Cooley’s London managing partner Justin Stock has left the firm to join Akin as international technology practice head, along with two other partners.

Akin has hired three partners from Cooley into its London office. Cooley London managing partner Justin Stock will move to the firm alongside Stephen Rosen, a Legal 500 Hall of Famer for mid-market private equity transactions who headed Cooley’s London corporate practice, and technology transactions partner David Bresnick.

Stock will join Akin as international technology practice head, and will work with Rosen and Bresnick to deepen Akin’s strength in tech transactions.

‘Justin, Stephen and David’s outstanding reputations in the market, coupled with their extensive transactional experience in high growth sectors such as technology and life sciences, significantly enhance our global corporate platform,’ said Akin chair Kim Koopersmith in a statement.

‘Their addition underscores our commitment to our technology focused clients and more broadly to the technology sector both in London and globally, ensuring we continue to provide unmatched client service.’

Akin London partner in charge Sebastian Rice added: ‘The arrival of Justin, Stephen and David is a significant step for our London office and gives Akin a market-leading global technology transactions team, focusing on clients in innovative industries including disruptive commerce, technology, health care, life sciences, data, data privacy, gaming and energy transition. We are particularly excited about their capabilities to grow the tech M&A pipeline and adding depth to our global technology practice.’

Back in February, Cooley also saw the departure of M&A partner Michal Berkner who left for McDermott Will & Emery’s transaction practice.

Stock led a five-partner Morrison Foerster team to Cooley in January 2015 as part of Cooley’s London office launch. Bresnick moved with Stock from Morrison Foerster, while Rosen came to Cooley from Olswang in May 2016. Only one of Cooley’s 2015 Morrison Foerster hires remains at the firm: Chris Coulter. Ed Lukins went to Orrick in 2019 and Nicholas Bolter left for Morgan Lewis in 2020.

Akin, meanwhile, first launched in London in 1997, and burst onto the scene in earnest in 2014 with a 22-partner hire from Bingham McCutchen, which collapsed in 2015.

The departures bring Cooley’s London partner headcount down to 30, according to the firm’s website.

‘We thank Justin, Stephen and David for their contributions and wish them well in the future. We look forward to continuing our ambitious growth plans in London, serving some of the world’s most exciting and disruptive innovators and technology and life sciences companies’, a Cooley spokesperson said in a statement.

alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post Cooley London head Stock exits to Akin in three-partner move appeared first on Legal Business.

Ashurst is targeting expansion in the US as the firm announces financial results that show profit per equity partner reaching a record high and turnover just shy of £1bn.

The firm’s 2023-24 financial results show revenue climbed 9% to £961m, while PEP went up by 14% to hit £1.336m – a record-high figure that more than makes up for a slight decline last year that edged it down from £1.175m to £1.17m.

The revenue increase marks Ashurst’s eight consecutive year of growth, although is is slightly below last year’s increase of 10% and the previous year’s of 12%.

Global CEO Paul Jenkins told Legal Business he is happy with the results for the first year of the firm’s 2027 strategy: ‘We’re clear on where we want to focus, in terms of geography, sectors and practice areas, and it’s very good to see the fruits of that focus.’

He is also optimistic about his firm’s prospects of crossing of crossing a key milestone: ‘We’re in line to cross a billion pounds in revenue for this financial year.’

More than 85% of the firm’s turnover came from its five key sectors: banks and private capital, real estate, technology, infrastructure, and energy and resources, the last of which accounted for 23% of the firm’s revenue.

‘We’re starting to see a bounceback in transactional work’, said Jenkins. ‘But what we saw last year was particular activity in the energy sector, which translated to growth in a variety of areas, including projects, disputes, and corporate M&A.’

The firm’s disputes, investigations and advisory practice grew by 10%, while projects and energy transition was up by 11%, with ‘double-digit growth’ in corporate in Korea, Australia, Singapore, France, Italy, and the UK, and 10% growth in funds and restructuring across Asia Pacific. The firm also saw a strong performance in its consultancy and governance division (up 47%) and its Ashurst Advance business (up 16%), which launched a third global delivery centre in Krakow this February.

The UK, US, and Middle East all outperformed the firmwide revenue increase, with turnover bumps of 13%, 18%, and 17%, respectively. The firm also cited ‘significant growth in Singapore and a solid year in Australia’, with Italy and France as ‘standout jurisdictions’ in continental Europe.

The US growth rate was slightly slower than the 20% increase reported last year, however Jenkins said the firm has ambitious growth plans, targeting energy, real estate, private capital, and technology for further growth stateside.

Jenkins commented: ‘In the US, we’ve continued to double down on infrastructure and financial institutions. We continue to look for the right opportunities in our other key areas of focus. We’re looking for both incremental growth and more significant growth – whether it’s teams or otherwise. But we’ll only do that if it’s the right opportunity from a business perspective, and the right opportunity hasn’t arisen yet.’

US highlights over the last year include derivatives partner Nick Allen joining the New York office from Fried Frank in April, and Los Angeles projects and energy transition specialist Tristan Robinson being made up to partner in the firm’s most recent round of promotions.

The firm has secured a number of notable mandates. Ashurst’s London team is advising real estate investment trust Tritax Big Box REIT on a £3.9bn recommended all-share combination with UK Commercial Property REIT. Globally, the firm’s London and Hong Kong teams also advised The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation on the provision of its digital assets platform, known as HSBC Orion, to the Central Moneymarkets Unit of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

One area in which Jenkins sees opportunities, in the US and elsewhere, is private capital. Global private equity practice co-head David Carter left the firm for O’Melveny & Myers last week. However, Jenkins noted that Ashurst promoted PE senior associate Sara Hamzawi to the partnership in April, and pointed to firmwide experience in the broader private capital space beyond private equity.

Finally, Jenkins also highlighted the firm’s pro bono work: ‘Social responsibility is often not touched on in this context, but it’s very important to the firm, and we had our strongest pro bono year ever, at over 65,000 hours across the global firm.’

Alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post Ashurst sets sights on US growth as revenue nears billion-pound mark appeared first on Legal Business.

