We spoke with Gulfam Hussain, Chief Legal Officer at Edamah in Bahrain about his move from private practice into the world of finance, private wealth and investments, and what has kept him there.
He also shares candid insights on leadership, mentorship, and what it truly means to become a trusted business partner.
What attracted you to move from private practice to in-house, and what has kept you there?
At around 4 years PQE as an insolvency litigator I began thinking about my next career move to broaden my experience. An opportunity came up to work in the Middle East as in-house counsel for an Investment Bank. I had little idea as to what to expect as in-house counsel for a bank let alone relocating to a new country! However, the excitement of a moving overseas and developing my legal work experience motivated me to take the plunge (by the way, while my wife was pregnant with our third child!).
It took me some time to settle in and get my head around structured financing documents, however as I grew into the role, I found that my litigation background equipped me well to evaluate risk, offer pragmatic legal solutions to the business units and facilitate deal closure by exercising sound judgment. Working ‘front office’ with executive management on business objectives, leading and closing high value transactions, collecting tombstones (in the good old days!) and not having to complete timesheets (!) kept me interested in the in-house role.
As in-house counsel I have had to get to grips with a broad range of legal topics, lead multi-disciplinary projects across multiple jurisdictions, and work closely with executive management to guide strategy as well as manage day to day legal operations. The varied workload has kept me moving along the learning curve and helped develop my skillset as General Counsel to executive management. I particularly enjoy applying my wide-ranging experience to finding solutions to problems which are not often strictly legal in nature.
You’ve worked across multiple jurisdictions - how has that international experience shaped your approach as an in-house counsel?
One of the most interesting aspects of working across multiple jurisdictions is dealing with different legal systems and people from diverse backgrounds and cultures. Making strong genuine connections and having a good grasp of cultures can help cut through issues efficiently, whether it is applying cultural intelligence around a negotiation table or when calibrating risk.
It is also important to take the time to learn about the local legal and regulatory environment including why the law has developed as it has. Over time this helps develop a more flexible mindset when structuring deals or approaching legal problems. This all informs judgment on various issues including the selection of local advisors and partners. Working across different time zones has required me adjust my approach to planning and time management.
In your view, what are the biggest differences between practising law in-house versus in private practice — both in terms of challenges and rewards?
An in-house lawyer is considered to be always accessible and often required to get to grips with a wide range of practice areas, under tight deadlines and often with limited resource. For example, I have had to solve challenging employment law issues across multiple jurisdictions, design offshore private fund and governance structures, manage regulatory and tax compliance, and work with ultimate ownership on family succession and legacy planning.
This requires the ability to understand and interpret instructions from various stakeholders (in light of shifting objectives and risk appetite), sift through large amounts of information, allocate risk and make executive decisions. Effective management of outside counsel has a direct impact on the qualitative aspects of those decisions.
In private practice each ‘fee earner’ (under pressures of meeting billable targets) will advise on his/her own area of expertise while being relatively distanced from the full context and ‘people' dynamics.
Being the ‘go to’ specialist has its rewards; however, a strict application of the black letter law may not always offer a practical solution to a problem within the context of the wider picture. It would typically be the job of in-house counsel to manage outside counsel and work through the granularity of lengthy memos of advice to recommend a way forward that aligns with business objectives.
While each has its own challenges and rewards, I have always found that ultimately the business unit will appreciate firm and facilitative guidance from its in-house team.
Where do you see the role of in-house legal teams heading over the next five years?
AI adoption and the integration of legal tech will continue to impact the in-house function driven by business pressures and changing expectations. Having demo’d a number of products to date there remains plenty of scope to enhance the existing offering, however, I expect that all in-house teams will inevitably be utilising some form of legal tech.
As a result, I expect the in-house function to shift to a more front office role with legal operations forming an integral part of the business. Teams are likely to divert human capital to higher value work including wider business objectives and strategy. While this could lead to leaner in-house legal teams, it should also open up opportunities for in-house lawyers to take a seat at the table to demonstrate value add to the bottom line.
Legal tech, data analytics and process optimisation will also be of greater relevance to relationships with external counsel as the legal function shifts from being perceived as a cost centre to a strategic partner.
How do you see AI impacting in-house legal work - and do you view it more as a tool or a threat?
I believe the use of AI as a tool is inevitable and it is already being used extensively for standardised workflows, research and routine requests which is dramatically increasing productivity.
This may be perceived as a threat to junior roles both in terms of headcount and de-skilling due to over reliance, arguably restricting the development of experience-based pattern recognition and judgment, however, it should also create opportunities for greater creativity.
AI will need to be used with care as the regulatory and compliance environment continues to evolve in parallel.
You were instrumental in facilitating the first in-house training contract for a junior lawyer in Bahrain. Why was that important to you, and what impact did it have?
I remember the challenges I faced as a law student trying to secure a training contract or simply looking for guidance in a highly competitive industry. Receiving my practising certificate upon qualification gave me a tremendous boost of confidence. I have witnessed this growth in confidence in young lawyers, contributing to which is highly rewarding.
Giving back to the next generation has always been important to me, passing on knowledge has not only helped to consolidate my own learning and management skills but has also enabled me to learn from younger lawyers who are full of ideas and growing up in rapidly changing world. My daughter is currently studying Law & Politics, and I am often the student in my conversations with her!
Many in-house lawyers talk about becoming “trusted business partners” rather than just legal advisers. How do you achieve that in your organisation?
I see this term used frequently and it’s an interesting question as to what it actually means! I consider the legal function to be an integral part of the overall business and in that role, the in-house legal team should, as all lawyers will know, look to act in the best interests of the client.
With this in mind, it is important to understand the business by getting out of the legal department and spending time with different business units in order to translate legal risks into business terms. A solution-oriented focus is a must, requiring the ability to demonstrate commercial judgment.
I have found that a welcomed approach is when in-house teams are able to take a step back to look at the bigger picture by clearly explaining, evaluating and taking a commercial view on risk for informed decisions to be made in light of the objectives and timeframes of the business.
Making a nuanced technical legal point might sound clever but don’t expect a round of applause from the business colleague who is trying to close a deal without a clearly articulated, evaluated and quantified assessment of risk. Don’t get me wrong, there are times when the brakes need to be applied and when it would be advisable to measure twice, however, this comes with experience, developing relationships and trust over time.
