GC: Please tell us a little about your pathway into law. What made you move from private practice to in-house roles?

Brenda Puig (BP): I spent my first years as a lawyer in a law firm. It was a large and prestigious law firm in Buenos Aires. I worked long hours and I really loved my job. After some years working for this law firm, I got married and became a mother, and balancing my career with my personal life became a challenge. At that time, at least in Argentina, there was not much debate about these issues. Even though both the law firm and I made great efforts to make it work – I actually became the first part-time attorney – after my second son I felt the need to make a change.

I joined Walmart 14 years ago. I found in the corporate world – and especially Walmart – a much more favourable environment for my personal needs. I also found a completely new way of being a lawyer. The in-house world is so different from private practice, and I just love it. I have been very lucky to experience both sides of the profession, and have learnt a lot from both. I believe this combination has made me a better lawyer.

Carmen Roman (CR): Although I started my professional career in a law firm, what made me move to an in-house role was the opportunity to know about the corporate world, to understand its dynamics, its strategic role, its contribution to different stakeholders, and at the same time interact with different professionals in the same ecosystem. I feel that in the in-house role I have been able to maximise my abilities, improve my strategic thinking, and achieve a work-life balance.

GC: What do you believe are the biggest barriers to women progressing in the legal industry? Are the challenges similar across private practice and in-house, or have you seen differences?

BP: There are many different barriers, which I believe are common to so many other professions, not just the legal profession. Work-life balance is an issue for many women, and even more challenging for mothers of young children. Lack of adequate networking opportunities and visibility is another factor; men tend to have better opportunities for this. The fact that there is a much higher percentage of men in leadership positions plays a role as well – there are fewer women role models for emerging talent. In my personal experience, even though law firms have evolved over the past years, I would say that on average the in-house world is more advanced in designing strategies for solving the gap than law firms.

CR: Yes, I agree. Although we have seen some progress in law firms, I believe that there is more flexibility and career development in the in-house world. There are still large barriers for women in private practice. Even though we see the number of women lawyers growing in private practice, they don’t have equal access to senior positions. The working environment and the long office hours in most law firms are still more suitable to male lawyers compared to their female counterparts. The lack of work-life balance is one of the major obstacles that female (and male) lawyers face. A majority of law firms are reticent to innovate or change with the times, meaning in general that the legal profession lags behind other industries in terms of senior women reaching the top. Law firms should adopt different, realistic working options for parents and actively remote working or a flexible-hours system.

GC: What challenges have you specifically faced in your career, and how did you overcome them?

BP: I have faced many challenges over the years! If I were to find a common ingredient in how I overcame them, I would say that attitude is the key. Whatever challenge you face, having a positive mindset and self-confidence is essential. Believe in yourself and try to find what you can learn from each situation. Also, team-work. No single person on this planet knows everything: we need to rely on our teams, peers, partners, mentors, family and friends. Working collaboratively is a great virtuous circle – help whenever you can, and you will be helped whenever you need.

CR: I am the opposite in that I have never experienced an obstacle that was solely the result of being a woman. I have often been the only woman in the room and almost always the only woman at executive level, but I have never viewed that as an obstacle, because of my attitude. I think the biggest challenge in my career is maintaining a good work-life balance. Progressing in your career while having time for family, friends and hobbies is a constant struggle.

I have always expressed to my different bosses how important family is to me. I request certain benefits as non-tradable. For example, to be able to do school pick-up and drop-off with my children once or twice a week. I make sure this never interferes with my results, and it also has the effect of making my commitment to the company stronger.

GC: Walmart has a strong commitment to empowering women (working with women-owned businesses in its supply chain; the establishment of the Women’s Economic Empowerment Forum). What success have you seen with these initiatives? What metrics are used to measure their success?

BP: We are very much focused on developing our female talent internally and supporting women externally. We truly believe in the power of diversity and inclusion and we put a lot of work and effort into this. We have consistently been working on initiatives for the past ten years. The Global Women Leadership Council was first appointed in 2008 at our US-based headquarters and is an advisory council formed by female business leaders, reporting to our global CEO. This was replicated in each market and we work both locally and globally. I have been part of this council since it was first formed in Argentina in 2009, and I currently serve as its chair. The council is not only focused on the legal department but on the whole company. We have several lines of work and KPIs. I believe that seeing more women in leadership positions as well as in our talent base is the best indicator.

We do awareness activities with men and women: specific training targeted to specific needs of specific groups; mentoring; policies that assure equal representation in recruiting and development; and policies for enabling work-life balance. And we also have an active voice externally. We believe that being such a large company comes with a responsibility because we can inspire change in other companies. We share our best practices and encourage others to have the courage to give it a try. Companies must play their role in improving the work environment and therefore our society.

Our initiatives are both global and local. We have a global framework and there is a lot of market freedom within that framework. We do have company-wide goals and objectives, but challenges around how to tackle those goals and objectives might vary from market to market – the fact is that cultures and realities are different across the region. Each market needs to find the solutions that best fit their specific needs in order to make it locally relevant. And each market can also benefit from benchmarking with other Walmart markets. We like to call it ‘powered by Walmart’.

CR: Yes, that’s right. At Walmart, we know that our people and culture help to make Walmart successful and that different perspectives lead to innovative solutions for our business. Developing inclusive leaders is the key to building a diverse and inclusive workforce. To develop inclusive leadership at Walmart, the executive team has inclusive leadership expectations as part of their annual performance evaluation, and this means (i) participate in at least one approved inclusive leadership education offering such as unconscious bias training, LGBTQ+ training, or sexual harassment awareness training, among others, and (ii) actively mentor two associates, host a mentoring circle, or participate as a mentor in a programme such as our Lean In Mentoring Circles.

In terms of gender, we are focused in developing female talent under the Global Women Leadership Council that Brenda mentioned. We also have a local Diversity and Inclusion Council in Chile; I’ve been a member since 2009 and I’m also currently its president. We are constantly measuring the female participation at leadership level and the programme effectiveness. In addition, I was also part of the International Diversity and Inclusion Council for two years.

Our recent statistics show that 57% of our 51,000 employees are women and 25% of our frontline positions are held by them. At Walmart, we believe that men and women should have the same opportunities, and we ensure internal wage equity with a compensation policy that does not discriminate with respect to gender. We have a range of programmes that promote the development of female leadership within the company:

• Empowering: Development acceleration programme for women executives with high potential, helping them prepare for the challenges of executive positions in the company.
• Women in Retail: Development of leaders for the retail of the future through training, networking, and empowerment.
• Wired Chile: Development, empowerment, and promotion of female talent at Walmart Chile Real Estate through mentoring, conversation sessions, and workshops.
• More Digital Women: Courses on web development and digital marketing, to contribute to women’s development and empowerment through digital training and employability.

We also have several support programmes for women outside Walmart, because our ethos is about making improvements not just for the women who work for us, but for the communities we serve as well. Some of those programmes include:

• Women for Chile, developed with the support of ONG ‘Mujeres Empresarias’ (Women Entrepreneurs). Women for Chile seeks to strengthen women-led enterprises through personalised training, boards, and mentoring, with the possibility that some of the selected enterprises will become Walmart Chile suppliers.
• Solidarity Spaces for women entrepreneurs. These are spaces located in our Leader and Leader Express locations throughout the country. This initiative is developed in partnership with the Ministry of Women and Gender Equity. The women entrepreneurs are given the opportunity to sell and publicise their products in different parts of the country.

GC: Do you think the growth of international companies expanding into Latin America is having a positive effect on LatAm domiciled companies and their D&I initiatives?

BP: Yes, absolutely. We live in a global world today – everybody and everything is connected. Local markets benefit from the influence of international companies that bring best practices. And, likewise, global companies benefit from the local wisdom and practices that can be taken to other geographies. That is the beauty of this synergy.

CR: Definitely. Multinational companies have had more time to develop their best practices, and that is having a positive influence on local markets. In addition, because they are willing to share these good practices with other companies, we are starting to see major cultural changes at the country level.

GC: In what ways do you work with your panel firms to improve representation of women in the legal industry?

BP: This is, again, just using our influence. We look favourably on firms that foster diversity and inclusion, and we give them priority. There are more structured ways and there are other informal ways, such as mentoring other women working for law firms.

CR: We also have ‘Walmart’s Outside Counsel Guidelines’, which establish the expectations the company has of its outside counsel. We expect law firms to stress excellence, integrity, and provide value in resolving legal problems, while also honouring the company’s culture and principles. One of those expectations is to demonstrate commitment to diversity, respect flexible work schedules, promote work-life balance, and to have women as senior partners. We take time to talk about it, and recognise the law firms that advance this cause. Ultimately, we give preference to law firms that foster diversity and inclusion.

GC: You have both been commended for being active promoters of female empowerment and leadership in the workplace. Can you give any specific examples where you have helped other women to reach their full potential and progress in their careers?

BP: I believe that the first thing is to walk the talk. When you reach a leadership position, you need to be aware that people are looking at you. In a large organisation, the few women who reach those positions must be good role models. It is not enough to talk about work-life balance or to talk about supporting and empowering women; you need to live it every day and actively show it. If any young talented woman with the ambition of growing within the organisation looks up and sees that the few women who made it have a miserable life, they will not feel inspired to get there. And, of course, mentoring and sharing one’s experiences is very powerful.

CR: I am counsellor of the Chilean NGO Comunidad Mujer (Women’s Community), and for 12 years, I have been mentor of professional women who seek support and guidance in their career development. This activity has given me much satisfaction, and is also something from which I have benefitted greatly.

Ten years ago, I was the first woman to become part of Walmart Chile’s executive team. I believed I opened the door to other female executives. Today we are four women from ten executives.

I have also supported the career development and promotion of a female lawyer from my Chilean team who is now general counsel in Costa Rica and Central America. I’m so proud of her growth.

GC: How do you go about building a diverse team and leading by example?

BP: Of course, recruiting is key, but also important is the way we form teams for specific projects, the way we manage our team members’ requests, the way we act in every day decisions. For example, a team member who has a sick child will feel more confident in being absent if they see there is an understanding environment for family needs. And the way this is shown is by actions, not words: they need to see that such absence is accepted, that their supervisor shows interest in the child’s health, and that the supervisor also takes leave for family if needed.

CR: I consciously aim to recruit different types of talent. I listen, and try to get to know the strengths and weaknesses of each of the team members by having deep one-on-one conversations with them, identifying their biases, and helping to mitigate discriminations.

