Marian Husar, General Counsel at J&T Finance Group and Head of Legal at J&T Banka, shares with CEE In-House Matters the unexpected differences between working in private practice and in-house, his approach to aligning the legal strategy with business needs, what market dynamics are currently having the biggest impact on the banking sector, how technologies like AI and digital assets are changing the sector, and more.
CEEIHM: Tell us about your career path. After spending more than eight years in private practice at Clifford Chance, what motivated your move in-house?
Husar: I studied both law and finance and began my career at Clifford Chance while still studying in Prague. Later, I pursued my Magister Juris degree at Oxford, which gave me two invaluable perspectives – that if I do what I am passionate about and work hard, I can compete with the best, and that no matter how good you are, there is always someone who works a bit harder or writes a slightly better essay in the end. These lessons were as much valuable as all the knowledge gained there and have given me a sense of inner peace and confidence that I draw upon in many situations.
I qualified in both Czech and English law. After nine years at Clifford Chance, the time felt right for a new challenge, and I decided to move in-house. Working for J&T Finance Group was an opportunity I had to take.
The change, while initially smooth and natural, turned out to be more profound than I had expected. The work is very dynamic, there is a constant change and challenge. Being a good in-house lawyer means not only providing strong legal support but also being accountable to numerous stakeholders and dealing with both legal and non-legal challenges.
CEEIHM: What have been the biggest surprises or differences you’ve discovered moving in-house?
Husar: In-house lawyers need to create an environment of trust, but that is not so different from outside counsel. A successful transition into becoming an integral part of the business requires a multidisciplinary mindset. I feel I have to be more versatile than in private practice, keep learning and I truly have learned a lot. An in-house counsel cannot say, “this is not my expertise,” and drop the mandate.
The most crucial difference is being close to the decision-making and actually making decisions and bearing political responsibility for them, rather than merely advising. Another challenge is that there is sometimes not enough time or resources to address every legal detail or legal risk perfectly. There is a need for pragmatism and no room for narrow, blindsided specialization.
Adjusting to an environment where legal work is not the core business, but part of a larger organization, is also critical. At the end of the day, it is about the pride you take in the company you are part of and the value you can add beyond purely legal work.
CEEIHM: Can you share how your legal team is structured across J&T Banka and J&T Finance Group?
Husar: Over the past five years, we have built a strong legal team at J&T Banka, composed of bright and talented lawyers. Our internal legal teams operate in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We also have a branch in Germany and a representative office in Poland; these currently do not have in-house lawyers. At the holding level of J&T Finance Group, there are three lawyers. I took over multiple roles in both J&T Banka and J&T Finance Group, which brought greater opportunities but responsibilities as well.
Since we cannot compete with the extensive training resources available to juniors in private practice and we cannot draw from a large pool of practicing lawyers, our focus is on attracting candidates who are already well-rounded, ideally with relevant experience in their field.
CEEIHM: What’s your approach to aligning the legal function with broader business strategy?
Husar: Legal knowledge alone is not enough, understanding the business in detail is essential to provide tailored legal support and influence decisions effectively. Moving from an advisory to an accountable role means not overwhelming stakeholders with legal risks, but instead providing clarity and consistency. Rather than explaining why actions should not be taken, I want lawyers to explore how they can be enabled. Instead of highlighting risks, they should find the path forward and guide the business to achieve objectives while protecting the company’s interests. This constructive, can-do attitude is extremely valuable.
In larger corporates, it is common to “undercommit and overdeliver.” I take a somewhat unorthodox stance, striving to set high standards for myself and those around me, applying tenacity. Strategies and visions are then quite bold too, which does not make my working life any easier, but the overall impact is greater. Consistency is also key.
Finally, I am comfortable saying, “I do not know and need to find out,” even in an environment where this can be perceived as a weakness. During complex strategic discussions, people often become opinionated. I encourage lawyers to be opinionated in areas where they can contribute meaningfully. In those discussions, they must be both challenging and demanding, because they must guard the company’s legal interests as well as enable the business. That creative tension can be highly productive.
CEEIHM: When do you typically seek support from external counsel, and how has that approach changed over the years, if at all?
