Category: Uncategorized

Cobalt’s Tallinn office has successfully counselled IPF Digital Estonia in relation to obtaining an activity licence for providing consumer credit under the Estonian Creditors and Credit Intermediaries Act. Cobalt describes IPF Digital Estonia as “one of the leading consumer credit providers in Estonia, which offers credit to consumers under the Credit24 and Sving trademarks.”

The assignment included drafting of a business plan and internal rules regulating all required aspects, including prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing, providing credit to consumers, functioning of the internal control system and risk management and all other documents required by the law, as well as representing IPF Digital Estonia in proceedings before the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority related to the revision of the application for its activity licence. 

IPF Digital Estonia submitted its application to the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority on July 22, 2015, and received its activity licence for providing consumer credit on December 11.

The Cobalt Estonia team was led by Partner Kristel Raidla-Talur, supported by Senior Associate Hetti Lump.

Stathis Mihos is the Legal Director of Pfizer Hellas SA. Since 2001 he has worked as Legal Director in Greece for many international companies.

Prior to going in house, he worked for over 10 years in several Greek law firms, including Kallimopoulos-Loukopoulos-Alexiou Law Firm (Now KLC Law Firm), Alexiou Law Office, and Dimaratos Law Office.

S.M.: I first made the move from the law firm world to in-house in 2001, and never looked back. I started as the legal manager for the Greek affiliate of Lafarge (a company producing cement and other building materials) and then moved in 2006 to lead the local legal team of BP, the oil and gas company. BP’s operations were acquired by the Hellenic Petroleum Group in 2009 and I stayed on until the end of 2011. I served a brief stint as the Legal Director for the French retailer Carrefour in Greece in 2012, the year in which Carrefour sold its share in the local company to their Greek partners. I joined Pfizer in 2013 as their Legal Director for Greece, Cyprus, and Malta. I believe I was very lucky to have worked in companies that are very diverse, operating in different industries, based in different countries, and using different business models. This has allowed me to have a better understanding of the role of an in house counsel and to improve my skills adapting to the diverse needs of the internal clients.

S.M.: I think the often-overlooked part of the title is the word “General.” In fact our internal clients – or business partners, if you wish – expect us to be true to this word in two ways: i) to be able to provide legal advice on all legal matters; and ii) to be both business and legal advisors. If we want to continue with the wordplay, then one should also think of the GC as the “General” that leads the troops in all the organization’s legal battles!

S.M.: I think that the more regulated an industry is, the more important the role of the in-house lawyer is. He/She has to be able to navigate through a maze of various laws, directives, rules, policies, and the like when providing legal advice and handling legal matters. The whole organization expects the in-house lawyer to be aware of all the regulations in place and expects him/her to raise a red flag when appropriate. This puts an enormous pressure on the lawyer, especially when dealing with important or sensitive issues. On top of that, the lawyer often appears to be the messenger of bad news, and no one likes such a messenger. On the positive side, I would say that an in-house lawyer in a heavily regulated industry develops expertise that is indispensable to the company and essential for doing business in a compliant manner.

S.M.: This is indeed the information age and despite the plethora of regulations of all kinds, there’s no lack of information providers. We subscribe to several online databases that provide updates on regulatory developments. In recent years many newsletters prepared by law firms are sent out when there are changes in relevant laws or important decisions by the Courts or Regulators. The trade associations of each industry also monitor such developments closely and distribute information of this sort to their members. Some Regulators disseminate information and even offer training on new matters. Finally, good old-fashioned word of mouth communication, in formal and informal networks, usually fills the gaps.

S.M.: Ooops, you caught me! Seriously now, the GC you talked to (I suspect I know who he is) is right. It is rare that a law firm would issue a newsletter as soon as a new regulation comes into force. But there is added value in (many, not all) of these communications, as a backup source of information, an opportunity to discuss a matter in greater depth, if the law firm went to the trouble of researching the matter, and also as a handy way to disseminate information among colleagues.

S.M.: The Pfizer Legal Alliance (PLA) is an awarded multiyear partnership arrangement between Pfizer and 15 member law firms. It promotes an information-sharing culture aimed at creating enduring relationships. Member firms have agreed to work on a flat-fee basis and each year the specific financial terms with each firm are revised to reflect new work assignments. The PLA emphasizes proactive and preventive counseling and the delivery of comprehensive solutions, and it rewards partnership and collaboration. The PLA liberates lawyers from measuring their contribution based on time worked, and instead rewards them for the worth of their advice and ability to effectively solve problems, share knowledge, and work together. The firms need to be cost effective and commit to providing Pfizer with periodic utilization reports to assess effort levels by matter. Alliance member firms have been selected based on criteria relating to Experience and Expertise, Creative Partnership, and Financial Arrangement and Discounts. They all display a solid understanding of Pfizer’s business and legal issues, and are positioned to deliver innovative and practical solutions to help achieve business goals and have a deep and strong team to handle Pfizer’s needs. The firms benefit from a steady flow of work, the opportunity to expand their scope of work and deepen their knowledge of Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry, and develop junior-level talent. In countries where our PLA firms have no presence we use local counsel that demonstrate the same skills and values.

S.M.: For the readers that have been living on another planet the past few years, let me emphasize that Greece is facing a very deep crisis. A large part of the agreement Greece has signed with its partners is devoted to structural reforms, which means many changes in the way companies do business – especially in the pharmaceutical industry – and in the way justice is delivered. We try to keep abreast of these developments and to provide business-oriented policy suggestions when in discussions with policy setters.

