María Cermeño, Director of Legal Services at Telefónica Spain, traces the origins of her understanding of the legal function back to 2000. She had joined Telefónica B2B as a tax specialist and, after the dot-com bubble burst, took on business development and marketing responsibilities. Upon returning to the legal field, she realized that a lawyer’s value lies in applying the legal framework while considering the context, objectives, and real-world consequences of each decision. This principle guides her leadership style today: she seeks input from her team before making a decision and then assumes responsibility for it. She summarizes it in one sentence: “For me, leading doesn’t mean having the first word, but rather taking responsibility for the last word when the time comes.”
Your career has led you to head the legal services of Telefónica Spain. What moment in your career do you consider a turning point?
The turning point that laid the foundation for how I understand the legal function today occurred quite some time ago, when I joined Telefónica B2B as a tax specialist in 2000. A few months later, the dot-com bubble burst, and the company, like many technology firms at the time, had to redefine its structure and needs. In that context, I transitioned from tax advising to taking on business development and marketing responsibilities.
That experience allowed me to understand the company from a different perspective: to better grasp how decisions are made, the tensions faced by different departments, and the complexity behind business objectives. When I returned to the legal field, I did so with a broader perspective. I understood that technical rigor is essential, but that our true value lies not only in correctly identifying the legal framework, but also in knowing how to apply it while considering the context, objectives, and real consequences of each decision.
This perspective has been particularly useful to me in my current role, where one of my main functions is to help the company make sound decisions in a complex, changing and uncertain environment, where an inappropriate decision can have significant economic, strategic or reputational consequences.
I believe I was fortunate enough to observe, perhaps a little earlier than other professionals, something that many in-house lawyers now share: the legal function is increasingly about judgment, not just knowledge. Our value lies not only in solving problems or defining what a rule allows, but also in helping our companies think better, anticipate better, and make more sound decisions. Lawyers must be comfortable managing uncertainty, because in business, there are rarely any completely black-and-white answers.
A good leader knows when to decide and when to listen to their team. How do they integrate their team’s opinions into the decisions they make?
Listening to the team is not a concession or a mere courtesy. It is a way to improve decisions and build a culture of greater intellectual rigor.
A legal team comprises professionals with diverse specializations, experiences, knowledge, and perspectives. Failing to leverage this diversity of viewpoints would be to forgo a significant part of our collective intelligence. The more perspectives we incorporate into our analysis, the more comprehensive and sustainable the solutions we can offer will be. That’s why I’m particularly interested in fostering a culture of trust and professional security. To achieve this, it’s essential to create an environment of trust and professional safety where no one feels that questioning a proposal is tantamount to questioning the person making it. Often, the missing argument or nuance emerges precisely from the disagreement. Personally, I’ve learned a great deal from those who have been generous enough to tell me they disagreed with me at certain times.
However, listening shouldn’t lead to paralysis or a dilution of responsibility. There comes a point when debate ceases to add value, and the leader must organize the different perspectives, make a decision, explain the reasoning behind it, and clearly accept the consequences of that decision. For me, leading doesn’t mean having the first word, but rather taking responsibility for the final word when the time comes. I’ve also found that people are much more committed to a strategy when they feel they’ve been heard and understand the purpose of what they’re doing. Listening improves decisions, but it also strengthens commitment and helps teams grow.
Every leader has principles that guide their leadership style. What values are non-negotiable for you as a leader?
The first is integrity. Trust is built on professional rectitude, independence of judgment, and the ability to say what we believe must be said, even if it’s not the most comfortable thing to say or what our interlocutor expected to hear. In the legal profession, credibility takes a long time to build and can be lost with a single decision.
The second is rigor. Our work demands effort, preparation, and intellectual honesty. I especially value professionals who argue with sound reasoning and common sense, who know how to acknowledge doubts, and who don’t force conclusions to arrive at the most convenient answer. Being rigorous doesn’t mean being inflexible, but rather understanding reality well before making a judgment about it.
Alongside these, I would place respect and generosity. High standards are part of leadership, but they should never be used as an excuse to lose one’s humanity or respect. I firmly believe that sustainable excellence is always collective. That’s why it’s important to share information, dedicate time to developing others, and understand that talent doesn’t diminish when shared: it multiplies.
Finally, in a time of such profound transformation, I would add curiosity and resilience. A leader cannot ask their team to learn, change, or adapt if they themselves have stopped doing so. Leading also involves maintaining the humility necessary to continue learning and accepting that some of the skills that have brought us this far are not enough to face the future.