I am a promoter of career development for men and women, and I’m particularly vocal in promoting both maternal and paternal responsibilities: for example, I always encourage my male lawyers to take on childcare responsibilities during the week (e.g. dropping children to school, or picking them up, etc).

In 2014, we launched a special diversity and inclusion programme, developed with the support of Walmart Legal International, where we assisted law school students (selected by gender, ethnic background, and socioeconomic vulnerability) during their third year. We helped them obtain tools useful for their future professional activities such as English language, mentoring (provided by us or our external law firm partners), and advance networking. This has been a very successful programme.

GC: There is quite a divide between those who believe in quotas to address gender imbalance in the workplace, and those who don’t. Do you have any specific thoughts on that?

BP: I am personally not a fan of quotas, and think they may be very harmful. If you force somebody who is not ready into a leadership position, the probability of failure is high. That failure will not only damage that person and may damage their career, but it also sends the wrong message to the organisation. It can be seen as a counter-example and even limit future promotions. What we need to foster is more talented women in leadership positions, although of course this is not just about gender – it is about talent, and generating the conditions for both talented men and women to reach their full potential. Having said that, sometimes an organisation might need to force things a bit to make the wheel start moving. If that is the case, it has to be done very carefully. In my organisation we do not have quotas, but we have mechanisms in place that seek to ensure that opportunities are equal. Let’s say there is leadership training with open positions for a limited amount of people and that a certain business area only presents male candidates; we would challenge that leader to re-visit the list, to look harder and see if there are any women in whom they see potential and wish to invest. The answer might still be no and that is ok; remember, we look for talent, not just gender.

CR: For me, over time, I have become convinced that quotas are necessary to level the playing field. Sometimes, you have to push for things to happen and quotas are certainly one way of achieving more equal representation of men and women. There are plenty of examples of women who are better qualified for senior roles and have more experience, but aren’t being promoted to top positions because of their gender. I think appointing women to senior positions would create greater confidence among other women.

However, the quotas must be essentially transitory to cause the change; later, when the reality has shifted and equality has been achieved, then quotas will no longer be necessary.

GC: If you could give advice to yourself at the start of your career, what would it be?

BP: I would say to enjoy the ride and each experience. I am more experienced and seasoned now; when I was younger, I was tougher on myself. Now I see my life and career from a different perspective. I am very grateful and feel blessed for the life I have and for the opportunities I have been given; and that includes my career. Sometimes we forget to take the time to stop and appreciate what we have; or we fail in finding the time to support others, which I personally find so rewarding.

CR: My advice would be:

• Feel passion for your work;
• Your mistakes are learnings and without them, there is no growth;
• Do not rest until you find the workplace where you feel comfortable and valued and where you can develop your strengths;
• Be curious about the opportunities that come your way;
• Take care to always integrate new knowledge and experiences;
• Find strength in working collaboratively.

Over recent decades, Latin America has seen significant change in the makeup of its labour market. An increase in women’s representation and participation in the workforce, and organisational and various governments’ strategies are evolving to incorporate practices and initiatives to manage, enhance, and promote the role of women in the workplace. Foreign investment into the region is having a positive impact as demonstrated by the increase in Latin American companies adopting HR policies that go beyond legal requirements. That said, many Latin American countries and corporates still fall well short when it comes to opportunities for women and their economic participation. The gender pay gap remains significant. And despite the existence of legislation prohibiting gender discrimination, it still happens on a daily basis.

Why, in the 21st century, is this the case and how can meaningful change happen? Unfortunately, there is no single, silver-bullet cure for the gender disparity prevalent across the Latin America region. Change comes slowly, through education, by having uncomfortable but necessary conversations, and through the subtle shift of centuries-old biases that have kept one gender subordinate to another.

In a series of exclusive interviews, GC magazine speaks to senior and general counsel from across Latin America (both women and men) about how the more traditional landscape of the region plays a large role in how women are perceived in the workplace, and how they, along with their colleagues and companies, are slowly changing the experience for women lawyers across the region – but also for women in general.

Chauvinist society

For women working in Latin America’s legal industry (both in private practice and in-house), the challenge of getting ahead, of being ‘heard’, and respected, is two-fold. The legal industry is, and has long been, dominated by men, but that is hardly surprising when seen through the lens of a still largely traditional societal view that men work, and women stay at home. Anabell González Nava, legal director, North Latin America division at Arcos Dorados, says that even though organisations are making important diversity and inclusion improvements, ‘the culture of a society plays a key role in the habits and behaviours of men and women, and consequently of companies.’

‘Traditional gender roles are still very strong and create real and persistent inequalities among men and women in the workplace and in general in Latin American society,’ agrees Mexico-based Véronique Ramon Vialar-Déchelette, LatAm regional legal director at Publicis Groupe.

Valéria Camacho Martins Schmitke, LatAm regional general counsel at Zurich in Brazil, goes further. ‘Women pay a high personal price for equality with men. Some countries more, others less – but all are very chauvinist societies, and men still believe that taking care of children is a woman’s job. They also feel less empowered if their wives make more money than them. They expect women to be home when they arrive, and to prepare dinner. Women can work, but more as a hobby.’

These entrenched views have a serious impact on the industry, and how it is perceived. As Andrea Camargo, director of international legal affairs at Odinsa S.A. states in her profile interview in this publication, ‘It is a paradox that the profession in charge of providing justice is so full of inequalities.’

Despite these challenges, change – although slow – is happening. In interviews, several factors were highlighted as having a direct impact on the region: (i) a new willingness to discuss gender diversity and inclusion; (ii) a concerted effort from leaders to address challenges head-on in meaningful and practical ways, and to lead by example; (iii) the increase in men putting their heads above the parapet to argue that gender diversity benefits everyone, not just women; and (iv) the growth of multinationals, with more advanced diversity policies, establishing subsidiaries in the region.

On gender equality issues, Ana María Delgado, the Colombia-based vice president of corporate affairs at Corona, believes her country (which the World Economic Forum ranked as 40 out of 149 countries in its 2018 Global Gender Gap Report) has been evolving positively and that the participation of women in the workforce, as well as in leadership positions, has increased significantly over time. ‘Although there is still a long way to go, I have seen an increased willingness to openly discuss these types of issues,’ she says.

A recent country survey of Chilean in-house counsel showed that only 25% of general counsel positions were held by women. However, ‘statistics also show an increase in professional women’s careers with far more successful female roles and role models,’ says Guillermo Castillo, chief compliance officer at AFP PlanVital. While women hold only a small percentage of board seats and other influential positions, the pipeline of future leaders is starting to swell.

Zurich’s Schmitke is also seeing progress at a societal level, which will, in turn, have an impact on the Brazilian workforce: ‘I have seen men participating more in family tasks, with some men following their wives to another country because of her career. I believe that with every generation, we get closer to equality.’

Although she believes that Latin America is evolving more slowly than North American and European countries, Vialar-Déchelette says the region is walking the same path. ‘Private and public conversations regarding gender and equality are common, but quite recent,’ she told us. ‘These traditional prejudices need to be properly, widely, and honestly addressed and tackled so that public and corporate leaders understand their stereotypes and are willing to act accordingly to change.’

Tone from the top

The importance of strong leadership in tackling gender equality is a common theme. In her article, ‘How to get more men to take gender balance seriously’, for the Harvard Business Review (November 2019), Avivah Wittenberg-Cox argues that ‘it isn’t enough for the CEO to say gender balance is important once a year in a management conference. Nor even to set draconian and highly publicized targets… Until leaders are convinced that gender balance is a strategic lever for the business and become authentically and articulately convincing to their colleagues about why that is, balance remains a politically correct sideline.’

The 2016/2017 McKinsey report, Reinventing the workplace for greater gender diversity, supports the idea that real change must be led from the top. For women in the workplace to have better opportunities, to train and work in skilled and better-paying jobs, and to work in environments that support work-life balance and reshape social attitudes, organisations must challenge their fundamental and prevailing leadership styles and thoroughly re-evaluate traditional performance models. This is something that is particularly difficult for the legal industry, where the traditional structures and performance measures – such as billable hours as the primary measure of success – are inherently biased towards men.

The report goes on to say that organisations with a strong CEO and senior leadership commitment to gender diversity (i.e. those who place gender diversity as one of their top three strategic priorities) are twice as likely to integrate gender diversity successfully through all levels of their organisation. However, the report also shows that most organisations are falling short in transforming that commitment into a truly inclusive working environment, with many employees citing that they often don’t see words backed up by action, nor do they feel confident calling out gender bias when they see it.

Authenticity and ‘walking the talk’ are, therefore, key. ‘There are lots of good intentions, but not a real, open-minded approach to challenge the existing establishment,’ says Erica Barbagalo, legal, patent, and compliance lead at Bayer in Brazil. ‘The tone has to come from the top. The company needs its leaders engaged and acting as role models to succeed in promoting diversity and inclusion. It is not easy: changing the culture to break biases causes discomfort, and only courageous companies and leaders can bear that.’

Sometimes, it’s small gestures that have the largest impact as Barbagalo explains: ‘At a company event for hundreds of employees, the majority of them men, a guest speaker made a light joke about women. After his speech was over, one male leader got on the stage and explicitly disqualified the statement, making it very clear that this behaviour was not accepted in the company. He apologised for the insensitivity of the speaker. Needless to say, that speaker was banned from future events. Nobody, though, remembers the joke. But everyone remembers, to this day, the leader’s message.’

Diversity is a men’s issue

What came through loud and clear in all our interviews for this publication was the need to redefine gender diversity and balance as not solely the concern of women. For far too long, it has been accepted that fixing sexism is women’s work. But, actually, this is work that everyone must be a part of, because real gender balance has a positive effect for both men and women (see Michael Bruce’s interview in this publication for more on that topic). Wittenberg-Cox’s article states it clearly: ‘Companies whose balancing initiatives involve men are more than three times more effective than those focussing only on women.’

Castillo concurs: ‘Men’s partnership is required in addressing the issues that hinder women, including structural barriers and discriminatory practices that prevent women from participating on boards and receiving equal pay. Male executives can help lead the charge with women in enacting internal regulation that promotes benefits for women and men equally, and repealing policies that discriminate and limit women’s opportunities.’

Vialar-Déchelette believes the support of men is absolutely vital for change to occur: ‘Latin America is traditional regarding gender roles, and women on their own are making slow progress; thus the proactive support of men is necessary as a starting point. These are not just “women’s issues”; they are issues for the whole of society.’

