Posted on

Tobiasz Adam Kowalczyk, Head of Legal and Public Policy, Volkswagen Poznan

When I came to Volkswagen two years ago, I started auditing how we were handling cases and legal topics in our organisation, and I learned that in this field we were taking a bit of a classical approach. We didn’t really have a system in place that could embrace all of the legal queries, legal contracts, and everything else which comprised the work of the legal department. My impression is that while a lot of lawyers use new technologies and devices, we often do so in a way that replaces the old functionality without truly embracing the power of technology.

A one-stop shop

I proposed that we should implement a legal management system so that we would have all of the data – contracts, agreements and everything else you can imagine – connected to legal services and outcomes in a single system. Each employee in the company has access to the system and can submit legal queries. As an administrator of this system, I can delegate specific tasks to a lawyer in my team. But what is important is that the internal clients submit all the necessary data into the system so we don’t lose time calling each other or sending emails – everything is there in the system so we can render the legal advice. The same happens with the legal opinions, legal questions – internal clients can submit a query, and then I seek the right person in my team to respond. We have different response times based on the urgency of the query. You can access the system from any place – it’s online in the cloud, so my team can work from home or while travelling on business.

At the moment, the system is a database, but we are working with a legal tech start-up to test the addition of artificial intelligence solutions in a specific module that will create agreements for our internal clients. There will be no lawyer needed: you will just submit all the necessary data and the algorithm will prepare the agreement for you. We think this will streamline the process.

Benchmarking

Our system gives an opportunity to benchmark the work of my lawyers – how much time they need to respond, and how many queries they receive – you can extract this data from the system. I even have statistics. It helps to have an overview of the workload of the lawyers, so I can see how many cases they are dealing with and their response times. It also gives me a nice view of what issues are particularly complicated, and which we find time-consuming.

the challenge was to get the specific budget for the implementation.

The lawyers in my team are very supportive of the system. Even those with less of a technical acumen are gradually adapting to this technical revolution, not to mention those who grew up in the digital age who adapt on the spot.

The costs of changing the paradigm

The challenge was to get the specific budget for the implementation. Convincing the management board was actually the first milestone for me – just to get the money and to convince the decision-makers that this was something we should do – because for them it’s also a change in the paradigm. We are quite a big organisation, with lots of departments and lots of different systems, and we wanted our system to be connected directly to our finance system so we could also track some standings and combine agreements with the invoices. The whole phase of implementation was quite troublesome, and it required cooperation with external IT advisers and our internal IT department, and a whole testing phase. We also had to provide training for the employees outside of legal, because previously it was easy for them – they were just grabbing a phone and calling a particular lawyer. Now they had to do it online without any support. So the beginnings were not easy, but now everyone has gotten used to it.

When thinking about technology, I tend to look for stuff from outside my company, to the people working in legal tech. I also try to be active in the legal tech space in Poland, and am vice chairman of the German-Polish Chamber of Commerce Legal Tech Commission. We meet every two or three months to discuss what’s going on in the legal market, and it’s very important for me to exchange opinions with my peers from other big corporations in Poland about how they use legal technologies to tackle problems, and what solutions they are using.

Getting ahead

Very often, if I’m writing a bid for legal services and want to cooperate with external counsel, I ask them if they are using any technological tools that can support me, or whether their legal advice can be rendered in a better structured way, or if there is the possibility that they will provide me with the necessary data direct into my system. For me, if a law firm could show that they have some legal tech solutions supporting their services, that would be an advantage.

I know that the big names are working on new technology, but my experience is that although it is cascading from the headquarters, there is not that much success in this field yet. I know that there are some Magic Circle firms that are even giving free office space for start-ups, and are creating and cooperating very closely. I think that this is happening in the Polish market, but it’s still not very common. It is a hot topic, everyone is talking about it, but then when you ask about the implementation, or what kind of tools people are using, it’s still at the early stage.

I believe that within the next two or three years we will see more technological disruption happening: more companies offering those services and more in-house counsel looking for those services on the market. It is growing and it will change the legal landscape. To be successful in the market, you have to be an early adopter, you have to be at the forefront, because otherwise you are just a follower.

We talk about external lawyers always being part of the project team. A very good example is due diligence when you are buying a property or making an acquisition. Now there are really good legal tech tools in place, which can analyse a lot of documents so that the lawyers can focus on giving more client-oriented advice. They can be closer to the client, and closer to their businesses rather than just sitting and analysing papers and, for me, that’s the biggest positive aspect of technological evolution and disruption.

Balancing the personal with the efficient

Some lawyers in my field have this feeling that we are losing the personal touch with our clients, and that we are just putting systems and technology in place. I think if you are working for a law firm, then that’s the most important thing – if I like a particular lawyer, I will work with them regardless of which firm they are working with because I know them, I know they’re a good professional and very responsive. But lawyers need to wear many hats – they need to be lawyers, they need to be project managers, very often they need to be psychologists and mediators, and this is the value that they add to the business. So if they can leave some of their work to algorithms and deal with the client instead – understand their business and their challenges – then that’s important, I think, from my perspective as GC.

In corporate legal departments, I think that technology can create an additional layer between the lawyer and the internal client. But I think our role is a little bit different: we are not looking for the client, clients are looking for us; we always have sufficient jobs to do. So from this perspective, I think it can optimise our work because then the internal client will think: ‘Do I really need to ask this question, maybe I can find it somewhere else, maybe they have a directory of frequently-asked-questions, maybe there are some common agreements which I can use and download from the system without contacting the lawyer.’ It’s easy to just take the phone and call a lawyer, but if you have to put some data in the system and think about it, then you might think, ‘Maybe it’s not a really big issue for me or maybe I don’t really need the legal support.’ In short, in internal legal departments, technology can help us to focus on where the real problems are, and devote our time to the legal issues which are really essential or which add value to the company.

Posted on

Giulio Romanelli, Associate Partner, McKinsey & Company and John Pyall, Head of MGA Cockpit, Munich Re UK

GC: In the legal sector, many people describe the emergence of legal tech start-ups as ‘fintech’s little brother’. Could you tell me about the emergence of fintech, Giulio, and how it has impacted the banking sector?

Giulio Romanelli (GR): Banking has historically been one of the business sectors most resilient to disruption by technology. However, in the last ten years, fintechs have moved quickly, forcing incumbents to rethink their core business models and embrace digital innovations. In the last five years, we’ve seen a significant journey as fintechs have become more and more mature.

Today, banks remain uniquely and systemically important to the economy; they are the major repository for deposits, which customers largely identify with their primary financial relationship; they continue to be the gateways to the world’s largest payment systems; and they still attract the bulk of requests for credit.

Some things have changed, however. Firstly, the financial crisis had a negative impact on trust in the banking system. Secondly, customers are more open to relationships that focus on origination and sales. Thirdly, mobile devices have undercut the advantages of physical distribution. Plus there has been a massive increase in the availability of data alongside a significant decrease in the cost of computing power.

