing external counsel.

CEELM: What types of legal work do you tend to outsource?

Bosnidou: Typically, we outsource large-scale projects and important litigation. We also consider outsourcing projects where we feel the internal legal department does not have specific expertise. Ultimately, we want to ensure that we have the best possible representation in all matters. Disputes especially, risk having a critical impact on a business if the outcome is not favorable and, many times, they involve a number of specific areas of law.

CEELM: What are some of the recurring types of work that you’d qualify as large-scale projects?

Bosnidou: M&A projects are the main ones – there’s a lot of work involved in each and many different types of legislation come into play. There’s a lot of paperwork and a lot of work that needs to be done by both experienced attorneys and juniors. There are other types of work-intensive projects of course. For example, a company deciding to go public entails a lot of paperwork as well.

CEELM: When you do decide to outsource, what are the most important criteria you look at when picking which firm/lawyer you’ll be working with on a project?

Bosnidou: I’d first stress that the selection of outside counsel is the most important part of outsourcing work. Everything from communicating work guidelines and covering the project management side of a mandate are all subsequent to the selection process and are all directly impacted by the firm pick.

In my view, the selection process should be as transparent as possible and based on objective (to the extent possible) criteria. Especially in small markets such as Greece where we all know each other and personal connections and contacts weigh more, this consideration is particularly important.

Specifically, I’d first look at the reputation of a law firm. I’d consider its reputation in terms of dealing with clients and following professional ethics principles of being a lawyer.

Second, I’d consider their expertise on the subject matter – may it be an M&A project or litigation, etc. Of course, for that, I’d look at their track record in previous similar cases – how successful they’ve been for past clients in similar matters. I might decide to run a reference check with those previous clients to get a feel of the impression the firm left them. I find this important because sometimes, despite the best possible representation, the outcome of a matter might not end up being great but it is important to check if the actual representation was.

Third, it’s important to understand how flexible the firm is in terms of the billing system used and to what extent they are open to alternative billing systems – may it be a capped, collared, or success-based fee system.

Fourth, it’s crucial to focus not only on the firm’s reputation but also on the specific legal team assigned to the project. It’s important to ensure that the team is not composed solely of juniors with minimal supervision, as this could compromise the quality of work. The ideal setup involves a balanced collaboration, where seasoned professionals oversee the work while leveraging the support of junior staff. In cases requiring extensive research, it may be more cost-effective to insource tasks to lower-cost legal staff rather than incurring high firm rates. This approach can help maintain quality and ensure a more productive and constructive partnership, ultimately leading to the best possible outcomes.

Last but not least, the personalities within the team are significant, especially for large-scale projects. It’s important to have a cohesive team where all members are approachable and capable of facilitating effective communication. Having key contacts at the firm who are responsive, easy to reach, accurate, and experienced in similar matters is crucial. Ensuring a good fit in terms of both expertise and interpersonal dynamics is vital for a successful collaboration.

Of course, another key consideration is avoiding any conflicts of interest that could affect the integrity and effectiveness of the legal representation but that’s sort of a given.

CEELM: Quite a bit of thought goes into it…

Bosnidou: Naturally! Ultimately, the selection of outside counsel is a critical decision for in-house counsel, as it directly reflects on their judgment and expertise. This choice is scrutinized not only based on the quality of the work delivered but also on the selection process itself internally – may it be local management or your global General Counsel. When evaluating the outcome of the collaboration with external counsel, feedback will inevitably be provided, even if unsolicited.

At the same time, a positive outcome in terms of both work quality and collaboration with a firm can lead to the establishment of a reliable list of outside counsels that the company can engage in the future. This pre-approved list simplifies future engagements by eliminating the need to restart the selection process or initiate new bids. Building this trusted network of external legal partners not only streamlines operations but also reinforces the internal team’s reputation for making sound and effective decisions.

CEELM: On the flip side, what are the main things you don’t really care about when you receive a proposal from a firm?

Bosnidou: Size is not a critical factor for me. When firms highlight the number of lawyers or offices they have, it doesn’t necessarily indicate the quality of their services. In my experience, a large firm’s extensive resources do not always translate into better service, especially for projects requiring specific expertise. Sometimes, a smaller or boutique law firm can provide the specialized knowledge needed for a project more effectively and at a lower cost, often with more flexible billing options.

Another aspect that doesn’t particularly impress me is a firm’s roster of big clients, especially if they are not in the same business sector as the project at hand. While having prominent clients might serve as an indicator of a firm’s capabilities, it doesn’t necessarily correlate with the specific needs of my project. I focus more on substantive elements that are directly relevant to our specific requirements rather than being swayed by the firm’s client list or overall size.

CEELM: What best practices have you developed over time in instructing a law firm for a new mandate?

