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.

Firms ranked 26-50 in the Legal Business 100 – Macfarlanes, TLT and Watson Farley & Williams – have posted a mixed bag of financials for 2020/21.

Macfarlanes has enjoyed its eleventh consecutive year of revenue growth amid a double-digit profit uptick and profit per equity partner figures that again bely fears of pandemic reversals. The robust 10% turnover increase to £260.96m builds on last year’s 9.5% rise to £237.65m, while PEP increased 9% to £2.09m, continuing last year’s solid 10% boost to £1.91m.

The results announced today (27 July) also point to a 12% increase in operating profit for the 2020/21 financial year, only a slight dip on the increase of 14% to £126m last year. The firm said it did not reduce costs over the course of the year, in fact overall costs increased, so the results reflected growth in the practice.

Senior partner Sebastian Prichard Jones (pictured) told Legal Business: ‘The last financial year was a good year for the firm despite the challenges that were clearly evident. We were fortunate that activity levels remained strong across our three areas of business – transactional, disputes and advisory work. Thank you as always to the firm’s clients and to our dedicated people for achieving what turned out to be a good result.’

Earlier in July, Macfarlanes announced it would be retaining 22 of the 25 trainees qualifying in September, giving the firm an 88% autumn retention rate.

Jat Bains, graduate recruitment partner said at the time: ‘This has been an uncertain period for many but we have continued to invest in our trainees, knowing that an investment in our trainees is an investment in the firm’s future.’

The firm also said it was increasing base salaries for both newly qualified solicitors and trainees. First year trainees will take home £48,000, rising to £52,500 for second year trainees, while newly qualified lawyers will earn £90,000.

Fee-earners will also share in an uncapped firmwide bonus – this year paid at a level of 9.78% ignoring special Covid bonus payments – and are eligible for individual bonuses, which are not geared to hours worked. The firm said it expected newly qualified solicitors to earn in excess of £100,000 this financial year, taking into account all elements of their package.

In a similarly bullish vein, TLT has smashed through the £100m revenue barrier, posting  an 11% increase in turnover to hit £110m to coincide with the launch of a new strategy that targets revenues in excess of £140m by 2025.

The 2025 strategy will focus on anticipating and delivering against future client needs, through initiatives such as its FutureLaw programme and the further development of legal and near law capabilities. Investment will continue across its seven sectors, which include clean energy; digital; financial services; leisure, food & drink; public sector; real estate and retail & consumer goods.

It will also aim to keep equality, diversity, inclusion and wellness at the centre of TLT’s plans as the core pillar of the strategy. As part of that, the firm points to a recent multimillion pound investment in its tech platform and offices to support a shift to fully flexible working.

John Wood, managing partner at TLT, reflected on a strong position in his first year in the role: ‘We’ve worked hard to help clients manage the uncertainty and continuous change, as well as constantly looking forward to the challenges and opportunities that may lie ahead for their organisations. Growth has been consistent across all our services, sectors and locations – although each of our sectors have faced very different challenges triggered by the pandemic and the ongoing disruption that it has accelerated.

‘Clients rightly continue to expect more from their lawyers and our new strategy is about meeting that need – whether through our legal advice, transforming how we deliver services or supporting clients with the wider macro issues they face as true business advisers. That includes providing non-legal support on both the sustainability agenda and how best to rise to the challenges all businesses face around EDI and wellness.

‘Pandemic aside, breaking the £100m revenue mark is another significant step forward in our journey of continued and sustainable growth. But, we aren’t even close to done yet and, with our new strategy, will focus on looking ahead and delivering an outstanding service for our clients.’

Highlights for TLT over the last year include being re-appointed to the Sainsbury’s legal panel and securing roles on the Vodafone legal panel and UK government’s newly established trade law panel.

Watson Farley & Williams also reported its financials today, with slightly less dynamic performance over 2020/21, with income declining by 1% to £177m and a 4% dip in PEP to £553,000.

In a joint statement, managing partners Chris Lowe and Lothar Wegener said: ‘We are satisfied with the result as we entered the last financial year during a strategic review of our core business aimed at consolidating and investing in our strategy of sector focus. As part of that, we have opened two new offices in Düsseldorf and Sydney, welcomed ten lateral partners and made significant investments in our workplaces and business functions across the firm.

