Category: Issue 11.8

Selin (Evrem) Pattni is the Head of Legal Global Purchasing and Supply Chain Operations of Henkel, and she is also on the Executive Committee of Henkel Global Supply Chain B.V. located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Selin reflects on her own career path and on strategies for training and developing her in-house team.

CEELM: What are, in your view, the most important skills for an in-house lawyer in your organization?

Pattni: My journey has taken me through various roles and countries, which has greatly influenced my perspective on the skills needed for an in-house lawyer. I am a qualified lawyer in Turkiye, having done my bachelor’s there and a master’s in Germany with a double major degree in International Business Law and Economics. I’ve worked in organizations like Ernst & Young, Carrefour Group, and since 2013 in Henkel, where I’m currently in a global role.

One key takeaway from my experience is the importance of adaptability and openness. It’s no longer about getting an education in one country and staying there. My generation broke that mold successfully and opened up the door for our young colleagues to have cross-country/regional experiences. As an in-house lawyer, you need to be adaptable, open to communication, ready to take feedback and have a practical way of thinking as a constant problem solver. It definitely requires an analytic approach. Education should never end for a professional – it’s a continuous development/learning process. I promised myself after my studies in Germany that I wouldn’t pursue a PhD to have an academic career, but as my roles evolved regionally and globally, I found that continuous learning is essential and doesn’t need to be necessarily academic in nature. An in-house counsel needs to learn frequently to understand different jurisdictions, new regulations, country-specific requirements, and new business models. You need to embrace a mindset that is always open to development, learning non-stop, and never thinking “I’m enough.”

Another crucial skill is understanding and respecting diversity. My culturally diverse background – being Armenian, born in Turkiye, and educated in a German school – has taught me the importance of tolerance and observation at a very young age. Every culture is unique, and you need time to adjust and adapt. This understanding is not just critical for business, but it’s also a life skill that helps in both personal and professional settings, especially when it comes to stakeholder management.

CEELM: Do you see any change in in-house counsel’s role in the multinational companies considering the last 10-15 years?

Pattni: Big time! Multinational companies are very much aware of the importance of risk prevention in recent years. This awareness changed the traditional in-house counsel role in the last 10-15 years. If you take my career as an example, I have been a part of regional and global executive committees as an important team player in the operational decision-making mechanism. I’m also leading our DE&I activities as a spokesperson, which is a very dear role for me. Briefly, we all have new roles on top of dealing with pure legal matters, as company directors, DE&I representatives, public affairs managers, board members, commercial advisors, compliance heads, data protection officers, auditors, and human rights officers (required by German Supply Chain Act). This change happened because of our strategic thinking, forward planning, proactive involvement, great communication skills, and excellent job at the risk assessment. Actually, for more information on this trend, you can take a look at my article available in the International In-house Counsel Journal in 2017 (Managing the In-House Counsel Function, Vol. 10 No. 39).

CEELM: What is your in-house legal function’s TNA (training needs assessment) methodology?

Pattni: Assessing the skills within the team isn’t just a periodic task (i.e., year-end or mid-year assessment process) – it’s something that needs to be observed every day. As the Global Head of Legal, one of my core responsibilities is to develop my team members to the point where they could replace me if necessary. This mindset creates a non-competitive, safe environment where everyone can grow. Especially from that perspective, Henkel is a great company that invests in its people tremendously. As an example, they sent me to the London School of Economics for a tailor-made executive program and recently to a high-level leadership training session in Germany. We have a very successful cooperation training with Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, which one of my team members recently visited for a two-year executive training on top of his work. This shows that the company is serious about developing its employees, rather than just pushing them to work without growth and get what they want only.

In addition to the yearly assessments, I conduct monthly feedback sessions with my team and other stakeholders from the business, which go both ways. In Henkel, we also have a 360-degree feedback process for higher management to ensure that we’re meeting standards and addressing new skill leadership requirements. With the constant changes in the market, it’s crucial to ensure that our team has the necessary skills to keep up which include digitalization, data security, analytics, sanctions, and tax rules. That’s why as Henkel we are committed to providing frequent training opportunities, whether it’s through conferences and/or specialized programs. In-house counsels shouldn’t focus solely on internal training but should also understand business models to support contract negotiations and day-to-day business. This requires a lot of business training, which some in-house counsels might avoid, but it’s essential to keep an eye on the market developments.

CEELM: How often do you assess skill gaps within the team?

Pattni: While there is a formal yearly assessment, as said I also hold frequent feedback sessions with my team. These sessions allow us to address skill gaps as they arise and ensure that the team is continuously developing. With the rapid pace of change in today’s business environment, it’s essential to frequently evaluate and improve the team’s skills. I highly appreciate it when my team members come up with a new learning opportunity. It is a teamwork and each chain of the team needs to be strong not just the Head of Legal.

CEELM: And what do you use to identify gaps within the team?

Pattni: To identify gaps, I use a combination of tools and methods. The 360-degree feedback system is particularly effective as it provides insights from various perspectives within the organization (vertical and horizontal way). I’m personally also very open to communication, so team members can easily approach me and express their needs. It is essential to create a safe space to hear the needs of your team and focus on what you can achieve more with a highly motivated team. Additionally, I focus on how well the team is adapting to new challenges brought by constant changes in the business market and legal world. This helps us pinpoint specific areas where further training or development might be needed.

CEELM: Do you prefer using internal or external tools for training? Why?

Pattni: We use both internal and external tools for training. For example, we work with law firms on both a retainer and project basis, and I highly value the general training sessions they offer on important topics. These sessions help us maintain a two-way relationship with the firms. Internally, Henkel offers various training programs that we utilize, but I also encourage my team to participate in external programs as I mentioned earlier. A mix of internal and external tools ensures that our team remains well-rounded and up-to-date with the latest developments.

CEELM: What have traditionally been the most effective learning tools you’ve deployed for your team?

Pattni: One of the most effective tools we’ve used is a closed database system where all contracts are archived. This system allows us to collect and manage data effectively, providing easy access to necessary information whenever needed. We’re very fortunate to have such systems in place for many years and have great data available. We also have a global contract management system and online training tools, including antitrust training. These tools are integral to our operations and ensure that our team is aligned globally, with access to consistent and up-to-date information.