GC: To what extent would you term it a disruption?

GR: We can call this a disruption in the sense that fintechs have a unique opportunity for customer disintermediation, by leveraging advantaged modes of customer acquisition, a step-function reduction in the cost to serve, innovative use of data and advanced analytics, and segment/niche-specific propositions.

GC: When insurtechs started popping up in the insurance space, what was the reaction like in the industry, John?

John Pyall (JP): At the beginning, to a certain degree, insurtechs were looked upon with interest, but as: ‘It’s a bit gimmicky, it’s interesting but it’s not for us.’ And then, over time, they were looked at with more and more interest. From our point of view, we made a clear play in that direction. But I think there still is a little bit of ‘watch and see’ about the insurance market as a whole.

GC: Have insurtechs disrupted the insurance space?

JP: I think people look at disruption as being a negative idea. I think insurtech start-ups have, to a certain degree, enhanced the insurance area because they have actually allowed insurers to touch into areas that we previously may not have been able to. For example, digital partners have allowed us to reach out to new customers that we may not previously have ever gotten close to, simply because of the mediums they use to connect to their services. We have insurtechs that purely use social media to market to their customers and their clients and, to a certain degree, their distribution models are so different from what we were traditionally used to it has meant we have got avenues to customers we would never have considered five years ago.

That may be younger people, it may be people who are more engaged in social media. It may be people who are looking to insure single item contents, which insurers wouldn’t have looked at before. We would have had difficulty insuring people employed in the gig economy, doing three jobs in a day, but these new models enhance our ability to do so.

GC: Has this involved an element of culture change?

JP: When you have companies coming in that are younger, more flexible and they are able to drive through changes very quickly within their own organisations, you look at that and say: ‘We need to show that we have that ability as well. If we want to be in this market we have to be able to deal with that.’ So therefore it does actually allow people to think positively about how can we adapt, to differentiate ourselves within these markets.

GC: Looking again to the banking sector, how have established banking organisations responded to fintech disruption? Has it has a knock-on transformative effect in terms of the way these organisations use technology?

GR: As successful fintechs have rapidly matured from start-ups to mature technology disruptors, banks have started the long journey to transform their core digital capabilities, with several areas of focus. These include: a digital-native customer experience; big data and advanced analytics; moving towards a scalable technology landscape through cloud and automation; adoption of APIs (Application Programmable Interface).

Firstly, banks have been creating an integrated customer experience inspired by digital attackers, versus using a one-size-fits-all distribution. So rather than using the branch as the main point of interaction with customers, all the banks have mobile apps and they are very proud of the features that they use to differentiate themselves.

Innovating the customer experience by integrating with fintechs can provide advantages. For example, take the typical onboarding time for corporate lending. A fintech such as Kabbage proposes to reduce the onboarding time for down from something close to days, to something which is close to minutes.

Secondly, using data-driven insights and analytics holistically across the banks. While focus is generally on ‘customer-facing’ use cases, it’s very interesting to see advanced analytics applied internally to drive operational efficiency. For instance, advanced analytics to improve quality and efficiency of KYC [Know Your Customer] and anti-money-laundering.

Thirdly, banks have been mitigating the potential cost advantage of attacks through radical simplification and refining of technology infrastructure, both on process and existing technologies. For example, leveraging and deploying new technologies such as Cloud enables banks to move towards a more scalable and cheaper technology footprint.

Finally, there are several cases in which banks want to be able to offer not only their own solutions, but to also be able to link to third-party solutions. Some financial players want to offer third-party APIs directly to their own customers. And this is happening right now in terms of payments.

GC: How has technology transformation been received in the banking sector – has it required a lot of culture change?

GR: All of the above have required a significant shift in terms of culture and capabilities of incumbents, which are nowadays focusing more and more to attract digital/tech talent.

Moreover, the pace of innovation in banking is accelerating rapidly, requiring banks to increase their speed to keep up, adopting Agile software development techniques, which imply a radically different way to think about the organisation.

GC: John, in the insurance space, can you tell me a little bit about your role in Munich Re, and how the company is working with insurtechs?

JP: I head the MGA Cockpit, which assists our digital partner unit in onboarding new digital partner business into the Munich Re. A digital partner is a partner – an insurtech start-up normally – which is interested in using digital means like an app, social media, or the internet, in order to secure insurance business. The Cockpit was created 18 months ago through the Munich Re think tank to help the due diligence process of the start-up.

We have a digital partner unit that finds new ideas and new business to be brought in as a product, and we assist them in making that a viable insurance product. Basically somebody comes to our digital partners unit with an idea, and we help them develop that into a formalised product and assist them to bring that into operation.

GC: How do you do that?

JP: We may look at whether they want to write that as a single risk, as a group policy, do they need to write it with an MGA? We look at what’s needed in the wording in order to make it effective. We then see what they need to do: how they are going to handle the claims, do they need to outsource that, we might provide them with someone to manage the claims on their behalf.

GC: Are incumbent insurance organisations under threat from insurtechs or is it going to be a process of greater partnering, do you think?

JP: There’s always going to be one or two insurtechs that may seem to be a potential threat. But I would say that generally the growth will be by partnering – that’s where people are really looking. There are very few that are coming in to disrupt the entire chain; I think most are looking to assist within the distribution chain itself. That helps both the existing business and the new start-up, so there are advantages to both sides if you get it right.

GC: How are banks working with fintech companies? To what extent are partnerships occurring? What are the benefits of partnering? And what are the challenges?

GR: Whereas market and media commentary has emphasised the threat to established business models, the opportunities for incumbents to develop new partnerships aimed at better cost control, capital allocation and customer acquisition are growing.

The vast majority of fintechs focus on retail banking, lending and payments. In many of these areas, start-ups have sought to target the end customer directly, bypassing traditional banks. In some cases, this is further accelerated by regulatory changes such as PSD2 [the second Payment Services Directive, a 2015 EU Directive] in Europe, accelerating the shift towards open banking ecosystems.

However, most recent analyses suggest that the structure of the fintech industry is changing and that a new spirit of cooperation between fintechs and incumbents is developing. For example, ING partnered with the lending start-up Kabbage back in 2015 to deliver instant capital to SMEs. Another example is the fact that blockchain development in recent years has been mainly pushed by consortia, bringing together banks and fintechs.

This offers significant benefit for both parties, as it allows fintechs to rapidly access and offer their services to large pools of customers, while incumbents can rapidly deploy customer-centric digital-native services, and strengthen their own digital capabilities and talent pool. Looking ahead is whether such a ‘coopetition’ model is really sustainable in the long term – ie whether one side of this equation becomes more relevant.

GC: From an insurance incumbent point of view, John, what might be the blockers to partnering with insurtechs?

JP: I think culture does have something to do with it – can you build new technology into your existing systems?

Regulation is also one. We are a very regulated industry, so we have to be careful about how we take steps. It cannot be revolution, it has to be evolution. New technology makes people nervous – they understand their business and they understand how it works. If you then drop outside of that, can you write the business in a different model? How does that work?