S.M.: In addition to reforms taking place at a very fast pace, as explained before, and the mounting state and private debt that has forced us to use both our negotiation skills and the Courts, more often than in the past, International Reference Pricing (also known as external reference pricing) – a price control mechanism whereby a government considers the price of a medicine in other countries to inform or establish the price in its own country – requires our attention. IRP is inherently problematic as a means of ensuring optimal prices and in times of crisis can be devastating if not operated with the utmost care and flexibility. In simple words, the use of IRP by many countries means that what happens with the prices of medicines in Greece can have an impact far beyond our country, which can fuel a vicious circle of consequences. 

S.M.: In the context of the current crisis, making sure that we are able to collect our debts remains a top priority and requires a cross-functional team effort. The legal team’s role in this effort is important and usually the last port of call. In recent years we have used our in-house expertise and that of our outside counsel to successfully defend company interests before State Authorities and Courts and to negotiate deals that are lawful and beneficial for the company. At one time we found ourselves the claimants in many courts across the country, asking for State debts to be repaid. The learning curve was steep, in that we needed to assimilate the lessons learned very quickly, so that we could apply this knowledge to other cases. The situation is much better now, but we remain vigilant.

S.M.: We recently participated in a large drum circle (google it!) with over 350 colleagues. It was a good introduction in team dynamics and co-ordination but a lot of fun as well. And not as painful for the ears as one might have feared!

This Article was originally published in Issue 2.5. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Over the past few years, anti-counterfeiting practice in Greece has been equipped with a wide pallet of enforcement strategies, varying from compound civil and criminal procedures to more simple practices. The most effective strategy in each case cannot be detached from its particulars, including the identities of the infringers, the volume of goods involved, and the responsiveness of authorities and enforcement personnel in various geographical areas.

Article 39 of Greek Law 4155/2013 provides for a new and more straightforward practice with respect to the seizure and immediate destruction of seized counterfeits on the basis of article 23 of Regulation (EU) 608/2013 (the “Customs Regulation”). This practice may be implemented by all competent agencies upon an infringer’s consent, without preventing IP owners from initiating civil and criminal proceedings and claiming damages, introducing thus a unique and innovative EU-wide market legislation.

The agencies empowered to act by Law 4155/2013 are:

Customs: In addition to the duties assigned to them by the Customs Regulation, Greek customs authorities are also entitled to conduct market inspections in order to identify and confirm whether all customs procedures have been properly observed. With respect to counterfeit goods, it is expressly stipulated in Greek law that customs shall apply the simplified procedure set out in article 23 in cases where an importer grants its consent to the destruction of the seized goods. 

Police: Although police action is mostly associated with criminal law enforcement procedures, Greek legislation has assigned to the police authority the duty to seize and destroy counterfeits upon the infringer’s consent, making use of the simplified procedure tool, thus curtailing long court proceedings and heavy paperwork. 

SDOE/YEDDE: The Financial and Economic Crime Unit of the Greek Ministry of Finance (SDOE) and the recently integrated Agency for the Assurance of Public Revenue (YEDDE), working in association, have been very active in identifying IP infringing activity; plans for an upcoming merger of the two agencies have further enhanced the role of anti-counterfeiting practice as a necessary fiscal tool in current times of financial crisis. 

Market Auditors: Operating as a separate department within the Ministry of Economy (not to be confused with the Ministry of Finance), market auditors have demonstrated flexibility and determination while addressing ex officio proliferation of counterfeits in small-scale trade and high-complexity cases. 

Coast Guard: Although there has been minor activity reported on coast guard anti-counterfeiting actions, a more enhanced presence should probably be considered in port zones of ordinary market activity, and especially in Greek islands during high season. 

The implementation of the current well-structured legislative framework on anti-counterfeiting by highly competent agencies could build a strong and efficient protection scheme against infringers, addressing cases which would otherwise be left aside, i.e. where the small quantity of counterfeit goods in connection with the insularity of the Greek landscape would not support the expenses required for appropriate legal action. The good news is that amid the hard conditions caused by Greece’s financial and recent political crisis, national agencies have not exhausted their potential; however, over longer transitional periods – during which financial crime units are under restructuring-limited manpower – administrative underperformance and disorientation could slow down a decisive boost in tackling the problem. 

Administrative and enforcement agencies activity will not be enough to completely overhaul the current unproductive anti-counterfeiting strategies; the initiative lies always with IP owners, who should assess the market and identify the appropriate measures to be taken, either by opting to go after the “big fish” by initiating criminal proceedings and claiming damages, or to end minor cases by sending simple cease and desist letters. In all cases, IP owners should bear in mind that inactivity and idleness from their side will only lead to proliferation of counterfeits and reassure infringers that their illegal trade can remain non-sanctionable.

By Michalis Kosmopoulos, Partner, Drakopoulos

This Article was originally published in Issue 2.5. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Managing Partners from leading Greek law firms describe the market and their strategies for coping with the ongoing financial crisis in their country.

The Background

We’ll skip the inevitable recitations of ancient glory, the trite reference to gods and myth, classical drama, politics, and philosophy, Euripides, Pericles, and Socrates, and jump right to the first quarter of the 21st century. Because while Greek history is undeniably rich, that adjective is not used to describe many other aspects of the country at the moment.

In 2009, a perfect storm of financial disaster – the growing global financial crisis plus structural weaknesses in the Greek economy – combined with the revelation that data on government debt levels and deficits had been systematically misreported by the Greek government, led to a plummet in investor confidence and, eventually, to the largest sovereign debt default in history.

The effect on the country’s economy was dramatic. Greek wages fell nearly 20% from mid-2010 to 2014, and the unemployment rate rose from below 10% to nearly 25%. Greek GDP fell by 26%, and GDP per capita fell 24%.

