Team size:  Four

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

One of the most significant projects I led was structuring a corporate reorganization to expand our business operations in LATAM. This required balancing legal and tax considerations across multiple jurisdictions to identify the most favorable structure for the company. I analyzed entity options in each target market, weighing factors such as local regulatory requirements, liability exposure, repatriation of funds, and transfer pricing implications. The project involved forming new legal entities, migrating existing ones into the new structure, and coordinating closely with internal stakeholders—including finance, tax, and operations—to ensure the reorganization met cross-functional requirements while achieving our strategic objectives. Additionally, I engaged 

outside counsels across multiple jurisdictions to obtain legal and tax opinions, ensuring alignment on recommendations and efficient information flow between firms

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

My approach starts with understanding the crisis and the business; our key relationships, the jurisdictions where we operate, and our risk exposure. This allows me to anticipate issues before they escalate. In higher-risk markets, for example, I build flexibility into contract provisions to preserve room for negotiation when circumstances shift. Preparation is equally critical. Having playbooks and escalation protocols in advance so the team can act quickly when time is of the essence. Finally, I prioritize clear, solution-focused communication with leadership—surfacing risks early and presenting options, not just problems.

Have you had any experiences during your career as a lawyer that stand out as particularly unique or interesting? 

I had the opportunity to negotiate a significant contract with a government-owned entity in LATAM for the construction of a subsea cable. The deal was complex—not only due to its size and technical scope, but also because of the regulatory and political dynamics involved in working with a state-owned counterparty.

Initially, the relationship was formal and guarded. However, as negotiations progressed and we demonstrated reliability and good faith, the dynamic shifted. The teams developed mutual trust, which ultimately allowed us to work through difficult issues collaboratively and close the deal on favorable terms. It was a valuable lesson in how relationship-building can be just as critical as the legal terms themselves in getting a deal across the finish line.

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?

The decision to engage outside counsel depends on complexity and required expertise. Routine matterslike settlement agreements are handled in-house. For external services, selection is based on case exposure: high-stakes matters warrant experienced firms, while smaller claims call for cost-efficient options.

When evaluating outside counsel, we focus on accessibility, responsiveness, subject-matter expertise, and work product quality. Opinions should be clear and actionable. Pricing and value are also key considerations.