Another thought is whether you are actually going to end up competing against yourself. That is a clear worry that people have – am I actually just offering the same thing but getting less value out of it?

GC: In your opinion, Giulio, what are the most exciting technological developments in the banking sector?

GR: Looking forward, the most exciting technology developments are related to the next evolution of current tech must-haves, from advanced analytics and machine learning, to intelligent automation, to blockchain, to internet of things.

GC: And how about the insurance sector?

JP: In terms of new tools, there are home and emergency products, for example alarm systems which allow you to instantly know if you’ve got water leakage or a fire or something like that when you’re away from your home.

A lot of it is around trying to change how product service is given, so we’ve got flight cancellation tools looking at how you can get on a new flight.

There are ways insurers are using data to be more proactive and customer-centric in managing loss better, so if there’s a flood, we can identify which potential customers are affected instead of waiting for them to contact us.

I think the way customers approach insurers is going to change quite dramatically as well. They can manage their whole claim themselves, so they know where the claim is at any stage.

GC: In terms of the technology that’s underpinning these new insurance facilities, what are the trends there?

JP: The technology itself is very AI-dominated. It is very much about how much can we automate so that we can respond quicker to customer needs, and keep them informed.

The balance is between automation and empathy – you don’t want a chat bot to respond to a customer in a very automated way when you’re dealing with something which has an emotional requirement.

GC: Do you get a lot of pushback from customers on that?

JP: If you have bought through a digital platform, to a certain degree you assume you are going to go through a digital journey and there’s a certain acceptance to that. However, there are times where people want to drop out of that digital journey, and you have to be prepared to respond to those touch points.

The key is to be flexible, to look at where it can actually genuinely assist, but to make sure you put your customer first. Whereas AI can actually help you reduce cost and make that customer journey more effective, what you don’t want to do is lose that empathetic relationship with the client so they become a customer that touches base with you once and looks purely at price.

Posted on

Cristina Álvarez Fernández, Head of legal Europe, Cintra

We are exploring how to benefit from tools based on artificial intelligence within our legal department. We still haven’t found the right tool or technology for implementation – but I don’t think we’re far away either. It’s about following a process and making sure – especially the first time – that we do this the right way.

A Fresh Start

This has been a new process for us and we’ve been very deliberate about the steps involved. The first thing we did was to really thoroughly research and find out just what’s in the market. We used a range of sources, from specialist legal magazines, through to talking with our peers – both legal and otherwise.

I have encouraged an internal analysis of the current developments of artificial intelligence in the legal field. We have identified a few tools that could ease the work of the legal department. If we can implement these tools successfully, this will result in economic savings for the company and will help to allocate the resources of the department more efficiently.

At present, we’re currently at the stage where we’re testing tools that we’ve identified that are currently in the market. I think that the first tool we implement will be for contract review. We’ve invested a significant amount into this system already and are hoping that we can have it ready to go by the end of 2018.

First Things First

Contract management and review was a logical first step for us, particularly around NDAs. People always find the same dangers in that kind of contract, so it’s routine work. It can be done by a very junior lawyer – once you explain to that lawyer what the issues are, normally it’s something that can be done really quickly. The line of thinking we took was to take this one step further and try to give it to technology. This is the starting point from which we can hopefully expand.

I don’t think this will replace entirely, at least so far, a person in our team. We’re certainly not planning to get rid of someone just because we believe that work will be done by a machine – not at all. I think this is going to help us to better allocate the resources that we have. We’re not a large department, so where I really see the benefit is being able to focus on things that really need our minds and judgement – which is where technology is probably the least useful at the moment.

Inside Out

I do think that, in time, technology will help us reduce our external legal spend. If we can develop systems within our department that can take on some of this load – particularly where there are significant amounts of data – then we should be able to bring more of this work in-house.

I think that, in time, we will see the relationship between in-house departments and external firms change as a result of technology – mostly where fees are concerned. I suspect that the fees of law firms can be reduced, or at least controlled, depending on the market and matters at hand. But I don’t think the interplay will shift, where we’ll suddenly be dealing with machines rather than a person. At least I can’t anticipate that now – but who knows, maybe in the future, that will be the way!

I have genuinely been surprised and impressed at how the legal sector is dealing with innovations. It’s amazing how the law firms have seen the importance of new technology and they are really getting involved in these matters. Certainly, the sector is always very traditional and conservative, so when we first undertook the research process of finding out what was in the market, it came as a pleasant surprise to see that law firms are leading innovation in the legal sector and how many are doing things like working with start-ups in developing new technology.

I do think that the main driver motivating law firms is profitability. The way in which firms assess and charge their fees, it was getting to a point where it was going to be very difficult to sustain. Clients in particular are trying to change the way that they invoice, looking at alternate fee arrangements or, in some cases, bringing more work in-house. As a result, I think they have been forced to find ways to reduce cost and maintain their profitability. But at the same time, they will have no doubt seen other industries disrupted by technology and seen that this is the way forward.

A Group Effort

Ferrovial’s IT department has been an asset – they’re a really big part of the Ferrovial Group and have been essential throughout this process. They are genuinely curious about the technologies available and their potential impact on both our department and the wider group. They seemed enthused that we were taking an interest in this and were actively helping us along in this process.

One factor which may be more unique to Ferrovial, is that our IT department work with a lot of innovative start-ups. The group is actively working with, even financing some start-up businesses, and the IT department have been looking at some of these to see whether there are tools that could be adapted to legal, or developed specifically for us and our needs.

This isn’t something that’s unique to legal, it’s been happening in other departments already. In general, our company and group are very interested in innovation and new technology. It’s crucial for a business like Cintra and will become even more important in the future. We work closely with roads, in particular toll roads – so innovations like driverless cars have the potential to be transformational for the business. But as with any shift, there are a host of legal issues that will go along with that. So, it’s about bringing all of those factors together and becoming more innovative, thinking more innovatively, collaborating and using technology.

Posted on

In conversation: Supriya Gogia, Legal Counsel, Asics

GC: Tell me about your role and how you came to be at Asics.

Supriya Gogia (SG): Asics opened its Southeast Asia regional headquarters in 2012 here in Singapore. I joined Asics in 2016. Prior to this, I was working for a retail e-commerce company which was a first mover in the region. After a good run with online retail, I was looking to get some hands-on experience in offline retail as well. That’s how Asics happened. Asics has been in the region for six years. It has expanded exponentially during this period. Asics started off fairly early in Europe, and America, and other regions in the world, purely because these regions were seen to be more health conscious and sports-centric back then. This consciousness came to SE Asia in the last 15 to 20 years or so, and now the fitness industry in Asia Pacific is worth a whopping $16.8 billion – the highest value ever. There hasn’t been a better time to be here.

GC: It must be quite interesting for you – as you said you started in the online retail business and then moved offline – what was that transition like?

