Interview
“Being that close to the business is just that much more exciting”
Over the last two decades, the European in-house legal landscape has experienced an influx of highly qualified lawyers entering corporate legal departments across industries, bringing their legal expertise and shaping the quality and effectiveness of legal advice that companies across Europe are able to receive. Given that legal departments have become business enablers, ensuring viability and minimising risk for their companies, this increase of legal experts joining the ranks should be celebrated and highlighted.
Guillaume Nonain, General Counsel EMEA & APAC and Global DPO (GDPR) at The Brink’s Company, has been working as an in-house counsel since 2005, providing legal support in a variety of industries. An active member of Cercle Montesquieu since 2008, Guillaume has seen the in-house counsel role evolve in France first-hand and has contributed to strengthening the position of legal departments within businesses. In 2022, he joined the General Counsel Leadership Circle Europe, a network of high-level legal executives in European corporate legal departments and gave an in-depth interview on his views of the role that in-house counsel and legal departments play.
You started your career working as an attorney in two highly reputable law firms – August & Debouzy, where you had a more national focus and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where you also got additional exposure to international matters. Looking back, how valuable would you consider starting off your legal career in such a fast-paced and intensive environment?
Very, very valuable. It was an excellent exposure for setting your expectations in how demanding and, at the same time, rewarding, a career in law can truly be. My superiors had high expectations for my work. You must adapt quickly to be consistently able to provide such a high-quality service to your customers.
Working in a law firm, especially as your first employment, really makes you prioritise providing value to your clients above all else. Overtime work, going the extra step beyond your client’s expectations, being prepared to address any questions that a client might spontaneously have – a good lawyer must be able to assist their clients in a way that provides value to them. This attention to detail and understanding of the effort that one must put, given that clients always have the possibility to go to a competitor, helped me gain confidence and the skillset to succeed in later roles as well.
The diverse set of clients that you have also requires you to be sharp – one day you might be advising small retail clients, another day you might be advising a multinational IT-conglomerate. You must understand how to communicate with people from different industries and different backgrounds, while remembering that your goal is to provide value through high-quality legal advice and service.
Coming from such a demanding environment prepares you to have a client-oriented mindset that works especially well in an in-house environment, given the fast-paced developments that businesses are currently undergoing.
Is this a path that you would recommend to legal graduates today?
There is no right or wrong answer here. From my own experience, I am grateful that I had bosses who put high expectations on me and who, most importantly, trusted me with delivering high-quality legal work. I would recommend such a path for sure but it is not the only one to a great career!
Europe has made a lot of progress towards providing more options for lawyers, compared to a decade or two ago. For example, the lawyers in my legal team come from a variety of different backgrounds, from governmental roles to attorneys in private practice to people who have been working in-house from the onset of their careers. The increased flexibility that lawyers today enjoy not only gives them more freedom to find optimal career paths, but it also increases diversity of opinions within legal departments, which in turn makes for a more efficient business.
After 8 years of working as an external counsel, you decided to join an in-house team as a Legal Director. Since then, you have worked in high-ranking in-house legal executive positions across different industries. What made you decide to move to work in-house?
It was not really a decision that I consciously made, rather I was offered a great opportunity to gain new experiences and advance my career and I was able to capitalise on it. While working as an attorney, I already had extensive exposure on how working directly with the business feels like. While I was a young associate, I was seconded for six-month in a company which did not have any in-house legal resources at the time , working closely with the business, and I absolutely loved it. I remember the feeling, that I want to do more of this at some point in my career. I really enjoyed being in direct contact with the business – it felt more real and the work that I produced I felt had a more real impact, given that I saw first-hand, how the business utilised the legal support that they received.
When I had this opportunity to join the automotive industry, I jumped on it. Even though I did not really have much exposure to the industry at the time, my background in antitrust and M&A really helped me facilitate the transfer. This enabled me to understand the legal challenges that the industry must address. But there definitely was a short transition period, switching from a law firm to an in-house team in the automotive industry – it felt like I was on a different planet.
The role of the in-house counsel within businesses has changed considerably over the last few decades. How have you seen the shift in responsibilities from the time you first joined an in-house team in 2005?
It has changed drastically and I have seen a few key factors in shaping this change. One, which I think, has been underappreciated, is the generational shift that businesses themselves have undergone in recent decades. Management has become younger and has become much more aware of the legal challenges of their specific industry. In contrast, a person who joined the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s, had little incentive to evolve their thought processes when being in an executive position in the 2000s. For them, the legal department was static. Similarly, enforcement agencies and their activities today are very different to what they were 20 years ago. Executives today who are currently in their 40s and 50s are much more aware of the legal implications of running a business and see the inherent value that legal departments have for companies.
This does however mean that the role that in-house counsel today play is still very much tied to the outlook of the executives. I have been very lucky to work with executives in my current position and in several of my past roles where the CEO understood the seriousness of legal and compliance questions and have enabled the legal department to elevate itself within the business.
It cannot be stressed enough how large that difference in mentality between the old guard and the current generation was – I remember in my early days as a Legal Director, one of the top managers told me: “Your job is to protect us and nothing more.”, as if legal departments were seen as fire extinguishers, waiting for a lawsuit to happen to put out the fire, only to be put back in the closet afterwards. Fortunately, the landscape today is completely different – from compliance, training and overall being involved in the business side from day one. This has enabled legal departments to not only produce higher quality work, but also made the job much more interesting and enjoyable. This does however mean that in-house counsel today must be more business-focused and attuned to nuances that companies experience.