Bosnidou: One of the first and most important practices is to clearly define the project scope, duration, and parameters, along with obtaining a cost estimate upfront. This is crucial for establishing a solid basis for billing and setting clear guidelines for the outside counsel. Knowing the anticipated costs helps in securing budget approval, which may require management’s green light depending on the project’s scale. Without such approval, we risk facing negative repercussions if unexpected issues arise.

It’s also essential to clarify the billing structure from the outset, whether it’s capped, collared, or success-based fees. We need to be vigilant about expenses and ensure that all potential costs are anticipated. For larger projects, unforeseen expenses can be particularly problematic, so I insist on being informed and having a say on any changes that could impact the budget.

Confidentiality is another critical aspect, especially with innovative projects. It’s vital to establish clear confidentiality agreements and, in the case of large firms with multiple sections, to implement “Chinese walls” to prevent information leakage. Additionally, setting clear parameters for handling media relations is often necessary and should be explicitly included in the agreement.

Lastly, coordination is key. I prefer to communicate with one or, at most, two to three contacts, especially if the work is divided into different streams. This streamlined communication ensures that information is not lost or misunderstood and prevents the inefficiencies of having to explain the same issues multiple times to different people.

CEELM: What best practices did you develop in terms of coordinating with your external counsel on a mandate?

Bosnidou: Implementing a legal project management solution is one of the best practices we follow, as it significantly saves time and ensures clarity in the project’s execution. This involves setting very clear guidelines, defining the goals, and segmenting the legal work into distinct parts. By identifying which aspects of the work need to be handled by senior lawyers and which can be assigned to junior lawyers, we can manage the project’s budget more effectively. Under this framework, we define the team, allocate tasks accordingly, and agree on the budget. Additionally, leveraging technology is crucial. We use secured shared sites or project management tools to facilitate document sharing, communication, and storage. This setup not only streamlines the flow of communication but also helps in tracking the progress against project timelines, ensuring that no deadlines are missed.

CEELM: Do you internalize input from external counsel in some form of a knowledge bank? If so, how?

Bosnidou: Yes, internalizing input from external counsel is very important, and this is done with the assistance of IT. We use tools to store and save previous work, which is critical for reference and helps avoid duplicating efforts over time. This knowledge bank serves multiple purposes: it acts as a repository for reference, provides templates for future projects, and aids in evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the selected legal counsel. It also allows us to generate reports for management, track metrics like time spent, and analyze various elements that impact both the legal department and management decisions. While our current system is developed by our internal IT team and has been very useful, we are actively exploring more advanced external solutions. The goal is to find a tool that enhances efficiency and effectiveness, making it easier to work and justify its adoption to management.

Bringing in external counsel can flip legal headaches into big wins, protecting your interests and pushing your goals forward. But how do you make sure your partnership with legal experts goes beyond just getting the job done? The magic happens when you master working with external counsel – mixing careful planning with lively communication to reach new heights of legal success.

Select the Right Counsel

Choosing the right external counsel is a game-changer. Companies must seek firms or attorneys with expertise tailored to their specific legal needs. Beyond qualifications, the cultural fit and communication style of the external counsel are crucial for a harmonious working relationship. Notably, smaller law firms can often deliver more personalized and cost-effective services compared to their larger counterparts. They typically offer higher levels of attention and flexibility, making them an attractive option for businesses desiring customized legal solutions without the hefty fees associated with big-name firms.

Manage Expectations

Managing expectations is the linchpin of a successful partnership with external counsel. Companies crave practical, straightforward answers that inform decision-making processes. External counsel should dispense clear, concise, and actionable advice, often in a yes-or-no format, to facilitate timely and informed decisions. This approach eradicates ambiguity, aligning legal strategies with business objectives and enabling swift, decisive action. Companies don’t need long-winded memos and excessive waivers that bog down the decision-making process – they need direct, effective communication that supports agile business operations.

Pick Up the Phone

Emails and reports are essential, but sometimes, nothing beats a good old-fashioned phone call. External counsel should regularly call their clients to discuss not just ongoing legal matters but also the broader business context. These conversations can uncover new opportunities, preempt potential issues, and strengthen the relationship by demonstrating a genuine interest in the client’s business. Regular phone calls foster a more personal connection, often leading to more insightful and effective legal advice.

Invest in Relationship Building

Building a robust relationship with external counsel goes beyond transactional interactions. Regular meetings, networking events, and informal engagements can deepen the bond and foster a thorough understanding of the company’s business and legal needs. A strong relationship with external counsel can lead to better outcomes and more proactive legal support, transforming the counsel into a true strategic partner.

