Beyond Jurisdictions: How to Operationalize Extraterritoriality in AML/CFT and Sanctions
Extraterritoriality isn’t a conference theory—it travels with your payments, your partners, your data, and your supply chains. A flow that touches rails in another jurisdiction, a third party processing from abroad, a brand that embeds financial services across markets…and suddenly a local institution is being judged not only by its domestic law, but also by the reach of foreign regimes that can trigger obligations, restrictions, or expectations within days. The relevant question isn’t whether extraterritoriality “should” exist, but how to operate safely when the signals move and the business cannot stop. In plain language, extraterritoriality appears when a rule or authority crosses borders if certain triggers are present: currency (e.g., USD), counterparties involved, touchpoints with a foreign financial system, or facilitation by a covered person. In practice it shows up as reporting duties, prohibitions on specific transmittals of funds, lists and sanctions that “stick” to particular corridors or jurisdictions, or due-diligence standards that are expected even if your local rulebook doesn’t call them by that name. Three misunderstandings are worth avoiding: thinking that “not being on a list” equals safety; assuming this only applies to global banks; and betting on “waiting for the final verdict” to move controls that, day to day, are essential to manage risk. Preparing without panic requires discipline. First, decide with verified facts and current notices, not adjectives. Second, apply proportionality: the right control for the actual risk of a product, channel, geography, or counterparty. Third, leave traceability: if it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen. And finally, communicate calmly and respectfully; communication is also a control because it reduces rumor, error, and friction with customers. The roadmap starts with an exposure map that anyone in management can read. It doesn’t have to be perfect or encyclopedic; it has to be useful. List products and channels (retail vs. corporate, cross-border payments, trade finance, acquiring, wallets), sensitive corridors and currencies, critical counterparties and third parties (correspondents, processors, program managers, marketplaces), and—above all—the points in the process where things really happen: where screening occurs, who escalates, who decides, by what criteria, and within what time window. That map isn’t a slide for the board; it’s a living work tool. With exposure in sight, convert notices and rules into operational requirements. What is prohibited? What requires reporting? What merits escalation? That “operational dictionary” prevents each area from interpreting the same notice differently. Assign single-point ownership for each requirement (Policy, Operations, Legal, Tech) to reduce gaps and overlaps. If your organization belongs to a group, synchronizing policies across parent and subsidiaries avoids a decision in one country leaving another entity out of step with shared clients, channels, or vendors. Controls must go beyond name screening. Screening is necessary but insufficient if there aren’t contextual rules by transaction type, corridor, and client role; if escalation paths aren’t clear; or if time-to-decision isn’t measured. An alert that ages without resolution is real risk: it exposes customers, erodes partner trust, and, under supervision, becomes a finding. Assessing quality—what was escalated, why, with what evidence, and with what outcome—matters as much as counting alert volumes. The biggest exposure often hides in third parties. Contracts with explicit AML/sanctions clauses, audit rights, an operational kill-switch, data-sharing for investigations, and periodic effectiveness tests (walk-throughs, samples, evidence) separate “we comply on paper” from “we comply in practice.” Outsourcing processes does not outsource decision accountability: if your brand is on the front, your board owns the risk and must be able to demonstrate control. Evidence matters. Keep data hygiene (names, IDs, jurisdictions), version your lists, and maintain a decision log with facts considered, reasoning, approvals, and timestamps—this makes decisions explainable that might otherwise look discretionary from the outside. A small anonymized case library helps train teams, align criteria, and speed up future decisions. Traceability isn’t bureaucracy; it’s the institutional memory that protects you when the conversation gets demanding. Communication is also a control. Pre-approved customer messaging for common scenarios—delays due to review, enhanced due diligence, blocks—reduces friction and complaints. A stakeholder matrix clarifies who must be informed and when (board, regulators, key partners). Training spokespeople avoids promises that outpace the facts or silences that feed speculation. Well-managed calm is part of the internal control system. Business continuity completes the picture. Identify alternative rails or corridors in case one pathway is restricted, run table-top exercises for liquidity, client service, and operational rerouting, and time-box decisions: 48–72 hours. In a crunch, what you decide in the first three days defines downstream risk; better reasonable, documented decisions than perfect decisions that never happen. Measurement gives visibility. Coverage (what and who is screened and how often), effectiveness (time-to-decision, escalation quality, repeat findings), remediation velocity (how quickly fixes are implemented and verified), and culture signals (early issue reporting, training retention, first-line challenge) tell the operational story that boards and authorities expect to hear. A few anonymized examples help anchor this. A payments fintech processing indirect routes into sensitive jurisdictions via aggregators learned to segment by corridor, raise due diligence when in facilitation roles, and negotiate a kill-switch with its rails partner. A non-bank lender financing supply chains with potential dual-use goods mapped proliferation/sanctions exposure, added documentary verification of the commodity, and set up a rapid committee for justified holds. An embedded finance model with a multi-country marketplace reinforced contracts, implemented quarterly “proof-of-life” tests on the partner’s controls, and prepared clear messaging for preventive blocks. There’s no magic here—just method, discipline, and learning. If you need a practical sequence without turning this into a manual, consider this cadence. In the first thirty days, stabilize and see clearly: refresh the exposure map and gap list; freeze contradictory procedures; issue a plain-language memo with current facts and interim guidance; and confirm contractual levers with critical third parties (rights to information, audit, termination). Between days thirty and sixty, calibrate and document: update policies and define thresholds that trigger holds, EDD, or escalation; roll out decision logs and case templates; run a QA pass on recent escalations; align customer messaging and publish a brief FAQ for frontline teams. Between
Zweig’s dream: reforming Brazil for the future