What is key is how companies go about engaging with men on the subject of gender balance and equality to ensure maximum commitment. While this might be difficult for many women to read, Wittenberg-Cox’s advice is, essentially, to present the argument using ‘existing male-dominated hierarchies.’ In short, making the case for diversity based on moral grounds rarely has the desired effect. Instead, frame diversity as a business issue; make gender diversity and balance personal, measurable, and accountable. Position and normalise the issue as a business skill. Make male support the norm, rather than the exception. When the link between gender balance and positive business results is clear and explicit, men are more likely to engage with and support it.

Another key factor is for more men to mentor women, and to be open to recognising their own biases (this applies equally to men and to women). Many of the women we interviewed across this publication spoke of male mentors whose support had a significant impact on their careers. ‘I have been very lucky to have great male mentors through my professional life. They have offered me support in changing career paths, in taking risks, and following my dreams,’ Delgado says. ‘Those decisions have helped shape and define who I am today, and I am very grateful.’

Vialar-Déchelette echoes the importance of male mentors: ‘I was very fortunate to have a modern and supportive chief when I was first employed as a paralegal in a major firm. He repeatedly said that if I wanted power, I just had to take it and not to wait for someone to give it to me. He constantly promoted me over the years, in discrete but effective ways, by teaching the profession and encouraging me to take huge responsibilities without questioning my capabilities as a young lawyer, as a foreigner, or as a woman. In fact, in a male-driven industry and firm, gender has never been a subject between us. He acted with me as if gender didn’t exist. I believe that this kind of mentoring over the years gave me the confidence to drive my career as I have wanted, without fear or self-limitation.’

International influence

There are many reasons attributed to why, in Latin America, there is a growing openness to discuss gender diversity challenges, why more leaders are waking up to the power of a diverse and gender balanced workforce, and why more and more men are beginning to vocally and actively support women’s advancement in the workplace. One of these is, of course, the growth of multinational companies, headquartered overseas, which are now opening subsidiaries across the length and breadth of Latin America.

Many of these multinationals go far beyond local legislative requirements (particularly on the gender pay gap, where legislation in some countries is still slow to come), and are putting in place progressive policies, particularly in regard to flexible working arrangements, maternity and paternity leave, and mentorship programmes. These companies are consistently outperforming their peers, particularly in their ability to attract and retain top talent. The policies are seen as reflecting a commitment to equality and serve as an indicator, to current and future employees, of a more inclusive culture.

Barbagalo says that ‘countries such as the US and some European countries have been discussing equality long before Latin American countries, and by establishing their subsidiaries in the region, these multinationals are able to promote their culture and also set examples – some have women CEOs or other high-ranking women leaders. There are, of course, local companies with high levels of awareness and actions towards gender equality and diversity, but they are the exception rather than the rule.’

And while, currently, it may seem that Latin America-domiciled companies are not as advanced as their overseas competitors when it comes to diversity, progress is being made. Many of the lawyers interviewed can point to success stories thanks to increased awareness and understanding of gender balance.

‘In many of the countries in which we operate, we have seen an increase in women in leadership positions,’ explains Nava from Arcos Dorados’ headquarters in Uruguay). ‘We have three women market directors in Martinique, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. We also have a woman sitting on our board, who is the vice president responsible for government relations.’

While these steps may seem small, they are significant, and show that the tide is certainly turning.

Michelle Obama, former First Lady of the United States, once said: ‘No country can ever truly flourish if it stifles the potential of its women and deprives itself of the contributions of half its citizens.’ And what is abundantly clear throughout this publication is that Latin America is not short on talented, strong, passionate, and determined women lawyers who have begun to pave the way for other women to follow. Despite the still patriarchal and entrenched views of women’s place in the world, these women are breaking glass ceilings. They have gone beyond merely boosting the diversity statistics of their organisations to prove that the acceptance and inclusion of women in the workforce – at all levels – has a significant positive impact, both on business and society.

GC: How did you become involved with representing Procter & Gamble’s diversity and inclusion initiatives?

Earlier this year, I was invited to an external training session by MARC (Men Advocating for Real Change). It was very eye-opening for me because, as a man you might say ‘Sure, I’m all in favour of D&I and equality’, but what are you really doing? Is it just the idea you like, or are you actually doing something real to achieve equity and equality?

At this training, a lot of very interesting things were said – issues that men don’t even have to think about in their day-to-day lives, but that are commonplace for women. And that’s mostly what I took out of it and what helped me to try to better understand my peers, the women close to me, specifically on the employment side of the issue. The training happened during the week of International Women’s Day, and at the end of that week P&G was participating on a full-day panel with 13 or 14 other multinational companies here in Costa Rica. The event was organised by the Costa Rican Investment Promotion Agency, so it was a big event with close to 600 people attending. One of the IT managers that was participating in the MARC training and was one of the organisers of the Women’s Day event (as you can imagine, IT is way, way underrepresented on gender), reached out to me and said, ‘We have a slot, about ten minutes. Do you think you can prepare something that you can present?’ And I said, ‘Sure. Count me in.’ And that was my first presentation on the topic.

I opened my presentation by saying ‘“He is hormonal.” “He is so intense.” “He got the promotion because the company needed to balance the bands.” “Next time we cannot afford to hire a man for that role.” Those are some of the comments women face every day and men do not.’ I have been using that opening statement ever since. It grabs people’s attention. But it’s also very true. You never hear someone say ‘next time we cannot hire a man for that job. He just couldn’t cut it’. But you hear it about women every single day. And it’s extremely unfair, because competence has nothing to do with gender. Hypothetically I could be a terrible lawyer, way over my head with my role, and people won’t say ‘Oh, it’s because he’s a man’. They’ll say ‘Yes, he was a terrible lawyer; we completely mismanaged the hiring process,’ but my gender is never the issue.

So, that’s how it started and from there I have been invited to give talks to other companies on gender equity issues.

GC: You mentioned that you ‘fell into’ representing P&G on D&I issues, but does the company have a central function that deals with D&I?

Yes, we have what we call ‘pillars’, and D&I is one of them. It looks at many different challenges, one of which is women’s initiatives. Another which was started this year is a neurodiversity project, where we hired six individuals within the autism spectrum. We also have GABLE (Gay, Ally, Bisexual, Lesbian, and Transgender Employees), our LGBTQ network. I also do a little work with GABLE. With the women’s initiatives, as I said, it was just something I fell into, and it has been like putting on a glove. It fits me perfectly. It’s something I believe in, it’s something I feel is important, because I hear so many comments that are not okay.

After the first time I went to speak, someone told me that the event was featured in the news. And I thought ‘Oh, good!’ I went to the news programme’s Facebook page, and I found the posting, and I made the worst mistake anyone can make: I read the comments. And there was one that specifically stuck out to me. It was roughly ‘Oh, this is useless, everyone knows women go to social sciences, and men go into engineering, blah, blah, blah’. To me, this was so outrageous, thinking that this might be a parent, a brother – if there’s a young woman starting university wanting to go into science, engineering, maths, technology, and that’s the support they’re getting at home? That was one of the drivers for me to continue finding opportunities to discuss this issue, to show people that if you want to be a pre-school teacher, lawyer, psychologist, engineer – go for it. For me, I’ve never been told ‘you can’t do this; this will never be available to you’. For women, that is something they hear EVERY DAY. And I say that not just because I’m the father of a girl. I could have no children or be the father of ten boys. It would be the same. This is important and we need to change.

GC: How important is it to you that men act as male champions, and also as role models for other men (for example, by taking up opportunities for flexible working)?

It is so important, absolutely. For example, I do flex hours. When P&G started flexible work arrangements here (which was fifteen years ago), this was driven by six or so women who came forward and said ‘Listen, it is difficult for us to keep the same hours; are there any possibilities to work flexibly? We want to continue improving in the company, we still want to work, but we need flexibility’. The company looked into it, and that was it. Those first women were able to take flexible working, and the policy was definitely targeted towards mothers coming back from maternity, or those with young children. But by the following year, the first man had requested flexible working arrangements. And now, today, approximately 95% of the company is using at least one of the flexibility options we have: working from home, not working full-time, etc.

I use it, and I need it. I am divorced, and when I was going through that, it was really difficult for me. My manager at the time said ‘Listen, on Wednesdays, why don’t you leave early, go and pick up your kids from school and spend the afternoon with them, and when you’re able to at night, log back on and check in.’ And I have done that for the last five years.

Often, these working arrangements start because there’s been a reason for women to seek them out, but the beneficiaries are also men. And I think that as leaders we need to show other men that it is okay to leave early, to go to your kid’s soccer game, band presentation, teacher meeting – whatever it may be. As a man, you can do it. The more gear-shifting there is, the more men in senior positions do it, the more we have role models.

It’s just like we need to role model D&I. I go beyond diversity and inclusion, and I say we need to talk about equity and integration. Because that’s what we really need. We need to remove any obstacles that don’t allow someone to achieve equity. We need for everyone to be able to achieve the same, no matter who they are and where they come from.

GC: Do you feel or have you seen that the underlying culture across Latin America, which is quite patriarchal, stymies the take up of those policies?

Yes, definitely. I believe multinational companies have a responsibility to bring best practices to a country where they will eventually become the norm. This year, Costa Rica finally passed a law for flexible working. And why? Because there are so many more multinational companies now, and for them, it’s every day practice. The commerce chamber and associations were also pushing for it. It got enough traction that a law was passed.

One area that I see as low-hanging fruit for companies is paternity leave. You want to get good press for your company? Do paternity leave. It’s so easy. In Costa Rica, by law, mothers have the month before and three months after birth. But offering some type of paternal leave is an equaliser. Because if the conversation shifts from ‘Oh, this woman might one day leave to go on maternity leave’ to ‘Oh, anyone could one day take parental leave’ then it’s a great equaliser. We do it here at P&G, and we are working towards granting more time to fathers so that they can enjoy more time with their children and can help around the house. The president of Costa Rica was pushing for paternity leave and a group within government is working on it. Definitely some organisations and associations are against it, because the money comes from social security. I am completely in favour of it. And hopefully – while we won’t get the full three months – we might get to one month. It’s one of the things I like to talk about.

I talk about gender equity and why it’s important for companies and why we need a diverse workforce, but we also need to talk about the benefits for men of gender equity and more women being in the workforce and the impact is has on society and commerce – it generates more money for the economy. It helps men to move away from these patriarchal strictures: where men need to be the breadwinners, where you have to earn more than your wife or partner. There is a statistic that says women are more likely to try to commit suicide, but men are on average more likely to succeed – they use more brutal means to achieve it. Those suicides – where do they stem from? So often they come from economic problems. Men who lose jobs, men who are in debt – the more we have diverse workforces, the more we have women in work, the more that economic burden is taken away. So, yes, it is a benefit for women but it is also a benefit for men. It’s a benefit for the company. The numbers back up the importance of diversity.