Be Ruthlessly Responsive

In the relentless world of business, speed is everything. External counsel must make responsiveness their top priority, answering client inquiries and concerns the same day they arise -– no exceptions. Quick yes-or-no answers are often sufficient, and if a more detailed response is required, external counsel must provide a clear timeline for when the client can expect a complete answer. This immediate action shows an unwavering commitment to the client’s needs and builds trust and reliability. Rapid responses can stop minor issues from exploding into major crises and ensure the client feels constantly supported and valued. An external counsel’s ability to respond with lightning speed is crucial, significantly boosting the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal partnership and driving superior business outcomes.

Emphasize Quality and Proper Formatting

The quality of legal services provided by external counsel must be impeccable. Companies should prioritize law firms that demonstrate a commitment to excellence and efficiency, with a strong emphasis on proper formatting and clear, professional presentation of all legal documents. Well-formatted documents enhance readability and reduce the risk of misunderstandings. Performance metrics, regular reviews, and feedback mechanisms are essential to maintaining high standards and driving continuous improvement. Proper formatting isn’t just about aesthetics – it’s a reflection of the firm’s attention to detail and professionalism, crucial for effective legal communication and successful outcomes.

Understand the Business

For external counsel to be truly effective, they must have a deep understanding of the client’s business. This includes the industry landscape, competitive pressures, and the company’s specific strategic goals and challenges. When external counsel are well-versed in the business context, they can provide more relevant and impactful legal advice. This business acumen allows them to anticipate legal issues before they arise, tailor their strategies to the company’s unique needs, and ultimately drive better results. By immersing themselves in the business, external counsel can become invaluable partners in the company’s success.

Build Trust Through Success

Success breeds trust, a fundamental principle in the relationship with external counsel. External counsel should relentlessly focus on achieving the best possible outcomes for their clients. Consistently delivering successful results not only proves their competence but also builds a foundation of trust and reliability. This trust ensures a stronger, more resilient partnership, where clients can confidently rely on their counsel’s ability to handle complex legal challenges and drive favorable outcomes.

Conclusion

Mastering the game of working with external counsel is not just about hiring legal experts – it’s about forging a strategic partnership that drives business success. By selecting the right counsel, managing expectations, maintaining open communication, building strong relationships, prioritizing responsiveness, emphasizing quality, and understanding the business deeply, companies can ensure their collaboration with external counsel is not just effective but exceptional.

By Adam Brzezinski, General Counsel Employment & Privacy, MoneyGram International

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Director & Associate General Counsel Yota Kremmida shares her strategies for effectively managing a diverse, geographically dispersed team through remote work.

CEELM: What is your team’s current approach to working remotely?

Kremmida: Three years ago, I started working in a global role that spans from India to the UK, the US, and Latin America. As the Director of Legal for Worldwide Channel Business at Hewlett Packard Enterprise, my role involves overseeing a diverse and geographically dispersed legal team that supports clients globally. Drawing on my extensive experience managing legal teams in diverse regions, including South Africa, Turkiye, Kenya, Nigeria, and Tunisia, while residing in Greece, I have developed and implemented effective strategies for leading remote teams.

It’s incredible how effectively we collaborate across these regions. One key factor contributing to our success is the dispersed nature of our internal clients. Since our customers are everywhere, it makes perfect sense for our team to be spread out as well. Additionally, we excel in areas of the technology industry, from data centers to the cloud, and we deal with different legal aspects, including software, hardware, and services. As a result, we leverage the robust tools and technologies that our company had already established well before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise was always offering “work from home” options to its people. The tools we use to work facilitate seamless collaboration and communication across different time zones and regions. Remote work has enabled us to harness talent from various locations, allowing individuals based all over the world to undertake positions that would otherwise be limited to those residing where the teams are.

CEELM: What is your team’s approach to remote work?

Kremmida: I believe the team is happy about the flexibility in their working arrangements. As I said, they are not confined to teleworking, as they have office space available if they choose to use it, but they also have the flexibility to work from anywhere. Given that our clients are globally dispersed and our support is needed beyond the traditional “9 to 5 hours,” team members can manage their time without being tied to the office. Some team members go to the office for a few hours each week to socialize and meet with colleagues, rather than to work for a full eight hours. We notice this trend increasingly, especially when hiring, as the younger generation consistently asks about flexibility.

CEELM: How, if at all, do you track remote team members’ work?

Kremmida: Actually, we don’t track remote team members’ work anymore. We used to use tracking tools, but we stopped in the first month of the pandemic when everyone transitioned to working from home. Initially, the purpose of these tracking tools wasn’t to monitor, but to understand how people were spending their time to improve efficiency. When we noticed employees engaging in low-value activities, we considered ways to automate those tasks to free up their time for higher-value work.

We developed tools like automated NDAs and standardized templates to address these inefficiencies. We hired skilled counsels to establish specialized task forces, that focus on repetitive, high-volume tasks such as reviewing tender documents or approving business amenities requests. The tracking tools helped us identify these high-volume activities and create efficiencies by engaging with specialized task forces. This allowed our main team to focus on higher-value work and actual support.

