Interview with: Nancy Gerakini, Partner

Competition practice head, Nancy Gerakini, provides insights on the firm’s mentality and combination of intellectual property and competition law expertise.   

 

What do you see as the main points that differentiate PRENTOULIS GERAKINI from your competitors?

 One of our key differentiators from other firms stems from our experience in both IP work and competition / regulatory matters, and our ability to bring the latter in addressing general corporate & commercial matters, and particularly in litigation.

Another is our love for legal design thinking and process automation, where possible.

So, our practice is known for:

• partner-level attention to matters, combined with cost-efficient pricing schemes
• standard, carefully designed, reporting forms (corporate lifecycle matters, contract observations) allowing the client quick and full understanding
• holistic approach to matters, fueled by our expertise in regulatory matters and litigation, as well as our drive to understand clients’ business
• dispute resolution methodology, which aims at quickly identifying the possibility of amicable settlement, before moving full throttle with the appropriate litigation strategy
• ability and willingness to fight cases on the terrain where the other party is likely to be more vulnerable, e.g. regulatory complaints combined with injunctive proceedings
• business-minded approach to client issues and tailor-made billing solutions
• use of legal design thinking in developing solutions both internally and for clients.

 

Which practices do you see growing in the next 12 months? What are the drivers behind that?

I would say that our M&A practice is currently the fastest growing.  We have been engaged in several tech company acquisitions, where our intellectual property and competition law strengths deepen our corporate/ commercial law offering and driving growth.

I also see our patent practice continuing to steadily grow. We are increasingly being recognised as trusted experts in diverse market sectors, thus attracting more clients. Our IP team’s keeping of a keen eye on UPC developments has also helped.

 

What’s the main change you’ve made in the firm that will benefit clients?

I would not say that there is a particular “main” change we made. We are stubborn in evaluating what works and what does not and make adjustments, mainly with the help of technology.

 

Is technology changing the way you interact with your clients, and the services you can provide them?

It brings more challenges, particularly in so far as AI is concerned. Digital data security and the increasingly widening circle of available tech solutions in various areas of our work are terrains that have changed.

 

Can you give us a practical example of how you have helped a client to add value to their business?

In the course of due diligence for a tech company acquisition by one of our clients, our IP team identified certain undervalued or even ignored intangible assets. In parallel with the transaction, we helped develop and secure this portfolio, thus adding to our client’s investment value.

 

Are clients looking for stability and strategic direction from their law firms – where do you see the firm in three years’ time?

Our key clients, major domestic players and multinationals, do not ten to experiment with legal counsel. They indeed view their preferred law firms as strategic business partners. And this is how we like to see our role and how we actually position ourselves.

Our plan is to keep par with the developments on which our clients focus. Technology and knowledge management are pivotal to this end. And, at the same time, they are drivers helping us to broaden our client basis.

Three years from now, we see the team stronger and bigger to accommodate the challenges of our clients, current and future.