GC: What challenges do you feel the legal industry has in tackling these issues? What does P&G do to tackle gender imbalance?

In the legal profession, we are still way behind. Most law firms, while they may have close to 50/50 representation when it comes to total attorneys, when you get to partner level, it dips substantially. And that’s where we need to call ourselves to attention on it: what are we doing and why? Why are women not achieving partner level in Latin America? That said, it is not just a challenge in Latin America. It is a global challenge.

In our own team, we have a very good gender balance, and we are lucky that this has grown very organically. There haven’t been any team changes in several years. Our chief legal officer is a woman. We had a global meeting in Cincinnati, and these are some of the things we discussed. To me it’s really important how she role models and the things she does. Before Vanessa, the role was filled by a man. The decision wasn’t a conscious ‘oh, it was a man before, now it must be a woman’. It was ‘who is the best person for this role?’ and that person was Vanessa. But I don’t think we will see those big issues here at the company – there might be individual biases – but the company pushes enough what its intent is on the social issues and even more now where the consumer is changing. Consumers, like millennials and Generation Z, want the company to stand for something, not just how much money it can make the shareholders. They want to know what your social issues are, and we have been able to do that through our advertising campaigns.

Our consumer base is predominantly women, and so we really need to practice what we preach. And I think we have three specific campaigns I like to speak about: #LikeAGirl, Share the Load, and We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be. Share the Load started in India and it’s about how, in a very patriarchal way, we assign jobs at the house for women and you go to work and do a full day’s work and then you come home and you have a full day’s work ahead of you again with household chores. And it’s fascinating to see what parents see in how they are raising their kids, or how dads are raising their daughters and how they wished they would have role-modelled differently. And then in 2019 we had our Gillette campaign, where we got clobbered on social media, because apparently there’s nothing more fragile than the male ego. And I don’t get it. I guess the other two campaigns were very inspiring and this was very ‘in your face’, deliberately. But it delivers a message and in the end the numbers backed up that we were right. It was the right call to go that way.

GC: From the legal industry perspective, when you’re thinking about panel law firms and who you give work to, do you look at diversity statistics? Does it influence your decision?

The law firms that I specifically use right now were in place before I started at P&G. Unfortunately, that’s not something I can say we reviewed or I reviewed at the time. But at least one of the firms has a very diverse and very close to 50/50 representation in partners. The other one does not. It’s a very much more traditional Costa Rican set up. But now that I’m more into the importance of this, in everything I try to look at where it is: what does the firm stand for, what does the company stand for, and I look at it in other firms here in Costa Rica. I like to look at whether firms are ranking for diversity.

I think we’re on the right track; we’re starting to talk more about the importance of diversity. It’s a long-term commitment to change, and sometimes you have to start small. It’s like in your personal life, you can’t just say, from now on I’m going to wake up at 5am every day and run 10km, and get to the office early, and eat vegan, and at night volunteer with charities. Choose one initiative, internalise it, commit to it, and then move on to others when you’re ready. Companies can’t go from zero to 100 in a few seconds – it has to be gradual and we have to work on it, work on the culture. Leaders have to role model and show that what they are saying is definitely what the company stands for. Eventually we will reach our goal.

I began my career as a legal assistant at court while I was still studying law at Buenos Aires University. After graduating law school, I spent three years in private practice before moving to BASF Argentina S.A. as an in-house corporate lawyer. In 2003, I had seen a job advertised at BASF and I found it really interesting. While I had really enjoyed my experience working in private practice, I wanted to feel part of a company. I applied for the role, and thankfully was successful! The switch from private practice to an in-house role was not a difficult one for me, and I found that I really enjoyed working with people from across the different departments, getting to know what the business was about, and contributing to its success. Since then, my experience has been solely as an in-house lawyer. I spent 12 years at BASF, during which time I received several promotions, and then followed that with a shorter stint at adidas as their director of legal and compliance (Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay). I then joined Colgate-Palmolive in May 2016 as its regional legal director, Southern Cone. Colgate-Palmolive, the US worldwide consumer products company, focuses on the production and distribution of household, healthcare, and personal care products and operates in Argentina through its subsidiary Colgate-Palmolive Argentina.

In my current role, I have simplified several processes within the legal department, and have also worked hard to bring the legal team closer to the rest of the company – and the rest of the company closer to the legal team. I encourage colleagues from other departments to feel free to contact our legal team early, believing they will receive good advice from us, not just as lawyers, but as business partners. I believe that my attitude of openness and transparency has definitely proved successful. In the past three years, I have built up a rich portfolio by supporting projects that involved the launch of new products and technologies, facing challenges from competitors regarding product claims, as well as handling various business restructuring and litigation cases that are still ongoing. At the heart of everything I do, I aim to show that lawyers are not just a cost centre, but are creating value for the businesses in which they operate. I lead my team by example, and concentrate on providing commercially astute and solution-focused advice that enables the business to be successful in the marketplace while also protecting its business model.

While I have managed to build a strong reputation at Colgate-Palmolive for being committed to my vision, I believe I am also known for having a strong focus on people and being passionate about developing a diverse legal team to deliver results.

At Colgate-Palmolive, we are a small team of three people – all women. However, I have always managed very diverse teams during my career in private practice, and in-house at BASF and adidas. Diversity for me, though, is not only about gender; it is about embracing all the different ways of thinking. When I worked for BASF and adidas, I had teams that were very diverse: different ages, sexes, social backgrounds, and points of view. The more diverse a team is, the more creative it can be.

As well as being responsible for building my own diverse legal teams, I also promote gender equality across the business. I feel as a leader I have the responsibility to promote diversity. Within Colgate-Palmolive, I am the internal sponsor of the Colgate Women Network in Southern Cone territories, which is the region under my scope (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay). The Colgate Women Network is a global initiative that fosters an inclusive and diverse environment, and different activities are carried on in every country around the world. But the initiative has local implementation too. In Southern Cone, we organise activities and lectures and try to develop policies in order to help women grow in their careers with Colgate. For example, we organise inspiring breakfasts with women leaders in the region. These are often in an interview format, so that attendees can get to understand their experiences, the obstacles those women had to deal with while they forged their careers, and how they have managed their work-life-family balance. In 2019, we organised lectures on topics such as leadership, personal branding, and personal finance.

I am also committed to promoting gender equality outside my work environment, and I am currently involved with organisations such as IDEA to help promote diversity and inclusion in law firms and companies. While there is certainly a long way to go before there is gender equality in the legal industry, it is not the only industry in which it is more difficult to be listened to and to get ahead if you are a woman. I used to have that feeling – of not being listened to – especially when I was younger. But, the world has changed a lot… and it is still changing. Fortunately, in my current job, I don’t experience this anymore, and I’ve certainly been able to move ahead with my career. What I have observed, though, is that in private practice, the pace of change is much slower: the number of female partners is still much smaller than the number of male partners.

Quotas, of course, could go a long way towards solving the gender imbalance in the legal industry, but I do have mixed thoughts about them. In some cases, I believe quotas could be a good way to help those women who could not have got to a certain place without that kind of help; and I believe they can be helpful, especially in industries in which there is still a lot of work to be done with gender equality. However, using quotas to simply make up the numbers won’t work – for true equity and equality to take hold, there has to be a cultural shift and a change of mindset about women’s place in the workforce.

Roman jurist Dompia Ulpianus defined justice as ‘the continuous and perpetual willingness to give each one his own’. This concept of justice has always resonated in my heart; I have always seen justice as the solution to avoid conflict in a large community. This belief was especially relevant to me when I was growing up, given that I was part of a large family consisting of three brothers, one sister, and of course my two parents. For me to survive in this large community, justice had to be implemented amongst our group so that each of us received what it was of our own! I believe it is very important to acknowledge that everyone has a place in their community; my place was as the ‘confrontational member’, always trying to assert and achieve justice. It is no wonder, then, that I decided to study law! I paved the pathway of my profession out of my passion.

Like many other lawyers, I have been both in-house and outside counsel. I started my career working in a big law firm, which allowed me to learn the fundamental skills that have helped me along my career: thorough thinking; in-depth analysis; problem solving; network building; technology tools usage; courage to take new opportunities; understanding of and exposure to international markets; and business ethics. I was also lucky to learn from several role models who showed me how important it is to ‘walk the talk’.

I am an extrovert by nature, and this was particularly useful in my private practice career. It allowed me to confidently interact with senior partners, and to learn from them and their experiences; I emulated what they did to achieve a similar result. After several years working in private practice I took my first in-house role – as general counsel of General Electric (GE). Key to my decision to move was the opportunity to acquire new skills and to learn from new role models. In fact, a big motivator for me when I consider taking on new roles is the leader who I will report into. I look for someone who will support and encourage my constant professional and personal development. Also hugely important to me is that my employer fosters a culture of inclusion and supports the development of female talent. Specifically, I look for programmes and policies that allow women to have a work-life balance, for example remote working and maternity leave.

I have been extremely lucky not to have experienced gender-based barriers during my career. I have never suffered harassment; my bosses have been my biggest sponsors (I have been part of several mentoring programmes); and I have a good work-life balance. I was even once hired during my last month of pregnancy. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all female talent in Mexico. As demonstrated by a 2018 study developed by AbogadasMX jointly with CIMAD and Marea Consulting, there are both internal (personal and unconscious bias) and external barriers (organisational structures) that women face in progressing both in private practice and in-house roles, and that organisations and law firms must do better to create equal opportunities for women. That should start with those who are in leadership positions.

Ultimately, all organisations should be a reflection of the people working for them, and it is the responsibility of leaders to build a culture where the success of the company is intrinsically linked to its inclusion of female talent and to creating equal opportunities for all talent. Implementing programmes and policies that allow for this to happen are vital in eliminating both the internal and external gender-based barriers. When I think of my own experiences I would say that for women in the legal profession, companies (i.e. in-house) are doing a better job than law firms. While law firms most commonly implement special considerations for women at a senior level, in-house counsel seem to have the same opportunities at every level.

One final observation, though, is that neither law firms nor companies tend to have formal mentoring programmes or networking opportunities. The biggest barrier for women in Mexico, I believe, is the perpetuation of ‘machismo’ culture, something that even women seem to believe in and uphold. Approximately 95% of the women lawyers who participated in the AbogadasMX study still believe that they should be the ones taking care of the children and the house. Women lawyers who become mothers often decide not to continue working after having children, or if they do decide to continue, they decrease substantially the amount of hours they work and do not take on further responsibilities. This strong internal bias was shown to be almost equal in private and in-house practice; there was a slight trend towards private practice, mostly due to the need to demonstrate long hours worked because of the hourly billing structure.