A clutch of major law firms have continued the trend for strong 2023-24 results, with Brodies, Shoosmiths, Clyde & Co and Watson Farley & Williams among the latest to reveal healthy financial figures.

Brodies has today (15 July) posted a 7.5% revenue increase to hit £114.3m, marking 14 consecutive years of growth for the firm after it hit a key milestone last year when it became the first Scottish firm to pass the £100m mark.

After a 6% bump last year, profit held steady with a 1.2% increase from £48.6m to £49.2m. Profit per equity partner (PEP) also stayed flat at £846,000.

Managing partner Stephen Goldie, who replaced Nick Scott in May following Scott’s retirement, said that the firm has made progress across all core practice areas – banking and finance, corporate and commercial, dispute resolution and risk, personal and family, and real estate. ‘Our strategic plans for the next three-year cycle are now underway and we look to the future with confidence, in ourselves and in the resilience and ambitions of the clients that we work with,’ he said in a statement.

Clydes has also posted a strong set of results, with revenue up 10% to £845m, and PEP up by more than 4% to £739,000, with profit up 3% to £174.4m.

The headline turnover increase comes after the 22% increase the firm notched last year, though only 6% of that was ‘organic growth’, with the rest of the bump accounted for by the completion of Clydes’ merger with BLM.

Clydes continued to expand this year, opening new offices in Warsaw and Jeddah in December and May respectively. The UK accounted for 47% of the firm’s total revenue, with the proportion of revenue generated outside the UK a percentage point down on last year’s 54%.

Europe was the fastest growing region with a 17% increase in turnover. The shares accounted for by the US and Asia-Pacific were each down by half a percentage point on last year, to 21.5% and 11.5% respectively. The Middle East and Africa accounted for 12% of the firm’s turnover and Latin America for 2% – the same proportions as last year, while the UK saw 9% growth.

Watson Farley & Williams has also posted double-digit growth of 11%, with revenue at £238.4m, up from £214.7m last year.

Overall profit also rose by 7.2% to £66.8m from £62.3m, with PEP remaining steady at £593,000, a slight increase of 1.5% from last year’s £584,000. Equity partner numbers, meanwhile, went up nearly 6% from 107 to an estimated total of 113.

Commenting on these results in a statement, managing partner Lindsey Keeble said: ‘We continue to build on the successes of previous years with double digit global income growth. With a majority equity partnership, we continue to invest in the firm to build a sustainable business with strength and depth at all levels.’

Revenue was also up at Charles Russell Speechlys, where a 13% bump took turnover to £218.3m after a 9% increase last year.

Profit was up by more than 20% to £45.9m, while PEP went up more than 30% to hit £661,000, comfortably offsetting last year’s 3% dip.

The firm’s UK offices generated £174.4m (a little under 80%), with £43.9m from overseas. International revenue growth was faster than the firmwide average, at 15%, with the Luxembourg, Paris, and Switzerland offices singled out as strong performers. The firm also reported 30% revenue growth in Asia, boosted by lateral hires and the July launch of its Singapore office.

‘Our results this year paint a picture of sustained growth’, said managing partner Simon Ridpath in a statement. ‘The fact we continue to see strong revenue and profit numbers and investments back into the firm bodes well for the future, and we remain fully confident in our strategy.’

The firm’s strategy still has private capital as a ‘core focus’ according to Ridpath who also mentioned the ‘raft of senior lateral hires across the firm’, referencing the 22 partners the firm has taken on since the last financial year.

At Shoosmiths, meanwhile, revenue ticked up 5% to push the firm over the £200m mark for the first time to hit £206.7m. Profit was up 5% to £66m, while PEP jumped 16% to £781,000.

Though the increase in turnover was slightly below both the 7% the firm posted last year and the previous year’s 8%, the firm exceeded last year’s performance on profit, which increased 3% last year, and PEP, which went up by just £1,000. The corporate and litigation departments both outperformed the wider firm at 15% and 12% growth respectively, while real estate stayed flat.

elisha.juttla@legalbusiness.co.uk

alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

tom.cox@legalease.co.uk

The post Brodies and Shoosmiths among firms reaching new revenue highs as results season continues appeared first on Legal Business.

Legacy Allen & Overy saw revenue nudge up 3.4% in the last financial year before its transatlantic merger, against a surge in profits that took average PEP to £2.2m.

A&O Shearman has announced that turnover for the legacy UK firm edged up a modest 3.4% to £2.2bn for the financial year ended 30 April 2024.

The revenue increase is significantly lower than last year’s uptick of 8%, which saw A&O cross the £2bn mark for the first time, becoming the first magic circle firm to do so. Clifford Chance joined it in the £2bn club a week later, with Linklaters only following suit a year later when it this month confirmed that its revenue hit £2.1bn in 2023-24. 

While turnover growth at legacy A&O, which formally merged with Shearman & Sterling under the A&O Shearman banner on 1 May, was modest across the last financial year, profit growth was not: the firm reported an increase in profit before tax of more than 17% to a total of £1bn. 

This increase took average profits per equity partner (PEP) to £2.2m – up more than 21% from the £1.816m reported in last year’s LB100. Last year, by contrast, A&O reported a slight dip in profit and a 6.6% drop in PEP. 

Announcing its financial results, the firm said in a statement that the results had benefitted from a strategic partnership with Inflexion for its aosphere platform. The deal, announced in October 2023, saw the PE house make a strategic investment alongside A&O and US investor Endicott Capital in the legal and compliance data platform, leaving A&O a minority shareholder.

Although legacy A&O’s revenue growth for the last financial year is well short of the 10% Linklaters reported for the same period, its topline figure remains ahead. Its PEP is also higher, with Linklaters reporting a 10.3% increase in profit and an 8% jump in average PEP to £1.9m.

The positive results for legacy A&O come after Shearman saw revenue fall 7.7% to $837m in the 2023 calendar year, against a 3.5% increase in average PEP to $2.556m. At today’s Bank of England exchange rate, legacy A&O’s PEP for 2023-24 converts to $2.823m.