SG: E-commerce in Southeast Asia has been very hot for the last five years, as it is elsewhere in the world. The only impediment in Southeast Asia is that regulations and laws catch up slowly with technology. Technology is moving much faster than legislation, and this game of playing catch-up sometimes ends up impacting the industry adversely. In-house counsel need ratification for creative business models that companies are trying to implement; when we go to external counsel, they do not necessarily have black and white advice because the industry is nascent, it’s very niche, and there are very few companies which are acting as disruptors and pushing boundaries. At the same time, jurisdictions are in the midst of formalising relevant legislation, which makes it imperative that we work closely with external counsel as well as government authorities. Regulations in different countries in Southeast Asia keep evolving and it’s important for us to understand if any upcoming legislation is going to have an impact, either positive or negative, on existing business plans.

For me, the move from e-commerce has been very interesting indeed. Offline retail is more traditional, organised and risk averse as compared to e-commerce, even regulations concerning offline retail are better set out. There is a lot to learn as counsel because most consumer retail brands take pride in store concepts and their existence, which means both offline and online sales channels are important for consumers. As such, being in a spot which is ever-changing and still very new is quite challenging, but it’s equally interesting if you want to be an industry expert. My experience has been very fulfilling and I think these skills become advantageous along the way. All companies want to be online – most of them are there already – so it is a very interesting prospect for my personal growth and contribution to the retail industry. Omni-channel experience is something that is likely to become more of a necessity than choice.

GC: Do you have any sense of why e-commerce has exploded the way it has, in Asia specifically?

SG: Yes. I feel the reason for that is: one, Asia has a relatively younger population, compared to other parts of the world. And secondly, I feel that when you talk about the fourth revolution, it is different from the first three because the first three began in different parts of the world – the first one started in Britain, the second in North America and so on, but I feel the fourth industrial revolution – and this is completely a personal opinion – it started all over the globe, all at once. For instance, even if Apple is designing a phone in California, there is a manufacturer assembling it in China. It is a very collaborative revolution, where countries are coming together to give the end product to the consumer. This is what makes Asia very relevant in this revolution because it is not left behind, it is in fact playing a very significant role. This e-commerce explosion is also partly due to cheaper labour costs and strengthening of the manufacturing industry in this region. Because labour is cheaper in Asia, we have a growing service industry which is well equipped to support e-commerce operations and a massive manufacturing set-up. These are industries which give a strong foundation to e-commerce.

GC: Asics is looking to increase presence in other markets in Southeast Asia soon – how do these markets differ from those where Asics is already well-established?

SG: Asia is unique in that sense. Not all Asian countries offer seamless market entry for foreign companies, some economies are closed and protected. When a Japanese company like ours wants to establish a foothold – it’s not free entry. For some countries you either need to partner with a local venture or you need to invest additional capital to be able to engage in industry-specific activities. That said, these markets have immense potential for expansion, with a growing middle class and a surge in awareness surrounding fitness and sporting goods. We work very closely with external counsels in these countries since language can be a barrier at times. The majority of government documents in Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand are in local languages which require local expertise to decipher.

GC: As a large, recognisable brand, intellectual property must be of particular concern. Could you talk a little about that?

SG: Yes. Intellectual property is the most valuable asset for any global company – for consumer goods it’s the most important piece of brand management. As I mentioned before, the bulk of manufacturing for consumer goods is done in Asia, and this comes with a downside for brand protection. There could be instances where one factory might be manufacturing goods for different brands, and no matter how well you articulate the liability clauses, how meticulous your contracts are, there is bound to be leakage. Leakage is when original products are leaked through the factories into open markets. Brands also face issues of counterfeit products, which originate from factories which create copies of authentic products. When you operate in a region that manufactures, you have to be extra cautious of these infringements, which are potential high risks for the brand.

GC: Is there anything that you see coming on the horizon that might affect the industry?

SG: I do think the concept of augmented reality is quite intriguing, as well as the trend of pop-up stores – which is quite common in Asia – where you can try a pair of footwear, get the “touch and feel” of the product and use a tablet or iPad available at the pop-up to order that product. The product could be delivered to your address the very same day. You don’t need to stock up inventory, the space required is minimal, which ensures you don’t pay exorbitant high street rentals and human resources involved are far less. I do foresee this as being a popular way to shop for countries where internet penetration is high.

Posted on

In conversation: Crystal Lalime, head of APAC global markets legal, Credit Suisse

GC: Technology in finance is a hot topic – especially here in Hong Kong. What are your perspectives on this and what is Credit Suisse doing in this area?

Crystal Lalime (CL): Technology is changing finance, it is changing banking and, in the process, creating new pathways for Legal to play a role.

Recently, we partnered with a fintech company called Canopy Pte Ltd. What their technology allows is for clients to consolidate their accounts on the automated account aggregation platform, so an individual can manage their whole portfolio from a single platform, which is quite a powerful tool for our clients. We identified a company that we thought provided a very good solution for our clients and took an investment in the company to provide that service to our clients.

This is a major trend in the industry and we are very much a part of it.

GC: Can you describe the partnership approach that Credit Suisse takes to working with start-ups?

CL: With start-ups, you see a lot of interesting technology, but a lot of the times it becomes about who they partner with, where their distribution chain is, what their path to market is and whether there is a really strong use case. As lawyers, we can’t necessarily keep up with the technology development, but we certainly have ideas about how they can be partnered with or integrated into Credit Suisse.

Our approach so far has centred on just that – partnering. A lot of AI technology partners may be attracted to partnering on certain projects with us because of the large data dumps we can provide to train their algorithms, but oftentimes finding a use case that makes sense on the legal technology side for CS and the technology provider can be time-consuming.

GC: When working with start-ups, what role is Legal asked to play?

CL: As we look at these opportunities with start-ups, that also presents new challenges for Legal. Oftentimes, start-ups aren’t as well governed as we’d expect – particularly with the high standards we’re accustomed to operating within. Legal plays a prominent role in advising on the due diligence and sometime restructure of start-ups, which isn’t unexpected – these are M&A deals after all – but the issues which arise can be more varied.

When you’re running a start-up, budget is a huge consideration, but when you’re working with financial institutions – areas like compliance are ones where there isn’t room for error. Sometimes you’ll see that there are certainly the right intentions in mind, but a start-up might employ a junior compliance officer to help them get on the right track – but as you scale up and you’re running a big platform – the compliance may be extremely onerous.

Once a partner is identified, there’s a whole host of further issues for Legal to consider. What are the processes in place for handling data, moving data and protecting data? If we’re co-developing products, who is going to own the IP? What about if there’s interest from other financial institution’s to licence the technology – how do we handle that? It takes a lot of creativity and diligence, as well as constant training and upskilling for the legal teams who may have previously been advising on selling products and are now involved in offering software services. There is a lot of crossover and innovation requiring product and IP legal expertise. We’re not just providing advice on legal issues – advising on strategy.

GC: Being asked to work on projects like this is outside of the typical scope we often hear from GCs – particularly in finance. Have you had to adjust your approach in terms of hiring or training your staff as a result?