We are already seeing the benefit of our strategic focus with a strong first quarter to the current financial year, building on the 5% growth we saw in the second half of the last year.’

nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk

The post Financials 2020/21: ‘Fortunate’ Macfarlanes adds 10% to top line as 26-50 LB100 firms post mixed results appeared first on Legal Business.

Watson Farley & Williams is the latest City firm to post robust revenue and profit figures in the face of adversity in the 2019/20 financial year. 

The firm said yesterday (29 July) that fee income was up 4% to £179.6m from last year’s £172.3m as profit per equity partner (PEP) saw a 3% uplift to £577,000 from £562,000. Profit was up a respectable 13% on last year to £53.7m from £47.5m, capping off a bullish set of results. 

Co-managing partner Chris Lowe (right) told Legal Business: ‘Sectors remain the core focus of our strategy and continue to deliver stable, manageable, quality growth.  These  are not jump-up-in-the-air and sing-from-the-rooftops numbers but we are hitting PEP and turnover increases in a consistent way.’  

He stressed the importance for the firm’s management to keep a close eye on the direction of travel and said WFW would not deviate from its sector focus. ‘We are still a transport, energy and real estate business and that will not change. People will always need transport and energy. Renewables continues to dominate the energy sector and remains a priority for us.’ 

Fellow managing partner Lothar Wegener (left) flagged the firm’s Spanish office as one of the highest performing in terms of growth and noted the energy practice has become a cohesive, multi-office practice comparable to transport. The aviation business accounted for three of the six new partners from the latest promotion round, a reflection of the firm’s investment in that sector.  

‘We are as well positioned in a worldwide economic crisis as we were before coronavirus happened, so we didn’t think we needed to reconsider our strategy or impose salary cuts or promotion freezes,’ he said. 

He added that the Munich office adopted a fully agile working practice even before the pandemic, making it easier to roll out flexible working across other offices. He said that engagement was taking place to define how people would change their working practices to ‘adapt for the new normal’.  

nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk 

The post WFW not ‘singing from the rooftops’ as it defies pandemic blues to post revenue and profit uptick appeared first on Legal Business.

The team at Watson Farley & Williams discuss the latest developments in the sector

It has been a busy few years for the London contentious construction team at Watson Farley & Williams. Following the recruitment of specialist Rebecca Williams in 2015 and the relocation of former Bangkok partner Rob Fidoe in 2016, the team has gone from strength to strength, building on the capabilities of the firm’s leading non-contentious practice to make its mark in the construction market. The team, which was joined by construction hotel and leisure expert Barry Hembling in 2019, is now an award-winning practice, working for domestic and international clients operating across a range of sectors, and conducting groundbreaking litigation, which is shaping new law. This includes the landmark decision in PBS Energo AS v Bester Generacion UK Ltd [2019], where the English High Court refused to enforce an adjudication decision as there was a properly arguable defence that the decision had been obtained by fraud – the first occasion on which the court refused to order enforcement in such circumstances.

What really sets the Watson Farley team apart from its competitors is its approach to disputes. Rather than waiting for a one-off big-ticket case to come along, the team’s primary aim is to help facilitate the completion of construction projects, from advice on de-risking at the outset, assistance on dispute avoidance during the life of the contract, through to diffusing tensions and navigating clients away from costly and protracted disputes where issues do arise. The team understands that finding pragmatic, commercial solutions is ultimately what is best for the client. Members of the team are frequently embedded with clients, enabling real-time advice to be given throughout the project, informed by the client’s key commercial imperatives and on-site realities. And if an unavoidable dispute does arise (an unfortunate reality in the industry given the very significant sums at stake), this way of working means the client is in the best possible position to obtain a positive result.

With particular expertise in the renewables market, the team has advised on around 75% of all UK offshore wind farms.

Working seamlessly with non-contentious colleagues and alongside construction disputes professionals across its global network, the team advises on a wide range of projects at any one time, exposing them constantly to new scenarios and a consistent pipeline of work. With particular expertise in the renewables market, they have advised on around 75% of all UK offshore wind farms in some capacity, giving them an unrivalled understanding of the industry, the technical legal issues clients face and who the key players are.

So what key trends and developments do the team see on the horizon?

