Antti Kaakkola, who heads Castrén & Snellman’s Real Estate Investments & Transactions service, became a partner at the firm at just thirty-three. He has played a part in major assignments from a young age.
11.5.2021
Career Stories: Antti Kaakkola
Antti Kaakkola
For example, Antti and his team handled the sale-and-lease-back of OP Financial Group’s headquarters and advised the investors in the Mall of Tripla, REDI shopping centre and Tampere Central Deck and Arena projects.
‘These have been interesting projects that have kept our team busy over an extended period. I love being a part of important projects with major clients.’
How did Antti make partner and land major assignments in his early thirties? Antti sees two main reasons for his rapid career development.
‘First of all, I have to be humble, as I found myself in the right place at the right time. I was able to play a key role in the kinds of assignments that were in high demand’, Antti says.
‘Of course, you also need the right attitude and skillset for the job. This is a customer service profession. You have to understand the client’s goals and do your best to help the client achieve them’, Antti continues.
C&S Career Began as a Trainee
In high school, Antti was considering whether he wanted to study either law or economics. He ended up choosing law school at the University of Helsinki, because he thought it would give him more options for work after graduation. His father’s interesting stories about working as a lawyer also played a role in his decision.
Antti joined Castrén & Snellman towards the end of this studies in 2011. He worked first as a senior trainee and later as a project trainee while writing his thesis. After that he was invited to continue in the firm as an associate.
‘At that point, I hadn’t given much thought to whether I wanted to stay in a large law firm, but once I was offered a position in Finland’s number one firm, I decided to seize the opportunity.’
Castrén & Snellman was already involved in extensive real estate deals at the time and needed extra hands. This was how Antti began specialising in real estate transactions.
Three Reasons to Become a Real Estate Lawyer
When law students are asked what they want to do after graduation, few mention real estate transactions. Nevertheless, Antti recommends at least considering it as a specialisation.
‘Real estate law is much more interesting than you might at first think’, he says and lists three good reasons to work in the field:
‘One. Even though the deals revolve around real estate, the work itself revolves around people. Real estate investors and developers and the people working in construction companies are a great group of people that is fun to work with.
Two. Real estate transactions are a field that a single person can get a comprehensive handle on if they have the motivation. No two assignments are the same, but the basic framework is easy enough to master.
Three. Real estate is a significant market. Specialising in it opens a lot of doors for a lawyer. Real estate experts are in high demand.’
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026