CEELM: What, if any, tools do you use as a knowledge bank?

Pattni: Our knowledge bank primarily consists of the database system where all contracts are archived. This system is integrated with Henkel’s intranet, allowing us to manage and access data securely. We continuously update these systems to meet our needs, particularly in areas like data security and contract management. This global database system is a crucial part of our operations, enabling us to maintain consistency and accuracy across all our activities. We work with external service providers to update those systems based on our needs.

CEELM: What is the typical career path for a young lawyer joining your in-house team?

Pattni: My career has been quite atypical, involving both local, regional, and global roles across IMEA, Europe, and APAC regions. I had the chance to work in several countries and live there for 2-3 years to expand my experience. My journey with Henkel helped my personal growth on top of my career and I strongly believe that “outside of your comfort zone is where the magic happens.” Thus, I encourage young lawyers not to think of their careers in a typical, linear way. Please be brave, accept all possible challenges, and not be confined by borders or traditional career paths in the legal world. At Henkel, we offer incredible opportunities for growth, and I believe that multinational companies are increasingly recognizing that we can do more and develop ourselves to serve a world without boundaries. It is true that the sky is the limit, and adaptability is key to survival and success. This flexibility and openness to new experiences are what I hope to instill in young lawyers joining our team. You need to only compete with yourself to grow not with anyone else. This has been always my mindset while building my career.

Understanding the importance of a flexible working environment is also crucial for now and the next generations getting ready to enter the business. At Henkel, we’ve embraced flexibility, even before COVID-19, with a 60-40% home-office work ratio. Flexibility is important not just for productivity, but for our own and team’s mental health as well. We’re seeing more burnout cases around us, and as directors, it’s our responsibility to address this proactively and observe our colleagues frequently to ensure they are healthy psychically and mentally. If you feel exhausted, take a break – whether it’s going for a run in a park next to your house or having a coffee outside. It’s about creating an environment where people feel supported and can thrive together. It is a marathon, not a short run, and an easy target to achieve.

Change is essential for the growth of any person/organization, cultural transformation is a never-ending progress. One of my favorite quotes is from Einstein: “In order to understand ourselves, others, and the world around us, we need to be able to change and adapt our perspectives.” We need to change ourselves to grow and survive, especially in a world that is rapidly evolving.

More and more legal departments are actively integrating methodologies from disciplines outside the traditional legal sphere, such as project management and even engineering. This evolution is reshaping how legal teams deliver value, emphasizing both strategic impact and operational efficiency. Precision Medicine Group Deputy General Counsel Krzysztof Mazurek, Alpekr Managing Director Petr Zatopek, and Audax Head of Legal Andras Nemeth took a look at the vital role of cross-disciplinary skills in modern legal at the CEE Legal Matters GC Summit, held in Warsaw on April 25-26, 2024.

Integrating Project Management into Legal Operations

Zatopek’s presentation on Legal Project Management for GCs underscored the critical need for project management skills within legal practices. He emphasized the necessity of anticipatory strategizing to enhance operational efficiency, stating that “proactive planning is essential for project success. By investing time upfront, we can achieve greater operational efficiency compared to a reactive approach.” He illustrated this point by emphasizing that front-end planning is superior to damage control once problems arise. “Engaging key stakeholders throughout the process promotes transparency and minimizes disruptions. This ensures everyone is informed and avoids last-minute inquiries.”

Additionally, Zatopek discussed the strategic use of modern aids and technologies to streamline legal operations, highlighting the role of digital tools like Asana and Monday. He noted their utility in creating accessibility and minimizing disruptions, saying that “utilizing accessible digital tools like Asana or Monday empowers the business to track progress and reduces unnecessary interruptions, allowing legal teams to focus on core competencies.” By adopting these tools, legal teams can focus on substantive legal tasks rather than being bogged down by administrative burdens, Zatopek highlighted.

Crucially, tackling the mechanics of project management, Zatopek stressed that “a clearly defined project in the legal sphere requires a defined start, scope, and budget. This structured approach streamlines operations and facilitates expectation management.”

Cultivating a “Get It Done” Culture

Mazurek’s insights from The GC and a ‘Get it Done’ Culture presentation highlight the importance of an effective management culture in legal settings. He discussed the challenge of managing an extensive volume of legal work across different jurisdictions, reflecting on the express production of laws and the resultant pressures. “The rapid pace of legal change creates a challenge, as new laws are often enacted faster than law firms can disseminate updates.” His response is a strategic focus on prioritization, essential for managing swift-paced legal environments that appear to be the norm across jurisdictions.

Mazurek also spoke about the resource challenges within organizations. He argued for a practical approach to legal practice, advocating for acceptance of imperfection and practicality over perfection. “A pragmatic mindset is essential,” he suggested. “Instead of aiming for academic excellence, prioritized practicality and transparent communication are key in managing expectations. We strive to deliver solutions that are effective and meet business needs.”

Moreover, Mazurek emphasized the need for legal teams to look beyond legal and embrace non-legal competencies. Integrating data analysis, project management, and information technology competencies into legal teams makes them better integrated within broader business processes. Moreover, he added that, “in a fast-paced digitally-driven world, lawyers need to look beyond what they were taught at universities and, similar to their business colleagues, build a broad competency portfolio to be business partners.”

Learning from Engineering: Efficiency in Legal Practice

Nemeth’s presentation, Benchmarking Engineers for the In-House Legal Function, offered insights into how engineering principles can optimize legal operations. He discussed the integration of systematic problem-solving and efficiency principles, such as the Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule, which can significantly enhance productivity by focusing on the tasks that provide the most substantial impact. Nemeth further explained the practical application of these principles. “The work breakdown structure, or WBS, involves creating a detailed list of tasks, which is instrumental for efficient project management,” he said, going on to describe how breaking down projects into smaller, manageable parts is crucial for efficiency. “Utilizing a WBS for complex legal matters simplifies the process, enhances manageability, and fosters better understanding and compliance among business stakeholders,” he explained.