CL: That is a real challenge that we face. It comes back to the core values of our GC department, which are legal advisory, legal service provider and strategic adviser. To continue to provide these in a changing environment, it means that we have to be constantly upskilling – and that goes both for myself and for my team.

It also means that I’m more frequently taking stock of what skillsets we have on our team and what we might need to stay ahead – one day it could be looking for a programmer or a computer science person, the next we could be looking at these start-up-style deals, where perhaps we need people specialised in IP or outsourcing – it’s really about constantly staying on top of what we have and what we need.

I think as a broader trend, this is true for a lot of legal departments. The nature of legal work, as much as it stays the same, the applications change and how we go about completing that work is changing too. At the moment, many of the lawyers on my team are working with technologists (e.g. programmers and other platform specialists) – that’s a direct result of a lot of our legal documentation being automated. On the team, you have to have lawyers willing to do what may be perceived as non-traditional legal work and explain to non-lawyers our trade. That goes both ways too – on the other side, we need to have programmers and technologists who are willing to work with lawyers. It’s a paradigm shift and the overlap between technology and legal is growing constantly – and that’s not something I see changing any time soon.

Posted on

In conversation: Randi Ikhlas Sardoni, Head of Legal and Corporate Secretary, Panin Dai-ichi Life

GC: Can you tell me a little bit about your background, how you came to be working in-house, in the financial services industry and at Panin Dai-ichi Life in particular?

Randi Ikhlas Sardoni (RIS): I was born into a legal background family – my grandfather, father, uncles, aunts, cousins, brother, you name it. We hand over books from generation to generation. But that is in the private sector – surprisingly there has been no one working in-house – so I had to take the first step in the family. I only spent a couple of months in private practice, and then I took my career to work as in-house counsel at one of the biggest state-owned banks in Indonesia.

I found out that the insurance sector in Indonesia was growing and offering a lot of opportunities and challenges, and also that there was a scarcity of local talent. With the economy growing and many insurance companies entering the Indonesian market and competing for the same talent, there is a shortage in the market. Now I am at an insurance company, and have fallen in love with the sector.

GC: What are the main challenges of the Indonesian insurance market?

RIS: Indonesia is an emerging market and has high potential for the insurance sector. The main challenge currently is the market penetration. Insurance penetration in Indonesia is still around 2.9% compared to GDP. Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia have much higher penetration.

GC: Why is it so low?

RIS: I think one of the problems is financial literacy, particularly insurance literacy. There is scepticism about the insurance industry in Indonesia. The Indonesian financial authority, the OJK, has addressed this issue and it has required insurance companies to have a campaign for financial literacy, to increase market penetration.

GC: Can you talk a little bit about the regulatory environment in Indonesia?

RIS: The legal team will transform – we are no longer a braking system in the car, but we will become a navigation system. We are shifting our role from the defending player into the playmaker. We have to be able to provide strong legal advice and also excellent risk advice to the board and this ability will help the board to be the one sitting in the driving seat to direct the company. The legal team has to have strategies for providing sound legal input with strong business acumen, in anticipating changing regulations.

In ensuring the fair and supportive regulatory reform, government relations activities must also be addressed. General counsel must act as the advocate of the company by utilising the industry association bargain with the regulator.

GC: Are there any other main business challenges that the company is grappling with at the moment?

RIS: There is an untapped market in Indonesia. To become one of the top five or top three insurers in the Indonesian insurance business, we as a company have to produce a value proposition for prospective customers, cover for all the various social and economic channels, and develop the ability to penetrate the untapped market and create the system of brokerage. Indonesia has such a huge population, with only 2.9% market penetration. Currently many of the population are in a household of mainly generation X and Y. So that will be the focus of the company, and we are helping the company to be able to achieve those goals.

GC: What does your workload look like day to day? What occupies the majority of your time?

RIS: As the general counsel of the company, I am of course the subject legal matter expert. Currently, legal issues are still dominating the daily workload. However, standardisation of legal work and IT have helped users to have faster and more immediate attention from the legal department. So aside from the helping with the legal issues, we are currently in the process of designing a platform for stakeholders to have their wholesale legal needs met in one IT application, in one single window.

We are asking our stakeholders what is their expectation of the legal department, and then, in a couple of years, we will have that kind of application.

GC: What has been the highlight of your in-house career so far?

RIS: Probably experiencing a fast-track career compared to my peers in the market and the industry. Despite being part of the millennial generation, the board has entrusted me to serve them with the company secretary function and also with the counsel of the company. I think I certainly understand that this responsibility has to be managed properly, and also as currently we are in the spirit of the Asian Games, I am co-opting the energy of Asia tagline to the legal team – that youth spirit. My team are the problem-solvers, and we operate as a start-up legal team within the company.

GC: What does your legal team look like?

RIS: We currently have a lean, but highly effective legal department. Currently we have three lawyers – one who is responsible for corporate legal and secretarial, another responsible for government relations, and another for litigation respectively.

GC: What has been the most challenging moment of your legal career so far?

RIS: We are currently helping the company to embrace a new era, and we are also repositioning our place from legal advisory to business advisers. We are now really trying to create initiatives that translate that vision of legal and business advisers. We are trying to really listen to the business units and respond to them. We are now even thinking about having an internship programme into the business units, so that the legal team have experience in the business unit. After that, they will go back into the legal team with the proper knowledge – not only sitting at the desk doing the legal job, but really knowing what the business person is doing and experiencing for a certain period of time.

GC: What have been the major challenges or activities for you and your legal team over the past year?

RIS: One is always about digitalisation. Everyone is doing this, and we are now also expecting to be able to adapt and support the company in the digitalisation process. Technology has been a topic of conversation within the industry. We are in the age of the digital disruption, financial technology disruption, and now people are looking at insurance technology (instech). So that will also be something that we have to be able to adapt to, and also help the company to compete with that.

In terms of regulation, insurers have to be ready to spin off their Sharia units, as required by the 2014 insurance law. We have to submit the blueprint for the spinoffs by 2020, and they have to have spun off by 2024, so this is becoming a hot topic of conversation everywhere in the industry. We have to be able to ensure that the process of spin off is running smoothly and successfully.

Now, the issues relate to how to ensure that when the spinoff company is independent from the holding company or the conventional company, it will be competing with the other Sharia companies in Indonesia, and not with the conventional company.

There will be a lot of discussion about how to also train the financial advisers. Currently, we have financial advisers that hold two licences, a conventional licence and a Sharia licence. But after the regulation takes effect, they have to advise just the conventional or just the Sharia businesses. So these are will be several things that have to be taken care of and discussed properly.

GC: What else have you got coming up on the horizon over the next 12 months or so?

RIS: The next 12-24 months will also be about how to simplify the insurance process, to help society increase financial literacy, so people will be able to understand an insurance product properly. We all know that there is so much complicated language, so we have to able to simplify that language into more commonly understood language for society. I think that will also be the process over the next 24 months.

