Legal certainty to negotiate, contract, and grow with confidence.
We provide legal advisory services at every stage of negotiation, from drafting offers and proposals through the drafting, review, and analysis of contracts. We also advise companies on government contracts and public procurement processes.
Our experience in litigation allows us to identify risks in advance and track court decisions that could affect new contractual relationships. This lets us develop legal instruments that are safer, clearer, and better suited to each client’s goals.
Do you advise companies participating in public tenders?
Yes. We support companies through every stage of the tender process, from reviewing the tender notice and drafting the proposal to executing the government contract and handling any challenges. Our work includes identifying tender requirements that could create legal risk or uncertainty, as well as advising on contractual obligations after the award. We also support clients in cases of revocation or annulment of tender proceedings, always with a focus on protecting the client’s interests and ensuring compliance with applicable law.
The rationale behind our advisory work is mitigating operational and financial risk. Tenders are processes strictly bound to the tender instrument itself; any deviation can be fatal to a company’s commercial strategy. By ensuring legal compliance, we make sure the client competes on equal footing, preventing procedural errors from wiping out legitimate competitive advantages or resulting in economically unviable contracts.
What’s the difference between revising a contract and drafting one from scratch?
Revision starts from an existing contractual instrument — usually proposed by the other party — and involves identifying unbalanced clauses, hidden risks, material omissions, and any legal non-conformities. The goal is to correct, rebalance, and protect the client’s interests before signing. Drafting from scratch, on the other hand, involves building the instrument to fit the intended transaction, structuring clauses, conditions, guarantees, and tailor-made protection mechanisms. In both cases, the work is guided by litigation experience, which lets us anticipate points of conflict that tend to arise in practice and address them preventively.
Our approach follows results-driven legal practice: a contract drafted from scratch allows for precise risk allocation, while revision acts as a safety filter. Without this technical intervention, the parties are left subject to the law’s generic interpretations, which may not reflect the specifics of the deal. A lack of clarity in termination or penalty clauses, for example, is a leading cause of disputes that drag on for years in the courts.
How does litigation experience help with preventive contract drafting?
Litigation practice offers a practical view of where contracts fail — ambiguous clauses, critical omissions, poorly designed exit mechanisms, insufficient guarantees. That courtroom experience leads to more precise, preventive drafting, where each instrument is built not just to formalize an agreement, but to reduce the likelihood of disputes and, should they occur, to secure a defensible legal position. It’s about turning our litigation experience into preventive contractual intelligence.
The reasoning behind this approach is procedural economy and preserving the business. A contract “hardened” by litigation experience discourages the other party from taking legal risks, since the consequences of default are clearly spelled out and the evidence needed for enforcement is already built into the instrument itself. It’s the application of the concept of litigation-proof contracts in the business environment.