Question 1. How are you advising businesses in your jurisdiction when protecting themselves from the impact of trade wars and sanctions, and what strategies can professional services firms offer to mitigate these risks?
As an American attorney that advises US and foreign companies on how to best protect IP and business assets multi-jurisdictionally, my firm has started reaching out to our clients to have an honest and generally complementary assessment of the supply and distribution risk that they are facing.
A number of our clients are in the eCommerce space, and supply chain and related pricing issues have been on their minds long before the current Administration’s tariff escalation. The assessment traces out both their supply and distribution chain. We know that strong brands almost always carry, so we want to make sure that brand (and other marketing collateral) protection is in place in each territory/country that the brand touches. We also want to be able to suggest supply chain alternatives that may be better, especially when nailing down an exact prediction on tariff rates for goods entering the US appears to be an impossible exercise.
For example, several of our clients import textiles into the United States to brand a range of goods such as clothing, hats, shoes, and belts. Typically, these textiles and finished products are manufactured and labelled in China before being shipped by container to the US. To protect the brand, associated intellectual property, and the exclusivity of these business relationships, we implement measures such as NNN or manufacturing agreements. These agreements safeguard trade secrets in China – such as exclusive cuts, colour patterns, or labelling designs. We also pursue trademark registration in the United States and Canada, where the goods are distributed, as well as in China, where they are.
However, for that same client, we recognise that China may no longer be the most suitable trade channel. As a result, we are now working closely with legal counsel and trade experts in other jurisdictions, such as India, Vietnam, Thailand, and Singapore (where many manufacturing companies are registered), to assess potential alternatives for the supply chain. For instance, given India’s longstanding reputation as a leader in textile manufacturing, we are leveraging a professional relationship with Indian counsel developed through IR Global, alongside the resources of the World Trade Center – an international trade education organisation in which I am actively involved. This collaboration enables us to evaluate the Indian supply chain in detail, tailored to the client’s textile manufacturing needs. Should the client proceed, we are also well positioned to provide legal services to protect the brand and other associated assets within the new supply chain.
Question 2. Are you seeing shifts in supply chain strategies due to geopolitical conflicts? How can you help clients restructure supply chains to maintain resilience and regulatory compliance?
We are just starting to see clients looking for alternatives to their current supply chain. Questions include the uncertainty of the tariff structure, how long the current tariff schedules will stay in place and what countries will acquiesce to the changing US trade policies to create favourable terms for shipment into the US. No one knows the answer to these questions right now; so clients are somewhat frozen in inertia. It is human nature that uncertainty doesn’t foster action, and I hope that the Administration locks down on a policy (for better or worse) so that my clients don’t have to re-analyse the status of their supply chain every few weeks. The current flip flopping is not good for clients and cannot be good for the economy in general.
In any case, we are actively informing our clients that we can support them in exploring alternative supply chains. With our expertise and international network, we are well equipped to mitigate the risks associated with establishing manufacturing and shipping operations in a new country. Like our clients, we find ourselves navigating unexpected changes. Few anticipated that, due to US tariff policies, sourcing outside of China might become the more viable option. Fortunately, thanks to the international relationships we have cultivated over the years – through organisations such as IR Global and the World Trade Center – we are able to respond swiftly and strategically to these evolving circumstances.
Question 3. With global markets in flux, how can businesses balance risk and opportunity in cross-border trade, and what strategic guidance can you provide?
Knowledge is power. As counsel, we must be adept at harnessing it. As international legal practitioners, we are fortunate to have cultivated strong relationships with like-minded professionals around the world. These relationships allow for the exchange of valuable insights and support a client base that is equally focused on international trade opportunities and challenges. This global network places us, as international trade counsel, in a unique position to add real value to strategic analysis.
For instance, last year I travelled to India to attend several international trade conferences and to visit Amazon India as well as several manufacturing facilities. I have undertaken similar trips to Vietnam and China. These experiences have reinforced the fact that there are numerous intangible considerations a client must take into account when assessing the cost–benefit analysis of a manufacturing source. Furthermore, for clients willing to take on greater risk, there are exciting opportunities to enter these markets by supplying American-branded goods directly.
While an initial analysis of a new procurement source or market entry might appear to be a purely quantitative exercise – comparing production and shipping costs, for example – clients must also consider intangible factors. Anyone familiar with Indian customs procedures, as I am, will recognise that bureaucracy in India can be a significant consideration when doing business there.
The point is that all these elements, quantitative and qualitative, must be analysed thoroughly. As seasoned international lawyers with years of experience navigating these complexities, we are well positioned to help clients make informed, balanced risk–reward decisions that consider legal, geopolitical, and commercial realities.
Key Takeaways:
- US and foreign companies are increasingly engaging legal advisers to map and assess vulnerabilities across their supply and distribution chains. This includes ensuring brand and IP protection in all relevant jurisdictions and using agreements such as NNN contracts to safeguard trade secrets. As geopolitical pressures grow, identifying alternative manufacturing hubs – such as India, Vietnam, or Thailand – has become a critical strategic priority.
- Ongoing unpredictability in US trade tariffs has left many businesses hesitant to act. Legal advisors are encouraging clients to explore supply chain alternatives and are leveraging international networks to mitigate risks in transitioning operations to new jurisdictions. Stability in trade policy is urgently needed to enable long-term planning.
- Intangible factors – like local bureaucracy and cultural considerations – play a key role in evaluating new supply chains. International legal networks empower solicitors to offer holistic, strategic advice grounded in real-world experience.