As another example, Nemeth highlighted the concept of the Eisenhower Matrix as a strategic tool for prioritizing legal tasks. He emphasized its utility in distinguishing between tasks that are urgent and those that are important – a crucial differentiation. “Utilizing the Eisenhower Matrix allows our team to delegate and prioritize tasks more effectively, ensuring that we focus on what truly drives our legal projects forward,” he explained. “By categorizing tasks into ‘urgent and important,’ ‘important but not urgent,’ ‘urgent but not important,’ and ‘neither urgent nor important,’ we can streamline our workflow and allocate our resources more efficiently.” This approach allows the team to prioritize more effectively, thus ensuring an optimal allocation of resources and making sure that the tasks with the nearest deadline are pursued with more urgency.

Nemeth advocated for simplicity and effective communication in legal processes, adopting the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle commonly used in engineering. “Clear and measurable benchmarks are essential for effective project management. This facilitates tracking progress and ensuring successful outcomes,” he explained, adding that there is much truth in the old adage: if it cannot be measured, it cannot be managed. This approach underlines the importance of clarity and straightforwardness in legal documentation and client communications, which are crucial for preventing misunderstandings and errors, as Nemeth explained.

Embracing a Multi-Disciplinary Approach

The presentations held by Zatopek, Mazurek, and Nemeth collectively underscored the need for integrating skills from various disciplines into legal practices. Whether it’s project management, strategic prioritization, or engineering efficiency, these cross-disciplinary skills are crucial for modern legal practitioners facing an increasingly complex world.

The legal profession is no longer solely about understanding and interpreting the law; it also involves managing projects, optimizing processes, and enhancing efficiency through technology. To effectively meet the challenges of modern legal environments, legal professionals must acquire a broad set of cross-disciplinary skills. Embracing these skills can make legal practices more adaptable, efficient, and capable of driving business success in dynamic and complex industries, sectors, and markets.

Focusing on hiring the right skills and looking to build sectoral knowledge in-house, METCE Hungary General Counsel Marton Hidvegi talks about how his organization addresses the training and development of the in-house legal team.

CEELM: What do you think are the most important skills for an in-house lawyer in your organization?

Hidvegi: I am part of a Switzerland-based multinational energy company operating across various jurisdictions in Europe, from Spain to Turkiye, and beyond. Our company is focused on multi-commodity wholesale, trading and sales, as well as energy infrastructure and industrial assets like developing and transitioning to solar and wind energy and other capacities, striving to cover the entire spectrum of the energy industry and aiming to play an essential role in the European energy transition.

Energy law is a highly specialized field, not something easily learned at a university or even within a law firm. When seeking young talent, while knowledge of energy law is beneficial, it’s not a requirement. Instead, we prioritize skills such as contract drafting, legal writing, and analysis, along with qualities like proactivity, curiosity, a business-oriented mindset, and the drive to learn and grow.

CEELM: How does your in-house legal team assess training needs, and how often?

Hidvegi: As for our training methodology, we conduct performance evaluations twice a year. During these evaluations, we review and, if necessary, adjust KPIs and assess individual training and educational needs. If colleagues have specific needs, we determine the best tools or methods, whether that involves attending courses, training, coaching, conferences, or direct knowledge transfer from others. Being a multinational company also works to our advantage – if one of our subsidiaries faces an issue, another subsidiary can provide assistance or share best practices.

We also make an effort to cover multiple disciplines since we’re not a large legal department. Each colleague has 2-3 focus areas, such as energy retail or wholesale, energy efficiency services, or corporate, data protection and compliance. This approach is crucial because if someone were to focus on just one area, they might lose motivation over time. I make it a point to ensure that doesn’t happen by maintaining variety in their work. Varietas delectat!

CEELM: Do you prefer internal or external training tools, and why?

Hidvegi: I’d say energy law is a particularly specialized area, and one can’t simply absorb that knowledge at an academic level. It’s beneficial to have an internal knowledge pool and a deep understanding of the field. To support this, we hold regular weekly internal meetings where we discuss legal issues – not just those involving clients, but also internal challenges that need addressing.

Sharing knowledge and experience in these sessions is crucial, especially since this is such a highly regulated field. We must constantly stay updated on regulatory developments. Additionally, we organize internal courses on a regular basis to join our forces in improving our professional and industry knowledge.

CEELM: How does your company’s presence in various jurisdictions help the training process?

Hidvegi: Each year, we have gatherings with other lawyers from the group that include sessions focused on discussing specific issues. This year, for instance, the focus was on project management. Additionally, there’s a group-level knowledge-sharing program not limited to legal colleagues, i.e., anyone can apply for these courses. As an example, there are sessions on negotiation techniques or communication skills, which are available to all colleagues working at different functional or business departments of the group. We also organize internal courses and try to bring in experts from entirely different fields, which tends to be very engaging and results in a higher attendance rate.

CEELM: What learning tools have been the most effective for your team, and do you use any particular tools as a knowledge bank?

Hidvegi: We mostly rely on traditional tools such as Microsoft Teams and Microsoft PowerPoint. We’ve begun using AI for document translation, but given the relative complexity of the Hungarian language, the results are still not always perfect.

In terms of knowledge banks, we use Microsoft OneDrive and maintain a shared legal knowledge bank. We aim to include not just templates but also insightful legal analyses that can be shared across the group. For example, during the energy crisis a few years ago, the topic of force majeure became highly relevant. Having a comprehensive knowledge platform enabled us to address such complex issues effectively and share insights across the company.

CEELM: What’s the typical career path for a young lawyer joining your in-house team?

Hidvegi: As mentioned, when hiring, what is crucial for us is the attitude and basic skills in commercial law such as contract drafting. In Hungary, there are five years of legal university education followed by three years of legal practice to be eligible for the bar. We typically seek young talents with 1-2 years of experience who possess basic skills in contract drafting and analysis. Once they join us, we start their education in energy law and the industry, which takes about an additional three years.