Last year’s Legal Business Global 100 report showed legacy Shearman posting a 10% drop in revenue to $906.9m for the 2022 calendar year. This came alongside an even bigger decline in PEP, which fell 18% to $2.478m.

Going forward, the newly merged firm will run its financial year to 30 April, in line with the legacy UK arm.

Commenting on the results Hervé Ekué, who was elected managing partner of A&O in March and now serves as global managing partner of the merged A&O Shearman, said:

‘In the year leading up to the completion of our merger, we’re pleased to report positive growth for the firm. This is testament to our strategic focus on diversification across regions, practices, and sectors.’

alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post Legacy Allen & Overy sees profits soar in final year pre-Shearman merger as revenue edges up appeared first on Legal Business.

A trio of Pinsent Masons international arbitration partners are set to leave the firm for Greenberg Traurig, Legal Business can reveal.

Jason Hambury, former global co-head of international arbitration at the UK-based firm, is making the move to Greenberg with fellow partners Gurmukh Riyat and Clea Bigelow-Nuttall.

Hambury has been at Pinsents since 1996 after joining from Allen & Overy, while Riyat has also been at the firm for over 20 years, training and qualifying in 2003-05. Bigelow-Nuttall has been at the firm for almost 10 years, making partner in 2022.

All three have significant experience in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Hambury, who is ranked as a leading individual in the Legal 500, has worked for African states and governments, while Riyat’s notable recent work has included defending an international joint venture contractor in ICC arbitration proceedings over claims worth more than $250m. 

Bigelow-Nuttall, a Legal 500 next generation partner, previously spent five years as a foreign registered lawyer at the Paris Bar, joining Pinsents from French boutique Derains & Gharavi in 2015 after qualifying at Hogan Lovells.

In a statement, Pinsents said: “We thank Jason, Gurmukh and Clea for their contribution to the firm and we wish them well for the future. We are proud of the progress made in our international arbitration team this year, highlighted this week by the appointment of Sylvia Tonova and Chloé De Jager to the ICC International Court of Arbitration.”

Tonova, who joined Pinsents from Jones Day in March last year, now co-leads the firm’s international arbitration team alongside Doha office head Pamela McDonald.

At Greenberg, the London international arbitration practice is currently led by Mohammed Khamisa KC, who joined from Mishcon de Reya in 2020, and who has a particular focus on the Middle East. He works alongside of counsel Leith Ben Ammar.

The news comes after the US firm announced two weeks ago that it had hired Cadwalader real estate finance partner Duncan Hubbard as a shareholder in its City finance and restructuring practice. 

elisha.juttla@legalbusiness.co.uk

alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post Greenberg makes triple Pinsents partner hire in international arbitration push appeared first on Legal Business.

A&O Shearman banking heavyweight Philip Bowden, the former co-head of legacy A&O’s global banking practice, has left the newly merged firm to join Proskauer as part of a four-partner raid by the US firm.

Bowden, who unsuccessfully ran for senior partner at A&O Shearman ahead of the transatlantic tie-up, is departing alongside acquisition finance partner Megan Lawrence, who made partner at A&O in 2022.

The pair will move to Proskauer, where they will join the global banking and finance team alongside two partners joining from Cahill Gordon & Reindell’s London office –  Jake Keaveny and Warren Newton, both of who are also A&O alumni.

‘We thank Philip and Megan for the contributions they have made to the firm and wish them all the best for the future’, an A&O spokesperson said in a statement.

For Cahill, the departures come after two other recent London partner exits, with leveraged finance duo Jonathan Brownson and Joydeep Choudhuri exiting for Latham & Watkins.

Executive committee chairman Herb Washer said in a statement: ‘We’re committed to expanding our corporate practice in London and we are currently evaluating our options to ensure the right fit for our team and our corporate clients. We thank them for their service to the firm’s clients and we wish them well in their future endeavors.’

In the wake of the A&O Shearman merger, Bowden had been appointed as one of the firm’s five private capital sector leads. He had been at the firm since 1999, making partner in 2002. He went on to co-head both the firm’s global banking and finance practice and its global leveraged finance group and is a Legal 500 leading individual for acquisition finance

Bowden had run for senior partner in two consecutive elections, losing both – to incumbent Wim Dejonghe in 2020 and to interim managing partner Khalid Garousha in 2024. He is the only one of the three senior partner candidates at pre-merger A&O without a seat on either the executive committee or the board at A&O Shearman. Garousha is senior partner and co-chairs both the board and the executive committee with Adam Hakki, who took over as senior partner at Shearman & Sterling last March, and now serves as A&O Shearman’s US chair.

The third contender, David Lee is now global co-head of project, energy, natural resources and infrastructure as well as an ExCom member.

The departures see Cahill lose the last of a clutch of ex-A&O lawyers it brought over in 2020-21. Legal 500 high-yield leading individual Keaveny joined Cahill alongside Brownson in summer 2020, while Newton came over in January 2021, joining the firm as a partner after leaving A&O as a senior associate. The US firm’s website now lists no banking and finance partners in London.

Alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post Ex-A&O banking chief Bowden exits for Proskauer as US firm snaps up City finance quartet appeared first on Legal Business.

HFW has posted double-digit growth to break through the £250m revenue mark for the first time, with all key metrics rising as the firm sticks to its sector-focused strategy.

The firm boosted revenue by more than 11% during 2023-24 to hit £251m –  only a touch slower than the 13% growth that took it to £225.3m last year.

Net profit was up almost 17% to £75.4m, with PEP up more than 8% and PPL up over 6% to £855,000 and £139,000 respectively. RPL was also up, hitting £462,000.

The results underline a strong five-year performance, with revenue up more than 40% on 2019 and PEP up 78% over the same period.

The firm attributed the performance to its concentrated focus on its key areas of shipping, aviation, commodities, construction, energy, and insurance.

‘We’re pleased with the continued progress of the firm, particularly in the last couple of years’, managing partner Jeremy Shebson (pictured above) told LB. ‘We’re especially proud of the fact that we’re making positive inroads in our key sectors.’

