About

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

Both leaders and different non-legal specialists are increasingly aware of the legal aspects of their profession and how law must be taken into account in different scenarios. I believe this has been caused by a variety of factors, including a stronger focus on law in non-legal education, media focus on cases where companies (and company individuals) may have breached the law, more severe sanctions for non-compliance and increased awareness of such possible sanctions, and increased understanding of the “cost” in cases of non-compliance (fines, legal fees, loss of reputation, production loss). At the same time, several areas of business are subject to vast and intricate legal regulation, often both on a national and international level, and often constantly evolving. All of this confirms the need for in-house lawyers who know all aspects of the business well and work close with the management. In the years to come, the in-house legal role will be more important than ever.

What would you say are the unique qualities required to be successful as an in-house lawyer in your industry?

Being an in-house lawyer for the company owning and running most of Norway’s airports, it is important to understand the many different aspects of the business and to be aware of the status and challenges within the aviation sector. In aviation, and in the running of airports, safety and security issues and regulations will always be essential. Understanding the business well, and seeing how safety and security may be affected by different possible activities on an airport, is necessary when managing legal risk. Being a company with in-house expertise in several different non-legal areas, it is important to have a close relationship with different colleagues, to use their expertise and constantly learn about new aspects of the business, and to make sure there is a low threshold for seeking legal advice. In order to efficiently promote compliance, in house lawyers often need to be involved at early stages of new initiative, and/or to be informed of ideas, projects and strategies early on. This requires trust, respect and good communication. As well known, legal rules and regulations may feel unwelcome where they set a restraint or even a full stop to an idea that may seem brilliant from a purely commercial point of view. It may then require some explaining why being aware of the law and acting accordingly may still be a better way to go.

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

When working with external counsel, it is important to provide them with enough information about the business and a specific case at hand so that they may apply their expertise as efficient as possible. I therefore make sure that the lines of communication are efficient. I make sure I get all the information I need from the department within our business that needs advice, and also that external counsel have access to the information they need when working on the case – from me or from relevant colleagues within the business. Also, the practical need in each individual case should be emphasised. I find that we are more likely to get legal advice that meets our specific needs when external counsel understand the context in which the advice is meant to apply. It may also be a challenge to get advice that are sufficiently clear and to the point. Sometimes you need a thorough theoretical report, but very often the actual need is only for external counsel’s advice to point in a direction, making it easier for the business to make the choice on how to move forward in a given case. Risks and reservations should be identified and pointed out, but need not always be discussed in detail. Format and structure should therefore often be discussed in advance.

What can law firms do to improve their services to the legal department?

In order to provide better services to the in-house legal department, external law firms need to work proactively. They should show genuine interest in the business, and seek sufficient knowledge of the general business, strategies, current initiatives, to be able to identify main risks and offer advice that provides added value. It should not be necessary to provide basic information about the business every time a “new” lawyer from an external law firm is put on a case. Lawyers in an external law firm that are expected to be main contacts of a business and its legal department should acquire basis knowledge of the company when offering their services. Such minimum knowledge may be obtained online or by simply showing interest and asking the in-house lawyers for relevant information, without billing that time.

FOCUS ON:

Compliance

Having detailed knowledge of the business and being close to leaders and key employees, in-house lawyers are in a unique position to proactively promote compliance. External lawyers will not have the same detailed and in-depth understanding of where and when legal risk may arise or of the potential consequences different measures may have for the company. In-house lawyers will have assignments related to individual and specific “cases” where there is need for legal advice. It is essential that the lawyer then use specific cases to identify and address more general and fundamental issues. An individual case may be a «symptom» of a more general «problem». And as such, it should not be handled without further thought or analysis. Both in-house lawyers and external lawyers should work proactively in order to promote compliance in a wider scope, not immediately move on when a specific case has been “solved”. In-house lawyers are better positioned to do this. Proactively promoting compliance may mean going beyond the assignment and what the client asked at a given time. And it may require communication and agreement with management on priorities and use of resources. Still, I firmly believe that in the long run it will be a good idea, both economically and professionally, to treat the “problem” rather than the “symptom”. And it will dramatically increase the company’s chance of success when aiming for compliance.