Contract confusion

Construction and engineering projects are notoriously susceptible to disputes, both in the UK and internationally. Standard-form contracts, such as FIDIC, Joint Contracts Tribunal and the New Engineering Contract have sought to address this by ushering in a new age of fair and balanced risk allocation, collaborative working, reciprocity of obligations and dispute avoidance. But old habits die hard. FIDIC has indicated a very limited take up of its 2017 contract. Meanwhile, standard forms continue to be heavily amended and risk allocation structures altered, sometimes sowing the seeds for disputes before work onsite even begins.

Heavy amendments to standard forms bring further problems, including greater risk of inconsistency and ambiguities in drafting. The Supreme Court’s decision in MT Højgaard A/S v E.On Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd & anor [2017] is a case in point. Add in the fact that commercial and legal teams still do not co-ordinate as well as they could, the complexity of the works being executed, the number of different contracting parties, extremely fine margins and, particularly in the case of renewable projects, use of cutting-edge technology, and it is easy to see why disputes in this area continue to proliferate.

Energising renewables?

In the UK offshore wind sector, offshore construction works continue to pose the greatest risk of disputes for developers and owners. The last two years have seen contract prices awarded for UK offshore wind projects plummet – in the last year the contract price fell below the UK government’s ‘reference price’ for the first time. Such low energy prices will inevitably place pressure on developers and operators to keep greater control of costs in the construction phase.

Historically, a fertile source of offshore wind farm disputes has been the installation of subsea export cables. Significant improvements in subsea cable technology and design has reduced problems with the cables themselves, but disputes still regularly arise in respect of defective installation. Varied seabed geology and conditions in UK waters frequently result in subsea cables not being buried to intended depths and/or being uncovered or otherwise impacted by scour (movement of seabed sediment). Procuring detailed and accurate subsea surveys of the sediment geology along cable routes can be crucial to ensuring that cable burial is undertaken successfully and without negative future impact on the seabed. Increasingly, the cost associated with procuring such surveys will be easily offset by the savings achieved by avoiding disputes with contractors for defective cable burial and future liabilities to the Offshore Transmission Owners post-divestment of transmission assets (including export cables).

The UK battery storage sector has undergone rapid growth thanks to reduced manufacturing costs, incentives to combine battery storage with renewable energy projects and anticipated easing of regulations.

The UK battery storage sector has, meanwhile, undergone a period of rapid growth thanks to the reduced cost of manufacturing battery packs, growing incentives to combine battery storage projects with renewable energy projects and anticipated easing of regulatory restrictions. Indeed, research by RenewableUK found that last year the number of UK companies involved in the sector increased by over 50% and the total cumulative capacity of battery storage planning applications grew to over 10,500MW.

However, this influx of new participants in the sector could lead to greater competition at the tender stage, and a corresponding ‘crunch’ on contract prices and profit margins. This may result in more disputes during the construction phase, as contractors submit variation and delay claims (often on a speculative basis) in an attempt to recoup or increase their revenues from the project. The rapid growth of the battery storage sector and the involvement of new entrants could also see a growing number of disputes about what constitutes best practice, the applicable market and industry standards and whether or not works or technologies are ‘fit for purpose’ – a particular issue in circumstances where there are inconsistencies between commercial contract terms and technical specifications.

Cladding scandals

Domestically, the real estate, hotel and leisure sectors are continuing to grapple with the uncertainty of the combustible cladding scandal and the need to introduce a proper system of regulation.

The scandal is not just confined to the aluminium composite material cladding system used on Grenfell Tower. High-pressure laminate cladding, for example (installed at The Cube student accommodation, which caught fire in November 2019), failed fire safety tests 80% of the time while the category of cladding similar to that blamed for the rapid spread of the Grenfell fire failed 60% of the time.

Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry began in January 2020 and will consider issues including cladding products, their testing and certification. Conclusions from Phase 2 may help clarify the extent of responsibility of those involved in the installation, design and certification of cladding now known to be dangerous.

Remedial works had not commenced on the vast majority of private residential blocks over 18 metres with the same Grenfell cladding type, but building owners in England can now apply for grants from a £200m fund intended to accelerate the repair rate. Although the fund aims to protect lessees from repair costs, it is contingent on building owners committing to recover monies from responsible third parties. As no litigation funding is available, it remains to be seen whether building owners will be willing to pursue expensive claims where recoverability is uncertain or where there is a cost risk from unsuccessful claims. Residents might still end up paying, albeit towards a litigation fighting fund rather than towards cladding repairs.

Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry may help clarify the responsibility of those involved in the installation, design and certification of cladding now known to be dangerous.

As for regulation, the current system has been shown to be woefully inadequate, with unsafe cladding installed and certified for use on hundreds of buildings. Dame Judith Hackitt has recommended a new system requiring architects and contractors to certify that their designs and works satisfy building regulations. A golden thread of health and safety information will also be retained, covering all stages of a building’s life cycle and ensuring that those who construct, design and maintain our buildings can be held accountable.

Although it was proposed that the measures should only apply to residential buildings over 18 metres, there are concerns this may create a two-tier system for residents in smaller blocks. There is also uncertainty about the extent to which the new system will apply beyond residential blocks to other buildings where people sleep, such as student accommodation, hospitals and care homes. It had been thought that hotels would be exempt from the new measures given the widespread use of sprinklers, but that was before hotel fires in Eastbourne and Brentford at the end of last year.

Fire safety thus remains high on the agenda. What is required is prompt action and answers as to how this scandal could ever have occurred in the first place. Hopefully we will receive them this year.

Whatever happened to the likely LADs?

Meanwhile, the end of 2020 will see the Supreme Court grappling with the issue of post-termination liquidated damages awards.

Liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) provisions are crucial in construction contracts, where delays occur all too frequently. It is well recognised that where delays have been suffered on a project and the parties have agreed LAD provisions, awards generally apply to works up until termination, after which only general damages are recoverable. The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] recognised this, noting that it is generally considered to be the orthodox approach.

However, that same judgment attracted considerable attention in the market for the way in which it explored two other potential outcomes to a post-termination liquidated damages claim and went on to apply one of those less orthodox approaches to the case at hand. The decision raised questions as to how LAD awards might be made in the future and is now the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The decision in Triple Point v PTT raised questions as to how LAD awards might be made in the future and is now the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The dispute, in which Watson Farley acted for PTT (the Thai state-owned oil and gas company) throughout, arose out of claims for payment of invoices for the design, supply and implementation of an integrated commodities trading risk management system that Triple Point Technology had been commissioned to carry out. In the event, PTT was successful in defending all of Triple Point’s claims and counterclaiming for breach of contract in respect of various failings by Triple Point to carry out/complete the project. Those failings included significant delay, for which PTT successfully claimed liquidated damages.

The LADs originally awarded followed the orthodox approach and were calculated by reference to the period of delay suffered, being the period from Triple Point’s failure to meet certain agreed completion dates up until the date the contract was terminated with such works remaining incomplete.

Triple Point challenged the level of LADs awarded on appeal, arguing that the provision agreed between the parties was to be construed such that LADs would apply only to those parts of the works that were delayed but completed prior to termination and not to other aspects of the works that were also delayed but had not been handed over prior to the termination date.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment found in favour of Triple Point on this issue, resulting in a significantly reduced level of LADs. That judgment bears close reading, particularly in its analysis and application of the three possible outcomes in relation to a liquidated damages provision where a contract has been terminated (the third outcome being a scenario whereby LADs continue to apply even past the date of termination, until completion of the works – albeit by a third party – have been achieved).

Some commentators have noted that the current position on LADs appears to be more uncertain than ever and so the Supreme Court hearing is one that will be watched with great anticipation. Its decision should bring greater certainty to a question that practitioners regularly grapple with, giving both the drafters and the interpreters of such vital provisions within construction contracts an answer to the current predicament: whatever happened to the likely LADs?

The post Sponsored briefing: Key trends in contentious construction appeared first on Legal Business.

US & City firms saw a steady influx of lateral hires across sectors as Latham & Watkins, Allen & Overy (A&O) and Watson Farley & Williams hired partners from Simmons & Simmons.

US firm Latham hired Simmons’ head of equity capital markets, Chris Horton, as partner in its corporate department. Horton joined Simmons in 2008 and has experience advising on IPOs, secondary offerings and M&A transactions by listed companies, investment banks, and hedge funds.

Co-chair of Lathams’ corporate department Nick Cline commented: ‘Chris has a terrific blend of transactional and regulatory experience that will be of great value to our clients in the UK and globally.’

Global vice-chair of the corporate department David Walker added: ‘Chris’s experience complements and enhances the existing strength of our ECM and corporate practices in London and globally. His arrival will further advance our goal to become the market’s leading firm for complex, cross-border transactions.’

