Paola Kattar, head of legal and general counsel at KEO International Consultants in Qatar, discusses the impact of conflict on companies in the Middle East and how in-house counsel can effectively lead their organisations through periods of instability
The conflict in the Middle East has caused widespread disruption for businesses across the globe. How can general counsel guide their organisations through situations of such high levels of risk and uncertainty?
General counsel must become both legal adviser and strategic risk navigator during periods of conflict. In the GCC construction sector where I am professionally active, this conflict can have more than just political and safety implications; it can affect contractual obligations such as insurance, supply chains, payment flows, programmes and deliverables. It can also increase international sanctions exposure.
The role of the general counsel is therefore not limited to interpreting existing contracts and laws; it is to strengthen and negotiate new agreements and settlements in a manner that addresses emerging risks while preserving commercial relationships. More importantly, it is to support leadership in making commercially sustainable decisions amid uncertainty and evolving sanctions regimes.
Basically, a general counsel must maintain a practical, rather than purely technical, legal approach, while managing and addressing force majeure clauses or termination rights. The greatest challenge and perhaps the most important role is preserving relationships and contractual continuity while safeguarding the company’s interests and rights. To navigate periods of regional instability with minimal damage, it is essential to remain commercially reasonable and pragmatic.
What are immediate priorities during times of conflict? What contingency steps should companies have in place?
The first priority is always people’s safety. Companies operating across the Middle East frequently have multinational teams, mobile workforces and employees with families spread across several jurisdictions. Immediate contingency planning should therefore include evacuation protocols, remote working capability, immigration support, emergency communication systems and medical and insurance coordination.
The second priority is operational continuity. Businesses should maintain updated project risk maps, identifying projects exposed to border closures, shipping disruption, regulatory restrictions or political instability. Key contracts should already contain reviewed provisions on suspension, force majeure, payment protection, sanctions compliance and governing law.
Financial resilience is equally critical. Organisations should evaluate liquidity exposure, delayed receivables, dependency on specific suppliers and the ability to continue payroll and operations during disruption.
The best contingency plans are prepared before conflict arises. Businesses that wait for a crisis to create protocols usually discover gaps too late.
This can be done through new policies, escalation and communication channels, decision-making processes, contract risk trainings and logs for recording events and impacts.
As a practical example, in the first week of the war, my team and I collected all force majeure provisions from the company’s major existing contracts in the most affected countries. We also collated the statutory provisions from those different jurisdictions, and a presentation was given to leadership and operations heads explaining the concept of force majeure in the different contracts and laws where the business operates with live examples as to how it applies and its potential impact. A sample notice of force majeure related events and a log of events’ details were prepared as a heads-up.
Which risks are often overlooked in conflict situations?
Emotional and mental health risks are also overlooked, despite their direct impact on productivity, decision-making and employee retention. Cybersecurity risks are frequently underestimated. Regional instability often coincides with increased cyberattacks, phishing attempts and data vulnerability.
Another overlooked issue is informal communication. During crises, employees sometimes make public statements, share sensitive information online, or engage in political commentary that may expose the company to reputational or legal risk.
In times of heightened risk, how can legal teams prioritise different compliance obligations across jurisdictions?
Legal teams must prioritise compliance based on the severity of exposure and regulatory consequence. During conflict situations, immediate focus is typically required on sanctions, anti-bribery compliance, export controls, cybersecurity and employee safety obligations, as breaches in these areas may result in criminal, regulatory, financial, or reputational consequences.
Coordination also becomes critical where organisations operate across multiple jurisdictions with differing legal requirements. A centralised legal oversight structure helps maintain consistency in risk management and compliance strategy, while allowing local teams to address jurisdiction-specific requirements.