In 2014, however, a glimmer of light became visible at the distant end of the tunnel. That year the significant spending cuts demanded of the Greek government resulted in a primary budget surplus. At the same time, a decline of the unemployment rate and return of positive economic growth helped the Greek government regain access to the private lending market for the first time since the eruption of its debt crisis.

However, a parliamentary election in December 2014 produced a Syriza-led government, which announced its rejection of the terms of the bailout agreement. As a result, the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, and the European Central Bank – the so-called Troika – suspended all scheduled remaining aid to Greece. This led to a renewed and mushrooming liquidity crisis (for both the Greek government and the Greek financial system), while interest rates for the Greek government at the private lending market spiked, making it once again inaccessible as an alternative funding source.

Renewed attempts to reach a renegotiated bailout agreement were made by the Greek government, which – after receiving a new proposal from the Troika on June 25 – again broke off talks to announce that a referendum on the proposal would be held on July 5, 2015.

In that referendum, a 61% majority voted to reject the bailout terms (causing indexes worldwide to tumble, based on profound uncertainties about Greece’s future and the increasing possibility of the country’s exit from the European Union). On July 13, Eurozone leaders reached a provisional agreement on a third bailout program to save Greece from bankruptcy, but the deal requires further negotiations and ratification in several national parliaments.

A Crowded Marketplace

Though there are few international law firms in the country – only Norton Rose Fulbright and Watson Farley & Williams have anything approaching a full-service office in Greece, while Clyde & Co., Ince & Co., and Holman Fenwick Willan, focus primarily on Shipping and Transport matters – clients do not lack for choices. Legal500 lists 29 different Greek firms in its ranking for Corporate/M&A. Thus, if not thoroughly saturated with law firms, the Greek legal market is at least well populated, although there’s more or less a consensus about who the leading firms in the country are. (“There are five that are generally recognized as the leading firms, which tend to receive more recognition than the others – those would be KG, [M&P] Bernitsas, Karatzas, Koutolides, and Potamitis Vekris,” says Potamitis Vekris Managing Partner Stathis Potamitis.) 

And not everyone is happy about the current state of affairs.

According to Stathis Potamitis, “one of the problems with the legal market in Greece is that we’re still extremely disorganized. That has to due partly with the fact that there are very few foreign players, outside of the shipping practices. The local players are, in the vast majority, smaller offices that have a family core, as used to be the case in other southern European countries. So both in size and organization, we’re not very developed.”

Potamitis draws a connection between the large number of Greek firms competing for foreign clients and an inefficient dispersion of talent – which he ties also to the small size of the firms. “You should not have so many firms. The only reason we have so many is because the lawyers have not been able to come together and cohere into rational units.”

Potamitis says the suggestion that some clients may be confused by the number of firms competing for mandates is “absolutely right,” and insists that “we see a lot of that.” Ultimately, he says, “it’s been such a challenge to know what to do. I think we’re going to see the changes when the crisis settles down. Now there’s a lot of confusion. I think we have such a disorganized market that it’s going to change dramatically, and there’s going to be consolidation.”

But that’s not to say the overall quality is lacking, Potamitis insists. “I think that overall Greek law is quite well informed. I think the problem with Greek law services is that there’s no guaranteed minimum standard, so it’s the luck of the draw. Some people are exceptional. I think we have some lawyers in Greece that are really first rate, and each of the major firms has some excellent lawyers. At the same time you may have a very good firm, very well-known firm, that has some very poor lawyers. So I think it’s more of an organizational problem than a problem of the skill set available amongst the lawyers.”

Panayotis Bernitsas,  the Managing Partner of M&P Bernitsas, believes that there are “a disproportionate number of lawyers in Greece,” but he does not feel the number of firms damages his bottom line. Instead, Bernitsas says that the large number of Greek firms identified by the ranking services represents merely an increased awareness of those services. “People within the legal community have started to understand that they should form law firms, they should have a wider practice, and they should try to be visible by international clients through the various legal directories,” he says. “It’s not so much that there’s been such a big increase in law firms, but there has been a tendency for existing law firms to become more visible internationally.”

And unlike Potamitis, Bernitsas claims not to be worried about the potential for confusion among potential clients. He says, “I think generally foreign clients are very inquisitive in asking their advisors which Greek lawyers to use.” In any event, he says, eventually the clients will find their way to quality service. “If clients are dissatisfied with the legal services they have received in the past,” he says, “then of course subsequently they prefer to go with a firm with a proven track record, even if this is a more expensive option.”

Catherine Karatzas, the Managing Partner of Karatzas & Partners, suggests that the crisis may be having an effect on the “too many lawyers” phenomenon. “The significant repercussion of the crisis,” she says, “is that the new generation does not want to stay in Greece. You can not talk to a Greek in his twenties, in his third decade of life, who sees his future in Greece. For instance, we’ve recently lost a couple of associates who were very happy here, but they were seeing a risk in the country and so left to get jobs in London and Switzerland and elsewhere. Good associates, who didn’t have any ties to Greece, in terms of family, children, and so on … it was easy for them to move.” As a result, Karatzas sighs, “we may have difficulty in finding new talent.”

Looking Back to the Good Old Days of … 2014

Though the Greek crisis has continued for several years now, it appears that 2014 was going well for the leading law firms in the market, before – at the very end of the year – things froze. Catherine Karatzas said: “It was very, very optimistic at the end of last year, because a lot of investors were interested in Greece, and we could see an increased volume of legal work. But after the elections, and after the delays and negotiations, and even later with the referendum and the Memorandum, we saw a decrease in foreign investment, we saw a decrease in privatizations and in everything.”