In his last years of life, when Stefan Zweig published Brazil: Land of the Future, a feeling became so embedded in the Brazilian subconscious that paradoxically explains both national joy and melancholy: that prosperity is always just around the corner. Of course, today we are mature enough to recognize that Zweig’s book, although insightful, was like a love letter written by someone dazzled, always ready to turn a blind eye to problems. This does not mean we have stopped waiting for our promised land. Comprehensive reforms in Brazil are often presented by political leaders as our ultimate ticket to the future. In practice, the future is usually postponed to the next reform, but the quest for a utopian Brazil has undeniably led to political actions that have realigned the country economically and made us more open to foreign investment. I had the honor of contributing to Brazil’s first major step in this direction when, in 2019, we passed the Economic Freedom Act, which fostered the opening of new businesses as never before since the turn of the millennium. There is no doubt, however, that the most significant and controversial reform has come recently, with Constitutional Amendment No. 132/2023, known as the Tax Reform. Like any major reform, its impacts are still subject to debate, but it was marked by an attempt to simplify the previous tax system: by instituting the dual IVA (dual value-added tax), composed of the IBS (property and services tax) and the CBS (property and services contribution), it replaced a series of old taxes. It also created the IS (selective tax), an extrafiscal tax aimed at regulating the consumption of certain goods and services deemed harmful to health or the environment, rather than merely generating revenue. It is the IS that we need to clarify to the public. Its regulation came this year, through Complementary Law No. 214/2025, which defined its applicability to products and activities with negative externalities, e.g.: alcoholic beverages, sugary drinks, tobacco products, high-polluting vehicles, gambling, mineral resource extraction etc. The IS is a federal tax, levied once on the good or service, with no credit offsets allowed. The calculation base will vary depending on the type of transaction and may be: sale value, book value, or a reference value set by regulation, and it will not include amounts owed for IBS, CBS, or the IS itself. The taxpayers of the IS are producers, importers, and traders of goods and services subject to taxation. The tax is due at the following times: (1) first commercialization of the good; (2) auction acquisition; (3) non-onerous transfer of extracted or produced mineral goods; (4) incorporation of the good into the manufacturer’s fixed assets; (5) export of extracted mineral goods; (6) consumption of the good by the producer or manufacturer; or (7) service provision or payment, whichever occurs first. In this context, it is important to highlight that the Executive Branch vetoed the provision of Complementary Law No. 214/2025 that excluded IS from being levied on the export of mineral goods. The technical justification was that the exemption would violate Article 153, Paragraph 6, Item VII, of the Constitution, which requires taxation on mineral extraction regardless of whether the destination is domestic or international. At the time of writing this article, the decision on whether to uphold or overturn the veto is still pending before Congress. If upheld, IS will apply to mineral extraction even when destined for export. If overturned, exports of these goods will be exempt, with taxation limited to domestic operations. This latter scenario may make exports more attractive for oil and natural gas producers, potentially reducing the supply of raw materials for domestic refineries, which today face logistical obstacles and reliance on imports. IS rates will be defined by ordinary federal law and may vary depending on the nature of the good or service. For mineral extraction, for instance, the rate will be capped at 0.25%. For alcoholic beverages, the law may set differentiated rates by product category, applying progressive rates according to alcohol content. In the automotive sector, rates will be scaled based on environmental criteria related to pollutant emissions, encouraging the acquisition of electric and hybrid vehicles and promoting a more sustainable transportation matrix. As can be seen, the creation of the IS is an innovation in the Brazilian tax system, aligning with international practices for taxing harmful products. However, its implementation requires taxpayers to exercise extra care regarding compliance with new ancillary obligations, the correct classification of taxable goods and services, and the assessment of tax risks arising from potential interpretative divergences, especially in sectors with high regulatory complexity such as fuels and mining. Despite its narrower scope compared to the IBS and CBS, the economic effects of the IS may be significant, particularly in price formation and the competitiveness of companies subject to progressive rates based on environmental or health criteria. Companies in sectors sensitive to this tax should incorporate the potential tax impacts on their margins, market positioning, and investment decisions into their tax and strategic planning. That said, although it is a tax with specific reach, the IS has structural influence on the production chains subject to its incidence. Proper understanding and monitoring will be essential for taxpayers to adapt to the new tax model, mitigate risks, and seize opportunities within the regulatory logic ushered in by the Tax Reform. As can be seen, the IS is just one part of the broader reforms Brazil is currently undertaking; and the oil & gas sector still faces many challenges to ensure the sustainable development of Brazil’s private refining industry. A parallel issue, also of great impact, is the revision of the reference price calculation methodology for oil, set monthly by ANP (the Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels), which serves as the calculation base for the collection of royalties and profit-sharing for the Union, States, and Municipalities. Currently, the reference price lags behind actual market prices for oil, resulting in (1) lower royalty and profit-sharing
Deepfakes and Image Rights: Legal Challenges in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
In the digital era, technology evolves faster than the laws that attempt to regulate it. Among the most striking examples are deepfakes—realistic but entirely fabricated images, videos, or audio generated by artificial intelligence. While these tools can be used for satire, education, or entertainment, they also present new challenges to personal rights, particularly the right to one’s image. Deepfakes raise questions about consent, misuse, and legal liability. Across continents and legal systems, these synthetic creations have already prompted legislative debates, artistic controversy, and new concerns over how identity can be digitally rewritten without consent. This article explores the intersection between deepfake technology and image rights, highlighting the legal vacuum, the potential for abuse, and the need for effective legal and contractual safeguards. What Are Deepfakes and How Do They Work? Deepfakes are synthetic media generated using artificial intelligence. These neural networks train on large datasets to create hyper-realistic content that mimics real individuals’ faces, voices, and expressions. Common use cases include inserting a person’s face into a movie scene, creating fake news clips, or mimicking a celebrity’s voice. Initially a niche technology, deepfakes have now proliferated through apps and open-source tools, making their creation accessible to anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection. Their impact is significant. Viral videos of public figures making statements they never uttered or influencers appearing in fake promotional content illustrate how deepfakes can distort public perception and damage reputations. This is where the right to image comes into focus. Image Rights and the Deepfake Dilemma The right to image generally refers to a person’s control over the commercial and public use of their likeness, including their face, voice, or other identifying attributes. Deepfakes challenge this right in multiple ways. First, by simulating consent: a deepfake may appear as if someone has willingly participated in content they never approved. Second, by blurring the line between parody and defamation, as it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish fiction from fact. A clear illustrative example of this dilemma appears in the popular TV series Black Mirror, in the episode where actress Salma Hayek portrays a version of herself. In the narrative, a streaming platform uses her digital likeness—via deepfake technology—to create fictional films that damage her reputation, without her consent. This dramatized yet eerily plausible scenario demonstrates the emotional and reputational toll of synthetic media, especially when image rights are not