A&O similarly hired from Simmons, bringing in employment partner Vicky Wickremeratne to its London office. Wickremeratne became partner in 2015 and was previously the managing director and senior counsel of Goldman Sachs Asia, based in Hong Kong.

A&O head of London employment Sarah Henchoz told Legal Business: ‘Vicky spent a lot of time in-house before she joined Simmons & Simmons. She’s really good at looking at what the wider objective is rather than looking through a narrow lense and it’s a very unique perspective in many ways.’

Meanwhile, Watson Farley hired capital markets partner Simon Ovenden in London. Ovenden also joins from Simmons, where he was head of the debt capital market group. Ovenden has experience in debt and equity capital markets transactions and advises both underwriters and issuers across capital markets products.

Ovenden told Legal Business: ‘It is a challenging market with intense competition. You have to show clients something that really distinguishes you from the rest of the pack. You can’t be an average player in capital markets.’

‘It wasn’t a difficult sell for me to join. I like the people and I like the vision and the fact that they see capital markets as being part of what they want to offer,’ Ovenden added.

WFW managing partner Chris Lowe told Legal Business: ‘It’s not an easy market to attract high quality talent and I think it’s a testament to the firm and to Simon to have the vision that the platform will be able to deliver on what he does.

Elsewhere, Ashurst hired partner Ruby Hamid to its dispute resolution team in London. Hamid joins from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, where she was counsel, and specialises in white-collar crime, financial regulation, global investigations and risk and compliance.

Head of dispute resolution in EMEA Tom Connor told Legal Business: ‘She brings a white collar crime practice and a deep expertise in corporate and financial crime – bribery and corruption work in particular will be a strong focus for Ruby. Ruby’s hire reflects our continuing focus on international investigations, alongside complex commercial litigation and international arbitration work.’

Mishcon de Reya, meanwhile, appointed Ben Brandon to its white collar crime and investigations team. He joins from barrister’s chambers 3 Raymond Buildings, and specialises in extradition and fraud.

Further afield, Ashurst made another hire from Freshfields in the form of Andrew Craig to its corporate practice in Melbourne, Australia. Craig specialises in digital economy and technology and has experience in advising corporate, private equity firms and financial institutions on technology transactions.

muna.abdi@legalease.co.uk

The post Revolving doors: US & City firms target Simmons & Simmons as Ashurst makes hires appeared first on Legal Business.

A longstanding legal wrangle that saw Mark Prevezer, Watson Farley & Williams’ former head of real estate seek £300,000 in damages from the firm, has been settled out of court.

The move puts an end to a law suit that was expected to head to trial at the High Court in November this year, in which Prevezer alleged breaches of a consultancy agreement signed by the parties in March 2016 and for reputational harm suffered for ‘wrongful removal’ from his position of global head of the firm’s real estate practice.

The claim was filed against WFW by Prevezer, who now works as a senior consultant at Forsters, in the High Court’s Business and Property Court in August last year.

A spokesperson for WFW told Legal Business: ‘WFW and Mark Prevezer are pleased to report that they have resolved all disputes between them and in doing so they have withdrawn all allegations on the pleadings. The other settlement terms are confidential to the parties.’

Although the particulars of claim refer to an ‘apparent policy’ of age discrimination at the firm, Prevezer’s damages claim of at least £300,000 was not directly connected to that.

According to the particulars, Prevezer had claimed to have seen over the course of several years ‘many older and experienced partners in the firm being gradually and reluctantly manoeuvred by [WFW’s] management first from the status of partner to consultant and then… being asked to leave or retire before the retirement age in the [firm’s] partnership agreement.’ By 2014, the document states, it became apparent to Prevezer, who turned 60 in 2015, ‘that he had become the focus of the inappropriate manoeuvring and age discrimination’.

The document, filed with the Business and Property Court on 6 August 2018, cites an alleged incident where the firm’s managing partners [Chris Lowe and Lothar Wegener] refused Prevezer’s joining the main management committee, with all the vacancies going to ‘three much younger, and less experienced partners’.

Prevezer became global head of real estate in 2006 and was entitled to 60 equity points and an annual income of around £600,000. He claimed that during his tenure, the annual turnover of the real estate practice increased from £800,000 in 2006 to roughly £17m a decade later, making it the third biggest sector and responsible for 11% of the firm’s global turnover annually.