After 5-6 years of using these tracking tools, we realized they were no longer providing any new insights or value. Therefore, we decided to discontinue their use.

CEELM: How do you instill a common corporate culture in team members working remotely?

Kremmida: People often find it challenging to synchronize work across cultures and time zones. Our team operates globally, with legal teams in various locations rather than centralized. We frequently have called for organizational updates, training, new legislation, or celebrating achievements. We use a variety of communication channels to coordinate with our team members, including Microsoft Teams and Slack for instant messaging and video conferencing. I also ensure weekly alignment calls with my team and maintain constant communication via video calls. We also have monthly “coffee chats” to discuss both work and personal matters.

Many view remote work skeptically, but I prioritize trust and flexibility. For example, one of our team members in India joined an important call at midnight his time because he wanted to support the team. Our surveys show that our colleagues appreciate the company’s trust and flexibility as much as the compensation and benefits. This mutual trust means that employees have an incentive to give back.

CEELM: How have your training approaches evolved to incorporate team members’ remote work?

Kremmida: Everything is offered globally without regard to location. We view this as a diversity factor, allowing us to find the best talent regardless of where it is based. Most training is conducted online, with three morning sessions dedicated to training. In the legal department, we have a comprehensive team across various legal functions, and I develop training programs for areas like reselling, competition law, and standard templates. I personally record our live training sessions, which are then uploaded to our website for anyone, including new hires, to access. We also hold live Q&A sessions for interactive discussions, but anyone can also email their questions if needed.

CEELM: How do you recognize when one of your team members is burnout from work?

Kremmida: I’m very concerned about my team working too hard, so I actively encourage them to take holidays and breaks during the day. I understand they might start early, and I get the same encouragement to rest. It’s okay for them to message, “I’m under the weather today,” if they’re not feeling well. We manage work to avoid exhaustion, train everyone to prioritize tasks, distinguish between urgent and non-urgent matters, and be proactive in organizing their schedules.

Our business is accommodating of some delays as long as they know the delivery timeline. We’ve never really encountered any problems in terms of results delivery. It could be a result of our hiring process and preferences, as I want to hire good people – not necessarily top experts, because we can educate them. Finding good people is the challenge. This company can teach the culture, provide training, and impart legal knowledge – skills that can be learned. We value the willingness to learn above all.

CEELM: Finally, what would be one piece of advice you’d give on remote work?

Kremmida: Some see remote work as problematic, questioning how to ensure productivity during work hours. I remember paying someone to pick up my kids from school when I was younger. Now, I want my team to have the flexibility to manage such tasks without worry. It is alright if they don’t work strictly during work hours, as long as they deliver results.

Ultimately, I’d suggest managers focus on managing through teamwork, understanding, support, and trust rather than relying on authority or hierarchy. For all managers, creating successors is a key responsibility. I view this as a valuable opportunity – to help people grow by coaching, inspiring, and pushing them to achieve more.

Audax Renewables Head of Legal in Hungary Andras Nemeth talks about managing and working as a part of an international team.

CEELM: To start with, what is the structure of your current team across different jurisdictions?

Nemeth: For a bit of a background, Audax Renewables is a Spain-based company operating in seven European countries: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, and Hungary for energy supply activities, and also for generation operations in some – for example, France, Poland, Italy and Spain. Our goal is to produce electricity from renewable energy sources. I am the Head of Legal in Hungary and also manage the Group Regulatory Function.

It’s important to note that Audax Renewables’ subsidiaries – and the respective legal and regulatory teams – vary in size and operations. We are present in so-called mature markets like Spain, the Netherlands, and Hungary, where our operations are more established. In some countries, we don’t have local lawyers and only have 10-20 employees, while in others we may have up to six legal counsels, and in some, just one or two. The global regulatory function, which I am also heading in addition to my local role, comprises a member from all seven countries, in some cases local lawyers and in some other cases non-lawyers, too.

CEELM: How often do you meet in person and virtually with members in other jurisdictions?

Nemeth: The group regulatory function that started last December, operates virtually with monthly meetings. This function addresses EU regulatory developments impacting all jurisdictions, facilitating necessary cooperation. We also deal with ESG-related legislation originating from the EU. This centralized approach promotes information sharing, so if one team develops a solution, let’s say in the Netherlands, in other countries we don’t need to duplicate the effort. I have managed to meet with some members at various events and conferences but, unfortunately, we haven’t had a complete physical group meeting yet. That’s still on the agenda.

CEELM: What added value do you see in in-person meetings, that you plan to incorporate in the future?

