CČ: As someone who has worked both in a structured large firm and in your own practice, do you see the roles and responsibilities of an attorney changing between the two?
KS: I’m a Czech-born business law attorney based in Sweden. I worked for years in structured, fairly hierarchical environments, and later built my own practice in an international context. A lot of my work is cross-border, so part of my job is translating expectations between cultures.
The fundamental professional role and ethics of an attorney don’t change with the format of the firm. At the core of the job is independent judgment, integrity, and clarity—helping clients make sound decisions, often under pressure. At the same time, many of us are also business owners in our own practices, and that’s where the format can make a real difference: it affects how you organise delivery, build and use support structures, set boundaries, and prioritise.
EH: How did these priorities change for you once you started your own practice—if they did at all?
KS: For me, it was a mix of professional focus and business reality: what legal areas I want to concentrate on, how I plan my work, and what goals I set—while also taking into account the realities of running a small, specialised practice.
In a large firm you have a support system and internal responsibilities that are already defined—you’re part of an existing organism. When you work on your own, you create that environment yourself. You decide what the support system looks like, how you organise it, what types of clients you take, and what matters you want to work with. That combination—being an attorney and a business owner—is what makes it both exciting and challenging.
It also changes the client relationship. In my experience, you become more directly exposed to the client’s culture: you get to know their organisations very well. In a larger firm, that relationship can sometimes be a bit more distant.
CČ: You mentioned different goals across firms. Can you give one example of a goal you set when you started your own practice?
KS: When I started my firm, the motivation was very positive: I wanted to focus even more on international business, where I consider myself particularly strong. I’m educated in two legal systems—Swedish and Czech—and I also have lived experience of starting out as a foreigner in Sweden.
That combination helps me understand what foreign clients are asking, including what is “between the lines.” A Swedish lawyer with only a Swedish background might answer the exact question; I often also need to identify what the client actually needs to understand in order to succeed here—especially where there is no real equivalent to a Swedish rule or institution in their home country.
With Swedish clients, the role is more purely specialist: you go straight into the area of law and advise on specific issues. With foreign clients, there is often an additional layer of cultural and system differences, and sometimes you have to start from scratch.
CČ: If a Swedish person asks this, they usually have a baseline understanding of how the system works and where to start. With foreign clients that’s often missing, because the systems can be very different. When you say international clients—are they mostly Czech?
KS: I work with quite a few Czech clients—across different industries and sizes—and many are exporters. Not many are established in Sweden through subsidiaries, but many do business here through exports, secondments to construction or industrial projects, selling industrial equipment and machinery, or in IT.
Sweden is an increasingly interesting market, especially for B2B companies. I also work with clients from other countries, mostly within the EU—for example France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, and others.
EH: So, most of them are EU-based?
KS: Yes, and Swedish clients too.
EH: Oh, Swedish as well?
KS: Yes. That’s the interesting part: the role changes depending on the client. With Swedish clients I’m more in a specialist role; with foreign clients, there can be more of a “legal project manager” aspect. I enjoy both—it’s a different style, and that makes it fun.
CČ: How is being based in Sweden and reaching Swedish clients different from targeting international or Czech clients?
KS: To be honest, I built my clientele over a long time, and I was still employed while building my business—acquiring clients was expected. For me, international work emerged quite naturally, and colleagues would often come to me with international questions.
I never experienced international clients as harder to reach—if anything, it was often easier, because I genuinely enjoy working in international environments. And even if many people speak excellent English, there is still added value in being able to explain legal issues in the client’s mother tongue, with references to how things work in their own legal system.
EH: It’s interesting to hear how your personal background has helped in your legal career. At the end of the day, while law is analytical and factual, the human element matters—even in a competitive field like law.
KS: That matches my general philosophy: don’t fight what sets you apart. If you’re naturally good at something, why try to suppress it? It’s better to embrace it and use it in your professional life. Rather than competing with hundreds of Swedish lawyers for the same Swedish client, it can be smarter to lean into your unique experience and competence.
CČ: Especially from a business perspective: if you establish a niche, there are clients who need that specific service. I imagine that being able to operate between two cultures is very useful in that regard.
KS: Yes, exactly. Even though I don’t currently practise Czech law, it still helps to understand more than one legal system. Law changes constantly—you have to stay specialised in your areas, so it’s difficult to be a true generalist. But understanding two systems helps you interpret what clients are really asking—not just the literal wording of the question.
CČ: As a Czech living in Sweden, I’ve experienced on a personal level that some nuances—like permits or social systems—can be hard to grasp at first. I’d like to talk about the famous Swedish work-life balance: how does that apply to a competitive discipline like law, and to running your own company? How do you approach this?
KS: There are several levels to that question. There’s the factual level—what is actually necessary, what the reality of the business requires, and what must be done. But there’s also a human level: how people experience the pace, and what the organisation does about it.
Some legal disciplines are simply faster than others. I work a lot with public procurement, and that area can be extremely fast because appeal deadlines are short and the documentation is extensive. Once you receive a decision, you may have only a day or two to absorb it and make a sound analysis. Deadlines are deadlines—they’re not Swedish, Czech, or American; they’re just reality.
What matters is how often urgency becomes the default. In my view, urgency should be an exception: people can respond to genuine urgency very well and prioritise intensely when needed. The problem starts when urgency becomes the business model—that’s not sustainable, and quality and motivation will eventually drop.
Many Swedish workplaces try not to make urgency the default. They aim for predictability and clear planning, and that makes it easier for people to accept occasional peaks. For my own company, I find it extremely important to be predictable, consistent, and clear. And when something is truly urgent, you do what you need to do—but if it isn’t, it’s mainly a matter of efficient planning.
CČ: Thank you so much. It was really interesting to hear how a law firm works in practice.
KS: Thank you.