properly safeguarded. Legally, the situation is complex. In some jurisdictions, image rights are grounded in privacy law, while in others, they fall under intellectual property or tort law. What is clear, however, is that current frameworks often fail to adequately address the unique threats posed by synthetic media. There is also an enforcement gap: once a deepfake is posted and shared, removing it entirely from the internet is nearly impossible. Comparative Approaches and Legal Gaps Different regions have started to address deepfakes in their legislation. In the United States, states like California and Texas have introduced bills banning deepfakes in political campaigns and non-consensual adult content. These statutes reflect a growing recognition of the real-world harm deepfakes can cause, particularly when used to manipulate elections or spread false information. The European Union’s proposed AI Act includes provisions on transparency and accountability for synthetic content. Under this regulation, AI-generated media must disclose its artificial nature, which could help reduce confusion and misuse in public discourse. In Asia, countries like South Korea have criminalized the creation and distribution of certain types of deepfake content, especially those that involve sexual exploitation or impersonation. Meanwhile, China has implemented a rule that requires providers of deep synthesis services to notify users when content is generated using AI. Latin America is still developing its response to deepfake risks. Most countries rely on traditional legal frameworks, such as defamation and privacy laws, but lack tailored provisions for synthetic media. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for legal innovation. Given the region’s growing digital influence, especially in content creation and influencer marketing, proactive legislation could help prevent future harms. In Mexico, legislators are already pushing to penalize deepfakes used to simulate explicit content without consent. Meanwhile, in Brazil, the Superior Electoral Court has explicitly banned the use of deepfakes in political campaigns and requires clear labeling of any AI-generated media in electoral content. These measures reflect growing institutional awareness in Latin America, not only of the reputational harm these tools can cause but also of their potential to mislead voters and undermine democratic processes. A notable real-world example of deepfake misuse occurred in 2018, when a video surfaced of former U.S. President Barack Obama apparently insulting then-President Donald Trump. Although it was later revealed to be a deepfake created for educational purposes, the clip demonstrated how easily synthetic content could mislead the public. Another high-profile case involved actress Scarlett Johansson, whose image and voice were digitally manipulated for adult content without her consent. Hypothetical Scenarios and Legal Implications The potential legal implications of deepfakes become even clearer when we look at how such content could play out in real-world scenarios grounded in plausible real-world contexts. Imagine a deepfake video featuring the CEO of a major corporation delivering a fabricated apology for financial fraud. Within hours, the company’s stock value collapses, investors panic, and the damage is done before the video is debunked. The legal consequences would involve not only reputational harm but also financial loss and potential securities fraud inquiries In another case, imagine that just days before a national election in Brazil, a deepfake video circulates showing a presidential candidate appearing to accept illicit funds from a foreign government. The video goes viral before fact-checkers can intervene, swaying public sentiment and influencing voting behavior. The consequences could include investigations for electoral manipulation and reputational damage. Consider also a marketing campaign where a beauty brand digitally inserts the likeness of a well-known influencer into an advertisement, promoting products the influencer has never used. Not only is this a clear case of commercial appropriation of image without consent, but it could also lead
Steps, not gaps: the case for intermediate banking licenses in Chile
In Chile’s financial system, the current regulatory framework forces a binary choice: one is either a non-bank issuer of payment cards with a minimum capital of 25,000 UF (Unidad de Fomento, a Chilean inflation-indexed unit of account, approximately USD 1,000,000 as of April 2025), or a fully licensed bank with a capital requirement of 800,000 UF (approximately USD 32,000,000 as of April 2025). There are no intermediate licenses that allow for a gradual progression in the provision of financial services. This regulatory gap presents a structural barrier to innovation, hinders the responsible growth of emerging players, and traps many firms in a legal and operational limbo. In an increasingly digital and financialized world—with consumers demanding personalized and accessible financial products—Chile urgently needs a scalable licensing regime, as seen in other jurisdictions. This article outlines the current regulatory limitations, highlights successful international models, and proposes potential reforms to enable a more inclusive, competitive, and modern financial ecosystem. II. The Chilean framework: two floors and no staircase Under Chilean law, non-bank issuers of payment cards operate under a regulatory framework established by Law No. 20.950 and detailed in the regulations issued by the Commission for the Financial Market (CMF), including capital requirements and operational restrictions. They are not authorized to take deposits in the banking sense—that is, they must fully safeguard user funds and cannot intermediate them or use them for lending purposes. Additionally, they are not authorized to offer credit services directly using their own funds or under conditions equivalent to those of licensed banks or financial institutions. Conversely, obtaining a full banking license requires a minimum capital of 800,000 UF and compliance with a complex set of prudential regulations, including governance, risk management, liquidity, solvency, and consumer protection standards. The leap from non-bank issuer to full bank is not just financial—it is institutional, technological, and organizational. As a result, Chile lacks a regulatory ladder that would allow firms to scale responsibly, test financial products under controlled conditions, and grow in proportion to their size and risk profile. The absence of proportionality limits competition, discourages innovation, and forces firms to contort their business models to fit unsuitable regulatory molds. III. What do other countries do? Scalable license models The concept of tiered or proportional licensing is not new. Multiple jurisdictions have implemented frameworks that allow financial entities to evolve gradually according to their business models, size, and systemic relevance. Key examples include: United Kingdom: The “restricted banking license” allows fintechs to operate under conditional authorization before becoming fully licensed banks. This “mobilization stage” gives startups time to develop operational capabilities and gradually meet prudential standards. The UK also provides several alternative license types for institutions to begin operating on a limited basis such as: Electronic Money Institutions (EMI) like Revolut – in its first stages – and Wise; Payment Institutions (PI) for money transfers, issuers of payment instruments, and electronic payments; or even using novel commercial approaches through Banking-as-a-Service structures like Railsr. Brazil: The Central Bank has created several new legal entities—Payment Institutions, Direct Credit Societies (SCDs), and Peer-to-Peer Lending Societies (SEPs)—with tailored regulatory frameworks. This has enabled many fintechs to evolve into more complex financial institutions. United States: Multiple state and federal licenses exist, and ongoing debate surrounds the creation of a “special purpose national bank charter” for fintechs, which would allow them to engage in