Nemeth: I’m a firm believer in the value of personal relationships. I have a strong sense that many groups face a common issue: at the local level, there are two competing desires. On one hand, there’s the instinct to maintain autonomy and protect local interests, which may sometimes lead to a critical approach vis-a-vis central initiatives. On the other hand, there’s the obvious necessity to secure additional resources and support from headquarters.

This “leave us alone” and “we know better” mentality can be quite strong. However, I’ve learned that it’s important to show local teams that not everything from headquarters is necessarily negative. Instead, headquarters can be seen as a supportive partner, providing valuable assistance and even resources. Often, local teams view headquarters as an adversary and, in that case, there is a need to shift this perception.

Even though we operate in seven jurisdictions, we are still one group working toward the same success. Meeting in person helps break down barriers, as we talk about not just work, but also personal topics like kids, pets, and hobbies, which makes future interactions smoother. I’d also highlight my 3-year experience with an international law firm that taught me the importance of information sharing and knowledge management. Having experienced that, I am on a personal mission to foster a sense of belonging within our international team. Similar to international law firms, when being employed in a multinational group it should feel natural to pick up the phone and consult a colleague in another country who might have specialist expertise, let it be related to energy wholesale agreements or corporate finance issues. This “make” approach can be more efficient and cost-effective than “buying” this service from an external supplier. This can make a significant difference.

CEELM: What knowledge bank systems do you use and how do you localize relevant data?

Nemeth: We’re not currently using any specialized systems, and unfortunately, at the moment I classify it as a “nice to have” category. Nevertheless, we rely on certain tools like a shared drive and shared inbox, which means that if someone is on vacation, others can still access necessary information. This system is quite useful across subsidiaries, as it eliminates the reliance on individual emails and helps preserve precedents. For instance, if you need to find something from 3-4 years ago and the colleague is no longer with the company, it’s incredibly beneficial.

For our Hungarian operations, we use standard forms and templates for our core business documents, that is customer agreements and certain other instruments like NDAs, settlements, or other corporate (especially HR) documents. These are all accessible to business colleagues through the shared drive for easy knowledge management.

CEELM: What would highlight among the best practices you’ve developed over time in terms of working with an international team?

Nemeth: Whenever I meet team members, I bring them a small gift from Hungary, which they always appreciate. These gestures – however small, can help break down barriers, whether real or perceived, and improve communication.

As a company operating in seven different countries, our legal systems are diverse. We can learn a lot from each other by being open and sharing knowledge. It’s important to remember that you might be the one sharing information one day and requesting it the next, which requires an open mind and resources.

I believe in the importance of regular meetings, whether annually or more frequently, despite our busy schedules. Finding time for these meetings is crucial. Coming together is a major first step that we often overlook. Instead of relying solely on calls, we should embrace an international mindset that considers both time and place.

I have always been passionate about learning languages, traveling, and getting to know people from different cultures. While studying in law school in my hometown Warsaw, Poland, I applied for the Erasmus Student Exchange scholarship. I went to Stockholm, Sweden, to study law for one year. This year turned into more than a decade, during which I earned an LL.M. in IP law and worked as in-house legal counsel and as Head of Legal for Swedish IT/SaaS companies with global operations. Now I am back in Warsaw, but I am still working internationally.

During my time in Sweden, I had the pleasure of working in and managing very international teams of legal professionals. At TrustWeaver and then Sovos I worked in their Stockholm office with an international team of up to 10 lawyers, coming from Europe, the US, South America, and China. There was no one individual coming from the same country and we all worked on-site in the same office – quite an uncommon situation. At Iptor the legal team that I managed consisted of lawyers and paralegals from Belgium, Poland, and Sweden – all based in different offices.

Using the Right Tools and Keeping Up the Team Spirit

The Head of Legal role at Iptor was my first real managerial role. Earlier, I was a Team Leader for less experienced lawyers, but without actual HR responsibilities. We were fortunate to have an empathetic female leader as a CEO at Iptor. She had a great interest in HR-related matters and put a lot of effort into developing her managers and giving us the right tools to run a team effectively. My teammates were based in three different countries across Europe, but we were able to have efficient communication and a great team spirit. We were using a performance development platform for managers and their teams, called Saberr Coachbot and KanBan-based task planning in MS Teams. The first tool allowed and prompted us to set our team purpose and goals aligned with the company goals, take notes from one-to-one meetings, run performance reviews, and more. The second tool allowed us to track everyday work tasks. Later, we implemented a contract lifecycle management tool which allowed us to cooperate on contract work more efficiently. We also used to have weekly team meetings, where we spent at least 15 minutes socializing – that is talking about things not related to work. I felt that the team had the clarity about what was expected of them, and we simply all liked each other.

Cultural Literacy

While working internationally, you should be asking yourself these questions:

• Are you viewing the world from your own cultural perspective?
• Is it a personality trait or maybe a cultural difference?
• How can you adapt to other cultures without sacrificing your integrity?