Husar: We carefully decide which work to outsource, with a general preference to keep legal services in-house, aligned with business needs. The portion of work handled internally has been growing over time. Certain areas, such as litigation, insolvency proceedings, bond issues, and cross-border transactions, are always handled externally. Additionally, for major transactional work we usually involve external counsel to ensure sufficient capacity and maintain high quality. This area remains dynamic and we continue to evolve our model of cooperation with outside counsel.
Price, quality, and experience are the key determining factors when selecting external lawyers. We have established panels with strict criteria for procuring external counsels and regularly monitor these relationships to ensure they meet our standards.
CEEIHM: What do you see as the biggest regulatory, technological, or market challenges impacting banks today, and how does that shape the work of your legal team?
Husar: The banking industry is experiencing a material transformation driven by technological changes. With the rise of digital banking, digital interactions are becoming the primary way customers engage with their bank. Banks must provide a user-friendly and seamless digital experience to satisfy customer demographics and maintain a competitive edge.
This pressure correlates with increased fraud risk and demand for security. Banks face growing cybersecurity threats, including data privacy breaches and fraud. Banks often cite cyberattacks as the greatest threat to the financial system, ahead of geopolitical risks and inflationary pressures. Protecting sensitive customer information with top-tier authentication and security measures is critical. Therefore, there is a fine balance between customer experience and fraud management.
Regulatory pressure is another concern. The regulatory framework is becoming increasingly complex, with new regulations on AML, data privacy, consumer protection, ESG, and DORA emerging at the EU level. Banks need scalable and adaptable processes and technology solutions to manage the compliance demand. The increasing number of regulations that banks must comply with can significantly strain resources. Banks urge the EU to support competitiveness by cutting complexity, as recently highlighted by the Less is More report advocated by the European Banking Federation. Some progress is also being made in the Czech Republic, as the Czech National Bank reduced national goldplating and regulatory burden by deleting some regulations this year, but overall progress remains slow.
While ESG has a rationale, it has in some cases become a form of virtue signaling among banks, which feel the need to demonstrate that they are generally beneficial to the world at large. Data-heavy ESG reporting (and inconsistencies within the reporting) is another major burden.
CEEIHM: How do you see technologies like AI and digital assets changing the way banks operate, and what role does the legal function play in preparing for that future?
Husar: AI is now replacing ESG as the buzzword of the day in banks. It is used for various purposes, including document extraction and automation, fraud detection, customer support, customer categorization, credit scoring, and automation of back-office operations. The challenge within banks is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to do so meaningfully and securely. Banks are among the largest spenders on AI and have the potential to drive broader private-sector innovation.
Still, many institutions struggle to adopt functional AI and remain in the experimenting and pilot-testing stage because they lack a clear AI strategy. There is a growing need to pinpoint which business areas are genuinely prone to AI-driven transformation and to finally break out of what often feels like the “purgatory” of endless testing, delivering instead real, tangible value. According to EBA data from September 2025, about two-thirds of surveyed banks use general-purpose or agentic AI for tasks such as customer categorization, process optimization, or fraud detection, and only around half have adopted it for credit scoring. That is hardly a sign that the purgatory phase is close to being over.
Since these advancements bring significant legal challenges and implications, legal teams must stay on top of the regulatory changes related to AI to ensure operations comply with evolving laws and regulations. The legal and compliance functions are essential in guiding banks through this transition, ensuring compliance and mitigating risks.
This represents a constant and progressive change, rather than a one-off seismic shift. For lawyers, implementing generative AI tools effectively is challenging and requires a shift in mindset and established paradigms. Lawyers often talk a lot about AI, but in practice, many are unsure how to use it effectively, integrate it into daily work, and truly embrace it. Beyond this, I think the key short-term concern relates to data privacy.
In the long term, there is a sensitive balance, especially for junior lawyers: on one hand, the ability to free up time for more difficult work; on the other, the development of essential legal skills and critical thinking, even when relying heavily on AI. Striking that balance is possible, but the reality remains that a reduced overall demand for junior legal support in the market will ultimately limit opportunities for young lawyers to learn and grow.
CEEIHM: What’s the most surprising thing people would never guess about your working life?
Husar: That I say “I do not know, I have to find out” quite often. How unpredictable each working day is and that despite this unpredictability, I still have time to focus on my hobbies, above all rowing and currently also going for walks with a stroller.