Posted on

In conversation: Dominic Gyngell, general counsel, Speedcast Industries

GC: How did you get to your position at Speedcast?

Dominic Gyngell (DG): I had been at BT for 13 years when I got approached by Speedcast in 2014. It was really interesting because it was telecoms-related but a much smaller company with big ambitions. It had achieved impressive growth, the company had been around in some form since 2001 but it was only when it was listed on the Australia Stock Exchange in 2014 that it landed on its feet and started to grow an aggressive international strategy.

GC: Were you involved in the company’s listing?

DG: I joined in early 2016 post IPO – it was a steep learning curve for me. I am involved in continuing disclosure obligations in Australia and since then we’ve done a number of things including two more equity raisings in Australia and a refinancing programme where we moved our debt from Australia to the US market.

GC: How have you grown the legal team in that time?

DG: The legal team was small at first, there were just three of us when I joined. Since then we’ve expanded, we have 15 lawyers globally. We provide satellite communications to some pretty remote parts of the world, operating in over 100 countries and with offices in 40.

Our largest markets are the US: we do a lot of work for the US government, large energy companies such as ConocoPhillips. We do work in Southeast Asia and Africa, and dealing with regulators and governments in the US is very different from working with businesses in Myanmar and Kazakhstan. It really varies.

GC: How is the legal team structured?

DG: We are organised regionally, we have a team based in the Americas, one covering EMEA and one in Asia.

GC: What does your job look like on a day-to-day basis?

DG: The role is very diverse: this week I’ve been dealing with labour disputes in Brazil, new customer contracts, board meetings in Angola and Sydney, a property deal in Peru, whilst balancing all the day-to-day operations. Every day is different. My job has changed a lot since I joined when we were a $200million company; today we have revenue of 1 billion US dollars. We’ve gone from 300 staff to 1500 in that time. We’ve got a lot more sophisticated. A big part of my job is working on M&A; we’ve done 15 deals since 2012. We acquired our most recent company last week – one of our largest competitors in the US, Globecomm. They operate in 100 countries.

GC: What sectors do you cover?

DG: Speedcast has four main divisions: maritime, which includes providing telecommunications services to cruise ship operators around the world, and commercial maritime, which covers smaller vessels. Energy is our second biggest division – our main customers are offshore oil and gas companies. We are increasingly serving governments, as well as the military, mining companies and NGOs.

GC: What are the biggest challenges on the horizon for you over the next 12 months?

DG: Compliance continues to grow – we are seeing a lot of change with regards to ethical compliance. Anti-corruption, bribery, regulatory compliance, all remain key issues for our type of business. We have just done a large GDPR programme in Europe, and I expect to be dealing with increasing data protection legislation.

From an internal perspective, we are focusing on integrating the 15 new businesses we have acquired. A large part of this is bringing together different teams, and this will be a challenge getting our systems aligned and dealing with cultural issues.

GC: Have you introduced technology within the legal department?

DG: We’ve just launched a programme to digitise all of our customer contracts onto a single database that can be accessed by the whole legal team and operations. For the first time, we can get centralised data on all of our larger customers and our supplier contracts. We deal with dozens of bids and contracts around the world so we have also automated our approval processes, so that they are all on one system.

Posted on

Tony West, Chief Legal Officer, Uber

I was one of these people who actually did not have a burning desire to become a lawyer. I was much more interested in public service, politics and policy, and I decided that I needed to go to law school so that I could have a marketable skill if a career in public service didn’t work out. But I discovered, to my surprise, that I really enjoyed the law.

I spent the first part of my legal career as a federal prosecutor. After I left that, I ended up spending several years at a law firm where I learned civil litigation. But I always harbored my love for public service and so when President Obama asked me to join his administration, it was a great honor and a privilege to go back to the Justice Department, first as the head of the Civil Division (which is the largest litigating division at the DOJ, with 1,000 lawyers) and then eventually as the third most senior official in the Department.

When I was coming to the close of my time at the DOJ, I knew a few things. I did not intend to remain in the administration to the very end, and I didn’t necessarily want to go back to a law firm. When you’re the Associate Attorney General of the United States, that’s sort of like being the general counsel of the Justice Department. There’s a set of skills and talents which are transferable to being the GC of a large company.

It’s always helpful to have the perspective of the regulators and to understand what they are trying to accomplish. I think oftentimes we find ourselves operating in stereotypes – if you’re in the public sector you have stereotypes of what you think people in the private sector are like, and vice versa. The experience of being on both sides of that line helped me to appreciate that there’s actually a lot of common ground and a real opportunity for people to reach resolutions that are mutually acceptable, but also to work together in a very collaborative way.

The other thing that was helpful was the experience of managing a large organization with many competing interests and, of course, one filled with lawyers. Being able to figure out how I could be most effective in that environment was extremely helpful when I became the general counsel of PepsiCo. And it’s extremely helpful to me now.

The learning curve at PepsiCo was steep, because I had never been in-house before. I had never been a business partner before. That made it critical that I immediately learned the business as best I could – and that’s exactly what I did. I got very granular, talking to business leaders and business colleagues throughout the company.

You are forging the law, you are on the cutting edge of creating a legal framework for the gig economy.

There’s no substitute for really learning the business, because your value as a lawyer to your business colleagues is enhanced when you really understand the problems they’re dealing with from their point of view. I think it helps you to come up with more creative solutions, and it helps you to give them advice that is actionable and useful.

That’s exactly what I’m doing at Uber – spending a lot of time with my team, the business teams, and spending a lot of time in the field, in markets like Latin America, which is currently our fastest growing market.

The greatest thing about Uber is that this is a company that is like no other. It offers a job or an economic opportunity to more people around the world than any other company on the planet. That is an amazing reach. This business model is so robust, it is so widespread, it has its reach in so many corners of the world, that you become very aware of the public trust that you have – because so many people rely on your platform to either move themselves or their loved ones from A to B and so many people rely on this platform for economic opportunity. So many cities are increasingly relying on the data we have on our platform to help them make better planning decisions so they can become more sustainable places for their citizens to live and work. To be a part of that, to be an engine for that, and to be able to advise on the development of that is extraordinarily exciting.

The other thing that’s really extraordinary about this place if you’re a lawyer, is that you work on issues which, if they get themselves into the court system, almost inevitably become issues of first impression. It means you are forging the law, you are on the cutting edge of creating a legal framework for the gig economy – and for a lawyer, that is an incredibly exciting environment to work in.

One of the things that being at a company like Uber forces you to do is to look at the existing paradigm, the existing legal framework, and then think very creatively and innovatively about ways in which you can address the basic values that that framework is trying to protect and do it in a way that actually fits the reality of how people live and work.