Why?

Because studies show that cultures differ in communication, humor, perception of good manners, sense of time, concepts of status and trust, hierarchy and authority, approach to truth, decision-making, leadership styles, negotiations, body language, and more. Some linguists and ethnologists even claim that the language we speak determines the way we think and that being bi- or multi-lingual gives us added dimensions of reality. One thing is for sure, being aware of and sensitive to cultural differences truly helps to bridge communication gaps.

Your American boss is writing you very short emails – is she being disrespectful or just busy? … No, concise communication is seen as a virtue in the US. Your Chinese colleague is quiet in meetings – is he clueless or just shy? … Speaking without being given the floor is seen as bad manners in China.

If you want to raise your cultural literacy, you need to be open-minded and not judge others for being different than yourself. Be sensitive to cultural differences. Every employee is equal and should have the right to keep their heritage and be their true selves. On the other hand, stay professional and seek common work values. Keep an eye out for communication style differences and do not take up topics such as politics or religion. Even though it is quite old, I can recommend Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands by Terri Morrison and Wayne A. Conaway – a very useful guide on international business etiquette and cultural practices in 60 countries.

By Alicja Kwiatkowski, Senior Counsel, Group Data Protection Officer, Mirantis

Pfizer Eastern Europe Cluster Legal Lead and Legal Director Lucie Kubenova talks about the importance of staying connected with colleagues when managing a legal team spread across 22 countries CEE.

CEELM: How is your current currently team structured across jurisdictions?

Kubenova: At the moment, Pfizer’s legal team spans 22 countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Greece and Israel. We have several legal directors overseeing these countries, each with distinct responsibilities based on the market needs.

CEELM: How often do you meet (a) in person and (b) virtually with members in other jurisdictions?

Kubenova: We hold virtual team calls every Monday, which we refer to as “Monday Coffee.” These sessions blend a casual catch-up with our work agenda. We use this time to discuss updates and opportunities in each country, as well as to focus on business matters, legal work, and sharing best practices. Each call lasts between 30 minutes to an hour.

In terms of preferred channels, given that we’re all based in different countries and face-to-face communication is limited, I find our virtual meetings to be the closest thing to in-person interactions. We can see, hear, and share effectively. However, for written communication, we’re still relying on traditional emails, which can feel a bit outdated.

CEELM: How are cross-border matters assigned and supervised?

Kubenova: It depends on the nature of the cross-border issue. While we might agree to have one lawyer oversee multiple countries, the 22 countries we work with include both EU members and non-members, each with different operational models. This diversity influences who takes the lead on each product.

CEELM: How do you ensure a uniform standard across all jurisdictions?

Kubenova: This is something that can sometimes be challenging to achieve. We deal with independent jurisdictions both in the market and within the cluster, and we are fully aligned with the legal network of each country. For EU countries, the process is often easier due to more uniform requirements, although we always ensure to respect the specific frameworks of countries with more extensive regulations.

CEELM: What are, in your view, the biggest challenges in managing an international team?

Kubenova: One of the challenges is not being able to meet in person as often as I’d like. It’s always better to have an in-person coffee with the team. While electronic communication is a good substitute, dealing with different jurisdictions, each with its own legal issues, can be challenging from a cluster perspective.

Other challenges may include the need to consider the current environment in each country. For example, in countries like Ukraine and Israel, the political situation can make legal affairs particularly difficult.

CEELM: What are the best practices you’ve developed over time to overcome this?

Kubenova: In my view, regularly connecting with team members through tools like Teams, along with fostering openness and transparency, helps us get to know each other better. The informal aspects of team meetings also contribute to this, allowing us to bond and understand one another more effectively, even if it’s only through the digital platform.

Navigating the complexities of managing multinational legal teams requires a blend of strategic foresight, robust communication skills, and a profound understanding of diverse legal frameworks. Drawing on over two decades of experience, former Paysafe Associate General Counsel Christopher Fischer shared during the 2024 CEE General Counsel Summit his strategies for aligning diverse teams toward a unified goal, emphasizing the necessity of effective leadership in the globalized legal environment of the time.

Herding Cats: Leadership in Diverse Legal Teams

Fischer’s tenure across various continents – from the bustling markets of India to the complex legal landscapes of Latin America – endowed him with a keen insight into the challenges of leading diverse teams. Describing the management of such teams to be “like herding cats,” Fischer highlighted the inherent difficulties in aligning individuals who possessed not only strong personalities but also specialized legal expertise.

“In managing lawyers, you quickly realize that you are dealing with some of the brightest people around, top of the food chain, so to speak, which makes team cohesion a significant challenge,” Fischer explained. He emphasized that legal professionals, due to their training and expertise, often exhibit “alpha traits” that could complicate traditional management techniques. To address these challenges, Fischer advocated for a management style that was adaptable yet firm, ensuring that each team member’s strengths were recognized and harnessed towards collective objectives.