The claimant outlined an ‘inappropriate restriction’ on 15 March 2016 whereby Prevezer was not allowed to travel abroad without consent from the managing partners, a move which he claimed would prevent him from successfully running and driving forward the real estate sector.

The following day Prevezer had lunch with Wegener where a conversation ensued about Prevezer leaving the partnership and having a consultancy agreement instead to start at the end of March 2016.

The consultancy agreement was signed on 31 March and the role of part-time consultant took effect from 1 May 2016. The arrangement entitled Prevezer to a fixed annual fee until 30 April 2018 of £250,000 per annum as well as a ‘results based element. It also was alleged to state that it was the firm’s intention that he continued as global sector head for real estate.

The meaning of this was later disputed by the firm. In a letter dated 25 April 2018 James Penn, a consultant to WFW, wrote to Prevezer claiming that the firm was entitled to remove him from the position because ‘the wording of the consultancy agreement did not say he would continue as the global head of the global real estate sector’.

Then at a meeting on 16 February 2018 between Prevezer and Wegener, the managing partner told the claimant that he had been told that Gary Ritter [head of the London real estate group] and another partner had lobbied at a partner meeting for Prevezer to be replaced as global head of real estate and that the firm intended to replace him. Before the beginning of May 2018, corporate partner Felicity Jones was appointed to the role.

Prevezer was asked not to return to the London office and told that the firm was no longer willing to honour an agreement in December 2017 for a single fee of £250,000 for a third year, including fees due for the result-based part of the contract for the first two years.

The firm also claimed that ‘there is no results based element due to you over and above the £250,000 per annum which you have already been paid for the periods 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2017 and 1 May to 30 March 2018’.

The firm told Prevezer ‘we recognise that you may wish to terminate rather than continue the arrangement in a third year.’ The offer to terminate the consultancy agreement was rejected by Prevezer in May 2018, after which he pursued the damages claim for loss of fees and reputational damage.

Talking to Legal Business on the thorny issue of age discrimination, one employment partner said: ‘Provided the firm is managing the equity a business case can be justified – you could say it is needed for the benefit of succession and recycling the equity.’

They added: ‘Larger law firms are all aware of the challenges. It’s getting harder to justify and individual partners are becoming much more aware that they can’t just be offloaded.’

‘WFW are grateful to Mark Prevezer for his work over many years. The parties wish each other well for the future,’ the WFW spokesperson concluded.

nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk

The post WFW and former real estate head settle £300k High Court claim appeared first on Legal Business.

Watson Farley & Williams (WFW) is set to hire Titus Edjua, director of Clifford Chance’s (CC) Africa group, to boost its project finance capabilities.

According to a source, one other lawyer is due to be joining WFW from CC as part of the same move, but this has not been confirmed by either firm. He is set to start at WFW on 1 April.

Edjua’s arrival will enhance WFW’s already-standout project finance practice, which in London includes heavyweight partners such as Evan Stergoulis and David Osborne, both of whom have considerable clout in the sector.

Edjua brings his own wealth of experience: in his 13 years at CC, he advised on a range of notable mandates, including representing Overseas Private Investment Corporation on the project financing of the expansion of the Olkaria III geothermal power complex in Kenya. In terms of other key work, he acted for a number of sponsors in connection with a 50MW solar PV project in Uganda.

For CC, it is another blow to its infrastructure offering. In August last year, the highly-regarded Brendan Moylan left the firm to join Latham & Watkins, after a 19-year tenure at CC.

Then in November, highly rated infrastructure private equity partner Amy Mahon left for Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in another knock to the Magic Circle firm.

As one key hire comes through the door for WFW, another exits. Latham & Watkins announced today that it has hired WFW’s employment partner Anne Kleffman in Germany. Kleffmann, who had been a partner with WFW since 2013, will join Latham & Watkins’ Munich office.

Both WFW and CC declined to comment.

tom.baker@legalease.co.uk

The post Watson Farley & Williams makes major City energy play with Clifford Chance Africa director appeared first on Legal Business.

Watson Farley & Williams (WFW) has re-elected its management duo for a further five years.

Chris Lowe and Lothar Wegener (pictured right to left) have been re-elected as the UK firm’s managing partners for a second term, beginning 15 January next year. The pair have held the roles since January 2014, with WFW’s revenue up 60% over the last five years, one of the strongest performances among a top 50 UK practice.

