In the real estate business, where every decision combines commercial pressure, operational complexity, and financial exposure, the role of the legal department becomes especially delicate. Giorgio Schiappa-Pietra, legal manager at Binswanger Peru, approaches this with a clear understanding: the in-house lawyer is not there to obstruct, but to enable transactions to move forward with sound judgment. In this conversation, he explains why the biggest mistake lies not in the structuring, but in the assessment of risk, and how a legal team can shift from simply protecting the business to truly making it viable.

“Lawyers always tend to complicate situations that should often be approached from a pragmatic perspective.”

Giorgio Schiappa-Pietra begins with a self-criticism that is unusual in the sector. For him, the problem is not risk itself, but how it is managed from a legal perspective. And that starts with understanding the true role of the legal department within the business.

“As I always say, the legal area is for ‘support’, not ‘expansion’, because it doesn’t generate business, but rather protects it.”

That definition might seem conservative, but it is precisely what allows him to introduce the key nuance: protecting does not mean hindering.

The key to success lies elsewhere: in the ability to anticipate when to intervene and when to let operations run smoothly. “A legal manager and their team must have the foresight not to be an obstacle to generating business, but rather a filter that, at times, identifies risks… and at other times validates information and allows operations to flow.”

The real frictions of the sector: what fails before execution

In a market like the Peruvian real estate market, marked by cycles of expansion and adjustment, tensions don’t always stem from major strategic decisions. Often, they originate at the grassroots level.

For Schiappa-Pietra, one of the main problems lies in the contractual structuring, especially in medium and small companies.

“Poorly structured contracts… create friction from the outset.” In response, he proposes a basic but little-known idea: the need to standardize documents, adjusting them according to the transaction, but avoiding starting from scratch in each negotiation.

Added to this is another critical factor: the asymmetry between the parties. In complex transactions, one party typically has greater negotiating power, especially when it imposes clauses that are almost mandatory. This, he points out, is where the legal department must deploy not only technical expertise but also strategic skills to balance the playing field.

On the regulatory front, the diagnosis is nuanced. The legal framework, in general terms, favors the sector, but there are clear points of friction: zoning, municipal parameters, and restrictions related to cultural heritage.

“Project expectations often clash with regulations,” he explains. And this tension, far from being exceptional, is part of the sector’s daily life.

The real problem: not measuring risk properly

Beyond structuring or business pressure, Schiappa-Pietra identifies a point where the most costly errors are concentrated: risk assessment.

“It is much more common to see errors in risk assessment.”

The problem isn’t theoretical. It manifests itself during execution. In complex projects, where multiple actors are involved—contractors, subcontractors, suppliers—contingencies aren’t always anticipated. Not due to bad faith, but simply because of the inherent dynamics of the construction process.

“The lack of measurement often translates… into delays and even shutdowns.”

The consequences are direct: penalties, enforcement of guarantees and, in the worst-case scenario, an economic and reputational impact that may be difficult to reverse.

In addition, there is a critical element that is often underestimated: dispute resolution clauses. Poor drafting at this stage can lead to conflicts regarding the forum itself, whether judicial or arbitral, generating cost overruns and delays that affect the final outcome of the project.

Faced with this scenario, he proposes a solution that goes beyond the legal realm: a “collaborative triangulation” between client, supervisor, and contractor. Not as a theoretical ideal, but as a practical condition for successful execution.

From brake to browser: the change of mindset

To explain the difference between a legal department that protects and one that enables, Schiappa-Pietra uses a precise image. “The legal department is like a car.” The traditional model acts as a brake: it seeks zero risk, avoids any contingency, and in that process, can end up blocking the business.

The model he proposes is different. “A legal team that understands how to make the operation viable is like a GPS.”

The key is to accept that business involves risk, but to learn how to manage it wisely. And here he introduces his central concept: the “risk traffic light”.

• Red: operations that should not be executed.
• Orange: risks that must be assessed based on the return.
• Green: scenarios where the risk is minimal and the legal role is supportive.

This approach does not eliminate uncertainty, but it allows for clearer and more consistent decision-making.

“Efficient legal management will be that which accompanies the process… fully identifying the alerts.”

Anticipate, don’t react

Ahead of the debate at the Foro Gerencias Legales y Arbitraje en Miami, Schiappa-Pietra broadens the focus. The “risk traffic light” is necessary, but insufficient. The real challenge lies in building teams capable of anticipating, not just reacting to. And that involves more than just technical knowledge.

“Teams are built on trust.”

For him, the difference lies in the combination of hard and soft skills, in empathy with the internal client, and in the leadership ability to transmit criteria to the entire organization.

Added to this is an additional layer: technology.

“The legal manager should not see AI as competition, but as a tool.”

In this case, combined with virtual reality tools, it allows for the projection of scenarios and facilitates the understanding of projects by all stakeholders. It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about anticipation.

In Giorgio Schiappa-Pietra’s approach, there is one idea that underpins everything else: the problem is not risk, but rather the inability to recognize it in time. In a sector like real estate, where every decision involves multiple variables—technical, contractual, regulatory, and human—trying to eliminate uncertainty is not only unrealistic but counterproductive. Business, by definition, involves exposure.

The difference lies in how it’s managed. There’s more than just style between a legal department that hinders and one that supports. There’s a different way of understanding its role within the organization—not as an external control, but as an internal tool for sound judgment.

Because, ultimately, it’s not about preventing transactions from happening, but about preventing them from happening incorrectly. And at that point, the legal manager’s role ceases to be reactive and becomes structural.