specific financial activities without becoming full-service banks. Colombia: Financial companies can operate through alternative licenses such as “Sociedades Especializadas en Depósitos y Pagos Electrónicos” (SEDPEs) or as “Compañías de Financiamiento”. SEDPEs are authorized to offer electronic payment services, such as digital wallets and prepaid cards, but they are not allowed to provide loans or collect deposits directly from the public (i.e., Movii, the first fintech to operate as a SEDPE in Colombia). Compañías de Financiamiento can grant loans and offer credit products, subject to limitations when compared to full-service banks. An example of this model is Nu Colombia, a subsidiary of Nubank, which obtained its financing company license to expand its digital financial services in the country. These international experiences share a common vision: enabling innovation under proportional risk frameworks. While the legal vehicles vary, they all aim to offer supervised spaces for growth, experimentation, and market entry, reducing the cost of regulatory compliance for smaller players without compromising oversight. Chile, with its high digital adoption and strong institutional framework, is well-positioned to adapt these models to its financial ecosystem. IV. What could Chile do? Possible regulatory pathways Chile could adopt one or more of the following options to introduce proportional licensing: Digital Financial Institution License: A new license that permits the offering of basic deposit-like accounts (e.g., provisioned accounts), remunerated savings, and limited credit products, with lower capital requirements and proportionate risk controls. This license could cap the size of operations or restrict the types of clients served. Progressive Licensing Model: Inspired by the UK, a staged authorization model could allow firms to operate under predefined limitations before scaling up to a full license upon meeting operational and compliance benchmarks. Legislative Reform or Special Regulation: Chile could institutionalize intermediate licenses through amendments to the General Banking Law or a standalone regulation, empowering the CMF to define requirements and oversight mechanisms. Introducing scalable licenses does not mean deregulation. On the contrary, it means regulating smarter—tailoring oversight to each actor’s size, complexity, and systemic importance. A tiered model could improve monitoring and market transparency with the right safeguards. Regardless of the path chosen, the system should be guided by three principles: proportional regulation, consumer protection, and business scalability. It must also include clear rules on access to payment systems, interoperability, financial crime prevention, and effective supervision. V. Conclusion Chile’s lack of intermediate financial licenses is a regulatory blind spot that impedes the orderly development of new actors, stifles competition, and excludes potentially millions from innovative and secure financial services. This is not about weakening supervision. It is about acknowledging that not all financial models pose the same risks. A fintech offering remunerated accounts backed by central bank custody does not represent the same systemic threat as a universal bank with a diversified credit portfolio. Chile has an opportunity to build a
The New Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation: A Turning Point in the Mexican Judicial System
June 1, 2025, marked a significant milestone in Mexico’s constitutional history. For the first time, polls opened for citizens to directly elect the members of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), the country’s highest judicial tribunal, as well as the entire national judicial system at both local and federal levels. Consequently, popular elections now determine all branches of the State: Executive, Legislative, and for the first time, the Judiciary. This election day, a product of the constitutional judicial reform approved in 2024, modified the SCJN’s composition and sparked extensive debates regarding the suitability of this measure and its potential consequences. This article aims to analyze the key elements of this transformation, addressing the context that fostered it, the SCJN’s significance within the Mexican legal framework, its historical composition, and the changes imposed by the reform. I. The Context of the 2024 Judicial Reform: An Unprecedented Change The 2024 judicial reform emerged from a broad public debate concerning the Federal Judiciary. Aspects such as the perceived detachment from citizens, efficiency in justice administration, and the reliability of courts in judicial processes were questioned. Arguments in favor of the reform highlighted the necessity of a completely new judicial system aimed at eliminating the flaws that had accumulated over the years. In this manner, the Judicial Reform proposed that the popular election of judges, magistrates, and ministers could serve as a mechanism to reform the Judiciary, making it more transparent and effective in light of the public perception of the previous system’s inefficiency. The reform, approved and promulgated in late 2024, was presented as a response to the demand for more accessible justice with greater legitimacy of origin. While this might appear attractive, the cost of its implementation involved sidelining fundamental aspects such as the judicial career path, which aspiring judicial officials previously had to undergo, and simultaneously jeopardizing the most elemental principle of judicial independence. II. Importance and Function of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in Mexico The SCJN is the highest tribunal in Mexico’s justice system and the supreme interpreter of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (CPEUM) and international treaties to which the country is a party. Its relevance is manifested through several crucial functions: Defense of the Constitution: The SCJN acts as the guarantor of the constitutional order. Through various control mechanisms, the SCJN seeks to ensure that acts of authority and laws adhere to the fundamental principles and rights enshrined in the CPEUM. Protection of Human Rights: One of the SCJN’s fundamental functions is the protection of human rights, established in both the CPEUM and the international treaties to which Mexico is a party. Issuance of Precedent (Jurisprudence): The SCJN engages in interpreting and integrating the national legal framework, thereby issuing criteria that are binding for all judicial authorities throughout the country. Constitutional and Conventional Review: It exercises control over the constitutionality of secondary laws to ensure they are interpreted in accordance with the CPEUM and the international treaties signed by Mexico. Court of Last Resort: At the national level, the SCJN acts as the final judicial instance for resolving disputes. Upon exhausting this instance, access to a new review stage would only be available before international bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Its significance is undeniable. The SCJN not only resolves cases but, through its criteria, shapes the interpretation of law, defines the scope of rights, and ultimately influences the daily lives of citizens. The autonomy of its decisions is considered a cornerstone for the separation of powers and for ensuring an effective counterbalance to the other two branches of the Union. III. Composition of the Court Prior to the Judicial Reform Prior to the 2024 reform, the SCJN was composed of eleven ministers operating in two chambers (salas). Their appointment followed a process established in the CPEUM, which sought a balance between the Executive and Legislative branches: Presidential Nomination: The President of the Republic submitted a slate of three candidates to the Senate. Senate Approval: The Senate, following appearances by the nominees, selected the minister to fill the vacancy from that slate, by a vote of two-thirds of its members present. Term of Office: Once appointed, ministers served for fifteen years and could only be removed for serious causes stipulated by law. IV. Composition of