“We’re not a boutique”: an interview with Inly experts

Аsters alumni Oleksiy Pustovit, Olesya Kryvetska and Tetyana Bebik have founded a new firm — Inly. We like to ask founders of new firms what they see in the market that others do not, and how they plan to compete with their recent employers. So we caught up with Олексій and Олеся and asked them a few questions.

In Ukraine the most common type of boutique firms are IP boutiques. In my observations, criminal and litigation boutiques come second. Which kind of boutique are you?

Олеся: Are we a boutique?)

Oleksiy: We are not a boutique.

My version of the answer: you are a boutique for antitrust and international trade

Oleksiy: For now, yes, but we do not aim to be a boutique and we hardly use that term.

Olesya: And we are moving away from the classic law firm model; we position ourselves more as an alliance of the team members’ personal brands. One more thing — we’re not focused solely on pure legal consulting. We launched as a coordinated team (it’s worth mentioning Таня Бебік here) and plan gradual expansion. So we are looking at colleagues with whom we could grow practices; we have already held some negotiations.

What exactly will you not take from the law firm model? Can you sketch your organizational structure and broadly outline your business model?

Olesya: When we discussed the firm concept, we identified the following components: 1) traditional consulting, 2) policy‑making, and 3) an intellectual hub — for example, academic activity that strengthens expertise and personal brands and thus becomes an asset of the team. Organizationally we are three experts with our own specializations, networks and skills, and each is more or less effective across those three components.

Oleksiy: The firm has moved away from the classic hierarchy and the partner status. Now and going forward the more senior cohort are experts. Maybe things will change with new team members. There are several reasons. We do not operate in a country where the classic law firm model developed organically. There is large asymmetry in partner status across firms, and the classic model doesn’t quite meet the challenges. We are building a sort of platform that provides conditions for professional growth and earning, rather than a strict vertical distribution of work and money. Plus savings on administrative processes. This approach creates good conditions for cross‑selling and experience exchange on joint projects.

Okay, let me ask more directly: what from what you saw at Asters, Linklaters and other places you’ve worked at “doesn’t meet the challenges”?

Oleksiy: I’m not prepared to take on four people knowing that in four to five years only one will remain. That doesn’t fit the Ukrainian market, and more importantly, it doesn’t fit my vision of a lawyer’s path and team relationships.

Olesya: To some extent there is a lack or insufficient level of flexibility to operate in new areas or on projects with long‑term financial outcomes. Also the focus on hierarchy. Again, that’s not necessarily bad (there are tools without which large firms would crumble); it’s just not what we need at the moment.

But big law has resilience to invest in new practices. You don’t have the financial capacity to invest in several new practices, which might not be economically viable even in a year or two.

Олеся: That’s exactly why I said the factors we identified are not necessarily negatives.

Oleksiy: On the contrary, we have a guaranteed income. It’s relatively small for now — we’re a startup — but it will grow. If a person fits our vision and we fit them, we leave room for their realization or other pursuits. The formula encourages higher earnings and enables it. But if a hypothetical Dmytro, a specialist and talent, decides to study or be a new father for a while, his income is preserved for an extended period. That constrains expansion but encourages better collaboration. Scaling this into a large firm will probably be difficult. You need margin for that, which in turn means lower costs and good projects. To finish the thought, Asters is a great example that a balanced model and strong practices are feasible.

Who are your direct competitors?

Oleksiy: Firms — in my segment Sayenko Kharenko, Астерс, then Avellum, Redcliffe, to a lesser degree Aequo and a few other practices.

Olesya, in your area who are they? I understand you’re responsible for practices with “trade” in the name?

Olesya: I actually prefer the word “colleagues”. I’ll be responsible for international trade. The main names still active on the market are the same: Asters, Sayenko Kharenko, Ilyashev & Partners, Sergiy Koziakov & Partners. That’s great — it means colleagues have adapted well to the challenges of the war and set a decent market standard. But I’d venture that, at present, aside from us, there aren’t domestic experts who combine consulting experience with direct experience of resolving international disputes from the “court” side.

And who are your closest competitor‑colleagues on sanctions and export control?

Олеся: For now sanctions are not our main practice. So we’ve approached that direction more from cooperation than competition.

Oleksiy: I would split that market into “advisory” and “obtaining something.” I’m also interested in developing the compliance side — maybe that’s rose‑colored glasses from the US where I studied and tested some things. “Obtaining something” I’m not sure I’d dive into right now; sanction relief is often a toxic area. Getting regulatory permits doesn’t always align with convictions. Trade and antitrust work in Ukraine can be done effectively and compliantly. That’s a factor for us. And finally, who the competitors are — I don’t know.

Your answers on competitors did not sound very convincing. So here’s another: how do you differ from СХ or Asters from the clients’ perspective? And from your own viewpoint, what will you do differently?

Oleksiy: I really like the question about differences, because to answer it you need to know the competitors. From a client’s perspective I don’t have all the answers either; in my field the client is often law firms. I was lucky to work on Ukrainian projects from that side, I’ve seen marketing and other materials from Ukrainian firms, and most importantly I sat in the shoes of those who hired me, Sayenko Kharenko and others. I simply know which of their problems I intend to solve. Other client categories are harder — for example in‑house teams of Ukrainian or international companies have different needs. So one distinction is understanding at least part of the client base and adapting product and service to them.