Furthermore, though the legal department still has not shed its cost-centre image entirely, businesses today fortunately see the value that a well-run and financed legal department brings to a company and have shown willingness to invest in us to make us more effective.
What, in your view, makes for a good in-house lawyer in today’s global environment?
In my current role at Brink’s, I cover EMEA and APAC, which is far more jurisdictions and cultural sensitivities than any university programme or training can prepare you for. I love it. It makes work extremely exciting and gives you a new dimension to your legal advice.
There are certain prerequisites that in-house counsel however must have to be successful in such a multi-jurisdictional and multi-cultural environment. Most importantly, you must have a very open mind. This must be coupled with curiosity that goes beyond legal issues, from local customs and traditions to other region specificities that require you to adapt your legal advice to the business accordingly. Your biases must be kept at the door, you cannot succeed in such a role otherwise.
One key benefit for me has been my background. As a qualified attorney in Paris and as a solicitor in England and Wales, the comprehensive overview of both civil law and common law systems has enabled me to understand regional specificities and legal reasonings much better. This has given me an ability to understand how it is best to communicate with internal and external customers from a variety of backgrounds in different locations.
Another challenge that working in a multinational brings concerns harmonisation of corporate policies and standards. You must be able to transcribe the business needs and expectations, that often come from a main HQ, in my case, from the U.S., in an effective manner to regional markets. For example, there is a noticeable difference in the way that business is done in the U.S., compared to Europe, compared to some APAC countries, where the history of business operations by multinationals is much shorter. This means that the business goals must be met in very different environments. This again however makes the job much more exciting and challenging.
Throughout our activities, we have repeatedly heard the sentiment from in-house counsel that they much prefer the role to the one they had at a law firm. Would you agree?
Honestly, I doubt I could ever go back to working at a law firm. Being that close to the business is just that much more exciting.
Is the work-life balance for in-house counsel better?
I guess you can say so – there are of course intense periods that in-house counsel undergo. The day is usually more packed and intense, but you are usually home for dinner… even though the notion of being “back” home has faded away a bit these last two years!
You have seen the increasing role that the EU has had in shaping rules over the last few decades. In your view, how effective has the EU been in harmonising law from the perspective of multinationals?
As a matter of principle, I am a European at heart and I truly believe that it has been a huge net benefit for the continent and the people, even if this regrettably is not the position that all Europeans hold.
From a legal and from a business perspective, I believe that the EU has been influential and positive, from the Single Market to the harmonisation and simplification of rules. However, the flexibility that implementing Directives gives national jurisdictions does create a surprisingly large variety of different local rules that businesses must pay attention to. This can create scenarios where multinationals cannot implement a similar model in all EU jurisdictions, as the rules differ considerably. Sometimes you really do have to look on a country-by-country basis.
Is there a specific area where you think an increased effort in harmonisation would be beneficial for businesses operating in the Single Market or an area where you see the benefits already?
At Brink’s, the two most notable areas are payment services and security services – two areas where states like to retain their sovereignty. Even though there are some EU directives and regulations, there is a lot of room for improvement.
On the other hand, GDPR has been very good at harmonising rules in Europe. Though you have some minor, immaterial differences between countries, GDPR, in my view, has been a great example of harmonisation in Europe and it demonstrates the effectiveness of the EU’s soft power capabilities. Thailand, Indonesia, India, to give a few examples, all have introduced legislation that is largely derived from GDPR, retaining its core concepts. It has been fascinating to see.
The other impact that GDPR has had has been moving the data protection discussion from a pure compliance subject 5 years ago to a business challenge today. Customers have become more stringent, and we also are quite demanding with our vendors. We negotiated a big outsourcing agreement with a bank a few years ago and the GDPR clause was eight pages long. A lot of things have changed very rapidly on the data protection side. It has been exciting to see and experience.
Has there been a legislative initiative that has been particularly challenging to adapt?
GDPR for sure has not been easy. Anti-corruption legislation has also been challenging, as they largely rely on processes, which often are not relevant for the business that you are in, but you have to follow nonetheless. Typically, the main challenge concerns convincing people the importance of the subject. This however often depends on the cultural background of a jurisdiction – it is easier, for example in countries such as the U.S., with decades-long anti-corruption legislation, to explain the importance of anti-corruption processes than it is in some other jurisdictions.
You have been a part of Cercle Montesquieu for close to 15 years now in a variety of positions. What are the primary benefits for being active in such a community?
First – you are not alone. Everyone experiences similar legal and interpersonal challenges. It is very reassuring to belong to a community where you can openly discuss work- and career-related challenges. You also get first-hand feedback on vendors and others that your company either must choose from or considers a switch to.
Second – the network has been invaluable. It has enabled me to meet people I would have never met in any other circumstance. I think that every lawyer should be a part of a trade association, I see only benefits that come with it. You give a little of your time and you get a lot in return.
Cercle Montesquieu itself has over the years evolved for the better as well. The knowledge that the association produces is now more accessible – we organise events and other activities that enable networking and information-sharing, the current Board has been very good at that.
Has advocacy become a bigger component for Cercle Montesquieu and similar in-house legal trade associations?
Definitely. Specifically in France, the discussion on legal professional privilege for in-house counsel has been a decades-long battle. I hope that one day it will change and Cercle Montesquieu, and AFJE, for sure will play a role in it. The disadvantage that French companies experience in a global market due to a lack of extension of legal privilege is too severe to ignore.
Though this subject has been a springboard for more advocacy-related activities, I do think that such associations are ideal for opinion-sharing on topical legal reforms, given that it comprises of top legal executives who must adapt said reforms.
We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to Mr. Nonain for this exclusive insight and for his time.