Fischer’s approach is characterized by his proactive stance on communication and involvement. “I prefer to over-communicate rather than under-communicate,” he asserted. This philosophy was crucial in legal settings where discretion and judgment were paramount. By sharing critical information and involving the team in decision-making processes, Fischer attempts to foster a transparent environment that cultivates trust and mutual respect.

Building Cohesion Through Communication and Transparency

Central to Fischer’s management philosophy is his commitment to transparency and open communication. During his presentation, he challenged the outdated notion that hoarding information equates to power, suggesting instead that true power lay in empowered teams. “As a manager, sharing information became less about retaining power and more about empowering your team to act effectively,” Fischer noted. This approach not only “demystifies the management process but also integrates various team members’ perspectives, leading to more informed and cohesive strategies.”

Furthermore, Fischer emphasized the importance of trust and inclusivity within the team, believing that these elements are foundational to any high-performing group. “Trust was earned and shared within the team through open channels of communication,” he stated, highlighting how this trust translated into a cohesive unit that could navigate elaborate legal challenges more effectively.

Fostering Growth and Defining Purpose

Underpinning Fischer’s management success is his relentless focus on individual and collective growth. He viewed each team member’s development as integral to the overall success of the organization. “Managing my team also involved mentoring them, coaching them, and maintaining an open-door policy,” he described, illustrating his hands-on approach to leadership that prioritizes personal development and career progression.

Fischer also underscored the significance of defining a clear purpose and vision for the team. This process, according to him, was essential for maintaining alignment and motivation. “What I wanted to do was bring the team together to define for ourselves why we are here,” Fischer recounted, describing how he facilitates sessions to collaboratively establish a mission and vision that resonate with all team members. This exercise not only clarifies the team’s objectives but also reinforces their commitment to the organization’s broader goals.

By focusing on these developmental aspects, Fischer ensures that his team is not only prepared to meet current legal challenges but is also equipped to handle future uncertainties. Such a forward-thinking approach is particularly crucial in a rapidly changing global legal environment, where adaptability and continuous learning are often the keys to staying one step ahead.

The Art of Legal Team Management

Ultimately, Christopher Fischer’s insights into managing multinational legal teams shed light on the complex interplay between leadership, communication, and development in a global context. His strategies, characterized by adaptability, transparency, and a focus on growth, provide a kind of blueprint for legal managers worldwide. As legal teams continue to grow in size and scope, Fischer’s experiences underscored the critical importance of effective leadership in fostering a cohesive, dynamic, and responsive legal team capable of advancing organizational objectives across borders.

To draw once more on Fischer’s analogy, the art of managing legal teams, much like herding cats, requires patience, understanding, and a skillful application of leadership techniques that resonate across diverse cultural and professional landscapes.

Before COVID-19, the home office was not mainstream. It was used more as a benefit to avoid the need to get a day off when you had to stay home to wait for “the guy to get the annual meter reading.” Then came the pandemic which forced us to think outside of the box. Suddenly, everyone discovered that remote work could be a viable alternative. Organizations had to come up with technical solutions to make sure that every possible task could be done remotely. The legal profession by its nature was able to adapt quickly to remote work.

During the pandemic, remote work became the new norm. When life returned to normal, organizations tried to create new ways of working to bring together the best of both worlds. This created many models and a lot of discussion as to what works. In my team, we implemented a hybrid model of 50% remote and 50% office work. Now we see that the market is moving more in the direction of more office time. While home office does have benefits, it also has disadvantages. I am a firm believer that reality moved past the all-office requirement. A good remote work policy is a great retention tool, and it is difficult to hire quality candidates without the possibility of remote work. Let’s face reality – in-house lawyers need to put in a lot of hours and remote work offers a level of flexibility that can help with work-life balance.

The problem is not the concept, but rather how we implement it. It is crucial to establish effective home office practices to ensure both productivity and overall well-being. Remote work should be employed to ensure that it does not harm relationships and teamwork.

The primary challenge is maintaining effective communication and collaboration among team members and with the business. Having virtual meetings is great, but without maintaining face-to-face interactions, it is difficult to exchange ideas and stay connected. To overcome this, every team needs to have a day when on-site attendance is required. In addition, certain important business meetings must take place through personal attendance. Employees are encouraged to organize their week to have meetings, if possible, on the days when they are having office days.

This practice also helps with the main management fear of remote work, which is efficiency. If one can divide their time so that remote workdays are dedicated to drafting and office days are dedicated to meetings, this can be quite effective. This does require clear routines and discipline, but it is doable.