After this period, our colleague should have gained sufficient knowledge of our company’s industry to make impactful recommendations and transition into a proactive role. At this stage, they can truly make a difference as an expert. From here, there are basically two career paths: one can become a senior expert with the same responsibility as a manager, functioning as a project manager and legal business partner in close cooperation with our business divisions, or follow a traditional management path, leading their own team or sub-department. This choice depends on the person’s attitude and preference for managing people. We are working to ensure that those who do not wish to pursue a management career still have valuable opportunities within the company.

CEELM: What is one key lesson learned about managing the development of an in-house team?

Hidvegi: I believe it’s very important to communicate effectively. I personally hold one-on-one sessions with every colleague on a monthly basis to discuss various matters. As a leader and manager, my top priority is to ensure that our department is managed effectively and tailored to meet our company’s needs. I’m proud that our colleagues’ turnover is minimal, with key team members having been with us for over six years. I hope most of our colleagues find our corporate culture to be fairly open. We also conduct management training to further strengthen open communication.

FEPRA EPR Head of Legal and Compliance in Romania Clementina Canel talks about the skills she focuses on developing within her in-house legal team and the strategies she uses toward that.

CEELM: What are, in your view, the most important skills for an in-house lawyer in your organization?

Canel: Throughout my career, I’ve managed both small and large teams, including international teams in Romania, Germany, and Austria. Aligning people from different cultures and providing legal advice that meets the needs of internal clients can be challenging. The most important skills for an in-house lawyer include understanding the specific needs of the client and being able to combine internal and external legal advice effectively. It’s impossible to have all the expertise internally, so creating a mix of legal advice is crucial.

Understanding the company’s business strategy, the structure of the department, and the area you are part of is key. Team members must match the organization well, which is crucial for delivering good results. It’s also vital that the legal team fits the company’s culture, as the right profile can be more important than extensive work experience. Sometimes, work experience can be learned, but if a person doesn’t have the right profile, it’s very difficult to adapt to the work.

When choosing people for the legal team, I pay close attention, besides the level of experience needed, to personal skills and how well they can adapt to the company. For instance, working in a very regulated industry like oil and gas requires strict compliance with legislation, whereas an IT company demands more creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. It’s challenging to adapt to clients with diverse business needs, especially when they combine both regulated and innovative sectors. The ability to adapt to these varying requirements is essential.

Communication skills, an interest in understanding the business, problem-solving abilities, and a strong mindset are all critical. There’s a huge difference between internal and external counsel. As an in-house lawyer, you are part of the decision-making process, and you need to understand and assume risks with the company’s management. This can be very demanding, as it involves being directly involved in decisions and assessing risks alongside other stakeholders.

CEELM: What is your in-house legal function’s training needs assessment methodology?

Canel: Companies need to have a clear methodology for training needs assessments. In my career, I’ve encountered excellent methodologies when working with HR teams that have clear KPIs and a system for evaluation. However, I’ve also worked in large companies with thousands of employees that surprisingly didn’t have these systems in place. In such cases, you need to create your own methodology based on what’s important to the company.

When assessing training needs, it’s important to consider the business plan, the management’s expectations of the legal team, and the industry’s trends, including competition. The assessment should take into account not only the technical skills but also how well employees are adapting to changes in legislation and specific legal provisions relevant to the projects.

Skill gaps should be assessed twice a year, but it’s also important to evaluate team members constantly within each project. After managing a process, it’s crucial to discuss how well team members used their skills and identify areas where they could improve. Feedback, both formal and informal, plays a significant role in this. It’s also important to provide feedback in a way that makes team members feel appreciated while also guiding them on areas for improvement. The observation period is key to giving constructive feedback.

Surveys and client feedback are useful tools for identifying gaps. Clients can provide direct input on what they need and expect more of in future projects. Additionally, the perception of team members about each other’s attitudes and contributions can be valuable. We also evaluate how team members understand the entire process and the specific needs of the internal client.

CEELM: How often do you assess skill gaps within the team?

Canel: We generally assess skill gaps twice a year, in alignment with the KPIs and project evaluations. However, continuous assessment occurs as part of the ongoing project management process. This allows us to identify areas for improvement in real-time and address them as they arise.

CEELM: And what do you use to identify gaps within the team?

Canel: To identify gaps, we use a combination of methods. Observations during project work, feedback from clients, and regular evaluations help in pinpointing areas where team members can improve. We also utilize surveys and discussions with HR, who can provide additional insights into skill gaps from their perspective. Additionally, we look at how well team members understand and respond to changes in legislation and the specific legal requirements of our projects. This comprehensive approach ensures that we identify both technical and non-technical gaps within the team.

CEELM: Do you prefer using internal or external tools for training? And why?

Canel: For legal training, I find external tools to be more effective, especially when it comes to conferences and training sessions organized by law firms. External training partners can offer a fresh perspective and tailor programs to our needs. For example, we once worked with an external partner who conducted interviews with both team members and management to develop a custom training program. However, for personal development and soft skills, internal tools can also be beneficial. The choice between internal and external tools often depends on the company’s budget and willingness to adopt new ideas. We typically use tools that align with company policy and fit within the approved budget.

CEELM: What have traditionally been the most effective learning tools you’ve deployed for your team?

Canel: One of the most effective tools we’ve used is creating an internal archive where we store best practices and insights from our weekly discussions. This archive serves as a reference point and helps the team continuously improve by reflecting on past experiences and applying those lessons to new challenges.

We established an archive at the beginning of our initiative, which acts as our knowledge bank. It includes best practices, insights from weekly discussions, and other relevant materials. This archive is a living document that we update regularly, ensuring that it remains a valuable resource for the team.

CEELM: What is the typical career path for a young lawyer joining your in-house team?

Canel: For young lawyers joining the team, it’s important to build their confidence and trust while allowing them the space to develop the necessary skills to become independent professionals. We provide access to courses, legal resources, and other materials they need to meet our expectations. The career path involves nurturing their growth within the organization, helping them adapt to the company’s culture, and guiding them to become integral parts of the team. We also emphasize the importance of learning from experienced colleagues, understanding the company’s procedures, and developing a mindset that balances ambition with adaptability. For young lawyers, it’s about gaining the experience they need to stand on their own feet and eventually lead within the team.