The re-elections coincide with the 500-lawyer firm posting a 2018/19 half-year revenue of £85.9m, the same as last year. Fees paid were down slightly to £74.6m from £76.1m, however. Wegener said the firm was nevertheless on track to meet its annual growth target of at least 5%.

In July, WFW said revenue for the 2017/18 full-year was £162.9m, up 3% on the previous record-breaking period when revenue grew 20%.

Lowe commented: ‘We are energised at the prospect of a further term. Our re-election represents a strong commitment by the firm to its investment culture together with the ambition to achieve sustainable quality growth.’

WFW also announced today (14 December) that it had hired Ince & Co’s head of Greek law, George Iatridis, in Greece. He follows other former Ince partners Antonis Lagadianos and Evangelos Catsambas, who join WFW next year. The shipping and disputes specialist Ince is currently gearing up for a merger with listed law firm Gordon Dadds.

WFW, which specialises in serving the energy, transport and real estate sectors, has been one of the UK’s leading mid-tier firms in recent years, and was profiled alongside Fieldfisher and Osborne Clarke (OC) in Legal Business’ ‘Reversal of fortunes’ cover feature in 2017. Fieldfisher announced its half-year results last month, revealing a 26% uptick in revenue to £97m.

hamish.mcnicol@legalease.co.uk

For more on Watson Farley see last year’s cover feature, Reversal of fortunes (£)

The post Watson Farley management get second term as half-year revenue comes in flat appeared first on Legal Business.

One of the UK’s leading ‘pacey’ mid-tier firms, Watson Farley & Williams (WFW), has seen its revenue growth rate fall to 3% following a record-breaking year.

The energy, transport and real estate specialist recorded an above-trend revenue growth of 20% to reach £159.8m last year. A modest 3% increase this year, by contrast, pushes WFW’s top line to £162.9m.

Despite the slowdown, co-managing partner Chris Lowe (pictured) was pleased with the result, oddly defining his sentiment with emojis: ‘If the result was an emoji, it wouldn’t be the full beaming toothy smile one, it would be slightly less smiley.’

Lowe confirmed that WFW’s PEP figure dropped from last year’s figure of roughly £600,000 but attributed this to the 11 lateral hires the firm made – nearly double last year’s number. He also noted that the revenue figure was ‘currency neutral’, unlike last year when half of the firm’s 20% growth was due to exchange rate fluctuations.

Lowe told Legal Business: ‘It’s in line with what we budgeted for and it’s off the back of a strong, record-breaking year. We recognised that as the firm is growing we needed to make investments through promotions and lateral hires.’

The firm made some key lateral hires over the last year, notably regulatory specialist Thomas Ross from Ropes & Gray in December 2017. The new hire was part of an effort to build out the firm’s finance disputes practice, with an emphasis on white-collar matters.

Conversely, WFW lost four partners to Herbert Smith Freehills in April, including aviation specialist Rex Rosales.

Other major investments over the last year included an association in Singapore, through a formal law alliance (FLA) with local firm Wong Tan & Molly Lim (WTL). The FLA allows WFW integrated marketing, billing, client and legal services. Around 25% of the firm’s business comes from Asia.

WFW, one of three firms alongside Fieldfisher and Osborne Clarke (OC) to be profiled in our ‘Reversal of fortunes’ feature, has recorded results that compare unfavourably with its mid-tier rivals.

Fieldfisher laid down another outstanding marker with a 24% revenue growth rate, while OC saw turnover jump by 14%. For OC, it confirmed a five-year average of double-digit revenue growth.

On the comparison with OC and Fieldfisher, Lowe said: ‘In many ways we do compare ourselves to them, but one of the big differences this year is that their sector focuses in IT meant they benefitted from GDPR work. We weren’t afforded the same luxury in our sectors.’

tom.baker@legalease.co.uk

The post Watson Farley using fewer smiley emojis as revenue growth falls back following strong run appeared first on Legal Business.

‘The Dickensian management role of closed doors is a thing of the past.’

Jonathan Kewley, partner and co-head of Clifford Chance’s tech group. Made up in 2017

What attracted you to partnership?

I’m working in tech, a space that didn’t exist 30 years ago. There are challenges facing clients that didn’t exist five years ago. The tech environment fits with the character traits of partnership. You have to be entrepreneurial, and it’s more exciting to be that way. It maintains interest.

