This text reproduces the speech delivered by Dr Panayiotis Agisilaou at the Final Event of the LAPET Project, held on 12 September 2015 at the University of Piraeus.
For the full agenda of the Final Event, please see the official programme here.
Distinguished colleagues,
Allow me to begin by sincerely thanking the organisers for their kind invitation and for giving me the opportunity to participate in this closing conference of the LAPET project. It is a privilege to share with you the experience and perspective from Cyprus, a country where the need to bridge legal reasoning with economic thinking is both pressing and essential.
LAPET was conceived to bring legal professionals closer to the discipline of economic analysis – to bridge the gap between legal education and the economic tools indispensable for the effective functioning of law in modern markets.
In today’s digitised, rapidly evolving, and globalised environment, characterised by complex commercial relations and ever-changing forms of transactions, understanding key economic concepts, business strategies, and market dynamics has become imperative.
Whether dealing with abuse of dominance, suspected cartels or collusion, State aid, mergers and acquisitions, pricing or commercial practices under competition rules, or assessing damages arising from torts, lawyers are called to operate within a framework that extends well beyond the confines of legal doctrine. Legal analysis alone is not enough; it must be complemented by an appreciation of how businesses think and behave, how markets are organised and evolve, and how a commercial practice can influence economic activity, competition, and, ultimately, performance.
Most lawyers have not been trained to think in economic terms or to engage with notions such as opportunity cost, strategic interaction, or welfare effects. This is not a matter of individual shortcomings but rather a structural gap in legal education, one that becomes increasingly evident in practice. This is reflected in the handling of complex cases and in the formation of legal judgments regarding economic phenomena.
When economic theory is applied without genuine understanding, without sound methodology, or merely to confirm pre-existing legal conclusions, it undermines – rather than strengthens – public scrutiny. Decisions based on weak or distorted economic analysis may be legally reasoned yet fail to resolve market problems, restore balance, or serve the ends of justice. Worse still, they can entrench distortions, reinforce dominant positions, and generate new inequalities.
Against this backdrop, LAPET has not merely been useful but indispensable. It has been the first structured initiative explicitly aimed at lawyers, not to turn them into economists but to provide access to the essential tools of economic analysis – through practical training, well-designed teaching materials, concrete examples, and, above all, clear and accessible language.
In Cyprus, LAPET’s contribution can be traced at three levels:
-
Educational – Through LAPET’s online platform, Cypriot legal practitioners were able to complete the full training modules of both project cycles. The material remains freely available, enabling lawyers, in-house counsel and junior practitioners to engage with key concepts ranging from market structures and game theory to financial analysis and the organisation of legal practice with efficiency in mind.
-
Institutional – The conference held in Nicosia on 13 November 2024, co-organised with the Cyprus Bar Association, was a milestone in legal and academic dialogue. For the first time, an officially recognised forum addressed the intersection of law and economics in direct connection with the needs of the market, businesses, and the effective administration of justice. Its accreditation by the Bar Association for CPD purposes confirmed the value of integrating economic analysis into legal practice.
-
Practical – By disseminating LAPET in Cyprus, the foundations were laid for lawyers to employ economic tools – even at an initial stage – in their professional reasoning: in matters of State aid, business cooperation, mergers and acquisitions, compliance of commercial practices with competition law, or the assessment of damages, all viewed as complex economic phenomena with tangible market implications.
This evolution is, of course, far from complete. Yet awareness has been raised, needs have been acknowledged, and the first instruments have been provided. Cultivating the understanding that legal science gains social relevance when meaningfully interacting with economics is, in itself, a step forward.
The challenge now is continuity. LAPET has been a catalyst: opening paths, posing questions, and highlighting areas for reflection and debate. Above all, it has shown that economic reasoning is not alien to legal practice; rather, it can reinforce and often render it genuinely effective.
To preserve this momentum, LAPET must not remain a one-off endeavour. Its materials, online platform, and network of collaborations are in place. What is required is institutional follow-up: annual training cycles, specialised educational programmes, enhanced professional development for judges, regulators, and counsel, and a deeper integration of economic content in legal curricula – as already exemplified by the Master’s programme “Competition Policy and Market Regulation” recently introduced by Professor Michalis Polemis.
Ultimately, this is LAPET’s most valuable lesson: today’s lawyer cannot rely solely on the rote learning of rules or a narrowly formalistic interpretation detached from economic reality. He or she must understand the world in which the law operates, grasp how markets function, what motivates enterprises, when conduct distorts competition and when it is part of legitimate strategy. Lawyers must read data, assess economic effects, and speak the language of numbers – without abandoning the language of law.
Only by combining legal precision with economic insight can the profession meet contemporary demands, serving markets, institutions, and, ultimately, justice itself.
Allow me, in closing, to add a personal note on behalf of Trojan Economics, which I have the honour to direct. From the outset, we were privileged – and felt responsible – to be partners in LAPET. We actively contributed to its implementation and dissemination, always respecting its scientific rigour and practical objectives. Our consistent aim was to adapt the LAPET experience to the real needs of the Cypriot legal community, mindful of institutional particularities and market conditions.
For us, LAPET is not merely a project but a space for productive interdisciplinary cooperation and a dynamic platform for all who recognise the value of enriching the legal profession with the tools of economic reasoning.
Thank you.