the Court According to the 2024 Judicial Reform The 2024 judicial reform significantly transformed the structure and selection process of the SCJN. The most relevant changes include: Reduction in the Number of Ministers: The SCJN will now be composed of nine ministers, down from the previous eleven, eliminating the chambers into which the tribunal was divided. Direct Popular Election: The most significant change is the election of ministers (as well as all judges nationwide) by popular vote. The process was established as follows: Candidate Nomination: Candidacies are proposed by the three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative (Chambers of Deputies and Senators), and the Judiciary itself. Candidate Selection: The National Electoral Institute (INE) is responsible for reviewing profiles to ensure they meet constitutional requirements (nationality, age, academic degree, legal experience, good reputation, etc.) and compiling the lists of candidates. Campaign and Election: Candidates conduct electoral campaigns. Finally, they are elected by direct and secret vote of citizens on federal election day. Term of Office: Ministers elected by popular vote will serve for 12 years and can only be removed in accordance with the chapter on public servant responsibility for serious administrative offenses, acts of corruption, and patrimonial damage to the State. Rotation of the Presidency: The reform also establishes that the President of the SCJN will be the person who obtained the majority of votes in the citizen election and will rotate every 2 years. Start of Functions: The ministers who win the election on June 1, 2025, will begin their functions on September 1, 2025. V. June 2025 Judicial Election On June 1, 2025, the first popular election was held to choose not only the ministers who will form the new SCJN but also half of the total members of the judiciary at both local and federal levels; the second half will be elected in 2027. Citizen participation was certified at 13 million citizens who went to the polls to cast their
Unproven Payment in the Proceeding’s Evidentiary Phase under Mexican Commercial Law
Does a payment made but not proven during the appropriate procedural phase of trial render it ineffective? At first glance, this may seem an obvious question, but unfortunately under Mexican commercial law it is not. Normative Provision under Critique. Article 1397 of the Commercial Code provides as follows: “If the matter concerns a judgment, no defense other than payment may be admitted if enforcement is sought within one hundred and eighty days; if that period has elapsed but not more than one year, defenses of settlement, set-off and arbitration agreement shall also be admitted; and if more than one year has passed, defenses of novation—including forbearance, debt reduction, agreement not to sue, or any other arrangement modifying the obligation—and of falsity of the instrument shall also be admissible, provided that enforcement is not sought by virtue of a final judgment, agreement or pending proceeding in the record. All these defenses, except that of falsity, must be subsequent to the judgment, agreement or proceeding, and must be evidenced by public instrument, document judicially authenticated or by judicial confession.” Introduction: Issues under interpretation. The cited provision admits the defense of payment even at the enforcement stage of the judgment; however, its concluding clause restricts its application to payments made after the date of the judgment. In other words, under commercial law, even following a condemnatory judgment, the defendant may invoke payment as a defense at the enforcement stage—but only if the payment in question occurred after the judgment. This raises the question: what becomes of a payment that was in fact made but not proven during the evidentiary phase of a commercial trial? The language of the provision seems to treat it as though it never occurred. This article advocates for a broader interpretation of the admissibility requirement set forth in Article 1397 of the Commercial Code, recognizing that its true purpose is to avoid relitigating the same defense of payment already pleaded, not to strip validly and timely made payments of their efficacy. Implications of the Textual Application of the Cited Statutory Provision. Thus, under the text of the provision, picture the most extreme scenario: the plaintiff sues for non-payment (when in fact the debtor did pay), and the proceeding continues in default because the defendant neither pled nor proved payment during the evidentiary phase. In that situation, although payment was timely made, commercial law appears to privilege procedural form over substantive justice: once a final condemns payment that was not evidenced at trial, the defendant may not prove it at the enforcement stage. Accordingly, the text of Mexican commercial law does not favor a duly performed payment unless it is proven in the appropriate phase of the proceedings or unless the claim to enforce it has prescribed. Once enforcement proceedings are initiated, it is incumbent on the defendant to establish timely payment—and only during the trial’s evidentiary phase—otherwise the debtor will be condemned to pay despite having already fulfilled the obligation, effectively imposing a double payment. Correct interpretation in accordance with fundamental rights and the civil law concept of payment. Therefore, while the admissibility requirement in the final clause of Article 1397 serves the legitimate purpose of preventing the re-examination of an already pleaded defense, it must not be construed restrictively. To do so conflicts with the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which forbids procedural formalism from prevailing over the substantive resolution of a dispute—namely, whether the obligation has been effectively discharged. Moreover, payment is, par excellence, the means of fulfilling an obligation and can be refused only for just cause, as set forth by Article 2098 of the Federal Civil Code. It is therefore inconceivable that, although the creditor may not lawfully refuse a proper payment, a mere procedural requirement could nullify a timely performance. Under this reasoning, Article 1397 limits the defenses available at the enforcement stage; yet its procedural admissibility requirement, again, must not be read restrictively but rather in favor of substantive justice, so as to avoid condemning a person to double payment when they have timely satisfied their obligation but failed to prove it at trial. To hold otherwise would amount to accepting that payment, as a mode of extinguishing obligations, does not actually discharge the debt but instead survives on condition that non-payment is plead and proven at trial—thereby distorting the civil law conception of payment. As Dr. Cortiñas Barajas observes, once a payment is made without lawful refusal, there is no rational basis—neither theoretical nor practical—to presume the obligation persists or a new obligation arises: “that payment extinguishes the debt and should not give rise to any further obligation, since the legal expectations and subjective rights of both parties have been satisfied,” underscoring the bilateral nature of the act. Conclusion. These considerations, intrinsic to the nature of payment and the effects of its performance, confirm that the procedural admissibility requirement in Article 1397 cannot be limited solely to defenses arising after the judgment. If a payment has not been examined due to lack of opportunity, it should be admissible at any stage of the proceedings; otherwise, procedural form would eclipse substantive justice, exposing the debtor to a double payment. To date, although the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has addressed Article 1397 in relation to certain fundamental rights, it has not analyzed it under Article 17 of the Constitution nor in terms of distorting the figure and consequences of payment as a form of extinguishing obligations. Nevertheless, the interpretation advanced here aligns with our judicial system and the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution.
