About

What are the most important transactions and litigations that you have been involved in during the last two years?

Coca-Cola Tajikistan Arbitration 2018 – a successful multimillion dollar arbitration against a construction contractor, involving a dispute based around a taxation issue with the Tajik Tax authority. The matter was decided unequivocally in CCI’s favour. This was primarily due to perceptive and clear drafting by the CCI team at the transactional stage.

Pakistan Water Tax dispute – The Supreme Court of Pakistan took notice of the bottled water/beverage industry extracting groundwater for nominal charges. Along with other key industry players, CCI has been appealed this unjust decision at the Supreme Court level against the implementation of prohibitive water charges that are arguably the highest in the world. CCI achieved partial success when a draft law was passed that set more reasonable water charges, significantly more justice than previously imposed.

What have been the major external trends that have impacted your team’s work over the past two years (market developments, changing regulatory environment, political events etc.)?

Since CCI works in an extremely volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment, it is always subject to unexpected drastic regulatory and political changes. Some macroeconomic uncertainties and political changes resulted in the imposition of various new taxes and charges that have had a negative impact on business environment as well as attracting new investments. As the legal team, we successfully challenged the imposition of arbitrary measures via a mixture of litigation and became part of advocating activities.

What will be the main focus for the company in the next 12 months and how do you intend to assist with this?

Expansion of our compliance net. As a team operating in 10 countries, we aim to focus more on increasing third party compliances. This includes not just regulatory compliances but also compliance with CCI’s code of ethics and human rights policy.

What techniques do you use to provide commercially-focused and optimal business advice to your company? If so, how do you get these across to more junior lawyers in the team?

Each member of my team is personally authorised by me to act on my behalf. Each lawyer’s action and directions are the actions and directions of the general counsel, and I stand behind this firmly. This includes not just my direct reports but the most junior members of our team. This level of empowerment breeds an unprecedented and unparalleled level of ownership in our team, which translates into direct involvement in the business, not as mere legal advisors but as business partners.

Does the team use any “legal tech” products and do you find them a helpful management device?

Yes, of course. It’s impossible in this day and age to function efficiently without using legal tech. We actually have a number of recently initiated and completed projects that involve legal tech under our larger initiative titled “Digital Lawyer”. So far, we have completely digitised our procurement process with an integrated contract management solution for our entire group. We also have a number of innovative initiatives in the pipeline that will completely change the way we do business.

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

All major change happens through disruption. And no time has experienced more disruption than the present. If human history were a musical composition, we are now at its Presto! The change is so rapid that progress that historically took decades now happens in a matter of months. I foresee a lot of disruptive technology becoming a major part of in-house legal roles in our region and a lot of things and roles that we take for granted will either disappear or at least change drastically.

FOCUS ON: AI ethics

One of the most poignant quotes from the 1993 film Jurassic Park was said by Jeff Goldblum’s character about the cloning of dinosaurs. He said: ‘[…] your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should’.

The quote, I feel really captures my true concerns about AI, as in its ethical implications rather than speculation about what exactly AI will change. AI will pose numerous ethical challenges when it comes to its application, and while the technology allowing us to do most anything will eventually come around, the question will remain: Where do we draw the line?

Let’s take the example of criminal liability in cases of AI driven cars – who will be responsible in the case of a fatal accident? The answer will differ depending on who you ask. This is just one of the multitudes of ethical concerns that are raised by AI. I would like to clarify at this point though, I’m not against disruptive technologies such as AI, not at all. I’m a huge proponent of change and progress, my sole contention is that along with the “could” question, the “should” question must always be asked. Let’s take another issue for the sake of discussion: In most jurisdictions (if not all) the legal profession is licensed; and the practice of law is closely regulated activity, where unlicensed persons are not allowed to dispense legal advice or engage in any activities that are classified as the “practise of law”. One of the most anticipated developments in legal AI technologies are “legal chatbots”, where a potential client may discuss a legal issue with an artificial intelligence with the basic competencies of a lawyer. Now, I understand that in the real sense of “intelligence”, the technology is quite far from actualisation for the time being, however, this is something that must be discussed.

Will the AI need to be monitored by a lawyer at all times? If yes, then why have AI in the first place? Will the AI, in order to be able to render legal advice, sit for a bar exam and get licensed? Why would it need a license? Isn’t that just an indication of demonstrated ability? Whereas, in the AI’s case, if it’s designed by a lawyer, this would and should no longer be a requirement.

The list [of questions] could be endless. To reiterate, the main thrust of my argument is not that AI is dangerous and should not be used. But that AI is different and if we don’t ask the right questions now, our transition won’t be as smooth as it can be and we will become dinosaurs rather than be ravaged by them.