Panagiotis Drakopoulos, the Managing Partner at the Drakopoulos law firm, echoed his counterpart at Karatzas & Partners, noting that, “because of the election – we have had 3 elections since 2014 – this has stopped everything. It is amazing how politics affects the market. Last year things were looking up, also from an international perspective, and we had actual projects ready to be signed from firms that wanted to buy NPL portfolios from Greek banks, that wanted to buy portfolios of investment buildings from developers, in the US, the UK, and Germany, ready to be signed. We had done all the work, the due diligence, the agreements.” In September clients started to hesitate, Drakopoulos sighs, “and in December – when it was clear that we’d have elections in the next couple of months – everything stopped. Pencils down, and everybody walked away. Immediately. It was amazing, how the market froze. And unfortunately it’s still frozen, because everybody wants to see what will happen. And this is what kills foreign investment.”

Strategies for Survival in 2015

Unsurprisingly, none of the Managing Partners we spoke to admitted to laying lawyers off as a result of the crisis, though many conceded they were selective about when to replace those lawyers who left on their own. All insisted that their firms were weathering the crisis better than many of their smaller competitors, though they admitted that times were tough.

Panayotis Bernitsas acknowledged that “there is significant fee pressure coming from other firms, as they decrease their fees to get mandates at any cost, which does have an effect on the market.” In other words: “The market is under a lot of pressure.”

Of course, he’s aware that those potentially market-destructive practices are the result of the even greater financial pressure on the smaller firms. “Small law firms have suffered a lot,” according to Bernitsas. “Some medium law firms have totally disappeared – including those who relied on 3 or 4 local clients who are no longer in business or had problems. The sole practitioners who deal mostly in general litigation are struggling.”

As the market has shrunk, “my view is that the Tier 1 firms and some of the Tier 2 firms have gotten most of the incoming deals and transactions. Those of us who receive foreign referral work from other law firms or investment banks have managed first of all to keep the people that they have hired, and perhaps some of them have even expanded a little bit.”

Stathis Potamitis believes that “crises tend to separate the hearty from the laggards,” and he insists that his firm, which began as the EY-associated law firm in Greece, has actually thrived during the crisis: “We went independent in 2009, and that was the beginning of the crisis here – which has been profound – and nevertheless we have doubled our size and tripled our revenue.” He ties the ability to weather the storm to the greater diversity and wider-ranging practices of larger firms, which enable them to provide the particular services required by clients in time of crisis. Thus, Potamitis said, “we emphasize things that were very useful during the crisis, like insolvency law, and we had a very strong litigation practice unlike the other big firms … so we were able to benefit from the increase in litigation.” He continued. “In the beginning there was a lot of turmoil in the labor market, and we have a very strong employment law group. Then there’s been a lot of development in tax, and we brought in 3 years ago a very well-known tax expert as a partner. So if you take care to address the needs that crises create, you can benefit from that.”

And Potamitis Vekris has taken advantage of its size to move people between groups, using “banking experts for insolvency, for instance, which actually makes a lot of sense, or M&A lawyers for financial matters.” Potamitis says, “so I mean we try to make the best use we can of available time.”

And that’s not to say there’s no traditional work. Potamitis says, “what you see now is more opportunistic transactions. In recent weeks we’ve seen a lot of people coming in and looking at ways to migrate. And if you’re looking to migrate, one of the ways you do that is by merging with foreign entities. So you don’t have M&As which are driven by consolidation, but by something else. But still, it’s work. And we also expect to see a lot more privatization work in the near future.”

Still, Potamitis concedes that “the last 7-8 months have been extremely difficult.” The problem, he notes, is not necessarily related to a shortage of revenue. Instead, “the difficulty with the crisis is you have to watch your cash flow, and the flow of business is extremely erratic. As a mean there’s probably a lot, but sometimes there’s too much, and sometimes there’s too little. I think the challenge has been with having sufficient provisions, because some [clients] either delay payment or just are not even able to make payment. It’s a real challenge for somebody who’s in charge of a group, as I am.”

Panagiotis Drakopoulos says, simply, “the crisis put an end to the easy money.” As a result, he says, in an understatement, “the crisis affected the legal market a lot. Several firms went bust. There has been extensive downsizing; lawyers don’t get paid as they used to. The market has changed completely.” 

While Bernitsas and Potamitis refer to their firms’ flexibility and diversity in adapting to the practices required by clients, Drakopoulos’s firm pursued a different solution even before the crisis. Concluding that the older and more established firms in the market were already well placed to attract public contracts and had greater access to established industry, he opted to look elsewhere for growth opportunities. “What we did was twofold: we looked for foreign clients more closely – meaning clients that didn’t care what the name of the firm was, but just how competent we were, and talked to their peers for recommendations. And the other way was for us to go abroad, not just to target foreign clients, but also foreign markets, and that’s why we chose to expand in Southeastern Europe.” As a result, his firm – alone among Greek firms – has offices in Bucharest and Tirana, in addition to its hub in Athens.

Drakopoulos concedes that, “most of our Greek clients stopped their fixed-fee ongoing engagements. But because our foreign offices have been doing well, this somehow balanced out the decrease in work from Greek clients. Of course we have been receiving instructions from foreign clients in Greece, as well, which was a real boost. Our overall strategy is to be the named firm to do business in the Balkans as a whole, where I am confident that we’re well positioned.”

