In the construction sector, where every decision directly impacts deadlines, costs, and viability, the legal department cannot operate remotely. Grace Castro , senior legal counsel and PMP® at a leading company in the sector, proposes a clear shift in approach: lawyers must integrate themselves into the project’s execution logic if they want to add real value. Based on her experience, she explains why prevention is not an isolated legal function, but rather the result of understanding how projects are built and managed.

“A lawyer who works on projects must know how they are managed”

Grace Castro’s statement is not conceptual, it’s operational. In construction environments, where multiple variables interact simultaneously, the law cannot be analyzed in isolation. On the contrary, it needs to be integrated into the project’s logic, understanding its timelines, constraints, and dynamics. In that sense, as she explains, it is essential “to know the different areas of knowledge… to understand the language that engineers use,” from scope and schedule to costs, risks, and communications.

This knowledge is not secondary. It is what allows intervention before risk materializes. In fact, the very evolution of regulations in Peru is beginning to reflect this need, increasingly incorporating project management as a central element. “An integrated technical and legal approach will be presented,” he notes, which will allow for greater control and predictability of the results.

From reviewing contracts to structuring processes

From that point on, the role of the legal department transforms. It’s no longer just about reviewing contracts, but about understanding how those contracts are executed and how they are managed on a daily basis.

From a project management perspective, this involves streamlining processes, structuring information, and establishing clear decision-making flows. As Castro explains, implementing best practices allows for “organized information, records, and workflows related to topics of interest,” which completely changes the way interventions are carried out.

Instead of reacting to the conflict, the legal area positions itself within the system that prevents it.

“It allows us to anticipate controversies and manage them appropriately,” he summarizes.

The difference lies not in solving problems better, but in having structured the problem better from the beginning.

When lack of alignment becomes a legal problem

However, when that integration does not exist, problems arise in the most critical phase: execution.

In these cases, the conflict doesn’t arise in isolation, but rather as a consequence of a lack of prior structure. As Castro points out, “claims become more complex to substantiate,” not because of the legal difficulty of the case, but because of the absence of information, records, or compliance with contractual processes.

This is especially evident in situations such as extensions or additional requests, where a valid argument is not enough. It is necessary to have followed the procedures and have supporting documentation.

Otherwise, the legal department enters a reactive phase, trying to rebuild what wasn’t handled in time. And at that point, the room for maneuver is already limited.

The contract as a system, not as a document

This scenario reveals a deeper change: the contract ceases to be a static document and becomes part of a management system.

The project phases—initiation, planning, execution, monitoring, and closure—are not separate from the law, but rather the environment in which the project is implemented. As Castro points out, integrating these processes “will allow us to anticipate disputes,” precisely because it connects implementation with the legal framework.

When this integration exists, the contract functions as a living tool: it allows for documentation, managing deviations, and supporting decisions. When it doesn’t, it loses effectiveness, not because of its wording, but because of its disconnection from operations.

The conversation that reaches the Forum

This is the approach that Grace Castro will take to the Foro Gerencias Legales y Arbitraje en Miami, where the focus will be on how to integrate the legal area into the actual execution of projects.

Their approach is clear: effective prevention requires a system. This involves incorporating mechanisms such as “early warning and risk management clauses,” but also strengthening coordination with technical areas through joint working groups.

This is complemented by the implementation of tools such as dispute boards, which introduce a preventive logic in conflict management, as well as the standardization of processes that ensure access to relevant information.

However, the central point is something else: the training and integration of teams. “Training engineers… and training them in project management,” he points out, as a condition for the legal and technical aspects to operate on the same level.

In construction projects, conflict doesn’t appear suddenly. It’s built in. It’s built in every undocumented decision, every process that isn’t followed, and every risk that isn’t identified in time.

Therefore, the value of the legal area lies not in its ability to react, but in its ability to anticipate.

• Before the breach.
• Before the claim.
• Before the conflict.

Because, as Grace Castro implies throughout the conversation, when a lawyer doesn’t understand how a project is executed, he is no longer managing the risk, he is arriving late to it.