In order for us to talk about the best practices in managing a legal team in a company, we must, first of all, realize that such a team is not only composed of good lawyers but represents a well-functioning hybrid. Why a hybrid? Because this team must provide both substantive assistance and act as an entity that perfectly understands and senses business needs.

Over the years, while managing a legal team, I have seen several necessary skills and features that every head of the legal department should have:

Skill Identification

In my opinion, a good assessment of an employee’s skills in a team is the key to the success of a well-working team. Not every team member will have soft skills or communication skills. Assigning a person to work within the scope of their skills while giving them the opportunity to develop in other fields is point number one for me.

The Ability to Listen to Business

Teaching your team members to listen to the expectations of the company, business, and market is the second key skill for me. A sense of the expectations of colleagues in the company is a very important feature among members of legal department teams because it improves processes in the company. The ability to identify risk and deal with it rather than simply escalating it as part of document checking and ongoing consulting is the key to success.

It also allows team members to become independent and take responsibility for the decisions made. As a result, the team member builds their skills in coping with stress and communication, and it also allows them to build relationships externally.

Clarification of Expectations

Explaining expectations to team members helps avoid conflicts and wrong decisions among team members, which will consequently build their self-confidence in the company and their independence. It often happens that team members guess the expectations of their superior or the company’s management, which causes an avalanche of failures and negative consequences. Setting your own and the company’s expectations clearly results in a healthy, transparent relationship.

Team Cooperation

Develop clear boundaries and rules for the functioning of the team. In case of position differences between team members, also clearly communicate contact paths, responsibilities, and dependencies. These clear rules will result in healthy relationships and a lack of boundaries between team members in communication. Developing a culture of supporting team members and sharing information and knowledge will come naturally to them.

Communication with the Team

I believe in the principle that people do not live by work alone. A very important skill is building a relationship with the employee and empathy for all their problems. A team leader who does not enter into the employee’s emotional sphere, even to a small extent, will not build a good relationship with them and will not gain their trust. Frequent communication, both on business and more private topics, is very important. An employee who feels understood and cared for is a loyal, hard-working team member. I am a big opponent of the position that the boss should be isolated from their team – on the contrary, let’s talk!

Enforcement

The consequence of all the above skills is the ability to execute tasks. This involves a clear team action plan, communication, and empathy for the employee, but also setting boundaries and setting goals. Executing work will teach the employee independence and allow them to develop and climb the career ladder. Enforcement also allows you to observe the employee in stressful conditions and teach them how to work under time pressure.

By Kamila Dutkowska-Wawrzak, Legal Director, Atlas Ward Poland

In today’s rapidly evolving business and legal landscape, the importance of collaboration and knowledge exchange between departments has never been more apparent. While traditionally separated by distinct roles and expertise, the integration of legal and scientific teams through cross-functional training has shown to be a transformative approach that drives innovation, fosters collaboration, and ultimately supports overarching business goals.

Historically, legal and scientific teams have operated within their own silos, focusing on specialized tasks and objectives. However, the complex interplay between legal regulations, intellectual property rights, and technological advancements necessitates a more integrated approach. By breaking down these silos, organizations can bridge the gap between legal and scientific perspectives, leading to a holistic understanding of challenges and opportunities.

Reversed Legal Clinic

While trainings can take various forms, for us, interactive workshops proved to be the most effective at enhancing collaboration and purposefully breaking down silos.

For lawyers, working with scientists may be challenging at first. Our brain is somewhat wired differently: we (lawyers) always prepare for the worst and hence assess situations accordingly, while – based on our experience – scientists genuinely believe that, in the end, things will work out fine so for them and putting things into a wider context does not always occur automatically.

That’s probably why in many organizations in-house counsels are regarded as “gatekeepers” – everything has to go through legal review. Being the last step in the process also means that we are often left out of the ideation or creative phase and get only involved at the end. From a process point of view, this might work well if the “end-product” needs little legal vetting with few tweaks to make, but when more fundamental legal concerns arise, the project might need to be stopped which can create frustration on both sides. Even more importantly, we are missing out on the opportunity for legal experts to gain a deeper understanding of scientific processes and the underlying science, while for scientists to grasp the potential legal implications of their work on the business. This exchange of knowledge would not only broaden individual skill sets but can cultivate a culture of mutual respect and collaboration.

To encourage more collaboration, increase effectiveness, and help gain a deeper understating of various fields of expertise, we tried a novel form of training we named “the reversed legal clinic.”

The basic idea was to invite scientists to a real-life practical legal assessment experience: allow them to put on a legal hat and assess science-related matters from a legal perspective.

We started the session with an expedited journey around the legal mind: explaining the foundations of legal thinking based on facts and the law. We discussed via simple and practical examples why context matters and how context interplays with facts and the law. Finally, we took a fun exercise on legal drafting, which created a delightful atmosphere in the audience, but even more importantly managed to bring across a very critical point: the importance of accurate records creation.

Then participants were divided into groups and had the opportunity to take a seat in our chair. Each team received an unfiltered real-life work product previously submitted for review to the legal department and their task was to prepare the legal assessment on them. The outcome was impressive. Many of the previously missed points and legal concerns were raised by the teams, they willingly applied their learnings from the preparatory session and made the right adjustments.

It also resulted in a shift in sentiment toward the importance of legal assessment. Many expressed gratitude for the efforts of the legal team and invited us since then to be part of their project planning from the very start. It surely helped our integration, and to break down some of the silos which hindered efficiency and collaboration between the teams.

Driving Innovation: The Intersection of Legal and Scientific Expertise

Innovation thrives at the intersection of diverse disciplines. By leveraging our combined expertise, professionals from both domains can explore new approaches, develop novel solutions, and push the boundaries of industry norms. Whether navigating complex regulatory landscapes, mitigating legal risks, or driving scientific research, the synergy between legal and scientific minds can lead to game-changing innovations.