Catherine Karatzas also claims to have survived the crisis more or less intact, noting that, in fact, “we may marginally have increased.” She added, “I don’t know if we are lucky, but we’ve managed to keep everyone busy. We had a big M&A transaction, some local M&As … we were also lucky in the sense that we had more foreign clients than local, because I know that a number of local law firms encountered difficulty because they were having trouble getting paid.”

Around the Bend

Catherine Karatzas says that “I don’t think confidence has returned. I think the market expects more before confidence returns. First of all we have to re-capitalize our banks, and generally show a commitment to change and reform.” Still, she says, “I’m a bit more optimistic, in the sense that I believe regardless of who is in charge, there is an 80% majority found in all the polls that Greeks want to stay in the Euro, so the major political parties will be able to find common ground and will be able to implement the reforms and the changes that we need to move forward.” She smiles. “I can’t say I’m optimistic, but compared to what I used to be I’m more optimistic.”

For his part, Panagiotis Drakopoulos insists that it doesn’t matter which government is in power, or which particular policies it pursues, as long as the country picks a path and sticks to it. “It is only political uncertainty,” he says, when asked what’s holding growth back. “The state of the economy is irrelevant for big investments. It just changes the type of investment. You still make the investment. You bet on the country, not based on its financial shape – all the better if its financial shape is bad, because you find a better deal, with better prospects. But if there’s no national financial strategy, this is a no-no. The thing is, everybody loves Greece. Investors want to invest in Greece. We just don’t let them!”

Stathis Potamitis thinks carefully when he’s asked if he’s hopeful about the next few months in Greece. “It’s an extremely difficult question, because while there seems to be agreement between the major parties that we’re going to comply with the agreement with the Europeans and the IMF, there’s still a lot of theatrics. The parties themselves lack cohesion, and there’s a lack of clear vision as to what to do for their own sake, and what’s going to make them popular and successful and ensure that they’re going to stay in power. So I’m guardedly optimistic, but I think we’re still not there. At some point I think that growth will start, but I would be surprised if it happens in the next 12 months. I think the next 12 months will be better than the last 12 months, but not markedly better.”

Unlike the others, Panayotis Bernitsas appears fairly sanguine about the future and says, “there is now a lot of work in the pipeline, and many hours spent in preparing for the new re-capitalization of the systemic banks that is needed in Greece. So I think that the big law firms – the ones that have expertise in this type of work and are a port of call for foreign investors and clients – have a significant number of mandates. Not as many as we expected last year, but they can keep going at the same pace.”

Bernitsas doesn’t deny the potential for disappointment. “We don’t know what’s going to happen of course,” he conceded. “If things turn sour, and the government does not manage to go through the various motions that are required by the European community, we may face serious problems like everybody else.” Still, he chooses to focus on the positive. “But the assumption is that the government is going to abide by what it has signed with the European authorities and the IMF, and as a result things are going to fall into place. There is a pressing need for the banking system to be re-capitalized, which has already resulted in a lot of work.”

Ultimately, he believes, much of the short-term future depends on the particular course the government takes. “We think that by, let’s say, the end of the year we’ll know whether this government is willing and able to proceed with the implementation of the measures required of it by the Troika and Eurogroup. If they do succeed and if there’s a first report that all the changes that are required in the public administration and have been approved by Parliament are going to be implemented, then I believe there’s going to be a significant rebound of the Greek market. But if the Government continues to drag its feet or to not to want to implement what was agreed, then of course we are going to face very hard times.”

This Article was originally published in Issue 2.5. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Greece is in its sixth year of economic crisis, the impact of which has been assessed by some as more severe than that of the Great Depression in the USA. The crisis has taken a heavy toll on many enterprises and individuals. It has also triggered a massive effort at reforms in public administration, in critical legislation affecting insolvency and civil procedure, in labor relations, and in state-owned enterprises. The reform effort has faced stiff resistance from organized interest groups, and there has been both delay and backtracking. Nevertheless, after a series of elections and a referendum, there appears to be broad political consensus in favor of their implementation.

On a macro level, the struggle to push reforms forward – on which international institutions have played a critical role – seems yet another step towards the modernization of Greece and its economy and its fuller incorporation into the European project. 

One sector that seems greatly in need of modernization is that of legal services. There are many lawyers in Greece – approximately 43,000 – with 21,000 in Athens alone. Most Greek lawyers are sole practitioners, while most of the rest are in some kind of cost-sharing arrangement. The only permitted form of collective practice of law is through a partnership (similar to a general partnership) with unlimited liability, which has been reserved exclusively for lawyers. Law firms are generally small, with few bringing together more than 20 lawyers (both partners and associates), and none exceeding the 100 mark.

Small size works also as a limitation on specialization; the vast majority of lawyers combine advisory work with litigation and handle matters that range from property transfers and disputes to rental agreements, family and succession matters, and even minor crimes. Another feature of the Greek legal market worth flagging is that most law academics (from lecturers up to professors) are active attorneys who rely on their academic credentials to cover the dearth of specialized non-academic practitioners. Finally, Greek lawyers tend to follow the professional path of their parents, and many law firms, including some of the largest and most prominent, have a family nucleus. Outside of shipping, law firms in Greece are nearly all domestic. This absence of international competition may have enabled firms to remain in business despite less-than-optimal funding and poor organization. All in all, it would seem that there is much room for improvement in the Greek legal market.

But progress may be swift. There are many highly qualified individual lawyers, including many young lawyers with international credentials and experience. There is greater awareness of the pitfalls of solo practice in a turbulent economy and the enhanced security and peace of mind that participation in a larger group of practitioners can provide. The crisis has also encouraged clients to seek better quality for their money and widened the performance gap between the top performers and the laggards. Alternatives to the traditional style of provision of legal services attract more attention and converts.