Shebson was reluctant to set hard targets for revenue – though he did express an ambition to post ‘revenues with a three in front before too long’. He continued: ‘The first psychological barrier we had to break through to give the firm confidence in itself was to get over £200m in revenue. We did that a few years ago, and we’re very happy now to be over £250m.’

Almost 60% of the firm’s total revenue was generated outside of the UK, with over half of the firm’s offices achieving double-digit percentage increases in revenue in the last financial year. Australia notched the biggest rise, with turnover up by a third to cap off a ten-year streak of growth in the country. Middle East revenue, meanwhile, grew by 23%.

‘We see major opportunities for continued growth in continental Europe and the Middle East’, said senior partner Giles Kavanagh. ‘We have strong offices in both regions and we’re seeking to further join things up as a real regional offering to clients.’

China, too, is an area of focus for HFW: the firm opened an office in Shenzhen in July, becoming one of few firms to actively increase its presence in the country at a time when many US firms are pulling out. Kavanagh commented: ‘We celebrated 45 years in Hong Kong last year. Geopolitics are what they are, and things change over time, but we have strong embedded relationships in China. We see opportunities there – as others are retreating, we’re consolidating our position.’

Meanwhile, contentious work again made up around 70% of the firm’s total turnover, with the firm pointing to its January hire of an eight-lawyer team in Melbourne led by litigation funding specialist Maurice Thompson, as well as its April hire of Eversheds Sutherland international arbitration partners Julien Fouret and Gaëlle Le Quillec in Paris as key signs of growth in this area. These hires were among 23 partners brought into the firm over the last year, including four in London and seven in Australia.

HFW is bullish on expansion, if reluctant to express an explicit desire to merge. ‘We remain open to opportunity’, said Kavanagh, and both he and Shebson stressed the importance of culture – to individual and team hires as much as to any larger combinations.

In a statement, Shebson added a clear statement of intent: ‘Our intention now is to ramp things up and aggressively target partners, teams, and even bolt-on acquisitions that align with our strategy and culture. If you have a leading practice in one of our core sectors, anywhere in the world, and want to join a true partnership that operates as one firm globally, come and talk to us.’

Elsewhere, Fieldfisher has also posted a double-digit revenue hike to £359m  for the 11 months from 30 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 – a 10% increase on the corresponding 11-month period for the previous year.

The firm truncated its financial year to align with changes to HMRC’s basis period that require all self-employed individuals and partnerships be taxed on the basis of the tax year rather than that of their own financial year-end.

PEP rose £966,000, up 4% from the previous financial year.

Geographically, the firm saw a 14% revenue growth in its London office, a 14% rise in Manchester, and a 16% revenue increase in Birmingham. In Europe, significant developments included a 20% growth in the German office, now the firm’s fastest-growing international operation with offices in Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, and Munich.

Fieldfisher’s European strategy also saw the relaunch of its Italian operation in April. Fieldfisher Italy has expanded to 32 professionals in its Milan and Bologna offices, reinforcing the firm’s investments in key locations.

In terms of practice areas, regulatory experienced the largest revenue increase at 36%. Key achievements include representing Euronet in a competition law claim against Mastercard and Visa, and providing regulatory and compliance support to Peloton. Dispute resolution saw a 17% increase in revenue, while the personal injury and medical negligence team achieved a 15% revenue increase. Additionally, financial markets and products grew by 14% and corporate by 10%.

Managing Partner Robert Shooter commented on the results: “This has been a year of significant progress, with our strategy focused on European expansion, collaboration and ESG gaining a real momentum. All our teams delivered outstanding results, despite challenging market conditions. We also continued to expand and strengthen our international footprint, increasing our presence in key markets.’

Key hires over the year included the addition of an eight-strong litigation team from Constantine Cannon, led by partners Richard Pike and Stephen Critchley.

Meanwhile, the firm’s alternative legal services offering continued to grow, with Fieldfisher Condor achieving a 17% revenue increase and Fieldfisher X generating £3m in revenue.

Alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post HFW, Fieldfisher post double-digit revenue hikes as results season gets off to strong start appeared first on Legal Business.

On the eve of a general election that looks set to promise a wipeout for the Conservative Party and the first Labour government in 14 years, LB checked in with a range of City partners across a variety of practice area to gauge the temperature of the UK legal industry, find out what they think will change, what won’t, and what to watch out for.

Things can only get better?

‘As of now, the polls suggest that if Labour achieve the same majority as Tony Blair did in 1997, it would be a good result for the Conservatives.’ This from Paul Butcher, director of public policy at Herbert Smith Freehills in London, sums up prevailing sentiment among not just the legal community but the wider media.

Indeed, the BBC’s poll tracker shows Labour poised to secure 40% of votes cast, with the Conservatives languishing at 20% – a stunning reversal in fortunes for the two parties after the Conservatives roared to victory in 2019 with 43.6% of the vote to Labour’s 32.1% and a majority of 80 seats. Now, The Economist predicts that Labour will emerge with 434 seats – more even than it won in 1997.

Polls can of course be wrong. But things do not look good for the Conservative Party – and not a single partner interviewed for this feature expressed any scepticism about a Labour victory.

‘Like everybody else, we’re expecting a Labour government’, says Quinn Emanuel London co-managing partner Ted Greeno (pictured).

Given the near unanimous expectation of a Labour victory, it is encouraging that the market view on the party is broadly positive – if not wildly enthusiastic. ‘I view this election as relatively benign, especially from the perspectives of the financial services and legal sectors’, says Latham & Watkins corporate and capital markets partner Mark Austin. ‘Unlike the last election, we now have two relatively centrist main party leaders and parties.’

Views in the finance community are similar, says McDermott London managing partner Aymen Mahmoud: ‘The usual measure of market reaction to a change in government is any movement in treasury or gilt markets. The fact that we haven’t seen one tells us that whichever party wins the election will be pro-business and, in the case of the Labour government, pro-worker.’