You need a good digital platform for video conferencing, instant messaging, and project management. Teams working remotely need to have a clear policy on where to save their work and how to communicate and set and follow up on tasks. Save everything on SharePoint or a similar file share system, work in a single document, and have a clear protocol on how to document tasks.

My experience is that during COVID-19 was that people compensated the lack of personal connection with having more meetings. This means less time for other tasks. This phenomenon seems to have survived the pandemic. Try to organize as few meetings as possible and avoid large crowds where people just listen. Encourage people to turn their cameras on when they are talking and turn them off if not. This will help limit connection issues and ensure that you can still see who you are talking to. This can also limit the impact of the camera fatigue. Reliable technology and a stable internet connection are essential for remote work. Technology is useless without a robust connection. Technical issues during virtual meetings can be frustrating and people lose focus. Working from home can expose employees to various distractions – a noise-canceling earphone is a blessing, invest in one.

When at home, you can save the commute, but the boundaries between work and personal life will blur. It is important to set limits between work and personal life by establishing a dedicated workspace and adhering to a regular schedule. If you are in the office, avoid the need to put in additional hours at home. In the same fashion, plan breaks and the time when you stop working if you are working remotely. This will allow you to mentally switch gears.

The last point I wanted to address is the people aspect. Having little or no interaction should be the biggest red flag for a manager. The legal business is a people business. Ensure that you talk with your team, and schedule regular check-ins, and team meetings both in person and virtual. Coffee does wonders, but you need to be in the same room to enjoy it together. Avoid the urge to micromanage just because you do not see each other every day. When you meet, devote time to talk with your team, showing them that you care.

By Peter Ban, Director of Legal and Compliance, E.ON Hungaria

For much of the pandemic, remote working became part of everyday life for most of us. For some of us, it still is. Upstream – the company I work for – chose to keep a hybrid model. Even in a hybrid system, the idea is to offer flexibility, so I find myself now writing this piece in a village atop a Greek island. Is it that all I need to do my work are my laptop and a good internet connection? These are obviously the basics but there are other steps to make remote working really work.

As I mentioned above, my team works under a hybrid model. This means that, as a rule, we show up at the office at least three times a week, while we can work remotely on the other two days. I find this to be the ideal option between full office attendance – which does not allow for much flexibility – and full remote work, which can, at times, feel isolating.

To facilitate office attendance, we keep an Excel tracker and since there are three of us, we try to have one day where all of us are in, so we can catch up in a more direct way and take care of tasks that need physical presence (this mostly means obtaining wet ink signatures on contracts and filing and couriering documents).

While we do track office presence so that we get things done more efficiently, there is no system in place to track remote team members’ work. We issue reports and trackers on the legal team’s work, but not tailored specifically to remote working. In terms of completing tasks correctly and on time it does not and should not make a difference whether work is done in the office or remotely.

It helps tremendously that there are tools available to allow us to work from home, which are now considered standard tools for all businesses: e-signature platforms, video call tools, corporate messaging apps, and specialized training platforms offering videos and quizzes. In several countries, administrative tasks, that legal departments routinely handle, such as filings and obtaining certificates, have also been digitized.

It is obvious that I appreciate the option of working remotely, as it can afford me flexibility in balancing home and work life. Further, working from home is useful at times when my tasks require a deeper level of concentration which can be hard to find in a bustling office environment.

Still, remote work has its challenges. I have found the biggest one to be onboarding new members and making them part of the common corporate culture. We did struggle with this during the pandemic and I have not been able to identify a definitive solution to this issue. Instead, after four years of practicing remote work, I find that there are small things that could help with making a new member feel part of the team and understand its values and priorities.

One of these is frequent check-ins – it is easy to forget you are part of a team and not pay attention to your teammates, especially during busy times. However, it is important to remember that they are there, even if they cannot be seen.

Precisely because my team felt that we were losing the team spirit, we instituted weekly catch-up calls, that were not structured around a definite agenda. Instead, they were meant to be relaxed meetings where we could make small talk and say what was on our mind without necessarily focusing on specific tasks – we would raise these in other meetings. An important detail that makes all the difference in this kind of meeting is that the video camera should be switched on – the whole point is for team members to have some face time. Last but not least, team meetings and corporate events outside work, like company Christmas parties or environmental initiatives help in that direction as well.

Conversely, the other challenge many people face when remote working is figuring out how to unplug. There are no physical boundaries when you work from home so very frequently you could end up getting overconsumed with work. This was especially evident during the pandemic because of isolation rules in various countries. What helps in this case is having a dedicated workspace/station at home, if at all possible, that can be left behind at the end of the work day. In practical terms, a proper desk chair and a big screen, as well as managing all these cables, can be very helpful and make working from home safe and much more enjoyable.

By Eleni Stathaki, Head of Legal, Upstream