One of the biggest challenges I faced when I was hired to hold the position of LatAm regional counsel was the constant travel. I needed to make sure that my two daughters were taken care of, that they were safe, happy, and attending school. I was able to overcome the obstacles by building a support network (my sister, the nanny, school parents) to help me with the day-to-day duties. All of them have been amazingly empathic and have given me support when I needed it. I have also been able to work remotely, which allows me to compensate for the time that I travel by staying at home with my girls while I work. It’s also really important for me to communicate to my girls that I have to travel as part of my job, but that when I do they will always be well taken care of.

In my current role at Nielsen I help to promote diversity in many ways. Alongside my role as legal director, I am also head of the compliance and integrity programme. It is my job to make sure that no one is discriminated against in any way. I manage all harassment cases and impose penalties, and I make sure that all employees are treated equally and fairly. I am part of an Employee Resource Group (ERG) called WIN (Women in Nielsen), and participate in different activities to help more women achieve leadership positions. I have been invited to share my experiences with other women globally to inspire them, and am currently participating in Nielsen’s global mentoring programme, acting as a mentor for a female talent based in the US. It has been a real thrill to be able to influence the personal and professional development of another woman.

External to my role with Nielsen, I am a board member of AbogadasMX, an association dedicated to helping women lawyers achieve leadership positions. I am also part of the board of INCAM, the longest-running bar association in Mexico striving for gender equality. I am convinced that it is the responsibility of every woman in a leadership position to help other women reach their full potential and progress in their careers. We need to ‘send the elevator down’ to new talent, and we need to see diversity and inclusion of female talent as a competitive advantage.

We are lucky at Nielsen that our CEO is also our chief diversity officer, because he believes that diversity and inclusion are inextricably linked to the overall success of the business: to drive systemic change, we look for diversity in people and thought, and aim to be consistent with our operating principle to engage, include, and decide. We have identified the need for accountability; by this we mean that every Nielsen associate owns diversity and inclusion efforts, and their involvement is linked to performance processes. This helps to ensure that every one of our associates is able to reach their full potential. The entire leadership team now serves as sponsors for ERGs; they are personally accountable for how they are driving diversity and inclusion and Nielsen expects that all people managers become active participants either in ERGs or as mentors. We are also working to achieve gender equality in top leadership positions.

It is important to me to build a diverse team. I lead by example, because I have learned from the example of the leaders that I have reported to. I am also in favour of hiring outside counsel that have diverse teams, because outside counsel should be a reflection of the in-house culture of diversity and inclusion. I need to lead by example in hiring providers that have diverse talent in leadership positions.

I am 100% in favour of gender quotas, but I also believe that positions should be occupied by the best talent. There are always excuses that quotas limit to hire/promote the best talent, but in my point of view this is only an historical excuse not to move forward with quotas and achieve gender parity.

If I could give advice to myself at the start of my career I would say ‘count your blessings every day and appreciate what you have achieved. However, don’t ever think that you’re at the finish line. There are always new opportunities for achieving new goals and it is more important to enjoy the process of achieving the goals than achieving the goal itself. Constant improvement of yourself will produce happiness, pride, joy, and self-accomplishment.’ n

Ever since I was a little girl, I knew I wanted to have a job that would allow me to help others, and, like most law students, I wanted to be part of the dream of ‘justice’. When I graduated from high school, I immediately enrolled in one of the top law schools in Colombia, and ever since, I have not stopped learning. I declare myself an eternal student! I am convinced that one should never stop learning, because law and life are in permanent transformation. You have to be ready to reinvent yourself every day.

After law school and at the same time that I was working, I decided to pursue postgraduate studies with various universities in Colombia. I first studied commercial and corporate law, then financial law, and finally international law. I also wanted to expand my horizons, and so I knew I had to leave my country and travel around the world. I am convinced that this is the only way to understand other cultures and ways of thinking. First I went to France to study international law before moving to Berkeley in the United States to study international trade and commerce. From there, I was awarded a scholarship to study in Spain, where I did a master’s degree in corporate law and an international master of business administration at IE Business School, one of the top five ranked schools that year. I wanted to get an MBA from one of the best-ranked universities because I wanted to fight the stereotype that women and lawyers are ‘not good with numbers’. I was tired of the prejudices of my colleagues who graduated in engineering or financial areas. Also, I wanted to give them better advice by speaking their ‘own language’.

I started my professional career in private practice, before leaving to work for several years in financial institutions both in Colombia and in Europe. Those positions then led me to my current role, as legal director of an infrastructure company in Colombia (Odinsa S.A.). I decided to take an in-house role rather than to continue with private practice for many reasons.

First, I believe that working as an in-house lawyer allows me to have a better and more complete knowledge of the business. I enjoy working more closely with the financial and commercial areas, and being surrounded by people of different professional and cultural backgrounds. I am convinced that this kind of diversity is much easier to find in a company than in legal private practice. I also believe that working as an in-house lawyer makes me a more rounded lawyer and human being, since it allows me to hear and discuss different points of view that do not always coincide with my owns views. One of the other reasons I prefer working in an in-house role is that it allows me to have a better balance between my personal life as a mother of two, and my professional life. This is due to the fact that companies are more prone to provide flexible working than law firms.

Of course, all professions are affected by gender inequalities, but I do believe the legal industry is still one of the more male-dominated industries, probably because of its patriarchal tradition. Even though there is a larger proportion of women law students, after they graduate men are offered better job opportunities than those women. It is a paradox that the profession that should be in charge of providing justice is so full of inequalities. The patriarchal configuration and structure of the legal industry moves law away from its social function and its task of contributing to equality.

Unfortunately, this means there are still many barriers for women in law. During my career I have seen several examples of this:

Co-workers and bosses usually assume that if you are a woman, you are not going to be able to take charge in big cases or projects. Women have to prove their value before they are granted trust and confidence.

Women in law are judged by first impressions. As a woman, I definitely feel I have been compelled to dress in a certain way – to ‘dress as a lawyer’ – to be taken seriously, which simply does not happen to male lawyers.

Salaries are not equitable between men and women. Women lawyers are paid less than their equally qualified male colleagues.

Women are usually in middle management roles, but they hardly get to leadership management positions.

It is very difficult for a woman who is also a mother to become a partner in a law firm or to have a post of responsibility in a company, because it is not easy to find balance between personal and professional life. Moreover, our culture tends to dictate that the woman is the one who is expected to take a step back from her career to raise children.

Legal work usually requires you to attend social commitments in addition to your office work – this is always a challenge when you are a mother.

Women in law also usually have to face sexist conversations and jokes from colleagues or clients.

I have seen female lawyers sexually harassed by their bosses.

From my own experience, I would say that the main challenge I had to overcome was to stop my career when I became a mother. I knew that I wanted to spend several months with my newborn children and I was sure that this would halt my career progression – which is exactly what happened. After spending one year with my two children (who are now six and seven years old), it was very difficult to find a job with the same level of responsibility to the one I’d had before. The salary was also an issue, and I was not able to get a job with a similar or higher salary than the one I had before I was pregnant. In fact, I had to start all over again, with a job and a salary at a lower level. Even now, my former male colleagues have better salaries. This was, and still is, the cost of being a mother.

As working women I believe that we all have responsibility in closing the gap between men and women. Being the mother of a boy and a girl, I want them to have the same opportunities. There are many actions we can take to help other women to reach the full potential of their careers:

First, education is fundamental. We need to teach our girls that they can be whatever they want to be. There should not be professions reserved only for men. We are equally capable of performing any job. When boys and girls are equally confident in their abilities, and are given equal opportunities, the gender gap narrows.

Second, women must support other women. Build networks, promote each other, and demand equality in salaries.

Third, we must vocally support policies that promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

Fourth, we must adopt flexible working policies that allow women to have a real balance between their family and professional life.

And finally, we have the responsibility to make the problem of gender inequality visible to society through publications, forums, and seminars. Be vocal about the need for equality.

I believe that quotas may help and may be a first step to working towards gender equality. However, I am convinced that they don’t always translate into more power or gains for women. For me, quotas are only one of the tools that can help to solve the problem, but they are not the only tool. Other mechanisms, such as the ones above, are also necessary to achieve equality.

I am also profoundly convinced that as women leaders, we should build teams that are diverse in every sense. We need different genders, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds present in our teams so that we can get to better solutions. Different opinions and points of view add value, reinforce the commitment and pride of belonging to a team, improve the richness of the analysis and therefore, the decision-making, and increase the creativity and innovation that support the sustainability of the company. I try to promote these kinds of teams in my work. For any woman considering a career in the legal industry, I would give the advice I gave myself: ‘Dream big: everything is possible. You are just as qualified as any man to perform any job you want. Don’t accept stereotypes, fight inequality, and don’t ever let anyone else tell you what you can or cannot do’.

After graduating from law school at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, I began my legal career as many lawyers do: in private practice. I spent four years with Leighton & Compañia, where my clients were the biggest banks in Chile. I represented them at court, and also assisted their internal departments in M&A and real estate. After my time in private practice, I actually stopped practicing law, and became a stay-at-home mother; I also spent that time trying to become an entrepreneur – but (fortunately) I failed! It was during this time that I realised what it is I truly love to do, and that is to practice law.

However, I decided I did not want to return to private practice, and instead started looking for in-house counsel roles. In 2009, I was offered a role with Cencosud S.A., one of the largest and most prestigious retail conglomerates in Latin America. I stayed with Cencosud S.A. for five years, where I was responsible for banking, insurance, and regulated markets. I was also responsible for leading the corporate law team.

In 2014, I joined the L’Oréal Group as general counsel for Chile, and three years later was given the added role of ethics correspondent for Chile, and data privacy officer for L’Oréal in Chile and Peru. For me, the best thing about being an in-house counsel is that it gives me the platform to combine the excitement of a fast-paced business world with what I’m really passionate about, which is the law. Being able to engage the management team and be a part of the company’s core business, and to view how the company relates to consumers and the market as a result of decisions made based on my own counsel is what ultimately allows me to feel that I made the right career choice.

My team and I are focussed on making the legal department a true business partner. We are changing our approach to technology, while also working collaboratively; we are driven by our passion to shape innovation in the legal industry. To become an important part of a business and to be able to make a difference in society is priceless. It does not make sense to wake up every morning without passion!

