Team size: Four 

Key Team members: Rhys Alexei Y. Murillo, general manager; Ayce Ann Sadiwa, legal counsel; Benedicto Bienvenido Claravall, legal counsel; Kenneth R. Sagum, external and government affairs manager   

How do you see the role of in-house legal teams evolving in the Philippines over the next five-ten years?  

In-house legal teams need to start moving away from the traditional view of being a control function and start looking at how they can develop a culture of compliance and add more value to the organisation through their function.  I see the role of in-house legal teams evolving towards being more strategic, technologically adaptable and gearing towards being integral partners to ensure the organisation’s continued existence and its success over the next five years. 

The control function will never go away as this is the core function of an in-house legal team.  The view adopted by many of the role of in-house legal teams is that they need to strike a balance between what is commercially viable and legally feasible.  This mindset is outdated and needs to be challenged.  Attempting to strike a balance between business needs and compliance is very tricky. Putting more importance on the needs of business may potentially cause compliance issues, while putting too much emphasis on compliance may stifle business growth. Instead of trying to find a balance between business needs and compliance, in-house legal teams should look at first creating a culture of compliance as a foundation.  Compliance should never be sacrificed in favor of business needs.  

It is thus incumbent upon in-house legal teams to start building that culture as it will take time and will not happen overnight.  The in-house legal team can achieve this by focusing on the following for the next five years:  

Taking on a more strategic role in the organisation.  In-house legal teams need to exert more strategic influence within the organisation by actively contributing to business strategies and decision making. It is no longer enough for in-house legal teams to limit their participation to reviewing contracts or limiting advice on legal matters. They also need to work with business units to understand the business operations and offer strategic, out of the box solutions to operational concerns.  

Adapting to and Embracing Technological Advances and Innovative Ideas.   The Pandemic has pushed adoption of internet transactions, whether for personal or commercial use. The rise of AI and social media have also changed the business landscape as former business models are no longer viable.  In-house legal teams need to embrace these advances and adopt more innovative tools in their arsenal to help them effectively perform their function and guide the organisation.  

Fostering Enhanced Collaboration and Cross Functional teams, focusing on Diversity and Inclusion. As the world begins to open its eyes to race and gender diversity, in-house legal teams must be mindful of the growing emphasis on diversity, considering societal trends to help enhance organisational resilience and perspective.  Diversity and Inclusion requires us to take a second look at organisational hierarchy and how to give each voice a seat on the table.   

Evolving Ethical and Compliance Standards. We all know that global standards evolve, some faster than others. In-house legal teams need to keep themselves updated with these changes to ensure that their company can adapt and adhere to the highest degree of ethical and compliance standards.  In-house legal teams should not just enforce compliance standards, but need to be able to make business units understand its significance first. 

How do you motivate and manage your legal team well? 

Most organisations right now have a multi-generational and diverse workforce, comprised of different mindsets, ages, generational ideologies, and culture, among others.  Leading by compliance used to be the standard, a discipline style of leadership.  Simply forcing compliance is no longer the best way to lead, manage and motivate a team. To manage and motivate the legal team, I practice Compassionate Leadership, which is using your head and heart to inspire and influence people so they can, in turn, inspire and influence others. Compassionate Leaders practice sympathy, empathy and compassion as needed at the workplace.  It is important to understand the distinctions related to each. 

It is also important to empower the team to make decisions and create a safe space for them to make mistakes.  It is inevitable that people will make mistakes. Building a safe and open culture where the first reaction to a mistake is “How do we fix this?” rather than “Who is at fault?” empowers the team to first resolve mistakes instead of wasting time finding a scapegoat or hiding mistakes out of fear. I am also a firm believer of the adage “Praise in public, criticise in private”. I make it a point to let my team know if they had done a good job through minor or major recognition in the organisation and refrain from criticising them in open meetings or gatherings attended by their peers or other business units. When they make mistakes, I make sure that I discuss the same with them one-on-one. Reprimanding them in public merely serves to chip away at their self-confidence as well as negatively impact the respect from their peers, leading to possible loss of trust that they can handle their legal function. 

Are the effects of AI on the legal world overplayed, or underplayed?  

AI or Generative AI has risen in popularity over the years. It has spawned countless issues not just for the legal world but also in other aspects of our personal lives and business operations.  AI, although a growing trend, is still in its nascent stages and its impact and effects on the legal world can be seen as both overplayed and underplayed. 

It is overplayed because of the overestimation of AI’s capabilities to completely automate or take over the legal function.  While AI can be used as a tool to facilitate document reviews, legal research, and analysis, it is not yet mature and capable enough to perform nuanced analysis, distinct correlation and focused creativity needed to execute a legal task.  At present, AI is still not capable of replacing a human lawyer as it is likely meant to augment and supplement human abilities and competence. 

It is underplayed on the other hand, as the use of AI has generated new legal issues such as intellectual property infringement, liability for AI-generated decisions using analytics and data, and emergence of new issues involving ethical considerations in the practice of the legal profession.  Although these are new legal issues, these are not as widespread yet due to the general distrust by legal practitioners in using AI for legal work. In addition, the enhanced efficiency of using AI for legal research, document reviews, and a supplemental tool for lawyers is also underplayed and underestimated. These can lead to substantial cost savings and efficiency gains. 

Overall, while some aspects of the use of AI in the legal world may be exaggerated or underestimated, AI as it matures will transform the practice of the legal profession and give legal practitioners the opportunity to adapt to new tools and challenges.