For instance, something that’s at the heart of our business model is the independent contractor model – the question of whether Uber is an employer of drivers or whether those drivers are independent contractors. We’re all operating within a framework that was constructed for very good reason over a century ago, and the question – can we preserve the values that framework is seeking to protect, creating a safety net for individuals when they change jobs or decide to move to a work environment that allows them to value their time and their freedom and liberty and flexibility? – can’t be a false choice between flexibility and having an array of benefits or a safety net that will help people retire with dignity, that will protect them when they get sick. Being a part of really pushing that conversation and creating a new legal paradigm that fits today’s reality and today’s economy – being a lawyer at Uber gives you the opportunity to play a very significant role in that.

You have to think of yourself as a counselor and partner who can provide legal advice.

One of the things I’m most proud of here at Uber is that we were able to resolve what was our biggest private litigation, the Waymo case, so quickly. I think the fact that we were able to resolve that and the way we were able to do it not only demonstrates that we’re serious about turning the page on the way things operated and that we are serious about striking a new tone, but I think it also creates a path to greater collaboration and co-operation with a company that, just a month ago, was a big adversary.

One of the things I’m most proud of at PepsiCo is that we were able to really enhance our position as an ethical business leader while I was there. I’m excited about bringing some of the innovations and approaches that we developed when it comes to compliance, ethical leadership and integrity in the way that we do business from PepsiCo to Uber.

The other thing I’m proud about at PepsiCo is the work we did to enhance diversity in the legal profession. We were able to create incredibly diverse legal teams, because we know that when we bring diverse voices around the decision-making table we can make better business decisions, and I look forward to doing that here.

Particularly in technology companies, like this one, where there’s a premium placed on innovation and on speed, the general counsel role is extremely important. I always focus on the ‘counsel’ part. You cannot come to this role and think of yourself as a lawyer. You have to think of yourself as a counselor and partner who can provide legal advice – but also general counsel to your business partner on legal, business, policy and reputational issues.

I don’t think Dara [Khosrowshahi, CEO at Uber] has ever asked me what’s the law on this, or what’s the law on that. He needs to know my judgement and my approach – and that will be informed by my legal judgement, but what he’s looking for is counsel. That is really what I want all of my lawyers in the legal department to begin to think of themselves as – they are business partners who need to give sound counsel to their business colleagues – and if someone is interested in this role, that’s what they have to prepare themselves to do.

Posted on

Tom Johnson, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission

I have always been attracted to public service. A number of my colleagues from my time at Gibson Dunn had gone on to serve as solicitors general in state attorneys general’s offices. Those offices provide unparalleled opportunities, such as the chance to argue appeals and challenge areas in which the federal government has exceeded its powers and placed onerous regulatory requirements on the state. So I was very grateful to have been offered the opportunity to work in the West Virginia solicitor general’s office.

In 2017, I became the general counsel of the FCC. I’m primarily responsible for two components – reviewing Commission rules and orders to ensure they are legally sustainable, and defending those actions in court. I also oversee units that deal with fraud and bankruptcy issues, as well as various internal issues like employment matters. In West Virginia, I supervised four or five attorneys at any given time. Now, I oversee a team of more than 70 lawyers, so I’ve had to focus a lot more on learning how best to allocate my time, how best to delegate, and who are the best people to delegate various issues to.

I came into this position with very much a generalist understanding of administrative law and appellate law. And while I had done some communications work in the past, I definitely rely on staff to brief me on particular areas that require a lot of technical or substantive expertise. But one benefit of bringing a generalist perspective is that I’m in a good place to understand what sorts of questions and issues a judge might have and how they will approach reviewing a particular Commission action, and to ensure that what we’re doing is likely to be upheld in court.

I think the first few weeks in the role were probably the most challenging – you really inherit a whole world when you come into a federal agency, and so the early days are occupied with learning new names, learning people’s responsibilities, and learning the various practices and processes at the agency. Once you’ve had some time to reflect on that, then you can start to think constructively about what’s working, what’s not working, what you’d like to change and what you’d like to improve.

Along with one of the new deputies that came in with me, I spent a lot of our early weeks scheduling meetings, both with different team leaders from the office of the general counsel, as well as with our stakeholders in the agency. That meant they could put a face to a name and we could show that we could learn about what they were doing and also how we could improve the relationships between the office of the general counsel and other offices within the agency. We have tried to create an open door policy so that folks who have pressing issues can come to us directly. That’s the way in which we tried to immerse and integrate ourselves early on.

We have tried to create an open door policy so that folks with pressing issues can come to us directly.

Oftentimes, the perception of a general counsel, whether it be in a federal agency or in the private sector, is of someone who has the unfortunate responsibility to say no a lot of the time, and that person takes on a reputation for impeding progress within an organization. I think that a GC certainly needs to be aware of the legal prohibitions, and there may be times when they need to say no, but that person should also think of themselves as a facilitator, to help further the agency’s mission consistent with the law. In the gray areas, the general counsel needs to be clear in articulating what the various legal risks are, but to also help the organization achieve its objectives.

Unlike in the private sector, we don’t have the option of using outside counsel to represent us for particularly challenging or time-intensive matters. That’s part of the challenge, but it’s also part of what makes the job exciting. At the FCC, we have our own in-house litigation division, so that’s different from some agencies, who rely exclusively on the Department of Justice to handle the cases that end up winding their way to court. It allows us to be more holistic in how we approach legal problems, evaluating at the outset whether the rules or the orders that we’re adopting are easily sustainable – with one eye towards what sort of arguments we can make if they are challenged in court.

Another consideration is that attorneys in private practice divide their time amongst multiple clients, but when you work for the government, your client is ultimately the people. This means there’s much more focus on how the positions you’re taking will serve the public interest as a whole – not only in the case in front of you, but also long after you’ve left office.

One benefit of being in a management position working for the state is that it allowed me to be a lot more entrepreneurial. The attorney general was very receptive to attorneys coming up with ideas of how best to further the state’s interest, even if that meant initiating a law suit in federal court to challenge federal rules as unlawful. Because we had a lot of authority and ability to think of creative solutions, there was also a lot of trying to stay on top of legal and political developments in the news and trying to ascertain how we could best further the agenda of helping the people of the state when the federal government passed a rule that could adversely affect their interests.

Another thing a general counsel in federal government can do is focus on institutional issues that will affect the agency – not only in your time – but also in the future. There are some perennial issues that agencies encounter, like: how do we fund our programs and activities, how do we manage documents and data collection preservation? While these are not issues that take up a majority of my time, they are mission critical, so they are opportunities to think through how to set processes and procedures in place that will be consistent with both our legal obligations but also introduce efficiencies into the organization so that future people who come into my position will benefit.

Looking ahead, the increasing complexity of the modern administrative state will mean that general counsel are going to need to be much more interdisciplinary and also conscious of what their counterparts are doing in other agencies. There are a lot of areas where agencies share jurisdiction, where jurisdictions overlap, where consultation is required by law, or where review is necessary before action can be taken. So it’s increasingly important for general counsel to know what those requirements are, who to call at other agencies to get things done, and who the different stakeholders in the process are.

General counsel are going to need to be much more interdisciplinary.

