top of page
Search

Key principles for writing effective legal opinions

Writer's picture: Andres FígoliAndres Fígoli

turtle in the ocean
Photo by Jong Marshes on Unsplash

Key principles for writing effective legal opinions


Writing legal opinions is a pillar of legal practice, requiring not only a deep understanding of the law, but also strong analytical and critical thinking skills. Legal professionals are tasked with providing objective, well-reasoned analysis that helps clients, businesses, or the public make informed decisions. As such, producing effective legal opinions goes beyond the surface of simply interpreting the law; it requires consistency, independence and a pragmatic approach to ensure both accuracy and clarity. 


This article explores these essential principles in the world of submarine cables, along with practical tips on how to avoid common pitfalls, such as implicit bias and external influences, that can compromise the value of a legal opinion. 



I. Consistency and credibility in legal opinions


Consistency in legal opinions is crucial to building a reputation for reliability. A lawyer who contradicts his or her own previous publications or statements without adequate justification risks damaging his or her own credibility as well as that of his or her client. For example, if a lawyer has publicly supported a particular interpretation of a statute, it is essential that future opinions either support that interpretation or, if there is new evidence or precedent, clearly explain the reasons for a revised position. This approach ensures consistency and reinforces the authority of the lawyer's perspective.


Imagine a submarine cable owner deciding to proceed with dispute resolution proceedings against another carrier for breach of an IRU agreement based on the interpretation of that agreement by its external counsel. The surprise may come during a hearing when the defendant cites the law journal article written by the plaintiff's external counsel many years ago with the opposite interpretation. To maintain consistency, it is therefore essential to thoroughly review previous opinions and publications on the same or related issues before finalising a new opinion.


It is still a famous anecdote in Uruguayan courts that a young lawyer lost an important case against his former famous professor from the law school, where the latter used arguments that were exactly the opposite of those claimed in the many textbooks he had written for students. The defeated lawyer approached him after the final judgement and asked him about this contradiction, and the senior academic replied from his victorious podium without regret that money matters and that justice is the responsibility of the judge and not his priority.


Of course, the solution is not to write academic articles without substance or papers without a personal approach, merely quoting the opinions of other academics, without risking criticism for oneself or even jeopardising future cases that may be involved. Lawyers, as champions of advocacy among all other professions, should not behave like peacocks who just show off their feathers. It is a matter of upholding one's principles from the outset, during the soul-searching process of deciding whether or not to take on a new client, knowing that he will need the services of another colleague who will have more appropriate arguments for that client's interests.



II. Confidentiality and public discourse


Confidentiality is central to the practice of law. Most legal opinions, especially those intended for internal or client-only use, contain sensitive information that must be protected. However, any lawyer should also be careful not to approach a legal problem with such a view of his or her own beliefs and moral values that such an opinion might one day be made public.


During my internship in a law firm in Uruguay, there was a well-known quote by one of its founders from the beginning of the last century, Dardo Regules, inspired by ancient Greek philosophy, that one must be able to proclaim loudly the same opinion in the Plaza Independencia, Montevideo's most important public square.


In plain English, this means that a company should not pretend to have a lawyer to advise it on illegal actions such as greenwashing the publicity for a new submarine cable system. Other short-term strategies to obtain speedy cable landing permits, such as lying or deliberately omitting to give important information to government officials in order to obtain such permits, only prove to boomerang against such external lawyers' trust and confidence relationship, which is essential to properly serve other future clients in the future.



III. Independence of judgment and professional objectivity


Legal professionals are often employed by firms, government agencies or corporations. However, maintaining independent judgement is essential to providing unbiased, credible legal opinions. A sound legal opinion should be based on the law and analysis of the facts, not on institutional interests.


If a lawyer is hired by a government to assess whether its digital agenda and real-world practices effectively promote the installation of new cables, such a legal opinion should be based on real-world practice, not on reading an outdated official website. Similarly, academic research studies may be funded by OTTs when landing in a new country to support a digital inclusion agenda, but this does not mean that the researcher must use misleading indicators or unreliable statistics.


Legal experts must critically evaluate sources of information and avoid being swayed by propaganda or media narratives, especially in sensitive cases such as recent cable damage. By maintaining objectivity, they can provide balanced and accurate assessments, even in complex scenarios with political implications.