In-house counsels are part of the business decision-making process in most companies, we see the outcome of our advice every day. We normally work within a larger legal team and our colleagues in various functions are our clients. But the reality is that resources are scarce and often we face tight deadlines, conflicting business priorities, and performing repetitive work. To increase effectiveness, we must enhance better collaboration with our colleagues in other functions and get rid of silos.

Ultimately, the success of any organization hinges on its ability to align disparate functions toward common business objectives. Fostering collaboration and setting a collective vision will enable professionals from both disciplines to leverage their complementary skills to drive sustainable growth, mitigate risks, and seize new opportunities.

By Barbara Kis-Tamas, Senior Counsel Global Communications, Philip Morris International

Shortly after the early years of my career, I moved from the attorneys’ world (more precisely, clerks’) into the world of corporate lawyers. The difference between the two became apparent early on. At least for me, the big difference was that, while working as an attorney, I was in contact with the client only in bursts. As an in-house legal counsel, there is essentially a continuous relationship between lawyers and business colleagues. This continuous relationship results in a kind of interdependence – working together both in good and bad times, celebrating joint successes but also facing challenges together.

When I got to my current workplace, Market Epito Zrt, the main expectation of me and my team was that we would provide continuous cooperation and support to colleagues. Based on the feedback received, this goal was well met. How? In this article, I will give some practical advice and ideas – primarily based on personal experiences.

First, it is in the common interest that all relevant colleagues know the legal provisions necessary for their work. That way, they do what is legally appropriate and correct even without close legal control. One way of ensuring this is legal education, during which relevant colleagues receive legal training at regular intervals. Another is when, in connection with specific projects, we teach the most important legal information (primarily contractual provisions) of a given project to colleagues working on that project. The latter is particularly useful, as it helps relevant colleagues understand what and how they should manage their projects.

Second, engage in legislation monitoring, in the course of which new and changing legislation is presented to colleagues in a comprehensive and understandable manner. This enables colleagues to always perform their work in accordance with current regulations.

Third, prepare sample documentation and policies. In order for our colleagues to be able to carry out their daily work without the support of the Legal Department, we prepare sample documentation and continuously expand its list, as needed. If a colleague uses the sample documentation without changes, the given contract does not need to be subject to legal approval. The internal policies also support colleagues in knowing what they should and can do. We hold classroom and online trainings for colleagues on the most important policies.

Fourth, one of my most important requests to the lawyers working in my team is that they constantly and proactively manage and supervise the tasks assigned to them. In my understanding, all of this means that our lawyers do not only provide legal support but also provide all manners of other support for the entire company to operate efficiently. In doing so, they monitor the most important project milestones, notify colleagues when such a milestone is approaching and inform them of what they need to do, participate in closings of projects, provide continuous consultation opportunities, etc. I believe that it is more effective even for us, as lawyers, to provide this support even if it is not always legal in nature as this way we can avoid facing a more serious legal issue later on.

Fifth, have an open-door policy. All members of the Legal Department are available in all circumstances, we address our colleagues with maximum openness, and we try to help them in everything. In my experience, this significantly strengthens trust in lawyers.

Sixth, keep in mind that all the above are worthless if the legal service itself is not of a high standard. In other words, one of the most important keys to our success is ensuring that the legal support we provide is always at the highest possible standard. This really is a basic expectation of all members of the Legal Department.

Seventh, as the cherry on the cake, our Legal Department takes an active role in the life of our company. We regularly hold team-building events and have created the tradition of holding the Love your lawyer day! event at the beginning of November every year for years now. That is the day when all lawyers make cakes and scones and we invite all the company’s employees to our office for a chat and to get to know each other. I am happy to say that this initiative is a great success. More and more colleagues visit us every year and we feel how much they love and appreciate us within the company.

With the help of all of these, we managed to ensure that, within Market, lawyers are not seen as an obstacle to an efficient operation but, on the contrary, we are respected and highly valued members of the entire organization. Of course, this requires legal colleagues with excellent professional skills and with a good attitude, without them it would certainly not be possible to implement any of the above. The key to success lies primarily in a good team and in good people!

By Andras Levai, Group Legal Director, Market Epito

In a globalized, post-pandemic world, managing international teams of lawyers seems like orchestrating a grand symphony. The players come from diverse national and educational backgrounds, each bringing unique instruments and experiences. As a General Counsel, you are the maestro, conducting this diverse orchestra of lawyers to perform a grand legal symphony composed by various national and international legislators and regulators.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Polish conductor Adam Sztaba united many musicians, closed in at home across different locations, to perform the song Co mi Panie dasz online. This inspiring remote performance demonstrated the power of collaboration despite physical distances. Today, this same power is essential for managing international legal teams effectively.

The Power of Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion are more than just catchy phrases. They are the keys to unlocking your team’s full potential. According to the McKinsey report Diversity matters even more: The case for holistic impact, companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are, on average, 9% more likely to outperform their peers. Conversely, those in the bottom quartile are 66% less likely to achieve similar success.

Diversity goes beyond gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. It includes age, educational background, disabilities, and more. Diverse teams bring a wealth of perspectives, encouraging innovation and creativity. But diversity alone is not enough. The real challenge lies in actually implementing and executing diversity and inclusion (D&I) policies within your organization. This involves setting expectations and establishing D&I standards in various processes like recruitment or performance assessment. It means also offering various training programs, support groups, and initiatives focused on diversity, inclusion, cultural differences, and unconscious bias.

Culture is the heart of D&I, and it starts with the leadership. If you do not foster a D&I culture and lead by example, no policies or procedures will suffice. Your personal inclusive culture can transform a group of individually talented lawyers into one successful team with a problem-solving and can-do attitude. To truly unleash the power of D&I, you must not only assemble a diverse team but also create an environment with effective communication where every voice and idea is valued.

The Power of Communication

In today’s world, technology enables us to communicate from different locations through video calls, online collaboration platforms, and more. But these bits of technology are just tools. The most critical aspect of communication is adopting a true “speak up-listen up” culture. Everyone should feel empowered to speak up, and leaders must genuinely listen and value all feedback. Regular one-on-one meetings and an open-door policy highlight a leader’s transparency and approachability. Ensuring that team members can express thoughts and concerns confidentially and without fear of retribution is essential for psychological safety that stimulates creativity and collaboration. This trust-building approach enables effective communication and allows you to address individual challenges, resolve conflicts, and enhance overall team engagement and performance.

