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

In my experience, legal advice must always be aligned with business strategy and commercial objectives, while ensuring full compliance with the law. The role of legal is not only to identify risks, but also to support the business in achieving its objectives in a structured and protected way.

A concrete example of this is my day-to-day involvement in business decisions once the commercial approach is defined. My role is to make sure that what the business wants to do can actually be implemented from a legal perspective.

For instance, when the business is pursuing a specific opportunity or operational model, I focus on identifying the legal constraints early and translating them into practical solutions – whether through contractual terms, structuring or defining clear boundaries. This allows the business to move forward with its original objective, but with clarity on the applicable framework.

The impact is that the business does not need to stop or change direction later due to legal issues. Instead, it can execute its strategy with certainty, knowing that the key legal aspects have already been addressed.

Overall, I see legal as an enabling function: not to change what the business wants to achieve, but to make sure it can be done properly, safely, and in line with the company’s objectives.

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

The role of the general counsel has evolved from a reactive, risk-focused function to a true business partner.

In the past, legal was mainly involved at the end to validate compliance. Today, the expectation is to be close to the business, understand its objectives and support execution in real time – making sure the business can actually do what it wants to do, in line with the applicable legal framework.

In my experience, the most important attributes for a modern in-house lawyer are: strong business understanding, pragmatism and the ability to provide clear, actionable advice. It is not about identifying every possible risk but about helping the business move forward with clarity and within acceptable risk parameters. The value of legal today lies in enabling the business to operate confidently, not in blocking decisions.

How can in-house counsel use AI to improve efficiency while maintaining quality, governance and integrity within legal teams?

I think there are many simple things we can already do more efficiently if we use the tools we have in the right way. AI is one of them, and as in-house lawyers we need to learn how to use it properly.

Right now, in practice, we mostly use AI for things like reviewing documents, summarizing information, or finding internal guidance/emails faster. But that is just one part of it: there is clearly much more potential that we are still exploring. This is evolving very quickly. In a few years, using AI will be as basic as using track changes in Word instead of working on paper – it will just be part of how we work.

That is why it’s important to actively explore it. We only really understand what AI can do, and how to use it correctly, if we make the effort to test it and use it in our day-to-day work. At the same time, using AI does not replace our role. Quality, judgment, and integrity still depend on us. We need to validate outputs and make sure we use these tools in line with our standards and obligations.

So, for me, AI is a tool that will become essential, but the key is to keep learning and using it consciously as it evolves.

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

In reality, situations where legal advice and commercial objectives conflict are unavoidable. However, choosing a commercial approach does not necessarily mean doing something not legal. It simply reflects a different level of risk tolerance, as legal tends to have a more conservative approach.

My role in those situations is to make sure that this difference is clearly understood. I focus on identifying the risks, explaining them in business terms, and ensuring that they are properly assessed at the right level.

Legal adds value by making sure decisions are not taken by default or because risks were underestimated or not clearly communicated. Decisions can favor the commercial approach, but they should always be taken consciously, with a clear understanding of the implications.

If the decision is to move forward with a higher level of risk, then my role is to do everything within my scope to mitigate the exposure – whether through contractual safeguards, structuring, or setting clear boundaries.

Ultimately the key is not opposing the business, it is ensuring that decisions are made with clarity, not by omission, and that risks are managed in line with their level of exposure.