As an attorney, I have the opportunity to work closely with clients from many different industries. It is interesting to see that companies from seemingly completely different fields of business are actually facing quite similar transformational forces. In order to successfully navigate the current turbulent business landscape, companies need to transform and reshape their strategies, businesses and operational models. I believe that lawyers – both in-house and in private practice – can play an important role in facilitating these changes.
18.1.2019
Industries in Transformation – How Lawyers Can Help the Reshaping of Business
Samuli Tarkiainen
Drivers of Transformation
The challenges currently reshaping the markets, for example, in the fields of energy and banking, include the transfer from product centricity to customer centricity, the need for faster reaction times, increasing complexity, as well as advances in technology and digitalisation. All of these phenomena are actually very familiar to us lawyers in our own daily legal work.
Every lawyer has clients – be they internal customers for in-house lawyers or the clients of us attorneys – whom we seek to serve to the best of our abilities. Lawyers tend to master quick reaction times and continuously encounter very complex situations. We have also learned to live with uncertainty, which is inevitable in legal interpretation questions.
As for digital solutions, here at Castrén & Snellman, for example, we have automated our document production practices and are experimenting AI solutions in our projects. Our document management systems have been digital for almost two decades already!
On the Pulse of Business
Lawyers have the opportunity to be trusted partners and advisors to our colleagues in business positions. This is especially true of in-house lawyers: be it the legal department of a large corporation or the only lawyer in a smaller company, in-house lawyers get to work and interact with all parts of the organisation, from the boardroom to front-line sales and services.
On the other hand, we external counsel get to act in many different industries and have a front row seat to see the ongoing industry convergence. In these interactions, we have a unique opportunity to contribute to and facilitate concrete actions. Ideally, in-house and outside lawyers get to pool their experience in close cooperation for the benefit of the business.
Lawyers as Integrators
According to several studies, professionals who regularly work with various different stakeholders within an organisation can have a strong positive impact by advising and connecting stakeholders to each other, which those stakeholders normally would not do. This is something that we lawyers should always keep in mind and do even more often. The same also applies to external networks: sometimes connecting persons from different firms may lead to new opportunities for all the parties involved.
Methodology
Dealing with legal matters often – and ideally – occurs before any problems actually arise. Therefore, a lawyer’s duty is to find out what the possible scenarios are that could occur in the future, and prepare the legal side of the business case accordingly. This could include formulating clauses in a contract to cover more or less anticipated scenarios or, for example, preparing a leak plan for an insider project of a listed company.
Due to the nature of legal work, lawyers often are able to ask the ‘painful’ questions. This is an essential part of a lawyer’s toolbox and should be used in a business-minded way.
Pioneering and Piloting
Lawyers can be creative, too. Perhaps not as creative as engineers or colleagues on the commercial side, but sometimes certain new practices or ways of working are adopted in corporate legal departments or law firms before other places. Legal teams are usually quite small compared to business side teams. This makes piloting and pioneering new practices quite easy for us lawyers. In the best case, piloted practices have the potential to be scaled up for the business lines, as well. Even in the worst case, the pilot may reach its end in the legal team based on critical feedback, which we lawyers are often quite eager to provide.
Shaping Future Business
Although the last couple of years have seen many good examples of in-house legal teams and external counsel contributing to the reshaping of businesses to meet evolving market demands, I believe that even more can and should be done. It is clear that the best results require cooperation between in-house and external lawyers. Based on my own empirical evidence, I can say that this can often be fun!
Latest insights
Article published 9.4.2025 – Dispute Resolution
New European Court of Justice ruling C-537/23 sheds light on the interpretation and validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses – Implications for European businesses
Article published 7.4.2025 – Private Equity & Venture Capital
Tax credit for major clean transition investments passed in Parliament – application period until 29 August 2025
Article published 25.3.2025 – Mergers & Acquisitions
How to successfully run a large-scale cross-border M&A project?
Article published 10.3.2025 – Mergers & Acquisitions
Navigating uncharted waters: M&A and defence tech in the age of geopolitical uncertainty
Robin Ollus & Tuomas Lehtinen
Janne Juusela, Mikko Alakare, Samuli Tarkiainen, Marius af Schultén, Jarno Tanhuanpää, Kanerva Sunila & Noora Ahonen
Carola Lindholm & Samuli Tarkiainen
Markus Rahnu
Latest references
eQ Community Properties Fund – Sale of two healthcare properties
We assisted eQ Community Properties Fund in the sale of two healthcare properties to a fund managed by Northern Horizon. The properties have a total floor area of approximately 3,500 square meters. The two properties are located in Espoo and Lahti. The Espoo asset was completed in 2018 and the Lahti asset was completed in 2023. Both assets are operated by Attendo, the leading care provider in the Nordic region.
Case published 9.5.2025
BMW AG – Enforcement of BMW’s trademark and design rights
We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 ja 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
DNA – Global brand portfolio management and IP enforcement
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025
Foodiq – Restructuring proceedings
Castrén & Snellman’s Attorney Christer Svartström acted as the administrator in the restructuring proceedings of Foodiq Oy, which began on 11 March 2024. Foodiq is a unique future food focused company that develops and produces plant and milk-based products for both the private and public sectors. The company’s largest shareholder is a Swedish investment company focusing on FoodTec, Nicoya AB. The majority of creditors approved the draft restructuring programme in expedited proceedings after restructuring proceedings that lasted just under a year. The District Court of Helsinki affirmed the restructuring programme including the one-day payment programme on 10 March 2025 and appointed Attorney Christer Svartström as the supervisor of the programme. In cooperation with the parties, they found an effective and quick restructuring solution for the company, avoiding a long-term programme and allowing the company to focus on its core business. The restructuring programme was financed by investments made by the company’s investors. At the same time, the one-day programme provided a better outcome for creditors compared to a longer programme. The implementation of the restructuring programme ended successfully on 28 March 2025.
Case published 6.5.2025