Telecommunications is a critical infrastructure subject to intense regulation in terms of connectivity, cybersecurity, and competition. How does one lead a legal function in such a highly regulated sector?
The first thing to understand is that regulation is not an external constraint on business, but an essential part of the environment in which the business operates. In telecommunications, regulatory complexity is a given, although this does not prevent us from advocating, through established channels, for improvements in those areas where regulation may be disproportionate, irrational, or insufficiently adapted to the technological and competitive reality.
Regulation must protect essential interests, but it must also allow for innovation, investment, and competition. Finding this balance is especially important in a sector that forms the infrastructure upon which much of the digital economy is being built.
This context compels us to go far beyond simply interpreting the rules. We must anticipate their evolution, translate their implications for the business, and help the company make confident decisions on such crucial matters as connectivity, cybersecurity, competition, user protection, and artificial intelligence, especially when our goal is to be the best gateway to digital technologies for everyone.
All of this requires combining technical expertise, strategic vision, and composure. In highly regulated sectors, legal leadership consists of protecting without paralyzing and enabling without trivializing risk. To achieve this, it is essential to maintain constant communication with the business, have a deep understanding of the company’s strategy, and recognize that the best legal response is not always the most defensive, but rather the one that allows for responsible and sustainable progress.
The legal department of a large company brings together professionals from very diverse specialties. How do you maintain the cohesion of a team of that size?
I don’t believe that building team cohesion means homogenizing it or erasing its differences. That would be a mistake, because we would lose the richness that comes from having specialists, experiences, and different approaches to problems. Diversity is an essential lever for making better decisions.
In my opinion, cohesion stems from sharing common references: high standards of quality; rigor and demandingness; a clear vocation for service; commitment to the company’s objectives; and a culture of respect, trust and professional generosity.
To build this shared framework, clear leadership is essential. People need to understand the strategy, know what is expected of them, and understand how their work contributes to the organization’s overall purpose. It is also crucial that information flows freely, that departments don’t operate in silos, and that every professional feels their opinion matters and that they are part of something larger.
But cohesion also has a profoundly human dimension. It involves getting to know people, creating opportunities for them to grow, and fostering an environment where they can reach their full potential. Not everyone needs the same things, nor do they progress at the same pace. Leading a diverse team requires combining a common framework with genuine attention to each professional. Moreover, continuous learning is essential right now. Artificial intelligence and new technologies are transforming the way we work. The challenge lies not only in incorporating them, but in using them to amplify our judgment and value, not to replace them. I worry that gaps may open up within a team between those who evolve and those who fall behind; therefore, learning and helping others learn must be part of our collective responsibility.
You are a member of the jury for the National Law Gala – Legal Leadership Awards 2026, which recognizes excellence in marketing, communication, and business development within the legal sector. What does it say about the current state of the legal sector that there are awards dedicated to these disciplines?
I believe it demonstrates that the legal sector is leaving behind an excessively closed view of itself and is beginning to understand that legal value must not only be generated: it must also evolve, be explained, and connect with the real needs of those who receive it.
For a long time, in certain legal circles, it seemed that discussing communication, positioning, or business development detracted from the seriousness of technical work. Today we know this is not the case. Legal excellence remains the essential core, but that excellence must be expressed, differentiated, and understood in an increasingly competitive and sophisticated environment. Communicating effectively does not mean unduly simplifying or turning the law into a superficial product. It means being able to translate complex knowledge into useful judgment and clearly explain the value we bring. Extraordinary advice that is not understood, arrives late, or fails to connect with the recipient’s needs loses a significant part of its effectiveness. That is why I consider the recognition of these disciplines so positive. It reflects a more open profession, more aware of its stakeholders, and also more service-oriented. Communication and business development do not replace technical excellence, but they can amplify it and make it more relevant.
The interview with María Cermeño offers a concrete warning for in-house legal teams. Cermeño believes that artificial intelligence should serve to amplify the judgment and value of lawyers. She is also concerned that gaps may open up within teams between those who evolve and those who may fall behind. Therefore, she considers continuous learning, both personal and collective, a collective responsibility. The same idea of utility guides her interpretation of the Legal Leadership Awards: legal excellence remains the core, but it must be clearly communicated. For Cermeño, effective communication consists of translating complex knowledge into useful judgment, because advice that is not understood or that arrives late loses a significant part of its effectiveness.
