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.
Recognizing Criminogenic Ties in Mexico: Children as Collateral Damage
Among the objectives of the Mexican criminal justice system are the protection of the innocent, the restitution of damages, and the fight against impunity. These goals seek to ensure a rightful, fair, and just criminal process. However, problems arise when these objectives are overlooked, often resulting in the neglect of victims—some of whom may go on to replicate the very criminal behaviors they have been exposed to within their environments. Analyzing the involvement of families, communities, and other social institutions is crucial for preventing and reducing crime, particularly in light of the significant influence criminogenic ties exert on individual development. Understanding offenders as former victims provides critical insight into their behaviors and highlights institutional failures to act as protective caregivers. This perspective does not absolve offenders of responsibility for their actions; rather, it emphasizes the importance of identifying risk factors that contribute to a child’s transformation from victim to aggressor. Growing up in an environment where crime is normalized can profoundly affect a person’s development, especially when criminal behavior is a regular part of daily life. To truly understand the root causes of criminal conduct, it is necessary to examine the life experiences and social, emotional, and environmental factors that have shaped an offender’s decision-making processes. Criminogenic ties—such as family members or peers engaged in criminal activities—can create environments where crime becomes not only normalized but, in some cases, glamorized. This normalization fosters pro-criminal attitudes, portraying lawbreakers as heroes or role models, particularly among impressionable youth. Risk factors for criminal behavior have always existed; therefore, it is incumbent upon government institutions and local communities to develop and implement strategies aimed at protecting potential victims, especially children. Children, as members of vulnerable groups, are often targeted by criminal organizations that exploit their lack of protection, care, or guidance, drawing them into illegal activities. The government must assume a proactive role in breaking these criminogenic cycles within families by addressing re-victimization and reinforcing children’s rights. Violence against children must be recognized not only as a direct offense but also as a significant risk factor for future criminal behavior. A child’s best interests are compromised when they are exposed to individuals who have engaged in criminal conduct. We must begin to view these children not merely as potential offenders but as present victims of systemic neglect and social failure. Society as a whole must work to break intergenerational cycles of violence and criminality, enabling children to grow up with access to opportunities rather than being funneled into lives of crime. Every child deserves a safe, nurturing, and dignified upbringing. Protecting children’s rights is not solely the responsibility of the government; it is a shared duty involving parents, educators, neighbors, and society at large. When a child is neglected, it signifies more than just abandonment—it means that their fundamental needs are unmet, affecting them psychologically, emotionally, and physically. To effectively prevent criminogenic ties and uphold children’s rights, we must recognize that victimization can occur long before it becomes visible to the child or to others. Children must not grow up resenting their parents or environments; rather, they should be guided toward paths where education is valued and crime is seen for what it truly is—deeply harmful rather than glamorous. Sources: Olson, E. (July 20, 2018). Familia, niños y delincuencia: La violencia como herencia. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Retrieved from: https://blogs.iadb.org/seguridad-ciudadana/es/familia-ninos-y-delincuencia-la-violencia-como-herencia/ Inter-American Development Bank. (December 12, 2023). Citizen security in Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from: https://www.iadb.org/en/news/citizen-security-latin-america-and-caribbean Cervantes, E. A. (1993). Factores criminógenos sociales en México (Bachelor’s thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México). UNAM. Retrieved from: https://ru.dgb.unam.mx/bitstream/20.500.14330/TES01000198314/3/0198314.pdf Hikal, W. (2017). Factores de riesgo que provocan la criminalidad. Ciencia, 68(4), 14–19. https://www.amc.edu.mx/revistaciencia/images/revista/68_4/PDF/68_4_factores_riesgo.pdf García Montoya, L. (2021). Factores criminógenos en jóvenes y su integración en la delincuencia organizada. Biolex, 13, 402-428. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S200755452021000100402
The Future of Law is Personal
The legal profession has long been defined by tradition, prestige, and institutional might. For decades, the towering presence of established law firms has shaped the aspirations of legal professionals and the expectations of clients. However, a significant shift is underway. In today’s rapidly evolving world, driven by technological advancements, the rise of artificial intelligence, and ever-changing client demands, the legal landscape is transforming. The future of law is no longer solely about firms´ size or reputation; it’s about the ability to deliver value in new ways. The future of law is personal. The rise of boutique and solo practice A compelling movement is happening within the legal industry. Increasingly, individuals and businesses are turning to boutique and solo practitioners over traditional, large firms. This shift is driven by a desire for cost-effective, tailored solutions