Here are some examples of how the media might report on two hypothetical sabotage incidents involving cable damage. In the first, local fishermen deny involvement in damaging a cable and witnesses report seeing a foreign submarine nearby. Here, objective analysis requires checking the facts rather than assuming the nationality of the submarine on the basis of speculation and further suspicion of the local fishermen, who are statistically the prime suspects in such incidents.


In the second case, a fishing trawler from a rival nation is seen leaving an exclusive economic zone after suspicious activity near the damaged cable. Clearly, simply zigzagging in a cable zone is not enough to prove deliberate misconduct when such a course is taken in an attempt to recover lost fishing gear. Rather than presuming guilt on the basis of nationality, the lawyer should evaluate the evidence impartially, especially if other trawlers from the coastal State have fished in the same cable protection zone.


In both cases, contacting reliable sources or conducting an independent investigation can provide clarity and avoid speculative conclusions. Otherwise, the media coverage of these cases would simply be propaganda for a particular government. Subsequently, they would be cited by respected academic researchers in their papers as a long list of alleged sabotage in the midst of geopolitical tensions, simply because they came from official sources. The lack of esprit critique, which is supposed to be the essential basis of any university study, may be due to pervasive apathy or lack of willingness, or even other darker motives such as pushing an arms-race agenda.


Unfortunately, this has recently led some researchers to theorise about the submarine cable industry without any real factual basis. A path that takes them away from real practice when it comes to proposing realistic solutions to everyday problems in the industry, such as proposing 24/7 maritime surveillance to protect submarine cables in the vast oceans.


In some situations, the best response may be to refrain from expressing an opinion, particularly where there is insufficient evidence or where the issue is speculative. This caution ensures that the legal professional does not compromise his or her integrity or credibility by engaging in discussions with inconclusive evidence. This is particularly important when the press and media need some professionals or experts to give their opinion on a recent cable outage.



IV. Pragmatic solutions over empty rhetoric


Legal opinions should focus on pragmatic solutions rather than abstract theories or superficial recommendations. Clients and institutions seek legal advice that they can apply in real-world scenarios, not generalities or "empty talk."


Rather than making general suggestions such as "continue the dialogue" in a study on how to improve cable protection, a more effective recommendation might be to suggest specific pragmatic measures that can be measured in the future. This specificity adds value and ensures that the advice is not just theoretical but actionable.


In addition, it is important to read and understand the law itself, rather than reading other people's opinions about it, before commenting on new legislation. Understanding the law at first hand is crucial to developing an independent opinion, allowing the lawyer to form a sound, independent viewpoint and ensuring that he or she is not simply echoing the interpretations of others without critical evaluation. As seen above, many think tanks and research centres publish opinions on legal issues and may be influenced by specific agendas, funding sources or editorial lines. It is therefore prudent to consider their potential biases when citing these sources, and to ensure that they are transparent about their funding and affiliations.


Finally, in any litigation, the external lawyer should provide clarity about the options and next steps available. A lengthy legal process may be appropriate for other industries, but not for wholesale telecommunications, where decisions need to be made quickly in line with market developments. This means that the legal adviser has to give clear, holistic advice to the client, sometimes recommending a bad deal rather than a good lawsuit, instead of thinking about how to get more legal fees.



Conclusion


The role of a legal opinion is to provide clear, objective and actionable insights. Maintaining integrity in legal opinions is a long-term strategy for any lawyer who wants to be seen as independent. By adhering to principles such as consistency, confidentiality, independence, pragmatism and objective analysis, legal professionals can ensure that their opinions are valuable, trustworthy and professionally sound.




 

Andrés Fígoli  the Director of Fígoli Consulting

Andrés Fígoli is the author of the book “Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Telecommunication Submarine Cables” and is the director of Fígoli Consulting, where he provides legal and regulatory advice on all aspects of subsea cable work. Mr. Fígoli graduated in 2002 from the Law School of the University of the Republic (Uruguay), holds a Master of Laws (LLM) from Northwestern University, and has worked on submarine cable cases for more than 20 years in a major wholesale telecommunication company. He also served as Director and Member of the Executive Committee of the International Cable Protection Committee (2015-2023).


This article "Key principles for writing effective legal opinions" was first published in Submarine Telecoms Forum Magazine #140 – January 2025.


15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Thanks for submitting!

  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
Imagotipo Figoli Consulting

©2024 por Fígoli Consulting

bottom of page