This is at least in part the result of a concerted effort by Labour. ‘Labour has been courting the business community over the last couple of years, really listening to what it needs’, notes Katy Colton (pictured, below), head of the politics and law group at Mishcon de Reya.

Down to brass tax

However, opinions on the Labour manifesto are not unanimously positive, with tax one particular area of concern – and not just the proposals for VAT on private school fees. ‘The Chancellor made a surprise announcement a while ago about cracking down on nondoms, but Labour has committed to going further, whilst at the same time pledging to tax carried interest to income tax instead of capital gains tax, which will have implications for the private equity industry’, says Colton.

These proposals raise the spectre of what Colton calls ‘an exodus of high-net-worth individuals’. Other partners, meanwhile, point to the risk that tax increases could discourage investment into the UK. This would be especially damaging as Labour has acknowledged that it will struggle to finance even its more modest proposals for change, and has placed economic growth at the core of its pitch to voters. The party has spoken too about closing loopholes in the tax regime, but partners are sceptical that there are enough loopholes to close to garner the kinds of revenues that Labour needs.

Still, Butcher points out that the tax issue is ‘heavily derisked for businesses compared to 2017 or 2019’. ‘They will find ways of raising taxes,’ he explains, ‘As under either party they will always find taxes or allowances not subject to promises. However, they are far more pro-business and pro-private sector investment. Their vision involves a more interventionist approach and more co-investing. Nevertheless, they embrace private investment, which will be reassuring.’

Employment is another area where the two parties diverge. Says Colton: ‘There are changes that are going to be interesting for employment lawyers, with Labour promising to increase day-one rights for workers and to remove some of the restrictions on unions, while the Conservatives are saying they’ll increase restrictions.’

Butcher agrees: ‘Concerns are much less acute than they were with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 and 2019, but it will be a very different government to the current one. They will want to intervene much more in the economy. For example, in employment rights, they propose what they frame as the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.’

However, he also makes sure to temper expectations: ‘Admittedly, it would also be the only upgrade in a generation.’

Powering up

Of course, much of what any incoming government does will be dictated not by its ideology or priorities but by its response to long-term challenges. The struggle between energy security and energy transition looms particularly large here.

‘Whatever the make-up of the new government, it seems inevitable that legislation will be enacted to bring forward regulatory change, especially in the energy and infrastructure sectors’, says Vinson & Elkins London corporate head Ben Higson. ‘The new government will inevitably need to continue balancing the need for energy security and the drive to net zero: brought into sharp focus, I think, as real progress will need to be made during the five-year term on both fronts.’

Here, too, though, there is no sense that a Labour government will mean a radical break with the status quo. ‘Labour has a ‘moonshot’ proposal to decarbonise the electricity system by 2030,’ says HSF’s Butcher. ‘This could help focus efforts on issues like planning, as achieving this would be impossible without planning reform. This urgency also means they need to proceed with current plans rather than implementing new reforms. In energy, this is likely positive, as we have a good strategy for encouraging investment. Investors will likely welcome such stability over constant changes. Labour’s emphasis on quick implementation should reassure investors and could facilitate progress if executed well.’

Both Higson and Butcher point to nuclear power as one key area to watch for signals from the incoming government. Butcher expects that Labour ‘will be just as supportive as the current government. They recognise the reality that decarbonising by 2050 necessitates a significant amount of nuclear power; current technologies cannot achieve this alone.’ But he does not discount the possibility of further action: ‘The current government has established a solid foundation. Now, reforms to planning are needed to move forward, offering Labour a great prize if they can seize it. Currently, they appear as committed as the current government. However, I would urge them to go even bolder with the UK’s nuclear ambitions.’

Contentious matters

On the disputes front, Quinn’s Greeno is optimistic that a change in government will not present any unwelcome upheaval for litigators. ‘There’s no particular reason to think that anything’s going to change, at least in the short term’, says Greeno of the commercial litigation market. ‘Hopefully, the legislation on litigation funding pending when the election was called will be picked up and carried through by a Labour government. It’s pretty uncontroversial and in everyone’s interests to assist with access to justice.’

However, the dangers of an underfunded court system remain. Says Greeno: ‘We all know that the criminal justice system is crumbling due to lack of funding. One would have hoped, perhaps, that, as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer would be alive to the risks of doing nothing to reverse that. None of the parties seem to think there are any votes in supporting a properly funded justice system, but as we see more years long delays and miscarriages of justice, I think this topic will gain more political traction.’

It is unclear what any government could do to relieve the stress on the system without an influx of cash. Increasing court fees would be ‘self-defeating’, argues Greeno, because ‘it would inevitably discourage some litigants from coming to London’, potentially sacrificing enormous funds. ‘Whatever the amount of revenue that would be raised by such a measure, a significantly greater amount would be lost if only one major case went elsewhere.’

The problem may be a hard one to solve. But that does not mean that the new government should shy away from it. For Greeno: ‘All governments are happy to talk about the rule of law, but they continue to take it for granted by underfunding the courts.’

Stable door

The feeling from the City’s corporate lawyers is that pre-election jitters from clients are, to date, relatively limited. The period since Rishi Sunak announced the election on 22 May has seen some businesses hold off on making any major moves until the new government comes in. But most define this as the usual waiting period that comes before any major election.

‘The timing is helpful’, says Austin, ‘because getting it done by mid-July means businesses and investors can confidently plan for the rest of this year and the first half of next year.’

Across the board, observers expect and hope for certainty. ‘It remains to be seen how the new government may impact the M&A markets’, says Higson. ‘But, at the least, a five-year term should provide some stability for businesses and investors going forward.’

A&O Shearman UK managing partner Denise Gibson (pictured) concurs: ‘The UK is in desperate need of substantial investment in this county’s physical, digital and social infrastructure, and its people. The country is also craving stability in decision-making.’

For Colton, ‘Having an election, regardless of the outcome, is a good thing for the business of law, because there’s been so much uncertainty, and an election will give us more certainty in terms of who the next government will be.’

Butcher is encouraged on this point: ‘Stability has become the prevailing trend. Politics seems to be returning to a more normal state post-Brexit and post-pandemic. We are moving to a situation resembling more typical political dynamics, and I hope this leads to improved legislation – but time will tell.’

Alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

Anna.huntley@legalbusiness.co.uk

Elisha.juttla@legalbusiness.co.uk

The post Political persuasions – what City partners are hoping for from the next Government appeared first on Legal Business.

Gen Z – including its lawyers – are often characterised as being overly concerned about the social and political issues that come under the ESG umbrella. It’s an issue that was discussed at Legal Business’s April Enterprise GC event in a panel called: ‘The ideal employer for an idealistic lawyer’, during which one audience member dismissed concerns in the somewhat facetious terms: ‘Everybody’s gone woke!’

The truth is – as always – more nuanced. While Gen Z lawyers do care about ESG issues, this does not mean there is a cultural clash between the generations, even if they are more vocal about their expectations than older generations may have been.

‘ESG comes up a lot in the interview process,’ says Ruth Buchanan, employment partner and training principal at Ashurst. ‘Young lawyers have done their research on our firm, and are interested to hear about our work in the projects and energy transition space, as well as what we are doing internally. We also get a lot of questions around what the firm is doing from a diversity and inclusion perspective – that’s clearly really key for candidates now, but it’s not an area I would have thought to ask about as a young lawyer.’

Johnson Matthey assistant GC and EGC ‘idealistic lawyer’ panellist Natalie Hunt agrees: ‘ESG-related things are talked about a lot more. It comes up in conversations, both internally and in interviews.’

‘If I saw a firm that wasn’t mindful of diversity, that wasn’t doing the cultural minimum, it’d be a red flag,’ says one associate. ‘This is low-hanging fruit – why aren’t you doing these things?’ Diversity in particular emerges as a key concern.

Another associate cites an ex-colleague who left their former firm to go in-house because ‘they felt the firm wasn’t diverse enough’, while a former lawyer who left the profession recalls a sense of unease that while their firm ‘wasn’t at all bad for diversity’, it nonetheless ‘did client work for organisations that were quite open about the fact that they held views that were not positive towards members of the LGBTQ+ community’.

These concerns are important to young lawyers. But they are not overriding. The reference to the ‘minimum’ is telling: poor performance on ESG is an issue because it is a sign of being, in the words of one associate, ‘out of step with the market – especially when we’re advising clients who are facing these same issues’. And firms are increasingly proactive on ESG, with a wealth of initiatives on everything from pro bono work to greener office practices and diverse hiring.

Far from there being a divide though, young lawyers’ concerns and those of more senior colleagues are often in tune with each other. ‘Different generations of lawyers care about ESG in different ways,’ says one associate. ‘For younger lawyers it’s more emotional and value-driven. For lawyers at more senior levels, there’s less of that, but it is absolutely a concern, even if just because it matters to the business.’

‘Everyone wants a work-life balance – but young lawyers are better at talking about it.’
Ruth Buchanan, Ashurst

‘Everyone wants the same thing’

Another complaint frequently raised about members of Gen Z is that they are feckless and workshy – unwilling to come into the office and put in the hours needed to progress in their careers.

Rather than bemoan the younger generation’s attitude towards work-life balance, partners and more senior lawyers spoken to for this feature were positive about some of the strengths of younger lawyers, commenting about how they can improve the office for all ages.

‘Our junior lawyers are often very good at voicing things that our more senior lawyers want too,’ says Buchanan. ‘Everyone wants the same thing: everyone wants a work-life balance that allows them to see their family and friends, take care of themselves, and so on. But young lawyers are better at talking about it. And that’s driven a lot of conversations around things like employee wellbeing.’

Simon Edwards, commercial partner at Trowers & Hamlins and another ‘idealistic lawyers’ panellist, recounts being struck by younger lawyers’ attitude to communication: ‘Gen Z has grown up with social media and mobile phones, and that’s meant that they’re used to sharing their views and having their say on things. They’re more willing to speak their minds than I was as a junior lawyer.’

Hunt notes that prospective candidates increasingly bring up flexible working at interview: ‘We get asked, “Do people come into the office, do they have to come into the office, is it flexible?” We don’t get asked outright what hours people are doing, but we do get asked how the days and the week are structured.’

‘I’m not seeing people wanting to come into the office five days a week,’ adds Edwards, ‘but on the other hand there aren’t many who just want to work from home. Most like to do two to three days in the office, because it allows for a good balance.’

Indeed, while Gen Z may bear the brunt of complaints, they point out that it is often more senior lawyers who put a higher premium on time with their families, while many of the younger cohort are eager to benefit from in-person experience.

Jasmin Chiu, a legal adviser at McArthurGlen who was also on the ‘idealistic lawyers’ panel, tells LB: ‘I’ve noticed that many young lawyers are keen to come into the office more than some other colleagues since we’re at a stage where we’re eager to learn and this can be most easily done in person. I’ve noticed there has been more of a desire to work from home from colleagues who have young families and have moved out of the city.’

This desire to get time in the office with senior colleagues is especially pronounced among the generation that was training or newly qualified during Covid. ‘I trained during the pandemic,’ says one former lawyer. ‘I had quite a poor experience. Doing it remotely was very isolating. I don’t feel that I got a particularly good training experience or felt embedded in a team at all.’

The pandemic also had a negative impact on work-life balance. ‘Things were a lot worse during Covid,’ says one associate who was several years into qualification when lockdown started. ‘You were working longer hours as there was no division between office hours and downtime. If someone emailed you on the weekend in normal times, they might think, “Well, maybe they’re out, they’ll get back to me.” But during Covid there was no excuse.’

Lawyers are split on how far this issue has been resolved since the end of the pandemic. One associate notes positive changes: ‘Firms have done things like introduced sabbatical policies and upped maternity and paternity leave. They’ve become increasingly generous on that.’

But others are more critical: ‘The way the work seeps into your personal life is becoming a lot more pervasive,’ says one former lawyer. ‘It’s so easy to not stop working if you’re doing it remotely. And no-one sees it. I almost felt that I didn’t want to raise it because I didn’t want to look like I wasn’t keeping up.’