Aside from the practice of law, the other thing I am very passionate about is diversity and inclusion, and specifically gender-based issues. I am lucky that L’Oréal is a company that works hard to support these areas. As an active supporter of the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles, at L’Oréal we are involved in many initiatives that aim not only to improve the situation of women both in the private and public spheres but also to recognise the contribution of women to the progress of humankind (namely via the L’Oréal Foundation ‘For Women in Science’ programme). This focus on women’s rights is part of our general diversity policy, which also covers non-discrimination on the grounds of disability; marital status or family situation; sexual orientation; age; political and philosophical opinions; religious belief; union activity; and ethnic, social, cultural, or national origin. The work we do with our suppliers and subcontractors is also a key part of our programme to respect human rights, which is why for me, the representation of women within a legal firm is always a key criteria for selecting my panel firm partners.

In my own experience, motherhood is a great challenge for women to achieve their professional full potential. Because I am responsible for leading a team, and am therefore in a position to take and advise on organisational decisions, I am a strong advocate for those women who are about to go on maternity leave or are returning to work after being on maternity leave. I believe that it’s important for companies to provide support beyond what the law states, and I also strongly believe that you should be able to rely on other female colleagues to become a support network during this time. As women, it is important to have the right conversations (which are sometimes tough conversations) to set expectations on what we are willing to do and not do; we must help other women to be proud of their work. This is especially important in the Latin America culture, as it is so paternalistic. That I why I feel very proud to work at L’Oréal, a company that aims to empower women on a daily basis through different programmes and initiatives.

Outside of my role at L’Oréal, I am also a member of the LWOW (LawWithoutWalls) community, a part-virtual experiential learning initiative designed for practicing and aspiring lawyers. By leveraging intergenerational, cross-cultural, and multi-disciplinary exchange, the community brings a human-centered design perspective to law. LWOW unites students from more than 35 law and business schools around the world to create innovation at the intersection of law, business, and technology, while developing skills essentials to any modern professional. It focuses on three core areas: upskilling and reskilling; transforming culture and relationships; and creating innovative solutions to real business-of-law challenges.

One thing I have become more convinced about throughout my career is quotas. During my time as a law student and the first years of my career I believed quotas were not needed, because talent would be recognised no matter what. But a couple of years ago, during a talk with Bruce MacEwan, he quoted that ‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results’ and it really hit me. Women have been struggling for around 70 years to be respected and included among the leaders of any organisation, and nevertheless the efforts and the women participation rate on boards, governments, etc. – it’s nowhere near equal. We need to start doing things differently. And in my own circle of influence, that is exactly what I am trying to do.

I would say that our legal team is more advanced than other legal teams because the whole bank is making efforts in the area of technology. There are other financial institutions and other companies in other areas that are behind us – sometimes in a very dramatic way – because they don’t, in their businesses, feel that there is an urgency in making the whole business digital. So, obviously, we have an advantage in that area. We also have an advantage because we are an international company. But, on the other hand, sometimes small companies and new companies have an advantage because they start with digital. For us, we are advanced, but sometimes you have to change the habits of people who have several years in the industry – that they have to now learn how to become digital. That’s a difficult issue. Again, we are better in comparison with a lot of other legal teams, but I would say that smaller companies and start-up companies – their legal teams are probably more advanced than us.

Mainly, we use external providers that develop commercial products for the legal industry in Chile. We have different systems: one in the dispute resolution area called Case Tracking, to review the status of your case in the courts. It’s software that is based on cloud computing technology. That provides you with several functionalities that allow you to track and manage your cases and prepare reports, and so on and so forth. It’s a very friendly software, and it’s available for any company or any lawyer and in other Latin American countries, and it’s been very useful for us.

I would say that the challenge is to increase the use of technology. It’s a growing area and there is a big focus on making the whole bank in the legal area digital. So that’s the goal, and that’s the big challenge but, on the other hand, the problem is that you have to invest a lot of time, a lot of money, and especially education in your internal and external stakeholders. So, it’s very challenging, because the world is urging banks, especially in legal areas, to make a big bet on technology and digital tools but, on the other hand, you don’t have the proper resource to do so. Also, the ‘business as usual’ on a daily basis sometimes makes it harder to make that change. I would say we are trying to increase the time and the money that we are spending on digitalisation, but it is difficult to make a schedule or to develop a very precise and clear plan to do so.

IT is often more focused on the commercial side, so it’s difficult in any business to get attention to the legal area. I would say everyone is very keen on improving their digital relationship with the clients, and let’s say the back office of any business is out of their priorities. So, I would say that IT areas are 90% focused on the digitalisation of the relationship with the clients.

I would say there are three main issues where technology is dramatically changing the legal profession.

In first place, the technology is allowing legal areas to do business with less support staff. Right now, you need so many paralegals or so many assistants, so lawyers are increasingly doing, with the support of technology, tasks that in the past would require non-lawyer assistants. That’s the first dramatic change, because it’s making the legal teams – in some cases – all lawyers, and they don’t need too much support from other areas. That probably will increase in the future, and especially general lawyers will very much do everything by themselves. That’s important.

In second place, I would say that the technology is making it so that the legal profession is losing the human touch in a way that, right now, you can negotiate and close a big deal without meeting the other party in person. That’s a dramatic change, because it allows you to work remotely, even in complex fields. The challenge is that by losing the personal touch, it will hurt the lawyers in their capacity to develop negotiation tactics and so forth. You save cost in matters like travel and meetings, but on the other hand, you will lose some useful tools that only the experience of personal relationships provides to lawyers.

In third place, I would say the big question is: how will AI shape the legal profession? Right now many people are talking about AI, but nobody knows for sure how it will work in the legal profession. That’s an open question, and it may imply that some legal teams will invest a lot of money in AI but at the end it will prove useless. On the other hand, some legal teams will find that AI is useful in some areas: for example, smart contracts. In service industries, in which you have a massive contract that you have to sign every day with clients, artificial intelligence in smart contracts could be a useful tool, but again, probably an open question. There could be an important change regarding managing caseloads and case precedents in order to improve your litigation skills but, so far, I haven’t seen any programme that provides you with an edge without an important expense of money.

The innovation ecosystem in Chile is growing, and I would say there are some forces that have driven that growth. Firstly, Chile has been experiencing an economic growth over the last 30 years, which allows us to buy and develop technology. The Chilean economy is also a very open economy, which allows you to look for external experience and allows you to buy and import any solution off any country, without any problem. Also, since we are an open economy, it also provides you an incentive for Chilean companies to expose themselves to other areas. And lastly, since 2008, the Chilean government has been investing big in improving the tech sector – providing incentives to invest public money in the development of new technologies here, and that has been an important governmental push.

Our team is looking for new ways of working and new systems to improve legal work. We are looking for new ideas and resources, in order to become more orientated towards implementing artificial intelligence into our work, and this is just the beginning. We recently reviewed new systems that are currently on the market, but before anything can be implemented, in our case, it needs to be validated and implemented by the central offices based in France.

Recently, I was in a regional legal meeting comprised not only of lawyers, but contract management, insurance and compliance people. In this meeting, we spoke a lot about how we are going to manage artificial intelligence and new technologies. Also, how we can manage automatisation in the best way.

For instance, since I work a lot with contracts and negotiations, it would be very good to have a reliable system where I can find worldwide information. Maybe it exists, but I am not aware of it as this is a new issue to deal with for a lawyer of my generation. I am in charge of Chile, but I have also been in charge of other countries which I am not overly knowledgeable about, such as Colombia. In that situation, I have to go to a local legal firm for assistance.

It is difficult for me to research case judgments from different jurisdictions – it would be great to have a system that would make those processes and daily tasks easier. Finding information like this mostly means I have to go to an external lawyer. I do not work in litigation – it is not my area – but sometimes when I am putting together a legal opinion, I need information on judicial cases. At this moment, this information, for a non-litigation lawyer, is not easily found. And this only refers to automatisation and search.

One of the barriers inherent in implementing legal tech comes internally. I know there are certain constraints on my company to implement new systems as there are some systems already implemented at our central level that sometimes don’t fill all the local needs on automatisation or otherwise, which represents security risks.

The circumstances have not obliged me to seek new support systems as it hasn’t been until recently an issue or something that was considered not only a tool but really a resource for optimisation. Obviously, it would be good if external lawyers used more technology. Ultimately, technology could help lawyers deliver solutions within a shorter period amount of time. But still, I believe that the options available to external lawyers, for example to find case law, are the same as the options that are available to me. In the end, we experience the same difficulties. The only difference is that often I do not have the time to do the research myself.

When it comes to legal technology and innovation, I think the legal sector is falling behind other professional sectors in Latin America. Consider that most doctors have artificial intelligence working with them in order to do surgeries, yet these scientific professions are very different to the law. Lawyers tend to be – maybe because of the past – counsellors of the family or of a company. They tend to be more focused on a close relationship with customers than implementing new technology.

The new and upcoming generation is different. My perception is that, in the last five years, new lawyers coming into the market are much more technology- and AI-oriented. They see technology as an asset – something that could be very useful. I think the view of technology and the role it plays within our profession will eventually change, but no one can tell you how quickly the market will allow the process to be implemented, nor the cost of such optimisation.

Looking to the future, I can imagine working with programmes that would speak to you like a robot. Lawyers will have access to a lot of information that will help you make the right decision much faster in the right situation. I know there are some programmes already out there in which you can enter the facts of a case and the programme helps you make a decision regarding a legal issue based on previous decisions. In this case, artificial intelligence will be able to help you make legal decisions quickly. This is happening now. As a result, it means that your workload will be reduced, because part of the work will be done by technology – the software will only be confirming what you have already analysed in a specific situation, or maybe challenge that opinion so you will have new tools to analyse the situation again. I can imagine the future of legal tech looking something like that – and if things were to head in that direction, it would be very interesting. As a consequence, I believe that some legal professionals are starting to fear artificial intelligence, as they believe that it has the potential to replace lawyers.

I do not believe that AI has the potential to disrupt the legal profession. Even if you feed an AI system all of the information, you will still need a lawyer to go through the process of feeding the information into that system. AI may do part of the job as it seems difficult to imagine now AI orienting customers face to face, negotiating, issuing a legal opinion, or litigating in front of a judge. Closeness is an essential part, nowadays, of our job. Times are changing, and we are always working towards becoming more creative and innovative. But, at the end of the day, I see people are still reluctant towards technological change.

Maybe in the future it will be like the movies: everything will be done in a way which is hard to imagine at this moment. At the same time, thirty years ago it was hard for me to imagine speaking on a smartphone. Now I do almost everything on my smartphone.