The Corporate Lawyer as a Talent Developer: Strategy, Influence, and High Performance
Ask any experienced corporate lawyer or business consultant, and they will all tell you the same thing: technical knowledge is a modest hurdle compared to strategic vision, courage, and the ability to work across departments and client profiles. With nearly two decades of experience as in-house counsel working for large corporations, I have witnessed this reality firsthand. Driven by rapid advances in technology, shifting economic markets, and growing regulatory complexity, the legal department has changed dramatically. It is no longer just an interpreter of the law but a strategic decision-making center, a space for cross-functional collaboration, and a hub for talent development. In this context, one of the greatest professional opportunities for a corporate lawyer emerges: to become a true catalyst for transformation. The paradox of the new legal generation Technological advances have sparked a widespread perception of mass professional replacement, generating anxiety across the job market. A prime example is the exponential debate in various forums about artificial intelligence, which already performs tasks that can easily replace human effort. The result? An increasingly urgent need for professionals who can think critically, show emotional intelligence, communicate strategically, understand business, and adapt quickly. These skills have always been valuable, but today it is nearly impossible to remain in a role for long without them. As lawyers gain the power to influence decisions, protect values, develop leaders, and build strong organizational cultures, they can — through their daily work — help internal clients, peers, leaders, and team members become high-performance professionals. The lawyer as a development tool High performance is not a destination — it is a continuous process. And the corporate lawyer, when acting strategically, can transform companies by empowering people. They challenge norms, provoke reflection, disrupt comfort zones, and inspire others to rise to the occasion. This role demands more than technical expertise. It requires presence. Active listening. Contextual awareness. And the courage to ask tough questions. Lawyers who position themselves as business partners do not just solve problems — they anticipate scenarios, build bridges between departments, and inspire conscious decision-making. The case: when the legal department transforms people During my corporate career, one case stood out among all the others. While managing a litigation portfolio, I identified a high number of sales (purchases of IT equipment) that were later contested by customers. They alleged that they had simply never made the purchases. Rather than remaining in our comfort zone — managing lawsuits with technical precision and mechanical effort — we chose a cross-functional, strategic, and context-sensitive approach. Beyond just resolving the legal issue at hand, we had to preserve the company’s reputation, protect stakeholders, align decisions with cross-functional leadership, and ensure long-term sustainability. But what stood out most was the human impact: leaders who had to rethink their management models, teams that were challenged to take ownership and assume responsibility, processes that required revision, and professionals who discovered capabilities they didn’t know they had. This project clearly highlighted the skills that transform a lawyer into a talent developer. Here are a few: 1. Systems thinking Understanding the business in all its nuances — its purpose, values, goals, risk appetite, and operational dynamics — is essential for legal to contribute in a way that meaningful decisions are made for the organization. This perspective allows the lawyer to connect legal with strategy, encouraging professionals to look beyond their roles and fostering interdepartmental collaboration. 2. Strategic communication Turning complexity into clarity is an art. Lawyers who master strategic and assertive communication can influence, educate, and mobilize. They transform meetings into alignment opportunities and legal consultations into collective learning moments, promoting autonomy and ownership among stakeholders. 3. Risk-based decision orientation The ability to present scenarios, weigh impacts, and propose viable paths is one of legal’s greatest contributions. By doing so transparently and methodically, corporate lawyers teach others to think strategically — even outside the legal sphere — enabling informed and coherent decision-making aligned with corporate principles and expectations. 4. Emotional intelligence and empathy Every legal decision has human consequences. Knowing how to navigate difficult conversations, respect emotional timing, and act ethically and sensitively transforms the legal department into a space of trust and development. 5. Agility with responsibility In times of crisis or change, lawyers must act swiftly without sacrificing quality. This posture inspires others to make autonomous decisions — always with responsibility and risk awareness. The lawyer is no longer “the one who solves problems,” but “the one who prevents them.” And in doing so, they educate, develop, and transform. Technology as an ally of legal depth As controversial as it may seem, resisting technological advancement is no longer a viable strategy. In the legal environment, embracing technology is not about replacement — it’s about empowerment. The rise of artificial intelligence and automation tools has profoundly reshaped legal department routines. Tasks such as document review, clause analysis, and legal research are increasingly being performing with greater precision by algorithms. Far from being a threat, this advancement should be seen as a strategic opportunity. By delegating operational activities to technology, legal professionals can redirect their focus to what is truly irreplaceable: technical depth, contextual interpretation, risk-based decision-making, and — above all — the development of people. Time that was once consumed by routine tasks can now be invested in mentoring, training, policy design, governance, and cross-functional collaboration. The legal department becomes a space of applied intelligence — where legal expertise is not isolated but integrated with business strategy and organizational culture. This shift demands a new professional posture. Lawyers must position themselves not merely as executors of legal tasks, but as experts who choose to operate where their knowledge creates real impact. Let technology do what it does best, so lawyers can focus on what they do best: think organically, lead, and transform. The future of legal leadership The legal leadership of the future will be built by professionals who understand that developing people is just as important as protecting contracts or managing litigation. Legal will increasingly become a space for culture, ethics, and human development. Lawyers who lead with purpose, share knowledge, and foster growth will be the protagonists of this new era. Their professional brands will be recognized not only for technical expertise but for the impact they generate in others. Conclusion: Legal as a space for elevation The corporate lawyer, when acting strategically, becomes a developer of talents who gain autonomy and ownership. They challenge, provoke, inspire, and elevate. They
An AI Named LEO: Why Infrastructure, Not Hype, Will Define the Future of Legal Tech
The current AI gold rush has reached a fever pitch, and the legal tech industry is at its epicenter. From venture capital boardrooms to software development roadmaps, the mandate is clear: integrate generative AI. This deluge of capital and hype has created a powerful illusion where AI is presented as a magic wand capable of solving any problem. But behind the buzzwords and impressive demos lies a critical architectural question that most are ignoring: what happens when the investor-subsidized costs come due? The race to build the flashiest AI-powered tools may be hiding a foundational flaw that threatens their very existence. This brings us to the immigration sector, a field where these pressures are acutely felt across the entire ecosystem—from the individuals seeking new lives, to the law firms guiding them, to the enterprises navigating global talent acquisition. The Immigration Industry’s Multi-Layered Bottleneck For millions, the path to U.S. citizenship or residency is stalled. The process is notoriously complex, intimidating, and expensive, with legal fees for a single naturalization application averaging between $1,500 and $3,000 for a straightforward case. Layer on language barriers and opaque timelines, and the journey becomes nearly impossible for many families. The law firms managing these cases are often drowning in manual workflows, hampered by legacy case management software. While many platforms now claim to use AI, most offer only cosmetic enhancements—a chatbot here, an autofill button there. This leaves attorneys and paralegals to burn out under the weight of administrative tasks that should have been automated years ago, limiting their ability to scale and serve more clients. This inefficiency is then passed down to corporations, where HR and global mobility teams face mounting legal fees and documentation delays to bring foreign talent to the U.S. This dependency on costly third-party firms is not just a drag on the bottom line; in a world of fluid labor, it’s a competitive disadvantage. The Unsustainable Economics of the AI Gold Rush To solve these problems, many tech companies are racing to build fully AI-based legal platforms. Their logic seems simple: let a powerful Large Language Model (LLM) handle everything. However, there is a fundamental economic reality of AI that is often overlooked in this rush for innovation: the immense and unsustainable cost of computation. While it’s true that the price per token for AI models is falling, the total computational demand required to run these systems at scale is exploding. The low cost of entry is encouraging developers to use AI inefficiently, deploying it as a blunt instrument for tasks that a more structured system could handle with a fraction of the resources. This surge in usage is creating an unprecedented strain on the world’s limited supply of high-performance GPUs—the physical hardware that powers these models. When the investor subsidies masking this reality run dry, platforms built solely on generative AI will face a punishing economic truth. Their fundamental operating costs will become unsustainable, forcing them to either raise prices dramatically or sacrifice quality. In an industry like immigration, where clients are already cost-conscious, this model is fatal. It prices out the very people it’s meant to serve, rendering the platform irrelevant. LEO: A Resilient, Hybrid Infrastructure This is why our approach with LEO was deliberately different. We didn’t build a black-box AI tool that chews up tokens and spits out answers. We built a resilient, hybrid framework designed for endurance. It combines the reliability of human-trained decision trees and topic-based legal logic with the targeted efficiency of minimal-token AI augmentation. This design choice has profound implications. It results in over 90% less data usage than purely generative competitors, drastically reducing hallucinations and irrelevant outputs. This efficiency isn’t just a technical detail; it’s the bedrock of our commitment to long-term affordability. This modular system allows us to serve consumers, law firms, and enterprise clients without being vulnerable to the volatility of the AI arms race. At its core, LEO is an infrastructure built to provide seamless, multilingual, and process-compliant support. It dismantles language barriers with a dynamic questionnaire system and provides an AI-powered guide that grounds its answers in verifiable legal logic. It flags inconsistencies, extracts data from uploaded documents, and offers a transparent, trackable case lifecycle. Crucially, it provides a “Human + AI” hybrid model, allowing users to choose the level of support they need—from fully self-guided to attorney-reviewed. Conclusion: Built for Endurance, Not Headlines In a time when AI startups are chasing headlines, we are building for impact and endurance. The future of legal tech will not be won by the flashiest AI, but by the most resilient and accessible infrastructure. For immigrants, this means an affordable, guided pathway. For attorneys, it means true technological scale without ethical compromise. For employers, it means a cost-effective and transparent talent pipeline. At the center of it all is LEO—not just another AI assistant, but a future-ready foundation for immigration law.