As with so much else, the issue may turn on the culture and practices of individual firms. The former lawyer continues: ‘I got told off by one of my line managers once for sending something when I was on annual leave. The attitude was, “We’re great at work-life balance, you shouldn’t be working on annual leave – you should have managed your time better.” It was a weird distortion of what work-life balance was. The fact that I was working on annual leave was taken as my fault. It felt that what I was doing was bad for their image. I really didn’t know what to do with that.’

Law is detail oriented, labour intensive and, for those working in City law firms, extremely well-compensated. As a result, work-life balance is a challenge for lawyers of all levels. ‘I find it hard and I know my colleagues find it hard,’ says Hunt. ‘Over the years I’ve learnt how to switch off, because I know that if I don’t, I suffer, my family suffers, and my work suffers. But if this was my first job I don’t know if I’d have the confidence or the awareness to do that.’

As Edwards notes: ‘Junior lawyers take their lead from a firm’s leaders, so it is really important that those leaders are modelling the right behaviours and staying true to the firm’s culture.’ On both presence in the office and time away from work, firms must set the right example.

‘As young lawyers, we do not always have the luxury of choice when applying to firms or companies.’
Jasmin Chiu, McArthurGlen

Being proactive on these issues is a core part of team culture, argues Nick Wong, a partner in Ashurst’s global loans practice who works with early career lawyers at the firm: ‘There’s a school of thought that says, “As long as I get my job done, why do you care where I do it from?” But I don’t subscribe to that. Part of the job is to be here and to be part of a team, interacting with others in a culture where people enjoy working together. If you want that sense of community, you need to build it and work at it.’

‘It becomes self-selecting’

‘There has always been a tier of people for whom earning the most money possible and working as hard as possible has been the sole focus,’ says Wong. ‘Those people still exist. But there’s also a large and growing tier of people who want more of a balance, and that goes hand in hand with the current generation of young lawyers being brave enough to be open about what they want from their careers.’

For all their concerns about ESG and work-life balance, Gen Z lawyers are – at this point – a small and unique sample within commercial law firms or in-house legal teams. By definition, those already working are the ones who are willing to put in the hours and make the compromises that corporate law requires.

Firms increasingly have procedures in place to allow lawyers to refuse to work on a particular matter if they have ethical or other objections. However, no-one interviewed for this article could recall personally encountering or even hearing about a lawyer turning down work. ‘We’ve never had anybody in my time raise an ethical concern over a certain piece of work,’ says Buchanan.

For one associate, this is because ‘people sort themselves by their value alignments at a much earlier stage’. Put simply: ‘If you have serious ethical objections to working for tobacco companies, for example, you are not going to qualify into a firm that has tobacco clients as major clients.’

Wong concurs: ‘We’ve certainly had people decide they don’t want to go into a certain area,’ he says. ‘It becomes self-selecting.’ In addition to preferences over work-life balance, Wong notes that ethical concerns can factor into these decisions: ‘We’ve had instances where, approaching qualification, Muslim trainees have questioned whether working in certain areas of finance involving interest is compatible with their religious beliefs. We’ve had very open discussions with them about that and fully respect those beliefs. As a full-service firm, we have a wealth of other areas that they can qualify into.’

Another associate puts a slightly different spin on it: ‘It’s not just self-selection. The kind of person who cares enough about political issues to have done anything really controversial as a radical student isn’t going to get past a vetting process, even if they wanted to go into corporate law.’

Interviewees also stressed that Gen Z lawyers were not uncompromising. Chiu offers one explanation for this: ‘Ultimately, as a young trainee or lawyer, we do not always have the luxury of choice when applying to firms or companies.’ Such concerns are more likely to play into later career decisions, she argues: ‘Young lawyers put weight on these factors more than older generations when it comes to choosing to remain and progress in a particular firm or company.’

‘Gen Z has grown up with social media and mobiles – they’re more willing to speak their minds than I was as a junior lawyer.’
Simon Edwards, Trowers & Hamlins

Gen Z lawyers are also regarded as more commercial and career-oriented. ‘There has been a generational shift in terms of expectations, and also in terms of how savvy people are in mapping their careers at a very early stage,’ says Buchanan.

Wong concurs: ‘Career progression is important. Young lawyers are very switched on to what they want out of their career. They’re constantly thinking about where they want to be in two, five or ten years.’

Edwards notes that the small size of the Gen Z lawyers cohort and the youth of its members makes generalisation difficult, but makes a similar point: ‘People are more willing to move, whether that’s to a competitor firm, to go in-house, or even to get more experience in the business outside of the law.’

‘Younger lawyers aren’t going to stick in something that’s not right for them,’ he continues. ‘They say, “If I don’t like the culture or what the firm is doing on ESG, I’ll move on.” Employers need to make sure they’re providing an environment in which people want to stay. It’s not enough to just have the carrot of the money. You need to provide a rounded experience if you want to keep people.’

Partners are alive to these issues, and firms are increasingly considering them when it comes to working with and mentoring their young lawyers.

But what may be most interesting is to see what changes as the number of Gen Z lawyers grows and as members of the cohort become more senior. Hunt ends on a note of cautious optimism: ‘Yes, this profession might be one with sometimes slightly insane hours, lots of stress, et cetera, but I do think (and hope) it’s improving, especially in terms of the respect for people’s mental health within the profession. I feel that over the next five, ten, fifteen years ,the legal profession, in particular private practice, will need to change. I just don’t think it’s sustainable.’ LB

alex.ryan@legalease.co.uk

Go to the ESG Report contents.

The post What Gen Z lawyers really want from their careers appeared first on Legal Business.

Once seen as the next big thing for all self-respecting international law firms, China is now seeing a wave of retrenchment by US firms, with Morrison Foerster the latest to close an office in Beijing – Alex Ryan spoke to those who know the market to find out why

As statements of intent go, they don’t come much bolder than Dentons’ groundbreaking 2015 tie-up with China’s Dacheng. In one move the firm became the biggest in the world by headcount, with the verein combination bringing together more than 6,500 lawyers and granting Dentons access to what was then seen as the must-have market for truly global firms, dwarfing the efforts of many UK and US players to build up a presence in the country.