and a more client-centric approach. Clients seek legal counsel that is not only highly skilled but also available, affordable, adaptable, and invested in their unique needs. In my extensive experience working with clients across diverse sectors and jurisdictions, I’ve witnessed firsthand how trust and direct engagement have surpassed institutional prestige as primary factors in legal decision-making. Today’s clients are less swayed by a firm’s name and more focused on finding an attorney who truly listens, understands their challenges, and demonstrates the agility to navigate their specific needs. They seek a trusted advisor who treats their legal matters with personalized care, not just as another billable file. AI and automation: A tool, not a replacement There has been much discussion about AI taking over legal work, with some even predicting that it will replace lawyers entirely. While AI has undoubtedly revolutionized tasks such as contract review, legal research, and document drafting, it cannot replace what clients value most: sound judgment, leadership, and empathy. Technology can enhance efficiency, but it cannot replace trust. No algorithm can replicate the nuanced understanding, emotional intelligence, and reassuring presence that a skilled human lawyer provides, especially during times of crisis. Lawyers who thrive in this new era will be those who embrace technology to streamline their work while doubling down on what makes them irreplaceable: empathy, insight, and personalized guidance. Redefining success in the legal profession The definition of success is subjective. A senior partner at a big law firm might have their billable hours and firm prestige as the ultimate measure of achievement. For others, success is about power, impact, flexibility, or the ability to balance career with personal well-being. In the legal profession, there is no single path, only the one that aligns with one’s own values and priorities. For me, for example, the most important meeting of the day is always the one I have with my wife and daughter over dinner. That said, one of the unspoken truths of the legal profession worldwide is the cost of success. Traditional law firms often demand relentless billable hours, grueling work schedules, and personal sacrifices that take a toll on mental and physical well-being. Burnout is not an anomaly; it is deeply embedded in the system. As a solo practitioner, I’ve chosen a path that balance client needs with family life and personal well-being. It is not about working less but working smarter, focusing on meaningful client alliances rather than churning through cases to meet billing quotas. Clients benefit from lawyers who are fully present, engaged, and able to offer their best guidance without being overburdened. Beyond NDA´s, trust and confidentiality matter People sign Non-Disclosure Agreements every day. NDAs can enforce confidentiality, but they don’t replace genuine trust. Trust must be earned. Clients don’t just share legal issues with their lawyers; they reveal fears, ambitions, and deeply personal matters, expecting absolute discretion from their lawyers. Earning trust and delivering true confidentiality isn’t just about legal obligations, it’s about close personal connections. Clients need to be certain they are speaking to someone who listens, understands, and personally protects their interests. In a more personalized practice, this bond forms naturally, as clients work directly with the lawyer they trust rather than being filtered through random people. After all, clients confide in their lawyers the same way they do with doctors or priests under a strong principle of trust. Multicultural expertise through personal connections As an international lawyer with clients in multiple jurisdictions, I have seen firsthand that legal expertise alone is no longer enough. In an increasingly multicultural and integrated world, the true added value comes from understanding the diverse cultural and business realities of each client. Legal challenges do not exist in isolation; they are shaped by the customs, values, economic and political landscapes and regulatory frameworks of each country. Clients today seek more than just technical legal knowledge; they want lawyers who understand their unique cultural contexts and can navigate the complexities of cross-border transactions, disputes, and negotiations with top-notch service, sensitivity, and insight. Whether working with multinational businesses, entrepreneurs, or individuals, the ability to bridge legal systems through cultural awareness is an added value that only personal connections can provide. The power of personal alliances The legal profession has long been defined by structure and hierarchy, but today’s solo practitioners are increasingly carving out their own paths. As an independent lawyer, I have the flexibility to be more present, think outside the box, and engage with my clients without being bound by rigid law firm protocols. I take pride in the ability to tailor solutions, provide direct and meaningful counsel, and build trust in ways that go beyond standardized legal services. Clients today value responsiveness. They want someone who understands them, their values, their industry and their unique legal concerns. This is one of the main reasons why large firms struggle to provide the same level of personal service. The future of law is not about the biggest firm or the flashiest office. It is about the lawyer who picks up the phone when their client calls. It is about the practitioner who builds lasting alliances instead of short-term transactions. It is about redefining success in a way that values both professional fulfillment and personal well-being. The future of law is not just changing, it is becoming personal. And that’s exactly what it should be.
