Team size: 2 lawyers within the Luxembourg branch.

What are the key projects you have been involved in over the past twelve months?

The past twelve months have been among the most demanding — and rewarding — of my career. I served as a trusted advisor to senior management throughout a major refinancing operation, working across the full spectrum of negotiations between senior and junior lenders. This transaction tested every dimension of the in-house counsel role: legal rigour, of course, but also resilience, empathy and the ability to maintain strategic clarity under sustained pressure over several months.

In parallel, the property sector’s broader challenges created the conditions for significant transactional work. I led the legal structuring and completion of two major off-plan sales (“ventes en l’état futur d’achèvement”) to a local authority, representing a combined value of approximately €90 million, concluded in late 2025. Last May, I also led the negotiations for a main contractor agreement worth around €80m, a process that required rigorous management of the risks associated with rising construction costs — a particularly crucial issue given the current pressures on the supply chain in the European market.

Across all these matters, my role extended well beyond pure legal advice: I was a commercial partner, a risk manager and, at times, a mediator between parties with competing interests.

Can you describe an instance where your legal advice directly influenced business strategy or commercial objectives?

I was given the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the group’s corporate structure and operating model. Rather than limiting my analysis to legal risk, I approached it as a strategic exercise: mapping inefficiencies, identifying areas where legal and financial functions overlapped without clear ownership, and assessing whether the group’s structure remained fit for purpose in a more challenging market environment.

The recommendations I put forward had tangible consequences. They prompted a refocusing of certain business activities, a repositioning of specific roles within the finance department — which now bear significantly greater responsibility for financial reporting and regulatory compliance — and opened a broader conversation at senior management level about governance and accountability. That exercise reminded me that the most valuable contribution an in-house lawyer can make is not to protect the business from every risk, but to help it make better decisions.

How has the role of general counsel evolved, and what are the most important attributes for the modern in-house lawyer?

Nowadays, the general counsel can no longer be content with a purely defensive role. Boards of directors, CEOs and shareholders expect them to add value, not just provide protection. This means being present at strategic meetings, rather than simply being consulted once decisions have been taken.

In my view, the most important qualities are, in equal measure, intellectual curiosity and business acumen. A modern in-house lawyer must have a sufficiently deep understanding of the business and must be prepared to propose solutions rather than merely listing the risks. Interpersonal skills are of paramount importance: the ability to communicate complex legal positions clearly to non-lawyers, to build trust with operational teams, and to keep a cool head when transactions become complicated.

At IKO, I have sought to embody this approach: acting as a business partner to senior management whilst maintaining the independent judgement that is the hallmark of legal advice.

How do you manage situations where legal advice and commercial objectives conflict?

Conflict between legal caution and commercial ambition is not the exception in real estate development — it is the norm. Transactions are time-sensitive, counterparties have their own constraints, and the pressure to close is constant.

My approach is to reframe the conversation. Rather than presenting legal concerns as obstacles, I try to quantify them: what is the realistic probability of this risk materialising, and what is the cost if it does? That framing allows commercial teams to make genuinely informed decisions, rather than simply overriding advice they find inconvenient.

There are, of course, limits. Where a course of action would expose the company to unacceptable legal or reputational risk, I will say so clearly — and I will document that position. The in-house lawyer must be a partner, but never a rubber stamp.

Have you had any particularly unique or defining experiences during your legal career?

Early in my career, while still in private practice, I was given the opportunity to work directly alongside partners on a major transaction — an immersive experience that set the tone for everything that followed. It was demanding, high-pressure and unforgiving of imprecision. But it instilled in me a standard of rigour that I have never abandoned, and a genuine appetite for complexity.

The experience that shaped me most profoundly, however, came during my years at Swiss Life Asset Managers, where I worked on large-scale international real estate transactions spanning multiple European jurisdictions. Each country brought its own legal framework, its own market conventions and — perhaps most importantly — its own professional culture. Navigating that diversity required more than technical legal knowledge: it demanded adaptability, active listening and a willingness to challenge one’s own assumptions.

That period taught me that the best lawyers are not necessarily those who know the most, but those who are most capable of operating effectively outside their comfort zone. It is a lesson I carry into every cross-border matter I handle today, and one that continues to inform how I build and lead my team at IKO.