Legal advisors are often asked a question that seems sufficient to make a decision:
«Is this procedure in accordance with the law?»
When the answer is yes, the decision-maker feels they have what they need and proceeds with implementation with confidence.
But practical experience has taught me that this question, despite its importance, is not sufficient on its own. A decision may be legally sound, yet it may not be a good decision from an institutional perspective. The law addresses the legality of a decision, but it does not always guarantee its sustainability.
Decisions do not exist in a vacuum. They operate within a constantly changing environment; administrations change, markets shift, and new legislation, regulatory practices evolve, and the expectations of the organization’s stakeholders change. What seems like an ideal decision today may, years later, become a burden that is difficult to defend or continue to implement.
For this reason, the legal counsel should not stop at the question: «Is it permissible?»
Rather, they must ask another, more profound question: «Will this decision remain appropriate if the circumstances on which it was based change?» I have seen internal regulations that were well-crafted when drafted but, years later, became an obstacle to operations because they were formulated to address a temporary circumstance and then continued to be treated as a permanent rule.
I have also seen contracts that provided significant protection for one party but lost their value when the business model changed, and amending them became more costly than the benefits they offered.
I have also seen administrative decisions that were sound in theory but were based on assumptions that were not revised as reality changed, turning them from a source of strength into a source of risk. This is what distinguishes strategic legal thinking from traditional legal thinking. Traditional thinking seeks the correct decision at a specific moment.
Whereas strategic thinking, on the other hand, seeks the decision that can remain correct—or at least adaptable—when circumstances change. Thus, the quality of a legal opinion is measured not only by the soundness of its reasoning but also by its flexibility.
Legal advice that assumes all facts will remain constant is advice that exists in a world that does not exist. On the other hand, advice that clearly defines its assumptions and identifies what might require reconsideration in the future provides management with a tool for decision-making, not merely permission to proceed. That is why the most mature institutions do not simply adopt decisions and then forget about them; rather, they review them periodically—not because they doubt their validity, but because they recognize that the environment in which they were established is no longer the same.
A legal decision, like any strategic asset, requires review and maintenance—not simply archiving.
That is why I believe the real question is not: «Is the decision correct today?»
but rather: «Was this decision designed to remain valid when tomorrow changes?» Herein lies the difference between those who use the law to justify a decision…
and those who use it to build a decision that can stand the test of time.
@Dr_alkharji
Attorney and Governance and Compliance Expert
العربية 
English 