Mediation and Companies
Because both conciliation and mediation aim to maintain ties. If I go all the way with a lawsuit, I will unfortunately, create a barrier between the plaintiff and the defendant. And it is unlikely they will reconcile. So the goal is to bring people together again and mend those ties that were broken because of the judicial process, because of the conflict. When different expectations intersect, it is a natural process to arise certain conflicts. Despite the pragmatism of corporate relations, this type of relationship is not immune to conflicts. Actually, conflicts are not just accidents, but elements that can constitute and resignify relationships. It can be resolved in various ways, including a structured termination of the agreement, the negotiation of revised terms, the immediate rupture of the relationship etc. Specifically regarding corporate conflicts, Denise Manfredi and Marc Burbridge explain that “The differences are found in the very purpose of the organization, whether in profit, hierarchy, or in the rules that govern people’s behavior in the business environment. Without conflict management skills, individuals tend to resort to the use of power and the law, imposing their position or quickly escalating to litigation”. It seems that, for sustainable relationships, it appears ideal for parties to establish mechanisms to deepen dialogue and understand each other’s needs. A partner who proactively collaborates to develop positive and mutual benefits relationships, and can engage in a non-destructive dialogue about different positions is also a partner with whom we tend to want to establish long-term relationships. “Most negotiations take place in the context of an ongoing relationship in which it is important to conduct each negotiation in a way that helps, not harms, future relationships and future negotiations. In fact, for many long-term clients, business partners, family members, professional colleagues, government officials, or foreign nations, the ongoing relationship is far more important than any particular negotiation”. Mediation as an alternative method for conflict resolution Mediation can be described as an alternative (recently, the term “appropriate” has been adopted) method of conflict resolution. In essence, it involves the introduction of a neutral third person to assist the directly involved parties in advancing their discussions, CONJUR. Minister Nancy Andrighi, Coordinator of the Newly Created Judicial Center for Conflict Resolution (Cejusc) of the STJ. April, 2023. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-abr-15/conciliacao-e-mediacao-sempre-serao-vantajosas-mesmo-no-fim-do-processo-diz-ministra/. Accessed on: May 7, 2025. ¹ Conflict Mediation, 2016, Coordinators: Tania Almeida, Samantha Pelajo, Eva Jonathan, p. 354. ALMEIDA, Tania; PELAJO, Samantha; JONATHAN, Eva (coords.). Conflict Mediation for Beginners, Practitioners, and Educators. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2016, p. 354. Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; and Paton, Bruce. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, p. 38. with the ultimate aim of enhancing their relationship and, as a result, creating more favorable conditions for reaching a resolution. One key aspect we find significant is this: the objective of mediation is not necessarily achieving a conflict-ending agreement. That would be a consequence of something broader: the parties moving closer to find common ground within their discussions, in a process that empowers them to understand, on their own, the importance of an agreement or even to modify their relationship to bring greater benefits to those involved. It is also worth consider that in certain situations the most beneficial common ground might be an agreement to end the relationship. However, even the rupture, when managed in an organized strategy, can reduce the negative consequences related to the end of the relationship. This can also facilitate quicker and more cost-effective resolutions to the issues arising from the separation. Non-Adversarial Method It is a non-adversarial method that generally seeks the approximation of the Parties involved rather than achieving a win-lose outcome. All companies can benefit from the result of the process, based on the premise that most of the efforts are concentrated on understanding the real interests of each party and the reasons for disagreement, instead of involving common litigation strategies that aims to exploit the formal and material vulnerabilities of the other party to increase the chances of victory. “The positive outcome of dialogues is an intangible asset that is extremely valued in private, community and corporate interactions. It is the incessant search for productive dialogue that provides the continuous redesign of new instruments of understanding focused on consensus-building”. When dealing with partners who, in the face of a controversy, tend to seek formal strategies to avoid responsibility, or whose communication clearly indicates their efforts are only intended to maximize their own gains, our tendency is to be in a reactive position and become more inflexible to try to protect our interests, in a expectation that our intransigence could somehow create a balance between the parties. Nothing is more frustrating: in these situations, it is very common for the parties to realize that their inflexibility leads both to waste resources on unproductive agendas. Instead of this, the choice for mediation process can truly create new business opportunities. 4. ALMEIDA, Tania. Caixa de Ferramentas em Mediação: Aportes práticos e teóricos [Mediation Toolbox: Practical and Theoretical Contributions]. Brazil: Dash Editora, 2014, p. 144. In a specific dispute regarding responsibility for delays on a complex engineering project, the construction company argued the delays stemmed from flaws in the client’s project, necessitating adaptations during execution. The client countered that their project was simply a reference, and the construction company should have raised any concerns about its inadequacy before starting work. However, recognizing the potential costs and negative impacts of litigation, such as project paralysis, payment insecurity, and compromised guarantees, both parties agreed to third-party mediation. This shift in approach allowed them to concentrate on understanding the fundamental reasons behind each other’s positions and to collaboratively identify solutions that effectively addressed the interests of both companies. The following conclusions were reached: The engineering company proposed an alternative technical solution to enhance the industrial plant’s efficiency aiming to offset the start-up delay, leading the parties to a new construction contract; and The client identified that the cost of capital raising of the construction company was significantly higher than its own, and suggested to advance payments, enabling a greater mobilization of work force to accelerate the execution of the remaining works. Less expensive Compared to judicial or arbitration processes, mediation is certainly the most cost-effective conflict resolution method. In the prior example, instead of incurring expenses for legal counsel, technical experts and other arbitrations/judicial costs, in addition to allocating internal efforts, capacities and knowledge to demonstrate why the claim of one party should prevail over the another, the long-term business partners decided to focus on identifying mutually beneficial alternatives. Key aspects of this choice: mediation does not necessarily require the support of law firms for all stages of the process (although, in most cases, the parties use it, participation is not mandatory
