<strong>What are the most significant cases, projects and/or transactions that you and/or your legal team have recently been involved in?</strong>

Recently, our in-house legal team has been deeply involved in two core, high-impact projects for the company.

First, we led the sorting and optimisation of the company’s trade secret protection system. This included reviewing the company’s existing internal rules, identifying potential loopholes in trade secret management (such as information storage, employee access, and external communication), and formulating a comprehensive protection framework—covering confidential information classification standards, employee non-disclosure agreements, and post-termination confidentiality obligations for employees. The goal was to strengthen the company’s trade secret defence capabilities and mitigate risks of unauthorised disclosure or misappropriation of its confidential information.

Second, we supported the company in structuring cooperation agreements with multiple key partners. We drafted and negotiated detailed terms to address critical aspects: clear project delivery milestones and timelines, specific requirements for deliverables (to avoid ambiguity in acceptance), explicit intellectual property ownership (distinguishing between the company’s pre-existing IP and project-generated IP), tiered liability clauses for breach (tailored to different violation scenarios), exclusive cooperation scopes (defining market boundaries for the cooperation), and strict confidentiality obligations (aligned with the aforementioned trade secret protection system of the company). These agreements ensured the company’s interests were safeguarded while facilitating smooth collaboration with partners.

<Strong>How do you approach managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis to ensure the organization ‘s resilience?</strong>

During a crisis, our goal is to be a source of stability and to enable informed decision-making. My approach is structured in three phases:
Preparedness: We maintain up-to-date crisis playbooks that define our role in scenarios such as a key partner’s failure or a regulatory investigation. We also conduct regular cross-functional drills with teams such as Compliance.
Response: When a crisis occurs, we focus on rapid assessment and clear communication. We provide immediate, practical legal advice—for example, analysing contractual liabilities or managing regulatory queries—to help leadership make swift decisions that protect the company.
Recovery: Post-crisis, we lead reviews to identify root causes and implement process improvements, turning the experience into enhanced organisational resilience.

<strong>AI has been taken seriously as a potentially revolutionary technological change in the legal world for a number of years now. Has it had a meaningful impact in how your legal team works in this time?</strong>

AI serves as a ‘force multiplier’ for our team, enhancing efficiency and insight rather than replacing lawyers.

Boosting Efficiency: We use an AI tool for initial contract review. It automatically flags non-standard clauses (such as liability limits), allowing lawyers to focus on strategic negotiation and complex issues. This is invaluable for high-volume partner agreements.

Informing Decisions: We are beginning to use analytics to assess trends in our historical matters. This data-driven perspective enables us to provide more nuanced risk assessments and strategic advice to the business.

We adopt these tools with clear guidelines to ensure they are used ethically and in strict compliance with data confidentiality rules.

<Strong>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?</strong>

Our team’s decision to use external legal services or to handle matters in-house hinges on three core factors. First, specialisation and complexity: in-house resources focus on routine matters (e.g., contract reviews, compliance updates). For niche or high-stakes issues (e.g., cross-border litigation, industry-specific regulatory audits), we engage external firms – their service to diverse clients has accumulated rich, industry-leading practical experience that complements our in-house expertise. Second, capacity constraints: during peak periods (e.g., multiple large-scale transactions), external teams provide additional bandwidth to avoid compromising quality. Third, risk profile: high-risk matters such as intellectual property disputes benefit from external teams’ diverse case exposure, which enhances strategy robustness.

We evaluate external teams using clear criteria. Expertise alignment is paramount – we assess whether their practical experience matches our industry and matter type. Efficiency is measured by adherence to agreed timelines and responsive communication. Outcome quality focuses on whether deliverables (e.g., successful cases, enforceable agreements) meet business objectives. Cost-effectiveness is judged by comparing fees to value delivered, not simply by selecting the lowest cost. Finally, collaboration smoothness – their ability to integrate with our in-house processes and understand our business needs – ensures long-term fit.