Electricity & Industrial Buildings in Mexico
One of the fundamental aspects for a foreign company that has decided to start operations in Mexico is the purchase or lease of an industrial building for its production plant. Therefore, during the selection process, additionally to the considerations of location, labor force available, roads and infrastructure of the area, and recently the availability of sufficient electricity power, it is highly recommended to have an experienced team to advise them throughout the selection, in order to ensure the timely fulfillment of their production plans and financial forecasts. In March 2025 and in continuance with the project of the former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, President Claudia Sheinbaum enacted a sweeping energy reform package that restructures Mexico’s power sector in favor of state-owned companies (Federal Electricity Commission “CFE” and Petroleos Mexicanos “PEMEX” ), these reforms represent a “reverse” of the 2013 energy reform, implemented during the government of former President Enrique Peña Nieto, which opened the energy sector to private and foreign investment. Under the new laws, at least 54% of the electricity dispatched to the national grid must come from the (CFE) plants, leaving up to 46% for private sector producers, this 46%, combined with other technical and operational restrictions, is insufficient to meet the current needs of the industrial sector in Mexico. The agenda of President Claudia Sheinbaum aims to add 22 gigawatts of new power generation capacity by 2030, meanwhile, there is a lack of electricity generation by the CFE to fulfill the requirements of the industry and homes in Mexico. During the last years, industrial developers have faced the lack of capacity of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). The later has become a serious problem for either companies and industrial developers, because even if there are industrial buildings available, in many cases they can’t guarantee the supply the electrical demand required by their clients, which in certain cases becomes a determining factor when choosing an industrial building and sometimes involves the relocation of their establishments. Once the parties have reached an agreement to lease or buy an industrial building, it is very important that the company knows the amount of energy available at the property, and if it’s under a lease before the signing of the lease agreement. Typically at the time of the negotiation of the Letter of Intent, the parties must reach out the terms and conditions under which the electricity will be supplied to the leased property. Although the landlord may have sufficient KVA’s rights to fulfill potential tenant’s requirements, this cannot be understood as a guarantee that the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) will supply to the tenant all the KVA offered by the landlord. Therefore, it is advisable to include some considerations in the lease agreement: Ensure that the landlord has the KVA´s rights offered under the letter of intent and lease agreement; if applicable, include the obligation of landlord to assign the KVA’s rights in favor of the tenant. Tenant must take into consideration that, as mentioned before given the limited availability of KVA’s, the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) will request the tenant an engineering study that demonstrates the use by the tenant of the KVA’s required before granting the full load. If the tenant cannot prove use of the full load, CFE will only authorize up to the load that can be demonstrated. Another important issue that must be considered within the lease agreement is the specific work required by the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) to supply the required load; specific works are understood as the construction of infrastructure from a specific point to the location of the leased property (poles, wiring, etc.) this can be a distance of a few miles. The parties must determine who will pay and be responsible for the specific work. Industrial leases are long-term business relationships, in which both parties are interested in a win-win negotiation. It is essential to establish achievable commitments from the beginning in order to avoid future problems, therefore in the specific case of the supply of electricity, the lessor must provide certain information about the amount of KVA that can be guaranteed to the lessee, and the lessee must provide a calendar with the demand for electricity that will be required for its project to establish the necessary agreements .
Mechanisms to Mitigate the Impacts of the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform on M&A Transactions
With the recent enactment of Complementary Law No. 214, which regulated the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions in Brazil are already being analyzed in light of the new system’s implications on valuation processes. The new system introduced several structural changes that are expected to impact economic activities and alter the dynamics of consumption in Brazil. Destination-based taxation, a limited number of rates and exceptions, gross-up taxation, and a broad non-cumulative regime are some of the features of the new system that will shape consumption taxation in Brazil in the coming Years. For this reason, this article seeks to examine three key points of attention that should be considered in such transactions: (i) the timing effects of the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform, (ii) a clear understanding of how the new system will affect company valuation processes, and (iii) the existence of alternatives to mitigate the Brazilian Reform’s impacts on the target company’s activities. In the conclusion, we will analyze potential mechanisms that may be used to allow transactions to move forward despite uncertainties related to the new rules. Timing Effects of the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform The implications of the new system on variables that are sensitive to company valuation processes may be mitigated during the transition period, which will end only in 2033. This is because the current system