The ESG Shift: How Legal Insight Shapes the Future of EU Research
As the European Union strengthens its sustainability agenda, the legal environment surrounding Research and Innovation funding is changing as we move forward. Horizon Europe, the EU’s most significant funding Programme for innovation, research, science, and technology, is no longer focused solely on cutting-edge development; projects are also expected to contribute to environmental protection, social inclusion, and ethical governance. ESG principles are no longer optional, they are fundamental. This article aims to provide insights into the legal dimensions of EU-funded projects, offering an overview of the relevance of ESG frameworks and exploring how legal counsel can make an impact in unfamiliar scenarios, where legal consultants will hopefully play an important and decisive role. Understanding EU-Funded Projects and the Legal Opportunity In 1984, with Framework Programme 1 (FP1), the European Union started to encourage large-scale research and innovation through structured funding initiatives. Today, after 40 years of constantly promoting initiatives, the current Programme, Horizon Europe (2021–2027), allocates over €95 billion to science, technology, and sustainability-driven initiatives. These EU Initiatives have funded collaborative projects that bring together different kinds of entities, like universities, SMEs, NGOs, public authorities, research institutes, and corporations from across EU Member States and associated countries. The projects are carried out by a temporary consortium under a major contractual umbrella, known as the Grant Agreement, a legally binding document signed between all the beneficiaries involved and the European Commission. For over 2 to 5 years, participants implement a well-structured plan divided into “Work Packages” with defined objectives, tasks and deliverables. All projects must comply with strict legal and financial rules and are subject to periodic audits and reviews. While technical and research experts typically lead the project and most of its activities, legal professionals have been underrepresented, not knowing that lawyers can indeed contribute at multiple levels, for example, in roles as In-house Consultants for participating institutions as specialists in topics such as EU compliance, contracts, and policy. The legal counsel’s contributions can be of great value in topics such as contract negotiation, intellectual property protection, regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR, REACH), and increasingly, the integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. The Legal Foundations of ESG in EU Research Although ESG was originally developed in the investment sector, it has now been integrated across major EU policies and legislative instruments. These frameworks are transforming how publicly funded research is expected to operate: – EU Taxonomy Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852): Adopted in June 2020, it provides a legally binding classification system to determine whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable. It legally influences how sustainability claims must be justified in EU-funded projects, particularly those contributing to climate or green innovation goals. – Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): The CSRD introduces mandatory ESG disclosures for participating entities, including large companies, listed SMEs, and eventually non-EU companies with EU operations. While many beneficiaries of EU funding are not yet directly subject, this directive is setting the future standard for transparency and ESG reporting, which all consortium participants should begin preparing for now. – General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): This regulation is legally binding for participants and is directly applicable to all EU-funded projects. GDPR ensures the lawful handling of personal data, a key aspect in health, AI, or social research projects. – Green Deal & Horizon Europe Missions: These important policy agendas frame the EU’s sustainability and innovation goals. Projects aligned with Green Deal objectives, such as climate neutrality, biodiversity, or circularity, are required to embed ESG-related outcomes from the proposal stage. – Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): This recently adopted directive introduces legal obligations for companies to assess and mitigate human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains. Its principles, risk mapping, grievance mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement are increasingly seen as best practices for project governance, even in research environments. Legal counsel should view the CSDDD not only as future law but as a blueprint for proactive ESG integration in EU-funded projects. Together, these instruments reflect a clear policy shift: ESG is no longer a voluntary add-on but a legal and strategic foundation for publicly funded research. For EU project participants, and especially legal advisors, understanding and applying these frameworks is essential to ensure compliance, strengthen project credibility, and align with the EU’s evolving expectations for responsible innovation. Strategic Legal Roles Across the EU Project Lifecycle As previously mentioned, most EU-funded projects are conceived and led by technical experts, legal insight could play a crucial role at every stage, from proposal drafting to post-project exploitation. Legal professionals could contribute most effectively to four key areas: Proposal Stage: From the outset, legal advisors add value by helping project proposals align with EU sustainability rules, such as those under the Taxonomy Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852). Law professionals could also support the inclusion of equity and diversity measures required by Horizon Europe and help design solid governance elements like ethics oversight or GDPR-compliant data handling. Work Package Planning: Once a project is approved for funding, legal advisors can help ensure ESG is not treated as a separate box to tick but built into the project’s overall structure. From impact strategy to ethical oversight, lawyers’ input is key to setting up internal procedures that meet both EU and national legal requirements, reinforcing accountability and compliance from the start. Monitoring and Deliverables: Legal input is most relevant when projects produce deliverables specifically tied to regulation, data protection, IPR, or ethics, not technical results. In these cases, legal professionals ensure alignment with EU law, ESG frameworks, and, of course, the Grant Agreement’s obligations. Since all deliverables written within the development of the project may be reviewed by project officers, auditors or even OLAF, legal review helps protect the project’s credibility and ensures its legal and ethical obligations are properly addressed. Impact Monitoring: Legal professionals also play a crucial role in tracking and reporting project results, particularly when ESG-related indicators, such as emissions reduction or gender balance, are involved. Legal guidance helps ensure that reporting aligns with EU rules and emerging frameworks like the CSRD.
