Beyond your corporate responsibilities, is there a cause, within the legal profession or in wider society, that you are particularly passionate about? How does this influence your leadership style as general counsel?

One cause I am deeply committed to is broadening access to legal and leadership opportunities for women, and creating an environment where they feel genuinely empowered in their roles. This commitment has shaped not only the way I lead, but the type of culture I try to build within the legal team. First, I believe strongly in sponsorship. It is not enough to give advice from a distance. I make sure younger lawyers have visibility and real ownership – whether that means bringing them into strategic negotiations, involving them in conversations with senior management, or trusting them with workstreams that will stretch them. I want them to feel that their voice matters from day one, not “when they are senior enough.”

Second, I value clarity, honesty, and psychological safety. I am transparent when I do not know something, and I expect the same openness from the team. People make mistakes; what matters is that we learn from them, share the lessons, and grow stronger as a group. I want a team where anyone can ask difficult questions, challenge assumptions, or raise risks early—without fear of being judged. In an industry where timelines are tight and stakes are high, this type of openness helps us avoid blind spots and builds better outcomes Critical thinking “esprit critique” is essential, not only for legal analysis but also for strengthening each person’s contribution to the team.. Third, I believe in a purpose‑driven, collaborative way of working, rooted in trust rather than hierarchy. The quality of our judgment and the way we show up for each other matter far more. I work hand‑in‑hand with the team and have no problem rolling up my sleeves when needed. Success is not measured only by how fast we deliver, but by the integrity of our decisions, the fairness of our processes, and our ability to partner with the business without compromising our values. Ultimately, my leadership is driven by the belief that teams thrive when people feel supported, heard, and trusted—especially those who are early in their careers and looking for someone to believe in them. My goal is to give them the confidence, visibility, and opportunities they need to grow, while creating a culture where learning, accountability, and mutual respect guide us every day.

What factors influence your team’s decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate their performance?

Deciding when to rely on external counsel is a strategic move that depends on the complexity of the issue, the capacity of the internal team, and the potential impact on the business. Within the legal department, we retain matters that require close proximity to the organisation, a deep understanding of our operating model, or constant interaction with internal stakeholders. This ensures we stay closely aligned with the business and can provide the context and continuity required for day‑to‑day operations.

We turn to external firms when the work requires a level of expertise or requires different areas of law to be addresses simultaneously, that cannot be delivered efficiently in‑house. This includes highly specialised areas such as M&A operations, Project Finance structures and complex reorganisation projects. External Counsel are also essential for critical or high visibility contracts where an expert and independent perspective is valued by the board.

We also look to external counsel when cross‑border alignment is required and local insight becomes critical, when we need additional capacity for peaks in workload, when additional capacity can ensure timelines are met without compromising quality. Independence is another determining factor: for sensitive matters, internal investigations, or situations that must be kept at arm’s length from business operations, external counsel provide the necessary objectivity as such matters can be handled with extra distance from the business.

When selecting and assessing law firms, we follow a clear set of expectations centred on value, not volume. First, we look for genuine technical excellence paired with real partner involvement. We expect senior lawyers who are pragmatic, commercially minded, and able to provide solutions, not just identify issues. Second, collaboration is key: external counsel must work seamlessly with our internal teams and communicate in a way that is accessible to non‑lawyers, even when primary point of contact remains legal department.

We appreciate firms that propose alternative fee arrangements or bring process improvements and technology to the work. We also welcome alternative fee arrangements that provide predictability and reflect shared responsibility for outcomes. Proactivity is another key factor: we expect our advisors to flag emerging risks, anticipate regulatory changes, and help us evolve our templates and governance frameworks rather than simply reacting to isolated questions.

Finally, knowledge transfer is a significant part of how we evaluate long‑term partnerships. The best firms are those that leave our team stronger. We value advisors who share market insights, best practices, benchmarking data, and training that strengthen our internal capabilities.