will remain partially in effect during those years. Several effects of the new rules will be softened during the transition period. For instance, the impact of the elimination of ICMS state tax benefits — which can account for a significant portion of a company’s EBITDA — will be more strongly felt only after 2033, not immediately. This should be considered in the valuation process, so that the tax benefits in effect until 2033 are reflected in the company’s market value. Understanding the Impact of the New System on Valuation Processes The new tax rules may cause various tax impacts across different sectors, including a potential increase in the overall tax burden. Examples include sugary drinks, gambling, and vehicles, which not only did not benefit from reduced IBS (State and Local VAT) and CBS (Federal VAT) rates under the new system but will also be subject to an Excise Tax. As such, these sectors may face a higher tax burden. Other examples of sectors likely to be significantly impacted are sanitation services and leasing of goods. Under the current system, these activities are subject only to PIS and COFINS (current federal Tax on Revenues), with no ISS (current Tax on Services) or ICMS (current State VAT). Under the new system, both will be subject to the standard IBS and CBS rate, estimated by the Ministry of Finance at 28%, representing a significant change in taxation. Therefore, it is essential to understand the new system’s impact on the target company’s operations to assess whether the new rules will affect sensitive variables in the valuation process, such as profit margin, EBITDA, among others — which could ultimately impact the conclusion of the M&A transaction. Existence of Alternatives to Mitigate the Brazilian Reform’s Impact on the Target Company It is also important to evaluate whether the impacts of the new system can, to some extent, be mitigated. Returning to the example of ICMS tax benefits: with taxation shifting to the destination, states that previously adopted aggressive tax benefit policies to attract businesses may see a decrease in revenue. Although the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform created the National Fund for Regional Development (FNDR) to reduce regional and social inequalities, there is no certainty that the amounts states will receive will fully offset the loss of regional tax incentives. However, states have other revenue sources that may help offset such losses. In addition to revenue from IPVA (Tax on Property of Vehicles) and ITCMD (Tax on Donation and Estate Tax) — both of which were amended by the Reform with the potential to increase collection — states may also raise funds through new contributions, asset revenues, service fees, and credit operations. Thus, it remains uncertain whether states will adopt alternative mechanisms to maintain their revenues, even if in formats other than tax incentives — which could affect the pricing of companies that rely on state tax benefits. Accordingly, understanding whether measures are being implemented to mitigate the effects of the new system is essential in the valuation process of the target company and may prove decisive in the success of a merger or acquisition. Mechanisms to Ensure Completion of M&A Transactions Finally, despite the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the new consumption tax system on certain sectors, in our view, mechanisms can be created to make M&A transactions viable through conditional arrangements. The inclusion of contractual provisions for conditional additional payments (earn-outs) may be the most effective way to overcome uncertainties regarding the new tax system’s impact on the target company’s business. If buyers and sellers disagree on part of the company’s value due to the potential impacts of the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform, the agreement may include an earn-out clause requiring an additional payment if the company manages to maintain its profit margin despite the increased tax burden. The earn-out clause may also require an additional price payment if the company maintains its EBITDA despite the elimination of ICMS tax benefits — or if these financial indicators are sustained during the transition period, which will end in 2033. Therefore, even though the new Brazilian consumption tax system may create uncertainty regarding its impact on certain business segments, providing for conditional price adjustments may be a viable path to ensure the successful completion of M&A transactions. Conclusion In conclusion, the Brazilian Consumption Tax Reform has introduced structural changes that directly impact the valuation processes of companies in mergers and acquisitions. During the transition period, which will last until 2033, some of these impacts will be mitigated — such as the end of ICMS tax benefits, which will continue to influence company valuations for several more years. Accordingly, it is essential that these temporary effects are properly reflected in asset pricing. Furthermore, it is crucial to
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) trends: Adapting to an evolving Digitalized landscape
AML regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and report financial crimes, ensuring that financial institutions and businesses are not unknowingly facilitating illegal activities. In today´s financial landscape, compliance requirements and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations are constantly evolving, demanding businesses to stay ahead of new threats, emerging technologies, and stricter regulatory frameworks. The risks associated with financial crime and terrorism financing are growing exponentially across the globe. This article intends to explore the most significant AML and compliance trends and how financial institutions and businesses can adapt and thrive in the changing AML landscape to reduce risks, safeguard their operations and ensure compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Several key trends in AML risk management have been already shaping the landscape during the past years, making it essential for businesses to adopt robust, efficient measures to prevent money laundering: Global Standardization and Regulatory Alignment: With money laundering being a global threat, the AML landscape is constantly changing, with new regulations and emerging threats and therefore, countries are pushing towards aligning AML regulations with global AML international best practice standards to create a more consistent and transparent framework across multiple jurisdictions. