Juan Rincon-Cortes has spent more than 15 years at Citi, currently at the group’s LatAm and Canada GC. Here, he discusses how to go beyond black-letter law to provide strategic advice in an era of ever-greater uncertainty.
Law, geopolitics and global dynamics increasingly intersect in today’s hardest legal questions. How has this changed the mindset of senior legal leaders?
It has changed the role in a very practical way. Senior legal leaders are no longer only being asked, “What does the law allow?” Increasingly, the question implicitly asked is: “What is the right course of action once the law is considered together with regulatory expectations, political context, reputational impact, operational feasibility and long-term precedent?”
That distinction matters particularly in financial services, although it is still applicable to most companies with international operations. Global banks operate across borders, across regulatory regimes and often under intense public and supervisory scrutiny. A decision that is legally supportable in one jurisdiction may create tension in another, or that solves one immediate issue may create a precedent that is difficult to defend later. An engagement with a public authority may be helpful in one context, but may also raise questions about consistency, fairness or perceived influence.
So, the mindset must be broader than technical legal analysis. It requires judgement, pattern recognition and the ability to see second-order consequences. You need to ask not only whether a particular action is permissible, but also whether it is durable, explainable and consistent with the institution’s broader obligations and credibility.
In globally interconnected financial institutions, where geopolitical shifts affect risk, where do legal teams add the most value?
When they help translate complexity into decision-quality advice. In a global financial institution, geopolitical developments can affect sanctions, correspondent banking, payment flows, licensing, regulatory relationships, client activity, capital movements, data, enforcement posture and market access. These issues arrive as business decisions under uncertainty.
The legal function’s role is to connect the dots: helping the organisation understand not only the black-letter legal position, but also where legal regimes may conflict, where regulators may take different views, and where a proposed course of action could be viewed differently by supervisors, governments, clients, counterparties or the public.
This is particularly important where the institution is caught between competing expectations. One authority may expect action; another legal framework may restrict that action. One government may encourage engagement; another stakeholder may view that engagement as sensitive. Legal’s value is not simply to say “yes” or “no”. It is to frame the trade-offs, identify the risks, preserve optionality and help leadership choose a path that can be defended across multiple audiences.
Legal teams are increasingly asked to navigate uncertainty. What does effective decision-making look like when the legal position is clear but the context is not?
Effective decision-making begins by separating legal permission from institutional judgement. There are situations where the legal answer may be clear, but the broader context makes the decision much harder. A course of action may be technically available, yet still carry reputational risk, political sensitivity, regulatory friction or implications for future precedent.
In financial services, this is a recurring challenge because institutions do not operate in isolation. They are part of the financial system, they interact with governments and regulators, and they are expected to apply consistent standards across markets. That means the decision must be tested beyond the legal memo. If this was reviewed later, would the rationale be understandable to a regulator? Could it be perceived as preferential treatment? Does it create an expectation that we will act similarly in future cases? Are we solving today’s issue while creating tomorrow’s problem?
Good decision-making in that environment is disciplined. It makes assumptions explicit, identifies alternative paths, maps potential reactions and defines “tripwires” that would require reassessment. It also requires humility: acknowledging that the facts may evolve and that the best answer is often not the most aggressive one, but the one that remains resilient under scrutiny.
What distinguishes technically correct legal advice from strategically sound advice?
Technically correct advice answers the legal question as asked. Strategically sound advice answers the real-world decision the institution actually has to make.
The difference is context. A technically correct answer may say that a certain step is permitted, that a communication can be made, or that a position is defensible. But the strategically sound answer asks additional questions. Should we take that step? Could the engagement be interpreted as seeking special treatment or creating a precedent? Could another authority see the same conduct differently? Does the action remain defensible if the political environment changes?
In a global organisation, that broader lens is essential. Decisions often sit at the intersection of legal risk, regulatory relationship, client impact, public policy and reputation. Practical and options-based legal advice is therefore essential. It should not hide behind a legal conclusion, but explain the range of defensible paths, the assumptions behind each one and the consequences if those assumptions change.
The best legal advice gives leadership a clear view of what is legally possible, what is strategically wise and where the institution should be careful even if the law allows flexibility.
Are legal teams being drawn earlier into strategic discussions alongside risk, public policy, geopolitics and senior management?
Yes, and that is a necessary evolution. In complex environments, Legal is most effective when it is involved before momentum has hardened around a single path. If Legal is brought in only at the end, the role becomes narrower: approve, block or remediate. But where law, regulation and geopolitics intersect, the most important contribution is often much earlier, helping shape the question itself.
For any company operating internationally, early legal involvement can make a significant difference. It allows the organisation to anticipate regulatory sensitivities, identify conflicts of law, assess government engagement and design approaches that are consistent, transparent and defensible. It helps avoid situations where a business solution appears attractive, but creates concerns around fairness, competition, precedent or perception.
This does not mean Legal becomes political or commercial in the wrong sense. Functional independence remains fundamental. But independence does not require distance from strategy. The legal function is more valuable when it is close enough to understand the business objective, the external environment and the practical constraints, while still providing candid judgement.
How should legal teams build broader awareness while maintaining technical depth and rigour?
Technical excellence remains the foundation. Without it, the legal function loses credibility. But technical depth alone is no longer enough. Legal teams need to understand how legal advice operates inside a broader ecosystem: regulatory expectations, sanctions, political transitions, enforcement priorities, public policy, reputation and how decisions are implemented operationally.
For financial institutions, this broader awareness must be built deliberately. First, lawyers need closer integration with adjacent functions: risk, compliance, government and public affairs, operations and the business. Many of the hardest issues cannot be solved by a singular function because the risks do not sit in one box.
Second, teams need structured learning from live issues. The important question is: what pattern does this reveal? How do we think about competing legal obligations? When does engagement with authorities become sensitive? How do we manage requests that may appear beneficial but could raise perception or competition concerns? How do we respond when formal legal authority and informal influence point in different directions?
Third, lawyers need to become better at communicating uncertainty. Senior leaders do not need a lecture on legal doctrine; they need a clear explanation of the decision, the risks, the assumptions and the recommended path. The goal is not to turn lawyers into geopolitical analysts. It is to develop legal judgement that is sophisticated enough for the environment in which financial institutions operate.
Is geopolitical awareness becoming a permanent part of the in-house legal skillset or just a reflection of the current moment?
I see it as permanent. The specific issues will change, but the underlying forces are structural. Regulatory fragmentation, sanctions, competing legal regimes, national security concerns, data sovereignty, political volatility and heightened expectations of corporate conduct are now part of the operating environment for global institutions.
For financial institutions, this is especially true; banks are both commercial actors and critical parts of the financial system. They are expected to comply with law, support market integrity, manage financial crime risk, maintain regulatory trust and operate consistently across very different jurisdictions. That combination makes geopolitical awareness a core element of senior legal judgement.
This does not mean every lawyer needs to become an expert in politics or international relations. But legal leaders do need enough fluency to spot when a legal issue is really part of a broader strategic pattern.
