How do you approach managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis to ensure the organisation’s resilience?

As an Inhouse General Counsel for several countries across the Region, my approach to managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis is grounded in clarity, transparency, and close collaboration across the organisation. Especially in difficult times the legal function cannot operate in isolation; resilience depends on trust, shared understanding, and timely decision-making.

My focus is always on an early involvement and proactive risk assessment. During a crisis, uncertainty is inevitable, but legal risks escalate quickly when information is fragmented. I therefore work closely with leadership and key departments, such as Operations, Finance, HR and Communications to develop a shared, realistic view of the situation. This allows us to prioritise effectively and to distinguish between what is legally critical and what is simply uncomfortable.

Then, transparent communication is essential. I aim to translate legal complexity into clear, actionable guidance for both management and operational teams. This includes openly discussing legal constraints, trade-offs, and potential consequences, rather than positioning Legal as a gatekeeper. In my experience, credibility is built when the legal function explains not only what cannot be done, but also what can be done and under which conditions.

Last but not least, I align closely with senior leadership to ensure legal considerations are embedded in strategic decisions. The Legal department, as an integral part of the decision making process enssures a realistic scenario planning, documenting decision rationales, and ensuring governance remains robust even under pressure.

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?

In a service-driven organization like ours, involving external legal counsel is shaped by a strong focus on efficiency, urgency, and value creation. Budgets for external advice are typically limited and, where possible, not fully utilised. As a result, engaging outside counsel is the exception rather than the rule and is reserved for matters that are both time-critical and strategically significant in excess of the scope, capacity, or standard expertise of our in-house legal team.

Routine matters and issues with strong business context are generally handled internally, as this allows for faster turnaround and better alignment with operational needs.

Any law firm that takes the time to understand not only the individual matter but also our values, culture, and strategic objectives has a clear advantage here. Over time, this shared understanding allows external counsel to combine their legal expertise with meaningful organisational context, enabling more pragmatic advice, faster execution, and significantly reduced coordination effort. Firms that build this experience act less as transactional advisers and more as trusted partners who deliver sustainable value while preserving internal resources.

These considerations are not new. But in-house counsels, we genuinely mean it when we emphasise the importance of working with external law firms as trusted advisers on an equal footing. The real challenge lies in finding the right fit for the respective type of mandate. Achieving this requires commitment and investment from both sides, but when it works, the partnership delivers lasting value and tangible benefits for everyone involved.