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) through its 40 Recommendations set out a comprehensive and consistent framework of measures which countries should implement to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Many countries will need to stay updated with changes to these regulations, which may include stricter customer due diligence (CDD) requirements and enhanced reporting obligations, amongst others. This shift will prompt organizations to ensure that their compliance programs are aligned with both regional and international standards. While the trend toward harmonization grows, country-specific AML regulations will still play a significant role in shaping compliance strategies. Foster a Compliance Culture: A culture of compliance starts at the top (Tone @ the Top) and should permeate through every level of the organization. Moreover, it involves fostering a proactive approach to AML compliance, where all staff members understand their role in preventing money laundering through the business. AML detection and reporting capabilities are being enhanced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML): Manual AML compliance processes and routine tasks can be error-prone, costly and time-consuming and this is where AML technology steps in. As money laundering schemes are becoming harder to detect, and more complex, the use of ML and AI technologies have been crucial and one of the most transformative trends in AML compliance to proactively detect suspicious activities more effectively by improving the efficiency of AML operations, reduce operational costs and stay compliant. Machine Learning algorithms also enables businesses to handle large volumes of data with higher accuracy, reducing false positives and focusing attention on genuine threats and/or high-risk activities. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Innovations: Gone are the days of a one-size-fits-all verification process. Businesses and Financial Institutions must adapt and ensure robust KYC and CDD processes and control implementation, including sophisticated risk-based approach methods, in order to tailor their KYC and CDD procedures. Financial institutions will direct investments towards innovative technologies as digital interactions and online banking expand to improve the electronic identity verification process (E-KYC). Choose the right partner (Third-Party Risk Management): A heightened focus on third-party and supply chain risk management is critical for AML compliance. Businesses will increasingly rely on continuous monitoring tools to assess third-party relationships in real time, ensuring that any suspicious activities related to money laundering are detected early. Businesses and Financial Institutions must adopt Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) processes to assess the AML risks associated with third-party vendors and supply chains, including monitoring the vendors’ AML policies, compliance records, and business operations to ensure they don’t inadvertently contribute to money laundering activities. Balancing innovation with Compliance: The rise of technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies presents both opportunities and challenges for AML compliance. Blockchain-based KYC new technologies will enable financial institutions to quickly and accurately verify customer identities through biometric technologies like facial recognition and voice identification while minimizing fraud risk and providing clearer detection of possible illegal activities. Additionally, Regulatory Technology (Reg-Tech) facilitates compliance efficiency and real-time regulatory reporting, allowing financial institutions and businesses to efficiently report suspicious activities (SARs), ensuring timely and compliance with regulatory authorities. Transparency in financial transactions are becoming even more critical and businesses and financial institutions are expected to provide clear and comprehensive records of transactions, to regulatory bodies. Increased Penalties and Enforcement: AML penalties for financial institutions have been increasing globally, reflecting a stricter enforcement from Regulatory entities and the evolving financial crime landscape, resulting in financial losses, reputational damage, and trust deficits with customers and stakeholders. Financial Institutions must invest in robust AML compliance programs and adopt comprehensive GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) Programs integrating risk assessments, monitoring, and reporting, to mitigate the risk of facing financial penalties and reputational damage. Navigating the complexities of the modern AML landscape is no small task. The pressure of tightening regulatory scrutiny and sophisticated criminal networks have placed a burden on the financial sector. However, it’s a challenge that also presents opportunities to financial institutions. In this ever-evolving landscape, the urgent call to action for financial institutions is clear – adapt and be flexible to the shifting landscape or fall behind. By embracing the transformative potential of technology, they can transform the challenges posed by AML into opportunities for operational efficiency and risk mitigation, financial institutions can position themselves not just to survive but to thrive amidst these changes. In conclusion, the importance of proactive, forward-thinking AML strategies cannot be overstated. The new era of financial crime prevention lies in an organization’s ability to anticipate changes, leverage technology by adopting tech-driven solutions (real-time monitoring), and implementation of a robust risk-based compliance framework that can adapt to the complexities of tomorrow’s financial landscape and ensure they remain one step ahead in the fight against financial crime.