Since the beginning of the internet, the potential for technology to be exploited and misused has been a primary concern for policy makers. As technology has continued to expand and play an ever more prominent role in our everyday lives, these concerns have only broadened, becoming both more frequent and unique – and with each new technology comes a host of new ethical concerns.

As technology continues to evolve in the business world, while the legal profession may have been slow to adapt and progress, times are changing. The development of technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence are being applied to legal in an effort to reduce overheads, improve accuracy and boost efficiency. But despite the advantages legal tech brings, there remain concerns around technology and how it may implicate professional ethics.

In the research that underpinned this report, 18% of those surveyed said that implementing new technologies within their teams had raised ethical questions. On its surface, this would suggest that in the legal space, the use of technology was almost always done in an ethical fashion and didn’t raise concerns. But speaking in more detail with some of those counsel who had faced ethical issues painted a different picture, suggesting instead that many general counsel are not yet attuned to the new types of ethical questions arising.

Ethical by design

Just how technology is developed for, and used within, various legal functions is one source of significant ethical debate – particularly given the inherently secretive nature of the profession. One general counsel working in the banking sector, describes some of the ethical issues encountered with how legal software is applied.

‘In Brazil, we have a major problem dealing with the volume of mass litigation cases involving consumer and labour issues that we face. Here at the bank, we currently have over 120,000 active lawsuits.’

‘To help deal with this, I have software that allows me to access cases to find out what judges are doing, or have done, in cases related to my company and/or my competitors.’

Having software that enables counsel to quickly view other similar cases from the past is not revolutionary, but having cases analysed in order to provide suggested arguments according to the jurisdiction and the judge is.

‘The information is public, but this system can offer me suggestions on which versions of arguments would be best for certain judges. It can also help with predicting what may happen in my case.’

‘Using this, I can build a better defence or consider alternative options. For example, if the software revealed that I have a 70% chance of losing a case, I can use this information to propose that we may be better off agreeing to settle the case. Then, when it comes to working out a settlement, I have the statistical information that would allow me to know how many other similar cases have been settled. That provides me with the information that will help me decide how much money I should settle a lawsuit for.’

Using statistics and predictive capabilities in themselves is not inherently unethical, but the potential to build on this system in unethical ways is apparent. The potential for alternative sources of data that could be used to help build a better profile on judges and predict their behaviour is vast – social media is just one prominent example of this.

‘This kind of concern is being raised, but it is not a major concern right now. What may be an ethical concern is the data itself. The real problem arises only if you use confidential information, or if the data could be used to make correlations,’ says Marcelo de Araujo associate professor of philosophy of law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

De Araujo has worked closely with developing ethical protocols and codes for emerging technologies, including machine learning. He says that the data used to teach these systems can itself be an unintended source of ethical issues.

‘Machines can be influenced by human bias and emotions. If the original data is biased, the output delivered by the machine will also be biased. Machine learning will typically find out underlying patterns in the data set, a task that would take too much time and expertise for human beings to do unaided by AI systems,’ he says.

‘But if the original data set contains an unusual number of references to decisions that, for instance, marginalise black citizens, chances are that the prediction suggested by the AI system will reflect that kind of pattern.’

Alejandro Fernández R-B, head of legal at Cotemar, has grappled with similar issues.

‘In Mexico, when you have a labour case, mainly it’s because the former employee feels that he was entitled to receive a bigger compensation. Some cases, they are right; some cases, they are wrong.’

‘But the software might recommend that I can settle with them for a lower figure that they are entitled to. So, that is the ethical issue. Because in some part, I want to, and it’s my duty with the company, and on the other hand of course, I want to be fair with the former employees. So, that is an ethical issue that I am seeing as a result of this software.’

Show me the data

Since the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), safeguarding data has not only been an ethical responsibility for general counsel, but a legal obligation. Many countries across Latin America have followed the lead of the European Union and aligned their existing regulations or introduced new laws around data protection.

Brazil’s suite of data protection laws are set to come into force in August 2020. The Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD) stands to have a marked impact on business and broader society, with protections possibly set to be enshrined in constitutional law in the future.

‘The public at large increasingly perceives the protection of their personal data as a pressing question. There is now a new bill for an amendment to the Brazilian Constitution that would turn the protection of personal data into a fundamental right,’ explains de Araujo.

‘Most citizens seem to be aware that they are giving away too much personal information online, and that it is far from clear what private companies are currently doing with their personal data. Over the last few months, there have been reports of two cases of technical failures which compromised the personal data of 28,000 citizens in one case, and 70 million in another case.’

In both of these cases, the culprit was a government institution, heightening public awareness of data-related issues at a time when business is preparing for increased scrutiny with the introduction of the LGPD.

‘As a banking service, we provide credit cards to a lot of our clients. Using this data, I could learn, for example, that a client of the bank is going to the beach every weekend, because they buy something on the way there,’ says the banking GC.

‘The specifics of what you buy is information that is protected by law, but a bank could use other information from the transaction to try and sell the client a product. For instance, you could contact the client to try to sell them travel insurance, because you know that this person goes to the beach every weekend.’

Equally, it could be said it would be unethical if a bank were to use this information to discriminate against a client by developing assumptions based on spending patterns.

‘People who go to the beach every weekend could be discriminated against if I make a correlation with something else that affects their credit score. The client could call the bank and ask, “Why is my credit score affected?” Right now, if I say that our system says you go to the beach every weekend and your salary is $1,000, therefore you probably cannot pay your bills, we would face problems,’ explains a GC in the financial sector.

‘If we make a lot of correlations like this, we can face problems. This kind of model can become so sophisticated – it deals with a lot of data and one of the dangers is that this data could trigger a warning that says this person is a good or bad client for the bank. I think we could face real problems in the future.’

In order to address the potential for making such ethical and legal breaches, banks across Latin America have implemented measures to limit data access across a company.

‘We have a specific department here at the bank comprised of lawyers, software engineers, operations people and risk analysts. They analyse and see the flow of all data in the company and check to see if the information is sensitive or if it must be kept confidential,’ he says.

‘This team applies the law in order to protect the information of the people linked to these types of risks. I think we have this department in the bank after the implementation of the GDPR law and we are spreading this culture of data protection in banking – we are not only compliant to banking secrecy law, but for data protection. There is still a lot to do, but the bank is in a good shape’.

In the future, the implementation of new technology will only continue to make data collection and analysis more sophisticated and complex. Data protection has always given rise to ethical concerns for corporate counsel, but technology has made data security a major point of concern. With data breaches gaining global attention, some general counsel in Latin America believe that it will only be a matter of time before stricter global controls are implemented.

‘I really believe these types of regulations will become global at some point. Maybe the United Nations or another global entity will try to implement regulations that are more globally focused, but I would guess that, regardless, the principles surrounding data protection will all be the same,’ says Pablo Enrique Urrego Hernández, head of legal at Diageo Colombia.

Will Siri practice law?

Separate to the ethical concerns raised from algorithmic bias and data protection are the fears surrounding legal tech’s potential to replace lawyers.

‘Some people believe that there is an ethical discussion surrounding legal software that could attempt to destroy the value lawyers bring,’ explains Urrego Hernández.

‘If you develop software that could replace lawyers, then essentially a lawyer could be replaced by a machine. The idea of technology is not to be viewed as a risk to job opportunities, but instead as a tool that could help lawyers focus on tasks that are much bigger and add more value.’

Despite the way legal tech is viewed, its potential to be an industry disrupter is generally accepted. Of the more than 200 general counsel surveyed across Latin America for this report, 84% thought that technology would be a moderate to great disrupter over the next five years.

‘What will probably happen is that systems will be so highly developed and so detailed on what we want them to do, that tech will probably not take into account any human emotion. There are so many factors and possibilities that could be used to create a system that could probably emulate repetition, but, in the end the human factor is key,’ says Urrego Hernández.

‘At the moment, there is not true artificial intelligence – I do not know whether this could change in the future – but, up until now, there has been no system that can replace human behaviours and ways of thinking.’

Legal tech across Latin America, like much of the world, is still in its development stage. Most of its implementation has revolved around low-level work but, as technology continues to develop, the issues that could be raised by legal tech are still fundamentally unknown.

‘Experience has taught me that while you develop these things, you start seeing issues you have never seen before, and there is no doubt that the future of legal tech will present many barriers that will need to be addressed. At the moment, what we need is to be objective, although imagination is powerful and out-of-the-box thinking is good,’ says Urrego Hernández.

‘The list of ethical concerns that could be raised by new technology is extremely extensive. What should happen is that ethics should be part of your life. At the end of the day, ethics should be one of those main considerations that you have to take into account in every aspect of your life.’

Whether in-house counsel across Latin America resist or embrace technology, legal tech will inevitably transform the delivery of legal services, though not without a host of other issues to contend with. Ethical conduct will remain pivotal to ensuring the legal profession remains independent, effective and accountable.

Diageo, the global leader in alcohol beverages, with an outstanding collection of over 200 brands enjoyed in more than 180 countries around the world, is a technology- and digitalisation-open company. For human resources, we use a platform on which every employee is able to manage their own information, holidays and professional development. IT and HR have developed a learning platform called ‘Learning Hub’. As I see it, you develop as a professional through being proactive about learning new things, and there is an incredible number of courses, trainings and learnings that you can take on this platform during your Diageo career.

There are many learnings and trainings that our corporate team have developed and uploaded to the platform that are related to legal issues, for example, compliance, or ethics or on specific legal issues. We are also developing local learnings and training, as a complement to global platforms.

In legal, we have been working on a platform for contract management. At the moment it is quite simple: you can upload your contract, control duration of the contract, who is the contractor – it’s a summary of the full contract system that allows you to understand when a contract is going to end, and to do whatever you need in terms of requests and keep control of all documents. You have all the elements that you need in order to take decisions.

However, in Colombia, the idea for the future, if possible, is to apply artificial intelligence to this. We are starting this process by developing models of contracts that the system can match with the requests of our clients. For example, if a brand manager needs a contract for sponsoring an event, the idea is not to go to the lawyer and spend one or two hours trying to explain what they need and so on, but to match the models we are creating with the client’s requirements and let them fill the gaps in those contracts. This means taking some risks, of course. But once they have done that, the system will be able to issue the contract with just one previous reading by a lawyer in order to correct small things. That’s a way of trying to make it much more proactive, much more predictive and much simpler.

If this goes well, the idea is to start applying artificial intelligence not just to get the information, but also to ask questions regarding what kind of contract is needed in order to really fulfil expectations. We are developing that tool by first getting the basics.