However, despite your best efforts, there are some external factors that may impact your communication effectiveness, like cultural differences or personality types. Erin Meyer’s book The Culture Map highlights various aspects that influence how people from different countries communicate. For example, so-called “low-context cultures” (e.g., Germany, USA) rely on explicit, direct communication, where meaning is conveyed primarily through words. In contrast, so-called “high-context cultures” (e.g., China, Japan) use indirect communication, where meaning is derived mostly from context and non-verbal signals. Even among culturally similar Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, differences exist. Poland and the Czech Republic lean toward “low-context cultures,” while Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine are closer to “high-context cultures,” according to Erin Meyer’s Country Mapping Tool. Research on the connection between the 16 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality types and communication styles can provide additional valuable insights into how different personality types interact and communicate effectively. Being aware of all these differences and adapting communication styles accordingly can help prevent misunderstandings and improve collaboration within your team.

The Symphony of Success

Managing international teams of lawyers requires a delicate balance of understanding diversity and cultural differences while championing an inclusive culture. The role of a General Counsel extends beyond traditional legal boundaries. It represents the essence of a visionary leader who transforms a group of diverse and individually talented lawyers into a world-class lawchestra. By supporting diversity, advancing an inclusive culture, and mastering the art of effective communication, you can unlock endless creativity and innovation within your legal team to transform challenges into opportunities and become a team truly capable of achieving great things.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely of the author and do not express the views or opinions of State Street Bank International GmbH.

By Szymon Galkowski, Head of Legal Operations in Poland/Global Contracts Legal, State Street Bank International

In a world where business operations frequently cross borders, the role of legal strategy becomes critical in navigating complex regulatory and political landscapes. Drawing on their professional experience, Envista Holdings Corporation Senior Legal Counsel Karel Budka and Head of General Legal at Zentiva Pawel Borowski held talks at the CEE Legal Matters GC Summit that took place in Warsaw on April 25-26, 2024. Budka explored the depths of managing foreign direct investment subsidy applications and Borowski looked at the implications of adapting to evolving sanctions.

Legal Preparation and Strategy

As part of his presentation on FDI subsidy applications, Budka focused on his company’s initiative to expand manufacturing operations to a remote area in the Czech Republic. Highlighting the use of government subsidies as a facilitator for growth, Budka explored the multi-hurdled path they had to navigate as well as which strategic approaches helped him along the way.

In the beginning, Budka emphasized the critical importance of integrating legal advice from the very beginning of the project planning process. By involving legal experts early, the project’s objectives could be aligned with legal requirements, thus smoothing the path forward. “I would always recommend to onboard [legal advisors] as soon as possible,” Budka advised. “Such practices were crucial for identifying potential legal obstacles and ensuring they aligned with the company’s strategic aims.”

Moreover, Budka stressed the importance of comprehending both the legislation and its practical applications. He noted: “the crucial part, which is always there, is what’s the difference between the law on paper everyone can read and the real-life application of it.” Furthermore, he focused on strategic considerations necessary for structuring effective subsidy applications. This process involved choosing between various subsidy types and planning financial investments to meet government criteria favorably. “Here, the process of application came in handy with the discussion with the business,” he stressed, adding that “strategic financial planning was crucial for this stage.”

Challenges and Political Dynamics

After discussing strategic planning, Budka delved into the unpredictability of political factors, showing how these can complicate the subsidy application process. He outlined the challenges one could face when dealing with bureaucratic processes and political influences, which often introduced a level of unpredictability into the subsidy application process. He zeroed in on the complexities of aligning business practices with government expectations and the unpredictable nature of governmental decision-making. “Since in our example we were focusing on a manufacturing facility for intragroup production, there were also transfer pricing policies and all these things that added further layers of complexity,” he said, reflecting on the specific challenges he faced. “The nuanced interactions with government officials who may have had their agendas or specific political motivations took this minefield to another level, so threading carefully was paramount.”

Finally, Budka stressed the importance of managing expectations within the company and preparing for the political realities that may influence the subsidy award. His experience underscored the “necessity of understanding the full scope of government interactions, including informal negotiations and the potential for discretionary decisions. I would have advised remaining vigilant and proactive at all times, given the political and bureaucratic hurdles that can significantly affect the outcome of subsidy applications,” he said in conclusion.

Complexities of International Sanctions

In his presentation titled Strategic Solutions – Adapting to Evolving Sanctions, Borowski began by setting the stage for the challenges faced by global enterprises. “The complexity arises not just from the number of countries the companies may operate in, but the intricate interplay of different sanction regimes, each with its nuances and legal expectations,” he said.

“The backbone of strategic compliance lies in understanding and leveraging the specific exclusions and licenses available under various sanctions frameworks, such as those issued by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control and the European Union,” he went on to say. Despite these mechanisms, Borowski emphasized that, “the landscape is getting more and more complex. The companies may benefit from certain exclusions and licenses, yet, the situation remains fraught with legal pitfalls.”

Illustrating the severe consequences of non-compliance, Borowski shared recent legal cases. “In the Netherlands, there was a case where a violation led to 18 months in prison and a significant fine,” he highlighted, saying that such cases should serve as stark reminders of the importance of robust compliance programs.

Proactivity and Adaptation Are Key

Moving beyond the initial compliance challenges, Borowski outlined the proactive measures companies must adopt to stay ahead of international sanctions.

For businesses, the key to managing these risks is not just reactive compliance but proactive engagement with legal norms and changes. “It’s crucial we keep up with multiple discussions with external counsels to ensure our practices meet the best standards,” Borowski advised. This involves regular updates and audits of compliance programs to align with the dynamic sanctions landscape.

