About

What changes have you made to the workings of the legal department during your time in your current role? How has that affected the wider company?

I have been working at Wonga since 2014, creating the legal and compliance department from scratch. Not only did I build a team that advises all departments in the company, but together with the team we created the procedures and tools necessary to run and manage all business operations. These include: repositories and contract templates, rules of contract processing, as well as compliancy tools. They are user-friendly, their objective is to streamline the business while maintaining the highest quality standards.

What guides and motivates my work and that of my team is ethics and compliance. We promote the highest standards through internal regulations, courses and trainings, animated educational films, the Compliance Week initiative, dedicated meetings with employees, as well as an award.

The compliance tools I created together with my team were distinguished in a competition organised by PwC and Puls Biznesu. Wonga received the prestigious title of “Ethical Company”.

What do you do personally to promote diversity and inclusion in your company? In your team?

I consider myself the architect of the code of ethics, which was adopted at our company. In it, we explain the importance of respecting each other, regardless of whether it is a coworker, a customer or an outside vendor. Together with my team, I have also created a multi-channel system for reporting any irregularities within the company. In the event of a report, each case is dealt with by the whistleblowing committee, of which I am a member. One of the fundamentals of promoting diversity is an animated film about whistleblowing, in which we emphasise that we are all equal regardless of gender, nationality, religion and
race. Together with my team, I have also written an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination procedure.

I want my team to be diverse not only in terms of knowledge and specialisation, but also in terms of gender, character and interests. I believe I have managed to achieve that.

If you had to give advice to an aspiring in-house lawyer or GC what would it be and why?

Every in-house attorney must have a very good understanding of the core business. They must know the company’s strategy, the products, the structure and the technology and language used by the company. Without these, it is difficult to be an equal partner in business.

The task of an in-house attorney is to prevent risks and react to the changing legal environment. Therefore, he or she must monitor, not only what is happening in the market in which the company operates, but also any legal changes that may affect the activity of the company.

What do you feel are the pros and cons of an in-house legal role compared to a private practice one?

Firms often specialise in specific areas of law. Due to this, companies such as Wonga can benefit from dedicated, specialised knowledge. An in-house attorney is expected to provide advice to all departments, as well as knowledge of tools and processes, which don’t always include legal matters. If I am evaluating the prospect of cooperation with a new vendor, I must not only verify the contractor, thus fulfilling internal compliance regulations, but I must also analyse how this cooperation will affect our products and customers. My role is to take a business approach to all these processes. This makes our work more interesting.

For those who would like to specialise in a specific field of law, the position of an in-house attorney certainly makes it difficult to achieve this goal, especially if you are the only attorney in a company or have a small team.

FOCUS ON… CJEU

In September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) intervened in case C-383/18. In its ruling, it held that the obligation to reduce the total cost of a credit, applies to all costs, including commissions, and not only to fees which depend on the duration of the loan agreement.

This ruling may change the consumer finance industry in Poland and lead to the establishment of law firms specialising in the recovery of commissions/fees and other costs associated with early repayment of consumer credit. The CJEU ruling will affect the structure of bank loans, as well as cash loans granted by companies from the non-banking sector. It may also lead to refunds for consumers who have previously repaid a consumer loan early. The total amount of reimbursements may be as high as several billion PLN (according to banks’ analyses).

The ruling was handed down as a result of three cases pending before the District Court in Lublin-Wschód between Lexitor and Sp��łdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo-Kreditowa im. Franciszek Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank and mBank, respectively. The dispute concerned the reduction of the total cost of consumer loans due to early repayment. Banks and the financial industry were of the opinion that in cases of early repayment, the customer could count on the reimbursement of some costs, but not all costs. This is because some costs, such as fees for processing an application or commissions are of an operational, one-time nature. This opinion was not shared by, amongst others, the Polish Financial Ombudsman and the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK). This position was handed down on the 16 May 2016 and in the Office’s decision no.
DOZIK 4/2019 issued on 19 September 2019 (in relation to Aasa Polska). UOKiK ordered Aasa to immediately cease charging the full amount of the loan origination fee to those borrowers who had repaid their loan early.

The CJEU stated that the obligation to reduce the total cost of credit applies to all costs, including commissions, and not only to fees that are linked to the duration of loan agreement. The CJEU pointed out that a comparative analysis of the various language versions of Art. 16 (1) of the directive does not allow for the predicted exact amount of the reduction of the total cost of credit to be determined. It has not stated whether the creditor must calculate the amount to be reimbursed to the consumer, in the event of early repayment of the loan, on a pro rata basis.

The ruling of the CJEU in the discussed case does not mean that lenders operating in the Polish market will be automatically obligated to reimburse the fees charged. The decision issued under the preliminary ruling procedure is binding in the national court which raised the question and in the higher courts which hear the case as a result of the appeal. However, preliminary rulings may constitute important interpretative guidelines for national courts dealing with similar cases and state administrative bodies such as the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.