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

Over the past twelve months, my involvement has been concentrated on a set of projects that were both strategically critical and legally complex for the business. One of the most significant milestones was leading the legal workstream of the divestment of our only subsidiary focused on payment solutions for the masive segment. This operation required managing the full lifecycle of the transaction, including corporate restructuring, regulatory assessments, contractual negotiations, and close coordination with financial and legal advisors. Beyond execution, the project involved balancing economic impact considerations with the company’s long-term strategic focus.

Another major initiative was leading the legal front of the implementation of the digital payments interoperability regulation. This was a highly technical process that demanded a deep understanding of payment system infrastructure, regulatory intent, and product architecture. It required sustained and sophisticated interaction with the Central Bank, as well as close alignment with technology, product, and compliance teams. The outcome reshaped how our products operate within the broader ecosystem and materially expanded access to digital payments.

Finally, I have been leading the legal negotiation of a confidential strategic initiative involving a fundamental change to our core technological infrastructure. This project represents an investment exceeding US$80m and involves complex contractual structures, risk allocation, regulatory implications, and long-term operational considerations. While ongoing, it is one of the most consequential initiatives for the company’s future scalability and resilience.

How do you manage legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis, ensuring that your legal strategy aligns with the broader business?

Periods of instability demand a legal approach that is calm, disciplined, and deeply aligned with the business, not reactive or alarmist. In markets like Peru, political volatility is a recurring feature, while economic and monetary stability has historically been preserved. From a legal standpoint, that distinction matters. Political noise can create uncertainty, but it does not automatically translate into systemic risk if institutions remain technically sound. The first priority is separating signal from noise. Frequent changes in authorities, shifting narratives, or ideological pressure can affect regulatory tone, litigation risk, and deal execution. Legal teams must continuously reassess counterparties, decision-makers, and enforcement patterns, while avoiding overcorrection that could unnecessarily slow the business.

Close engagement with technically stable institutions, particularly the central bank as highest payment system authority, plays a critical role. A predictable, rules-based regulator provides an anchor during broader instability and allows legal strategy to remain focused on execution rather than speculation. This stability reduces the risk of arbitrary enforcement and gives confidence to proceed with long-term investments and complex transactions. Internally, legal strategy during crises is built around scenario planning, tighter risk prioritisation, and constant alignment with senior management. The objective is not to eliminate risk, which is unrealistic, but to ensure risks are understood, priced, and mitigated.

Legal must act as an enabler of continuity and sustainability. In a payments business ultimately tied to private consumption, preserving macroeconomic confidence is essential. A legal strategy aligned with that reality helps protect profitability and long-term value for all stakeholders, even when the political environment is anything but stable.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into legal teams, how can general counsel ensure the successful incorporation of these tools without compromising the human element?

From my point of view, the successful integration of AI into legal teams depends less on the technology itself and more on leadership and culture. AI should be positioned as a force multiplier, not as a replacement for legal judgment. When used correctly, it frees lawyers from repetitive, low-value tasks and allows them to focus on analysis, strategy, and decision-making, where human judgment remains essential. Recent studies consistently show that the greater the use of technology in professional tasks, including legal work, the more demand and complexity those tasks tend to generate. AI increases the volume, speed, and sophistication of business activity, which in turn requires more legal input, not less. In that sense, AI is a productivity inflection point that expands the scope and impact of legal teams rather than shrinking them.

To preserve the human element, general counsel must invest in upskilling and change management. Lawyers need to understand what AI can and cannot do, how to interpret its outputs critically, and how to integrate them into legal reasoning without outsourcing accountability. This requires strong soft skills: communication, trust-building, leadership, and the ability to guide teams through uncertainty. AI also offers a powerful opportunity to elevate the legal function. Its ability to identify patterns, anticipate risks, and streamline contractual and regulatory processes enables legal teams to provide more proactive, strategic, and business-oriented support. The role of the lawyer remains central to value creation and sustainability; AI simply amplifies that role. The responsibility of general counsel is to ensure that technology serves that purpose, not the other way around.