Olesya: I’d highlight a few things for trade. First, we go beyond trade investigations or one‑off consulting and look at trade policy as a whole — that’s where our policy‑making component comes in. Second, we actively develop expertise in EU law. Third, we can advise on trade issues that intersect with other areas, such as investment protection, investment arbitration and industrial policy (and the current trendy phenomenon of securitization of global trade). That doesn’t mean other firms lack these capabilities, just that we concentrate this expertise “in one team”, which allows us to respond quickly and offer effective solutions.

Wait — so Ukrainian big law is one of your potential clients?

Oleksiy: I won’t speak for big law broadly, but I’ve always liked collaboration options. Whether it will work, I don’t know — the other side must be equally open‑minded. But when I see heavy workloads and attempts to develop practices and products, I sometimes want to tell some firms: why are you torturing yourselves and your people? Not everything at once; other contacts are priorities right now.

Your desire to take orders from other firms is natural. But for a moment I thought this was your strategy — to consciously avoid competing with them and turn them into clients.

Oleksiy: Perhaps Olesya and I communicate differently and have different approaches. I do not expect work from big law.

Olesya: I doubt the legal market can exist without competition in any jurisdiction. But if there is room for cooperation, including situational cooperation based on shared values and rational resource allocation, that’s a sensible idea.

Who, then, is your ideal client?

Oleksiy: My ideal clients are Americans first, then the UK, then some EU countries, and all are law firms.

Last week I spoke with a partner of a regional firm about alliances. Maybe that format is in the air. On what terms do you invite other experts to join? And if you are ready to admit entire firms to your alliance, what would such a firm look like?

Olesya: It’s probably too early to talk about admitting entire firms.)

Oleksiy: We probably won’t be able to integrate a whole firm because they often carry baggage that isn’t worth the time and effort. But regarding new team members: similar values (no sarcasm intended — that word is overused, but it fits here), certain educational requirements (Western education should exist or be planned), experience working in a multicultural environment or at least on such projects. These are not strict requirements but criteria to reach the goal — a coherent independent brand. Expectations of experts include, of course, expertise and experience, Western education, emotional intelligence and trust (personal qualities), and — very importantly — the ability to grow professionally (within their specialization and into new areas). Also interest in or possession of business education. When we held founding sessions, I shared a document on game theory.

You’re looking for people with foreign education, experience in multicultural environments, and business education. Logical question: do these people have to be Ukrainians?

Oleksiy: Yes, because we practice Ukrainian law. Foreigners can do due diligence or other tasks.

Olesya: It’s not as fantastical as it sounds.) Besides, we always allow flexibility. For example, an expert may not have a Western degree but can build a portfolio of cross‑jurisdictional projects or have advised foreign clients from different regions and cultures. If such a person wants to study — great. If they want to attend a conference, bring back ideas and share them with us — they’re our kind of person.

I asked that question intentionally to get this answer. But I want to ask something else: do you see yourselves as an international firm rather than a Ukrainian one?

Olesya: Also no, not at the moment.

Why did you decide to create a firm instead of joining another firm: were you tired of big law, do you want to earn more, want more freedom, see unique business opportunities, or something else?

Oleksiy: All of the above. I’ll speak only for myself: when I started considering joining, there was only one firm on the list. When I began writing down advantages, disadvantages and questions to work through, it became obvious a new firm was needed.

Olesya: I worked in firms from 2012 to 2022, combining that with teaching and PhD studies at times. Then I spent a year and a half at the World Trade Organization in the Legal Affairs Division, which handles dispute settlement at first instance. That is a huge mix of experience, knowledge and contacts I want to apply in Ukraine. I gave myself time to consider the format in which I wanted to continue. The “new format” prevailed, and the team factor was one of the most important.

In 34 years in Ukraine there were the crazy ’90s, revolutions, financial crises, COVID, full‑scale war. Do you think there was ever a perfect time to start a law firm, and will there be such a perfect time again?

Oleksiy: I think these circumstances affect market structure more than the “perfectness” of timing. The closer you get to the ’90s, the lower the barriers to starting firms without significant experience. As the market develops, those barriers rise. At the same time new segments or client needs appear where, for some period, the situation resembles the late ’90s and is promising for newcomers. For more established practices, external factors are not necessarily obstacles — they can be a push or favorable for a launch.

Olesya: In my case there’s a nuance: during the Orange Revolution and the start of the financial crisis I was still at school. So my benchmark for comparison is a bit narrower))) But seriously, difficult times do create conditions for development. Most turning points in my career happened during hard situations in the country/world or due to extraordinary personal circumstances. That actually makes it more interesting.

So, in my view, the ideal moment to launch a firm is when you, as a founder or co‑founder, have established yourself as a professional brand, have a justified ambition to do things your way, and have a team you’re not afraid to work with. An initial pool of clients makes the moment even more ideal, but as with raising children, not everyone always manages to follow the books;)