As the pace of reforms picks up, the economy of Greece may enter a new phase of accelerated growth. There is hope of much greater foreign direct investment in the country, bolstered – among other things – by planned improvements in the administration of justice (including speedier enforcement of contractual rights), more efficient liquidation laws, and greater flexibility in employment. Foreign clients are likely to expect and induce a higher standard of legal services and to drive both consolidation and specialization. More foreign investment is also likely to encourage more international firms to enter the market, which will further increase competitive pressures. 

The ability of Greek practitioners to respond to new competitive pressures will depend on a number of factors: First, on the willingness of bar associations to embrace a market-friendly model of the regulation of legal services (they are currently committed to a regulatory model in which lawyers are required by law to be retained for various types of transactions, while clients are required to contribute to the lawyers’ pension fund), to impose continuing practical education requirements, and to introduce and enforce a meaningful code of conduct. Second, on the ability of law school faculties to shift from a focus on abstract legal analysis to the development of practical professional skills. Finally, and crucially, on the willingness of lawyers themselves to make the adjustments required without undue delay, so that they may reap their rewards. 

By Stathis Potamitis, Managing Partner, PotamitisVekris

This Article was originally published in Issue 2.5. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

American lawyer Bryan Jardine is the head of Wolf Theiss’s office in Romania, and he advises clients on matters related to corporate mergers and acquisitions, energy law, regulatory and public procurement, dispute resolution, and real estate. Jardine, graduated from the UCLA School of Law in 1990, and moved to Romania in 1996 as representative of the American Bar Association and East European Law Initiative “ABA-CEELI” in Bucharest. He joined Wolf Theiss in 2005 to open the firm’s Bucharest office, which he has led since.

B.J.: I am a California-admitted lawyer since 1990 and first came to Romania in 1996 on a one-year assignment as a legal liaison with the Central and Eastern European Legal Initiative (“CEELI”) project of the American Bar Association. Essentially, this was a program to bring US lawyers to the CEE/SEE region in order to assist as the economies of these countries transitioned from central command to market style economies. Many of the “rules of the game” needed to be developed and the idea of the program was to bring in U.S. trained lawyers to introduce some ideas of “best practice.” For example, during the time I was in Romania, we worked on projects related to laws of competition, bankruptcy, and secured transactions, while also hosting training projects related thereto with the existing judicial institutions and local Bar associations. We also did a lot of work with other NGOs and institution-building organizations that were present in Romania at that time.

B.J.: Yes. My undergraduate degree was from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. This is one of the premiere schools for training U.S. diplomats and state department personnel in the U.S. So I knew I wanted to do something overseas. Three years after graduation, I decided to go back to school to get my law degree at UCLA. Thereafter, I worked as a litigation attorney in the LA market for the period from 1990-1997 (with the exception of my one-year CEELI hiatus). However, I always envisioned myself eventually working overseas and my experience with CEELI in Romania simply reinforced that idea. For me, being an international attorney, living and working in a foreign market over the last 17 years, has offered the perfect career blend of both my undergraduate and law school experience and interests.

B.J.: One of the advantages of working as a lawyer in an emerging market like Romania is that you tend to be more of a generalist. In the U.S., lawyers typically have very specialized and focused areas of practice – for example, you are not just a lawyer, or even a real estate lawyer, but a real estate lawyer who handles only tenant eviction (unlawful detainer) cases for commercial landlords. I find this to be constraining and I imagine that in time, the work could become fairly routine and even dull. In contrast, when I came to Romania I found myself working on different transactions in many different areas – including energy, telecomm, FMCG, and media. You learn about these businesses and meet different types of people from different industry backgrounds. This keeps the practice interesting for me. My practice has developed over the years given my experience, contacts, and knowledge in relation to the CEE/SEE markets and Romania in particular. Currently I have a fairly diverse practice. Interestingly, I am still involved in advising clients on a number of litigation matters we have pending in Romania, although I don’t advocate in court here (as I can rely on my very capable Romanian colleagues). However, the majority of my practice is transaction oriented.

B.J.: In my own case, this really depends. I work with a number of local clients who understand the added value of having a foreign lawyer involved – especially if the counter-party may be a foreign company or individual. This is typically the case if the local company is negotiating a deal with a foreign investor, represented by international counsel. Having their own foreign-trained lawyer involved gives the local client comfort that his lawyer is “speaking the same language” (both literally and figuratively) as the other side’s lawyer.

On the other hand, for purely local deals, the client may (understandably) question the added value of involving a foreign lawyer. But often times, even on these purely local deals, the clients may want a foreign lawyer involved. In my case, the years of experience working in the Romanian market coupled with my ability to perhaps offer a different perspective on certain issues could be perceived as a benefit, even on such a purely domestic deal.

B.J.: I was recently discussing this point with a client. In my early days in Romania, I was often struck by the view of most lawyers that if the law did not allow for something, it must be prohibited. In contrast, the U.S. approach is always that unless the law specifically forbids something, it can be construed as generally allowed. This U.S. approach is more “solution-oriented” vs. “problem-oriented” and I believe also reflects to a certain degree the American cultural “can-do” attitude.

A second difference that I see is that the common law is much more organic and flexible. It develops and adapts as the courts interpret and construe its application to real life cases and these interpretations themselves become legally binding on future courts. In contrast, in a civil law jurisdiction like Romania, the court decisions, while perhaps useful, are not necessarily legally binding and do not create mandatory judicial precedent for future cases. Laws can only be adapted through parliamentary decision or government ordinance. I see this system as therefore being generally more rigid and slower to adapt to swift market changes and legal developments in certain areas.

