About

In what ways do you see the in-house legal role evolving in your region over the next few years?

The size and role of an in-house team can vary widely. Some teams do everything themselves; some are more of a coordination function for external lawyers who does the actual legal work. An in-house lawyer may also have additional roles such as company secretary, being part of the executive team, compliance officers, etc. Identifying and developing a core that the in-house team will do better, quicker and cheaper than external counsel, is a good basis. I personally believe in keeping the “fun work” in-house, and shop the more generic tasks, when the capacity is needed. There will obviously be outliers when specialist knowledge is needed, but there should be a solid foundation mirroring the needs of the core business that is kept in-house. Finding the right balance of what the team should prioritise, is key.

Do you have any effective techniques for getting the most out of external counsel, in terms of how to instruct them?

The start-up phase is key. One should not underestimate the responsibility of the client in this phase. It is up to the client to provide a good start, giving a clear description of the scope and the assignment. It is much more work saving a derailed train, than making sure it hits the track from the beginning. Clarification of expectations can also solve a lot. This could be done through dialogue, milestones or as simple as receiving a disposition for a memo before it’s written in its entirety. Firm and fixed prices or other alternative pricing models should also be used instead of the traditional billing by the hour. It is difficult to understand that a highly competitive sector such as high-end lawyer services, have been allowed to use the traditional pricing models, having opposite incentives from their principals for so long and to the extent it has been used. At the same time, clients are evolving their enquiries, including other factors than quality and price, such as gender diversity.

Can you provide any insight into your experiences or challenges in working with military and defence contracts? Is it substantially different than your previous experience? 

The contracts are often large, highly technical and do often include development. The building and/or delivery can span over decades. Contracts known form the media includes fighter planes F-35, helicopters, armoured cars, artillery and ships. The IT side of each weapons platform is often substantial and a basic prerequisite for a well-functioning system, adding complexity. Specific for the military and defence contracts is the focus on security related issues. This could create tension with the need and obligation for transparency. The defence industry is enormous worldwide. Due to the value and the character of the industry, the demands for CSR and ethical requirements are extremely high. I believe that controlling and revising suppliers, the suppliers-suppliers, and even further down the production line, will be increasingly important. 

FOCUS ON:

HNoMS Helge Ingstad

In the early hours of November 8th 2018, the frigate HNoMS Helge Ingstad from the Royal Norwegian Navy, collided with a tank ship, TS Sola. The collision with the 250-metre long tanker led to a “lost ship” situation. The frigate stranded partly submerged near land and all of the 137 crew were evacuated. The tanker, filled with North Sea crude from Equinor’s Sture oil terminal, suffered only minor damages and returned to port for inspection without any spillage of oil.

Since that morning in November, Forsvarsmateriell has been working to manage the incident, its consequences and related issues more or less on shifts, day and night. On a positive note no lives were lost, however, the property damage was substantial. The estimated repair cost of Helge Ingstad is NOK12- 14bn, while an equal new ship is estimated to cost NOK11-13bn (with lower uncertainty). A decision to scrap Helge Ingstad has been made, and Forsvarsmateriell is very much involved keeping momentum in this process.

From an organisational perspective, I am proud of the way our people handled the situation. In particular the first few months, setting up an extremely complex salvation mission at sea, of a highly armed warship, during wintertime in Norway, without any casualties, serious injuries or major pollution. As the general counsel, I am pleased to see that the legal department was able to lead and coordinate substantial legal efforts, utilising both internal and external resources. In this regard, I would like to highlight the good collaboration with the maritime part of Forsvarsmateriell based at Haakonsvern naval base, outside Bergen.

From a legal point of view, it has been, and still is, an extremely complex case. There is a significant number of stakeholders, all with different needs and priorities. For me, from the beginning, it was clear that early involvement and efforts to build trust-based relationships would benefit the legal side of this case in the long run. Establishment of common ground was needed. The fact-finding efforts, to clarify what really happened that morning in November, was a joint cornerstone for all stakeholders. 

In my experience, a respectful open fact-finding approach would normally be the most beneficial in long-term relationships. In this case, the remaining frigates are essential to Norwegian defence policy, and continued operations had to be prioritised. The loss of Helge Ingstad could thus not be the sole priority for the organisation. This added further layers of complexity to the case and illustrates that today’s lawyers must be able to look beyond the scope of only the current case. 

From a leadership perspective, it was important for me to give the young up-and-coming associates key roles. There were people questioning this, why I did not use solely senior lawyers when so much was at stake and with the pressure from the media. For me, that’s exactly the reason for the decision. It is in crisis and under pressure people grow. It is cases like this that will shape you and hopefully there will be learnings that will follow you for years. I believe that the one thing I will remember looking back on this case, is the people who stepped up and grew with the responsibility they were given or took.