I also think that keeping on top of technological developments is going to be important. The tools that lawyers are using to do their work are constantly evolving, and the role that social media is playing in government messaging is evolving. And in the private sector, with respect to a lot of the entities we regulate, oftentimes the law may not evolve quickly enough to catch up with technological change. These factors are going to present challenges for lawyers to exercise good judgement in determining how existing laws apply to new technological developments and unforeseen situations. The answer in a lot of these cases will be for the federal government to get out of the way of competition and technological developments that are occurring.

There are two pieces of advice that I would like to give other attorneys.

The first is to be flexible in your career path and open to taking risks when a new opportunity comes your way that excites you. I would never have believed it if you had told me a few years ago that I would be deputy solicitor general of West Virginia, and then general counsel of the FCC, but those opportunities have been both a really enjoyable and rewarding experience, and I would encourage other lawyers to do the same.

The second is that it’s really important to cultivate a reputation for integrity and excellence among your peers starting in law school, because those are the people who one day are going to be in a position to speak to your character and your qualifications if the right opportunity comes along.

Posted on

Stacy Cozad, General Counsel, Spirit AeroSystems

I think there are a lot of lawyers who have a vision of their career when they first start out, but I was not one of them. I didn’t have a plan to become a general counsel, for example. I simply had the good fortune of meeting the right people at the right time and being open to new challenges. My career path has been about the people that I’ve met who have been my advocates and promoters along the way.

I started my career clerking for a judge who is now the US Senate Majority Whip, John Cornyn. He was someone who really valued his staff’s views and insights, and I wanted to be a courtroom lawyer in front of judges who respected me like the judge I worked for did.

But as I said, my path has been about the people I’ve met along the way. It was for its people that I chose to go to Southwest Airlines to be head of litigation. Southwest is an airline that was founded by a lawyer (Herb Kelleher) who made it his mission to ‘democratize the skies’ in the US – to make it possible for everybody to be able to fly. I was fortunate to have been a part of that for over nine years.

The opportunity at Spirit AeroSystems arose, and again it was due to a prior relationship – somebody I worked for in the past recommended me for the job. Spirit was an opportunity to go from an airline to an air structures manufacturer, getting to be a part of a global business with operations in the UK, France and Malaysia, as well as multiple places in the US.

To come to the general counsel role was a big leap for me, and I was fortunate that in the past I had had a very diverse litigation practice that included, for example, corporate governance issues. Also, in private practice, I had worked as part of the defence team for CEO Kenneth Lay in the Enron litigation in the US, which was, of course, a huge changer of basic corporate governance tenets. At Southwest Airlines, I also got to do a lot of regulatory oversight, corporate investigations and the integration of another airline. All of those things were very helpful for prepping me for being GC, at least in terms of the legal role.

The best advice I could have given myself is that I don’t have to learn everything today.

But the biggest leap was the business, and going from an airline, which is essentially customer service, to aerospace and defence manufacturing. That was an enormous learning curve, and remains so. I read everything I could get my hands on before I got here about the industry. There were people within Spirit who I reached out to, to learn what we do and how we do it – for example, taking tours of our manufacturing facilities, walking through the plant floor to see what we make and talking to the people who make these aircraft structures, and also spending time digging in with our corporate controller to learn the very different financial and accounting aspects of a manufacturing business versus an airline.

At the time, the best advice I could have given myself is that I don’t have to learn everything today. In the first few months I was here, I felt that I needed to know everything right away and, in all of the work that I did trying to learn as much as I could, I neglected myself. Have a plan for all the learning that you need to do, but make sure you are making time to sleep. Taking the job meant moving my whole family to a new city. I have children, and I did not sufficiently take into account what that transition would be like for us on a personal level. So I think you have to learn that you don’t have to know it all on the first day. Have your plan and make sure you take care of yourself in the process.

The things that I find most rewarding really centre around people that I’ve had the privilege to lead who have gone on to do tremendous things in their careers or try new challenges. I’ve been most proud of the teams that I’ve put together and the smart people on those teams. On the flip side of that, the most challenging moments have been ‘people moments’ – learning how to adapt and work with people who don’t operate with the same core principles and values as I do. It’s really tough to stand on an island alone, but sometimes you have to do it. At Spirit, we’ve just begun the journey of shifting our culture and our values, so those most challenging moments are learning that not everybody yet has bought into those core values and principles, and having to learn how to influence people to get on board.

Fortunately, the single most valuable thing that contributed to my view of leadership was the leadership program that I went through at Southwest Airlines. I was actually the first lawyer to go through it, and it taught me the importance of having a core set of principles and values and instilling them in people across your business, so that everybody is operating from the same set of guidelines in making their business decisions. I think that’s no different from understanding your company’s risk appetite or strategy – if you don’t know what those things are, you don’t know the framework for the decisions that you need to make.

There are non-traditional legal service providers that you can couple with a law firm.

Since I’ve been here, I have expanded my leadership to our compliance team, I have taken on our global contracts team, and I will be taking on the information security team – the chief information security officer we’ve just hired will report to me. As you see the general counsel role expanding to really influence business strategy, I think it will also expand to have more leadership of some of these non-legal areas because of the interconnectedness of them. Most businesses will benefit from a general counsel who has some oversight and an intimate involvement with all those other foundational elements of the business.

There are other things throughout my career that helped prepare me for my job at Spirit. I had stepped into my role at Southwest Airlines at a time when e-discovery was just coming into effect, and so I was able to be pretty innovative in the leadership there in getting us to a sophisticated state in our litigation practice. Coming to Spirit, I would say I’m bringing innovation, but it’s not new things; all of the things that I did at Southwest I’m bringing here now. Spirit just hadn’t had the opportunity or the need to get current in the same way.

For example, I have started doing something that’s pretty common in our industry, but wasn’t common at Spirit, which is unbundling the legal services. We’re not hiring law firms for every aspect of a litigation matter or due diligence, for instance, because there are non-traditional legal service providers that you can couple with a law firm, which are a lot more cost-effective. We’re bringing in things like technology-assisted review and artificial intelligence, which started in e-discovery and now we’re expanding over into revamping our contracts management. If you can use tools like AI to help you gather more information about your state of compliance and contracts management, then you’re going to equip your lawyers to deliver much more efficient and practical legal advice.

I think this represents a broader trend. I’m surprised we still have as many very large law firms as we have. At Spirit, we do hire large multinational law firms, but I am personally a fan of smaller practices that I think deliver better value for the client, depending on the matter. There are times when you need a firm with a global presence, but I continue to believe that we’re going to see more boutique-style law firms that really understand their clients’ need for practical advice that furthers their business goal. And I really think we’re going to see more service providers in this area where we’ve unbundled various things. There are companies that are not law firms, but which have lawyers you can use on a project basis with your law firm partners on matters – sort of an ‘à la carte’ menu where you can piece together what you need. More law firms will, I hope, start to see the benefit of partnering with those non-traditional service providers.