B.J.: I think for a law firm, having a senior expatriate lawyer in the office can offer a certain perspective on matters that may be handled by the local lawyers. For example, I often serve as a “sounding board” to my Romanian colleagues to try and explore potential solutions to different issues. I also try to assist my colleagues in presenting concise, solution-oriented legal analysis to clients in a way that I believe they will most appreciate. For foreign (especially U.S.-based) clients it is often reassuring to speak to a U.S. lawyer when working on a deal in a foreign jurisdiction with which they may be unfamiliar, like Romania. I remember some years ago, when handling a deal for a client, being on a call with the general counsel in Chicago. He actually said during that call “Bryan, it is very reassuring when I speak with you, since I feel like I am speaking with my lawyer across town.”

B.J.: I spent several years in the early 2000s in Budapest, and enjoyed that city and the country of Hungary very much. However, I have to say that one of the most beautiful areas I have visited is the coastline of Croatia. I have been there twice, but only briefly and once for a business conference, so I really did not have an opportunity to experience it fully. However, my wife and I are planning to charter a sailboat with friends next summer to spend a couple weeks and really try to explore the Croatian coastline and islands.

B.J.: Probably Herestrau Park. It is a great place to walk on a sunny afternoon with my wife and my seven-year-old son, who can ride his bicycle there. They have really cleaned it up a lot in the years we have been here in Bucharest and there are also some wonderful restaurants along the lake, which offer fine dining in a beautiful setting. When we have guests visiting from the U.S., Herestrau Park and the lake area are must-sees.

This Article was originally published in Issue 2.5. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Ioana Regenbogen is the Director of the Legal Department at ING Romania. A graduate of the Faculty of Law at the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, and holding a Masters degree for executives in Business Administration from Asebuss & Kennesaw State University in 2010,  she was admitted to the Bucharest Bar in 2001. Regenbogen first joined ING Bank in April 2005.

I.R.: In 2000, after graduating from Babes-Bolyai University Law School, I concentrated on studying for the admission exam at the National Institute for Magistrates with the aim of becoming a judge. Besides my interest in law, I thought that this profession’s standards of integrity, fairness, and appropriateness resonated best with my professional vocation and character. During the exam preparation period (one month after graduation), I was offered the opportunity to work in a Romanian private bank (formerly known as “Banca Dacia Felix”), as the legal counselor in charge of all of the bank’s civil proceedings involving foreign jurisdictions. I immediately accepted, more as a buffer against the stress of the magistrate admission exam’s failure. The range and diversity of legal problems and fields that I went into after I joined the legal team in Banca Dacia Felix was expanded to such an extent and was so challenging that I eventually decided to continue my work in the banking area. In 2001 I was admitted to the Bucharest Bar as a lawyer, and had the enormous opportunity to work as a trainee lawyer with one of most highly regarded Romanian lawyers, Adrian Vasiliu. Both during my training and after obtaining my full credentials as a lawyer, I continued to collaborate with Banca Dacia Felix, eventually becoming the Deputy Head of the Legal Department.

In 2005 I left for ING, where I was put in charge of managing the (at the time, very young) Retail Banking Legal Team, and then assumed the role of Director, Head of the Legal Department, ensuring legal support for all business lines of the bank (RB, MCB, CB, FM), plus for other entities within the ING group (ING Leasing, ING Com Fin, Amsterdam Broker, ING Services).

In parallel with my career advancement I have also pursued other learning opportunities, such as obtaining a Business Law Master’s and the ASEBUSS EMBA program.

I.R.: Yes indeed, I just turned 10 with ING this year. Wonderful, challenging, hard-working ten years! As already mentioned, by pure chance I came to work for a bank. I very much liked the versatility of the bank legal counselor role, in the sense that we are exposed to many areas of law – from corporate, civil and banking law to IP, privacy, and labor law, and in some cases, unfortunately, even insolvency law. Besides that, the opportunity to get involved in very challenging growth-oriented and innovation-focused projects and initiatives drew me in. We are living and working in a period of digital revolution that is hastily spreading in all sectors, including banking, which shifts considerably the way of delivering financial services and products. Last but not least, the people (extraordinary professionals and team players) and the healthy organizational culture of ING played big parts.

I.R.: If we speak only for banks and financial institutions’ regulation and supervision, the framework of the Romanian financial sector was, in the last 10 years, in an ongoing process of implementing EU legislation, Basel II and Basel III provisions, etc. There is probably more to come as well at a local level from EBA’s regulatory activity. I would say that the Romanian banking legislation is, at present, very much harmonized with the applicable acquis communautaire.

On a separate note, but still very much linked to bank business, I must say that the consumer protection field has been one of the areas experiencing a severe transformation in the last, let’s say, 7-8 years. I think we still have to strive here for the right balance between the financial safety rights of consumers and the necessity of a sound business for banks.

I.R.: ING NPL’s ratio was situated at a low level as compared to the market average, given our prudential policies in credit risk, both in lending for individuals and for corporates. Where possible, we tried to amiably solve problems by offering feasible restructuring solutions to both our consumer clients and companies. Here our support was definitely needed, both in advising on restructuring solutions and in drafting the credit restructuring documentation, especially for big corporations. We also contributed in very complex cases, with cross-border implications, sometimes in close cooperation with external lawyers and other times not. In some of the few major insolvency proceedings on which we assisted, ING offered us the opportunity to work on winding-ups and to find reorganizing possibilities or even starting some M&A transactions. Unfortunately we also had to deal with complex enforcement procedures.