However, less than a decade since that deal, new fears around data privacy and cyber security in China have reached such heights that no fewer than six US firms have closed offices in either Beijing or Shanghai since Dentons called time on the tie-up last August, on top of three others calling it quits earlier in 2023 (see box, below).

The latest is Morrison Foerster, which this week confirmed it is winding down its Beijing base. In a statement, the firm said that its Beijing lease was due to terminate later this year, and that ‘nearly all’ of its work for clients in China was already being handled by its offices in Shanghai, Hong Kong and elsewhere. The process of closing the office is expected to be completed by the autumn.

In addition, Winston & Strawn closed in Hong Kong earlier this year, while Mayer Brown ended its longstanding combination with Hong Kong’s Johnson Stokes & Master in May.

On the rationale for the split from Dacheng, Dentons global chief executive Elliott Portnoy sets out the central issue in plain terms. ‘Clients come to a law firm to solve their most important confidential problems,’ he explains. ‘If we cannot solve that problem or advance that highly sensitive and confidential business opportunity with an assurance that the information they have shared with us remains confidential, then we are literally unable to meet one of our most important obligations.’

‘The current regulatory framework in China imposes on lawyers in China a set of obligations that are inconsistent with those best practices, such that if the government were to seek information about client business activities, client data, or other confidential information, it is a legal obligation imposed on a Chinese lawyer to share that information with the government.’

‘If we cannot provide assurance that the information clients share with us remains confidential, then we are literally unable to meet one of our most important obligations.’ Elliott Portnoy, Dentons

China passed its revised Counterespionage Law on 26 April 2023, with the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center stating that the new law raised the risk that: ‘any documents, data, materials, or items could be considered relevant to PRC national security due to ambiguities in the law.’

The concerns appear well-founded. The Chinese government has already raided the offices of multiple US-headquartered consulting companies, including a police visit to Bain & Co’s Shanghai office on the same day the new law was passed.

While to date no international law firms have been publicly reported to have been raided, some are concerned that it is only a matter of time.

‘There is no limit about which I am aware,’ says one partner. ‘Everything in your server is subject to review and access by regulatory authorities, simply on request.’

While most firms closing offices have been reluctant to comment on their China operations, all have so far opted to refocus on other offices in the region rather than closing altogether.

Indeed, despite the challenges and concerns around the Chinese regulatory regime UK firms have yet to announce similar plans to close, with some actively continuing to expand in China. HFW and Bird & Bird, for example, both opened in tech haven Shenzhen in the second half of last year.

But there are concerns that even Hong Kong’s position may come under threat in future, with some partners pointing to the territory’s new Article 23 national security law – which relates to what the Chinese government views as espionage – as a potential challenge.

One recruiter says there is already a sense of government intrusion casting doubts over the island’s prospects, pointing out: ‘Hong Kong has been tainted by the same brush.’ Another adds: ‘It’s just not as free a market as it used to be.’

It was these concerns around Hong Kong and China that prompted Eversheds Sutherland to shift its approach to the region when it announced an exclusive referral agreement with APAC leader King & Wood Mallesons in July last year.

‘We felt a referral agreement with one of – if not the best – law firms in China was a more sensible strategy than trying to build offices in China in a changing regulatory and geopolitical world,’ the transatlantic firm’s co-chief executive officer Lee Ranson tells Legal Business.

Commenting more broadly on the shift in firms’ approach to China, he expands: ‘Some of it is a response to lower activity levels. Some of it is a response to changing geopolitical dynamics, which have meant that China isn’t considered at the heart of strategy for US firms in particular. And some of it is concerns around issues like data.’

Despite these concerns, he stresses: ‘It’s very difficult to see how firms can have a long-term, realistic Asia strategy that doesn’t involve China in one form or another. China is the world’s second largest economy; our clients can’t ignore that. But they do need a different type of service than what was provided five or ten years ago. Our relationship with KWM gives us the resources to meet those changing needs.’

Whether more firms go down the referral route remains to be seen, but even Portnoy acknowledges that ‘the time may come when China is resurgent, and businesses may want to staff up or refocus their attention on China.’

As firms grapple with their approach to China and Hong Kong, some suggest the region’s challenges will likely produce a pivot from firms towards other countries in Asia, such as Singapore and potentially India. Orrick explicitly mentioned its existing Singapore office as part of the statement on its China closures, while Proskauer opened in Singapore last year, the same year it closed in Beijing.

‘It’s very difficult to see how firms can have an Asia strategy that doesn’t involve China. But they do need a different type of service than what was provided five or ten years ago.’ Lee Ranson, Eversheds Sutherland

‘Broad geopolitical conditions in the last four or five years have made doing business in China more difficult,’ says Ashish Raivadera, managing director for South Asia in the partner practice group and Singapore office founder at Major, Lindsey & Africa. ‘American law firms in particular find it an increasing challenge to do business in China.’ He adds: ‘We’ve seen more firms coming to Singapore, more of an investment appetite to put bodies in Singapore rather than in Hong Kong and China, and more looking at Asia through a pan-Asian lens rather than solely through a Chinese lens.’

‘That many companies are pivoting their Asia-Pacific businesses towards other countries is good news for us,’ says Portnoy. ‘We’re the only global law firm in India, and we have a very strong presence in many of the markets in the region that clients in the region are quietly or not so quietly shifting their focus to.’

Raivadera concludes: ‘We’re in a phase at the moment where big American firms who are going gangbusters in the US are saying, “Why are we active in these Asian markets when we’re less profitable there?” But these questions have been asked as long as I’ve been in this business. We talk to clients about the concept of “but-for” revenue: the revenue that you wouldn’t win from clients in the US and elsewhere if you didn’t have offices and a presence in Asia.’

alexander.ryan@legalease.co.uk

Firms readjusting operations in China

*Firm did not respond to request for comment.

The post The China conundrum – why so many US law firms are pulling out appeared first on Legal Business.