STABLECOINS, TOO BIG TO FAIL
Throughout history, the main options for sending money from one country to another have included Western Union, which started as a telegraph service in 1871 and later expanded its operations to money serrvice business. Additionally, SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), established in 1973, has been fundamental for the exchange of financial transactions, such as payments, guarantees, and information between entities globally. These two platforms have dominated the international transfer landscape for decades. This duopoly ended with the first transaction of Bitcoin, which occurred in 2009 between Satoshi Nakamoto and cryptographer Hal Finney. This new system allows for the electronic transfer of funds from person to person without intermediaries, leveraging the benefits of blockchain technology. However, the problem of Bitcoin’s volatility became evident, leading to the search for alternative solutions. Thus, the concept of stablecoins was born, designed to offer stability in a market where value can be unpredictable. In this article, we will focus on those stablecoins whose issuance is conducted by private companies, structured to maintain a stable value relative to the dollar (“USD”) or any fiat currency, meaning that the issuance of a stablecoin is backed by a dollar or another fiat currency, which is considered low risk and easily liquidated. The first stablecoins were Tether, launched in 2014 by entrepreneur Reeve Collins, along with Omni Foundation executives Brock Pierce and Craig Sellars. Later, in 2018, USDC was introduced, created by Centre, a consortium co-founded by Circle and Coinbase. Both stablecoins were established with the goal of addressing the issue of volatility in the market. Thanks to blockchain technology, all transactions are nearly instantaneous and secure, facilitating both domestic and international payments. Additionally, mobile applications have been developed to allow for quicker access, reducing friction and significantly improving the customer experience. “Not everything is hunky-dory.” When looking at the big picture, it’s important to note that, in most countries, banks offer a “deposit insurance” that guarantees customers’ savings and deposits up to a certain limit. This insurance is activated automatically and free of charge when opening a bank account, providing protection in case the bank faces financial difficulties. However, as of now, there is no equivalent entity to a “Federal Stablecoins Insurance Corporation.” This means that the companies issuing stablecoins, as the only clients receiving fiat deposits from banks, would benefit from insurance only for those amounts. It is absurd to think that this coverage limit could encompass the total volume of deposits from all those possessing stablecoins in their wallets. This situation poses a systemic risk that regulators must tackle, particularly in countries where there is no clear regulation. In the market, some VASP (Virtual Asset Service Providers) directly offer a “deposit insurance” for the cryptocurrencies that clients hold in their wallets. Could this be a potential solution to the existing systemic problem? The reality is that issuers of stablecoins lack visibility over the individuals who have their assets in custody; they only know the amount of coins that are in circulation. These operations are global and require standardization, an objective that BASILEA III aims to achieve through measures from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). These regulations will significantly impact stablecoins and can be summarized in three key points: Redemption Risks: There is a focus on addressing the redemption risks during periods of extreme stress, when issuers of stablecoins may face massive withdrawal claims. The regulator suggests limiting exposures to these stablecoins to longer maturities by introducing a maximum maturity for individual reserve assets. Over-Collateralization: Should long-term assets be allowed as reserves, the committee recommends these should be over-collateralized. This means that the amount of additional collateral should be sufficient to cover potential decreases in the value of the assets, ensuring that the stablecoin remains redeemable at its fixed value, even during difficult times and volatile markets. Credit Quality Criteria: It is suggested that stablecoin issuers rely on a list of high credit quality assets for their reserves. These assets could include reserves from central banks, government-backed securities with high ratings, and deposits in high-quality banks. It is important to highlight that these measures apply to banks but are not binding for stablecoin issuers. To put this into perspective, recall that the adoption of BASILEA II took three years, and the information generated by these new regulations will remain in the banks’ hands for communication to financial authorities. Historically, banks and autorithies have not been quick to prevent a financial crisis. There are several concerning similarities between the 2008 financial crisis and the issuers of stablecoins. Below are some of the most notable comparisons: Lack of Transparency in Risk Assessment: During the 2008 crisis, the methodologies used for assessing credit risk were poorly understood, and only a few had access to this information. In the case of stablecoins, there is no fixed limit on the amount that can be minted according to the smart contract governing them, leading many to be unaware of the conditions and terms of their programming. Trust in Auditing Entities: In 2008, rating agencies provided information about credit portfolios; today, it will be auditing firms that are responsible for validating the “Proof of Reserve” of stablecoins. However, doubts arise about the reliability of these auditors, and the reality is that little can be done about trust in this regard. Potential Domino Effect: Lehman Brothers had strong ties with other banks, especially in the realm of investment and financial intermediation. Its collapse triggered a domino effect in the financial system. Currently, stablecoin issuers are forming significant alliances with major players like Blackrock, Robinhood, Visa, and Mastercard. Such partnerships could create an even broader domino effect, given the global nature of these platforms. Incentives for Regulatory Laxity: High fees for loan placements and minimal oversight led to the creation of toxic assets for banks in 2008. Today, the money that banks will receive as collateral from stablecoins is extremely attractive. This could result in a lack of control and a lax approach toward issuing