I.R.: The legal profession was always a highly-skilled and knowledge-based job. However, advances in technology and an increasingly competitive environment may call for some changes in some skills and abilities of lawyers. That is why I thought the topic would have been of certain interest.

Of course, I do not think that the future pertains to robot-lawyers or to automated lawyers, though I know that in the US and in the UK provision of online legal services is very successful already. Therefore we might be required in the future to switch to new ways of offering legal services, using more and more software and experimenting with new technologies in general and using more business and financial knowledge as well. In short, it’d entail becoming multi-disciplinary experts.

Otherwise, we need to look beyond our own area of expertise and to find win-win solutions with our business and risk functions. We need to strive more for efficiency and simplicity (we tend to be so much more complex and sophisticated, both in our language and in our analysis and judgment!) so as to be able to help business make informed decisions.

We sometimes are so preoccupied with identifying all possible risks associated with a project or a particular transaction that we forget that our purpose needs to be finding solutions together with business under acceptable risks. I can say my team “masters” this approach beautifully.

I.R.: First, by personal example – both my managers’ and mine. 

Second by constantly discussing the benefits (both on one-on-one, but also as teams), such as increased (internal) client satisfaction and therefore excellent cooperation between the Legal, Business, and Risk departments, increased productivity, accelerated results, etc.; or what’s in it for the respective colleague (as a personal development “investment”), not only the value added of his/her contribution to our employer.

All these, in one form or another, are translated into our shared or individual KPIs or into our development actions or are embedded in the skills and behaviours expected by ING as standards.

I have to say that our internal clients have their merits as well in our “modelling” during the time, as they are excellent professionals and challengers.

I.R.: Pretty close. Yes, I interact with colleagues from other banks, both in the Romanian Associations of Banks and in the Council of Banking Employers in Romania, and I must say we have some very valuable legal professionals working in the banking field. My colleagues and I are members of various workgroups at these associations, but we also engage at a more diversified level (with NBR, ANPC, or Private Consumer Protection Associations’ representatives), and I honestly think that together we can promote cooperative relationships with various authorities and aspire to good business ethics and best practices. Moreover, we want to contribute to, and are involved in, the legislative process. 

I.R.: We look at their professional proficiency, their reputation, good track record history, time and resources allocated for us. We have a panel of law firms, both at the global level and at the local level, that would be recommended as satisfying all these criteria. We look at price as well, of course.

I.R.: The Danube Delta, which hosts hundreds of species of birds and dozens of freshwater fish species. It is the second largest delta in Europe, after the Volga Delta, and is the best preserved on our continent. In fact next week, together with another very big team in the bank, we in the Legal Department will have an off-site meeting there. I look forward to getting back there. I myself have been there already 5 times.

This Article was originally published in Issue 2.5. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Raidla Ellex in Estonia has successfully represented Andrus Kluge, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Krediidipank, in a dispute with the Bank of Moscow.

According to Raidla Ellex, the dispute involved the “truthful allegations” made by Kluge that the Bank of Moscow had tried several times to gain access to private clients information. Kluge won in the court of first instance and court of appeals, and the firm reported that the Supreme Court upheld those decisions and dismissed the Bank of Moscow’s appeal.

The Raidla Ellex team was led by Partner Ants Nomper, supported by Senior Associate Martin Maesalu and Associate Maret Kruus.

ODI Law Firm has advised Triglav Upravljanje Nepremicnin d.d., a Slovenian real estate management company, in the process of negotiation and agreeing on a long term lease contract with the European Union, represented by the European Parliament.  

According to ODI, “the lease contract was stipulated for the purposes of office building use for the European Parliament Information Office and/or the Representation of the European Commission in Slovenia. After the signing of the lease, the premises, right next to the Ljubljana Exhibition centre, will now commence extensive renovations in accordance with the parameters and standards of the European Parliament. The refurbisments are expected to last for at least 10 months.”

Triglav was advised by ODI Partner Branko Ilic, working closely with Triglav in-house counsel Tjasa Gorjanc-Polak, while the European Parliament was advised by in-house lawyers and by Attorney at Law Marjana Snuderl. The leader of the project for the EU was Achim Van Theemsche.

ELIG, Attorneys-at-Law has announced the promotion of two senior lawyers — Oznur Inanilir and Ayse Guner — in the firm’s renowned Competition law team, effective January 1, 2016.

Inanilir will be promoted to Partner. She graduated from Baskent University, Faculty of Law in 2005 and — following an internship at the Feyzioglu Law Office in Ankara — obtained an LL.M. in European Law from London Metropolitan University in 2008, before joining ELIG that same year. She says of her promotion, “I am very proud to be promoted to partner from the Competition law practice group at a law firm that is by far at the top of Competition law practices in Turkey. I am looking forward to the new substantive legal matter challenges ahead, as well as the increasing duties of mentoring associates into better legal practice.”

Guner, who joined ELIG in 2012, will be promoted to Counsel. She obtained her Juris Doctorate from the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas in 2008, and her LL.M. degree from Maastricht University in the Netherlands in 2010. Ayse has been a member of the California Bar since 2009. 

ELIG Managing Partner, Gonenc Gurkaynak, said this of the two promotions at the firm: “After celebrating ELIG’s tenth anniversary earlier this year, we are pleased to announce the latest in our annual promotion rounds and to recognize two of our senior Competition specialists. Together with six promotions during the past two years, we now have 10 senior positions leading a firm of 62 lawyers across all our practice areas. I am proud of the well-deserved promotions of Ms. Oznur Inanilir and Ms. Ayse Guner. This is a natural result of their consistently high performance at every level. They both handled all matters with strong commitment and empathy to clients, and with significant added value, throughout their careers so far.”