We also have a very simple software that we use globally to control our legal processes. It’s not rocket science – you submit information into the software and it organises processes according to risk and the information you have given. But the idea is not simply to stop there: I dream of having a general platform that could connect with law firms. You would give information to the system and obtain information directly from the firms, getting the information in an organised and structured way.

Technology is one of those elements that will change the world, especially in legal. Everybody believes that you need a lawyer for doing contracts and that’s not true. You need a lawyer to do the models and to be critical – what are the minimum factors in a negotiation? But if you have artificial intelligence systems developed to do the contracts according to all of the criteria that the lawyer has given, that will change the way we see contract management.

And what is probable is that in the future, many law firms will have to change their way of working. Today, we rely on their name and reputation; you hire a lawyer because he’s important, he can deal with your problems and can give you the right answers. But in Latin America, jurisprudence and judicial decisions have been very clear in the last ten or 20 years and we have some trends that are already recognised. Of course, every problem is different, but if you recognise those trends, you don’t have to ask lawyers for new concepts, you just have to ask them for probable general concepts that you could apply to your specific problem. This means changing the whole system, their way of working and the way they make profits, and I don’t know if law firms are ready to do that or if they are happy thinking about it. In Latin America, and in Colombia specifically, they haven’t done anything about it, at least nothing we can identify. There are just the typical law firms that have a hierarchical structure of partner, associate, staff and so on. They have the old-fashioned way of working and trying to change that is like trying to break a bargain. They do not care much about innovation and, I have to say, it’s frustrating, because in-house legal teams are far ahead of the legal firms in terms of using technology and using these kinds of tools.

When it comes to technological disruption in-house, it’s all about the way you construct the culture. It’s not just in the legal team, it’s through the whole company, the whole organisation. I believe the first step is constructing a culture of digitalisation, automation and using technology so that people understand that these are tools that can make life easier and better. They are not competition, they will not replace a lawyer – in my team, every person is important. What I want to be able to do is to free capabilities – give my lawyers freedom to work on other issues. If you have a lawyer spending time doing contracts, that’s not right! You need to liberate, create time for them to do all those things and be able to develop other skills. What technology can do is become a partner in that development – it’s their best ally for that. If people start to understand that technology is a partner and not an enemy or a possible substitute for their job, that will change the progress of what we have been doing.

Being honest, this is not easy at all. You have to be open-minded, you have to be ready to assume some challenges, and you have to be able to unlearn. You have to try to forget some things that you have learnt in order to learn new things that could help you to improve. We need to develop leaders on these issues, and my challenge is to become a leader. I probably won’t be the one that will develop the systems but I could be the one who can push everyone to understand that adopting these kind of systems is a good thing.

You might not be able to find what you want because it’s not yet developed, but you can find someone able to develop it. But in order to find that ally, you have to be really open minded. They need information that might be confidential, or to understand problems that normally you would not talk about outside the company. But once you understand they are an ally and give them trust, everything goes more easily.

I think the legal profession is very far behind other professional service sectors when it comes to technology. I believe no one has taken the time to think about changing the way of working that is normal for lawyers. The lawyer has always been seen as the guy who has all the knowledge to fix problems and people believe that technology won’t be something that lawyers could understand or that would be interesting for them. In some ways they are right, because lawyers are difficult people, especially when you talk about law firms – I am a lawyer, so I can say that! I believe there is a kind of natural restriction in the minds of people, but I believe that could change. It’s about the way we construct culture – and we need to start talking about this much more.

I believe many new and young lawyers are thinking how to change the way law firms and in-house teams are working and, in the medium term – in two or five years – we will see some changes.

In-house legal teams come in all shapes and sizes: some companies will have small teams, preferring instead to outsource the bulk of their work to external firms, while others have internal legal departments that would outnumber many major law firms. For the purposes of the research that underpinned this report, a small legal team is classified as one with ten or fewer members, while a large legal team is one with more than ten members.

Of the 140 people who participated in our research, 65% of those were from small legal teams, with the remaining 35% coming from larger teams. The attitudes, ability and budgets of these two different groups had a number of notable differences – and not always in the way one might typically expect.

While our research showed that the overwhelming majority of all legal teams in Latin America used specialised legal technology in some form within their department at 96%, the few that didn’t all came from respondents from small legal teams. How that technology was used was relatively similar between the two different groups in most areas – use for factors like contract management, human resources and law firm relationship management was nearly identical. Where large teams did differ was with case management and dispute resolution, where large legal teams were nearly twice as likely to use specialised case management and dispute resolution technology.

The vast majority of our respondents held a positive outlook on the extent that they believed technology could enhance outcomes for in-house departments, with 66% of all respondents believing it can enhance to a great extent and 31% to a moderate extent. Those from larger teams, however, retained an even more upbeat stance than their smaller counterparts: 85% of those from larger legal teams believed that technology could enhance outcomes to a great extent, compared to 56% of those from smaller teams.

Larger teams were also more likely to have a positive outlook on how their department fared compared to their peers. While the majority of small legal teams retained a positive outlook, at 55%, that number was dwarfed by large legal teams, where 70% said they thought that their department’s use of technology compared favourably with other companies.

Interestingly, while small legal teams were much less likely to have received an increase in their technology budget over the last five years compared with their larger counterparts, that didn’t necessarily translate to feeling unsupported by their company when implementing new technology. While only 52% of small legal teams had received a boost to their budget, 90% of those we surveyed from small legal teams felt that their company was supportive. Compare that to larger legal teams, where 74% had received an increase in their tech budget, but only 78% felt that their company was supportive.

Based on the interviews that complemented the quantitative component of the research, the reasons for in-house legal teams feeling supported by their companies were more nuanced than simply being given the green light to purchase new services. Getting buy-in from the wider company was important to a number of those who we spoke with, with a range of factors noted, including assistance with integrating legal systems across the wider business.

While artificial intelligence remained a rarity in legal departments across Latin America, it was currently being used almost exclusively in large legal teams. Those we spoke to who utilised AI tended to have legal teams that were at the top end of large – with upwards of 50 members on their team – and were primarily utilising it in order to either reduce the more menial tasks their businesses required from legal, or to assist in departments that had large amounts of litigation and disputes work.

That attitude broadly aligned with the reason behind technology implementation. Between the two groups, what was most important when considering legal tech was one area where there was a difference. While smaller teams were mostly concerned with using technology to improve the quality of their work, at 69%, those from larger legal teams were less likely to value improvement of quality, at 57%, and put a higher priority on using technology to reduce costs.

I think technology in the in-house department is not an option anymore. Because, as you know, all companies are cost and profit-driven. So, at some point, the question will be on the table: ‘What is cheaper for me’ or ‘What is more efficient for me?’ To have an in-house department, or just to go find a law firm and try to push down the prices? So, I think the technology will give us, as in house lawyers, more possibilities in order to argue that it’s a good idea to have in-house lawyers. I think every company must start to interact with these new technologies to try to develop an idea or a practice to use that. In my case, of course, I’m trying to bring these new technologies and ideas and be open to the market but, otherwise, I try to bring on board young lawyers with these new ideas, who of course can contribute to the development of the legal department.

We deal a lot with in-house software that manages the areas of litigation, arbitration and conflict management. We focus on these areas because of the amount of litigation that we have. For example, in 2009 there was a drop down of oil prices and, as we are a construction and maintenance company, we had to let go of many people because some of our contracts were shut down. That brought us over 100 cases of litigation. So, taking that into account, and also that we have almost 1,200 active suppliers at the moment, we need to find a way to manage this and try to be more strategic.

We have been working in this project almost two years, I believe. At the beginning, there was a lot of data mining. We tried to obtain as much as data as possible from all our contracts and litigation: the value of the litigation, the name of the parties to the contract, the duration of the contract, the purpose, scope and everything else. We did all of this data mining and uploaded it into the software.

At the moment, the software gives me an idea of when, according to the data, is the most proper moment for me to settle. So, this technology gives me all the tools to make a decision and, of course, to manage this big amount of issues.

Before five years, the only contact with technology from our legal department was the cloud and the files’ source. We PDF’d and scanned all the documents and uploaded them, but there was no ‘correct’ way to manage them. In case you wanted to search for a specific file, there was no way to do it. You needed to spend five or ten minutes to find it – if you found it.

The first challenge was to try to obtain budget. It’s not common for in-house – maybe for firms it’s trendier – but for in house, it’s quite new to have this managed software, and it’s newer that you want to create your own software. So, trying to sell the idea to the CEO in order for them to see the benefits that it eventually will bring to the company was really hard. But I can say for sure: today, they can see those benefits and the company is willing to invest more in software within the legal department. Our software was obtained through our in-house IT department, and we spent almost two years working closely between them and our legal department to create this software.

In terms of ethical issues, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this – in Mexico, when you have a labour case, mainly it’s because the former employee feels that he was entitled to receive a bigger compensation. Some cases, they are right; some cases, they are wrong. But that’s purely mathematics. Even if they are right or wrong, my duty as a head of legal is to see the best interests of the company. So, there are some cases that they are right in asking for these extra compensations. But the software might recommend that I can settle with them for a lower figure that they are entitled to. So, that is the ethical issue. Because in some part, I want to, and it’s my duty with the company, and on the other hand of course, I want to be fair with the former employees. So, that is an ethical issue that I am seeing as a result of this software.

Right now, we are planning for next year to add a new part of the software for insurance management, and also for customs management. For customs, we often import the vessels, and our import permit might be valid for six months, seven months, one year or ten years. You have to renew that permit or you will be fined. So, we are thinking to add this part to the software, in order to have a reminder previous to the due date in order for us to renew the permit. Regarding the insurance, it’s the same. We cannot have our vessels or operations without insurance, so the idea is to create these new parts of the software to manage that.

Both external lawyers and in-house teams have to adapt to new processes. But, at some point, we ask for external lawyers to fit our software: we ask them to do it, but we understand that we are not their only client. So it takes time for them to fit the software, and if the software is not with the proper data, we cannot take the proper decision. So it can be difficult – it’s gymnastics. At some point, we have to work on that, and eventually it will be really natural.

Historically, lawyers are not used to using technology in our profession, and the definition of a lawyer has been to do things the old-fashioned way – with paper, or e-mail. Before we took the decision to develop the software in house, we looked at many options within the market, and we noticed that most of the software was being developed in order to manage, first of all, the billing hours for external lawyers and, secondly, to manage contract drafting – and that’s it.

New generations of young lawyers have a different set-up, a different mindset. I think lawyering is a little bit behind if you compare it with other professions, such as marketing. I think these new generations will push harder to improve new technologies in the law practice.