Specifically, Borowski explained that effective compliance extends beyond mere adherence to legal mandates. “It requires a concerted effort within all levels of a company to ensure that every employee, from top management down, understands and implements the necessary policies. Training programs, regular updates, and strategic communication are essential components of a successful compliance framework,” he shared. Moreover, the integration of advanced technological tools plays a critical role. Dynamic screening and monitoring systems that offer real-time updates and alerts about changes in sanctions lists and regulations can significantly enhance a company’s ability to respond promptly and effectively to potential risks.

Looking ahead, Borowski underscored the necessity for continuous adaptation. “As sanctions evolve, so must our strategies. The key is not just to comply but to stay ahead of the curve in understanding and implementing changes,” he said. “For legal professionals, this means staying informed about global political developments, understanding detailed regulatory updates, and fostering a proactive culture of compliance within their organizations,” Borowski concluded.

Compensa Life Vienna Insurance Group SE Head of Legal Baltics Gabija Kuncyte discusses the evolving landscape of cybersecurity and its increasing significance within the legal and financial sectors.

CEELM: How has the increasing focus on cybersecurity regulations impacted your company so far?

Kuncyte: Currently, many group projects at the Vienna Insurance Group level are centered around cybersecurity. One notable project involves establishing cyber defense centers across Europe, with Poland designated for our region, while other countries will have other centers hosted in other EU countries.

The growing pressure on companies comes from multiple sources. Regulators are becoming more aware of cybersecurity needs, and regulators from progressive countries like Austria are responding by hiring IT and IT security specialists. While GDPR was once the primary focus, the attention has now shifted toward scrutinizing IT systems and vendor management. Personal data protection is no longer the sole concern.

With more companies investing heavily in IT, it’s essential to ensure that systems are secure. Even a single weak vendor among many can create a backdoor for hackers and potentially threaten business continuity. This is why large groups like ours are prioritizing the establishment of centralized cybersecurity centers. Centralizing IT management simplifies oversight, especially when companies have diverse IT support structures.

The second major source for increased focus on cybersecurity is the DORA regulation that will come into force in January 2025, placing significant pressure on financial sector organizations. This will require extensive testing and the establishment of numerous internal processes.

CEELM: Can you walk us through the preparations that you are putting in place for implementing various regulations?

Kuncyte: The DORA will be the primary regulation implemented. The DORA itself is highly detailed when it comes to IT security. Many aspects will need to be implemented at the local level, impacting every process within the organization. Unlike the GDPR, which was more general, the DORA is much more specific and goes even further – it outlines in detail who is responsible for what and when providing clarity but also imposes specific rules on companies.

These detailed requirements mean that companies will either need to reform their current systems or adapt to the new regulations, which can disrupt existing processes or create a need to reinvent them. Given how precise and constructed the DORA’s requirements are, it’s clear that what has been done before won’t easily fit into this new framework. And this would be costly.

CEELM: What are the main hurdles you encounter during the process?

Kuncyte: Local regulations are supposed to be consistent, but the real issue is that we only have approximately six months left until the deadline, and there’s still no clear plan for implementation at a local level. We do not know where and how to start – that’s why we have not yet started preparing. Latvia has drafted some requirements, but Lithuania and Estonia have not yet done that and any relevant events would start only in autumn. The first one in our region is set for mid-September, focusing on how to report to the local regulator. Personally, it’s frustrating because we already need to start preparing for reporting and designing all our systems as well as internal processes but, since we don’t know what precisely will be required, we have to play a guessing game.

I sometimes wonder if rushing these regulations is the right move. From a business lawyer’s perspective, it feels like the real goal gets lost in the paperwork and reporting requirements. While the DORA might improve IT security, the heavy bureaucracy could overshadow the actual benefits. Normally, a project like this would need two years of planning, but now we’re expected to manage it all in just six months.

CEELM: Are you looking to develop some skills within the in-house function to address cybersecurity?

Kuncyte: We aim to but what’s missing in the market is the necessary information and training specifically for financial institutions, particularly when it comes to equipping lawyers with a solid cybersecurity background. The only training I’ve seen so far is from the Academy of European Law, but there’s nothing else available. This gap in the market suggests that at some point we’ll likely see IT security training courses designed for lawyers.

Since the DORA is also focused on risk management, lawyers will also need to develop a basic understanding of risk management to interpret the regulations and reports effectively. For example, when dealing with third-party vendors, both lawyers and cybersecurity professionals must gather and analyze crucial information about them. Lawyers, therefore, need to grasp risk management concepts to be effective in their roles. This situation reminds me of the sustainability regulations, where teams had to include a dedicated specialist who kept up with all the trends and regulations. I believe that the same will be true for the DORA.

CEELM: How do you find a balance between cybersecurity priorities and a company’s business goals?

Kuncyte: When comparing the DORA with the GDPR and sustainability-related regulations, one key difference with the former is the significant responsibilities placed on the management board. If the boards fail to adhere to certain decisions, there could even be criminal consequences. This is very different from previous EU regulations and creates an enormous top-to-down pressure. In my personal opinion, it is done on purpose. For the DORA, management boards will be driving the urgency to get it right due to the strong element of personal responsibility involved.

Another concern is that the DORA will likely lead to rising costs. Just as companies factored in the GDPR and other requirements into their pricing, cybersecurity compliance is expensive. If you present a vendor with a lengthy list of requirements, those who understand the risks are likely to agree but at a much higher price. This will create a really difficult situation for smaller regional companies, who do not have the support of international groups and, thus, may lead to even more concentration in the financial services market as a result.

CEELM: What significant trends or changes are you anticipating in the next five years in terms of regulatory framework?

Kuncyte: I’m generally optimistic about life and work, but I’m a bit wary of regulations, which often tend to be bureaucratic and often have significant gaps. I believe that within the next five years, we will see the introduction of the first AI regulations in the EU along with many new likely regulations. However, putting these regulations into practical use will still be challenging. As more regulations come into play, both vendors and clients will face a lot of complexity, when acting within the financial services market. Additionally, even though regulations will evolve quickly over the next five years, they probably won’t keep up with the rapid pace of technology. The gap between regulation and technology will probably get even bigger. And we’ll have to find a way to deal with that.