What were your experiences of making partner?

The process at CC is built on a military model. It’s very gruelling. You get tested on marketing and speaking to clients, and having a global view on that. You get a role in the strategy of the firm straight away.

Is partnership harder for Millennials?

Millennials want more information and control of their careers. The Dickensian management role of closed doors and not asking the opinion of junior partners is a thing of the past.

I think about what it must have been like for partners who grew up without owning a BlackBerry, the world of fax machines and typewriters. You could think about that longingly. On the other hand, it is a dynamic job and technology offers greater flexibility. Clients don’t care where people work, especially in the tech business. Clients are changing and we are too.

What are the challenges?

There are problems with diversity in tech, questions as to why more women aren’t going into it. There needs to be more men advocating female partners – it’s a role for us too. I’m determined to make a big difference there.

‘I had to be passionate about what I did. Partnership was a consequence of that.’

Tara Waters, corporate partner at Ashurst. Made up in 2018

How did you get into law?

I graduated in 2000, studied design and electronic art in New York. I taught myself to code. Those skills were in high demand, it was the height of the dot-com boom.

A friend left to go to law school and convinced me my skills would translate into law. I found I could train in the US and work in other countries. That sounded awesome. I chose London because I’m a city girl and I’m hugely into music, art and the tech scene, obviously.

How does law compare with your previous career?

In New York in the tech industry I worked with a lot of other women. It was unusual to have meetings where it’s almost always men in the room. But I’ve never let it be a problem because I’ve never questioned my value as a woman. I like being able to show clients that I am the person in the room who knows their business fully.

Why did you want to be a partner?

Becoming a partner wasn’t a be-all and end-all goal, but I didn’t question my ability to function as a partner. I had to be passionate about what I did and tried to create that. Partnership was a consequence of that ambition, rather than the goal in itself.

How is being a partner different?

There is a lot more strategic thinking, building client relationships and winning business. I’ve made a conscious effort to build a team so that I can do those things. Before I was doing networking in my personal time. Now I have the luxury to spend the working day doing that.

How has your background impacted your career?

Ashurst refocused on the growth areas of tech. I had unique skills. I was able to raise my hand and differentiate myself. My tech background meant I was used to rolling up my sleeves. I have been very active in the local ecosystem. It’s so important to build your network.

‘There is much more emphasis on taking charge of your career.’

Peter Banks, corporate partner at Allen & Overy. Made up in 2017

Why did you want to be a lawyer?

I studied law at university but didn’t necessarily think I would become a lawyer. I’m interested in businesses; I like economics and understanding what companies do and how they work. Corporate law was a good fit for that.

Did you always want to be a partner?

I liked being a senior associate. I looked at the role of partner and asked myself whether I wanted it. I could see the parts of my job as a senior associate that I found most fulfilling getting bigger, especially developing client relationships and building the team. I enjoy interacting with people. I did weigh up other options. I wouldn’t have carried on if I didn’t enjoy it.

Does partnership still have the same prestige?

Yes. It is my proudest professional moment. It is a very enabling status. It shows you’ve reached a stage in your career and clients respect it.

How have attitudes to partnership changed?

There is still a perception that if you don’t want to be a partner it shows a lack of ambition, but that’s changing. People are much more vocal about their careers and there is increasing openness if partnership is not what you want.
People are much more aware of other avenues.

At A&O, some join alternative delivery businesses Peerpoint or aosphere. You can progress in the organisation without being a partner. There is much more emphasis on taking charge of your career. It’s a conscious decision, not just floating into something.

How has life changed now you’re a partner?

What is surprising is how much you immediately feel the ownership of the business. I have more visibility and more of a view on the pinch points but there is less of a sense of finishing a deal and going quiet for a while. Now you’re always straight onto the next thing.

‘There are massive benefits to people saying: “This is what I want with my career.”’

Dan Saunders, corporate partner at Watson Farley & Williams. Made up in 2017

What is your career history?

As you can tell I’m a Kiwi! I moved to Singapore with my wife and got a job with WFW in 2007. About six years ago I moved to London. I have been working here ever since.

What have been the biggest changes you’ve noticed since becoming a partner?

There’s more involvement in overall strategy and the hiring and pastoral care of associates – the latter being something I’m passionate about. There’s also a lot more admin. That’s not a gripe, just a fact of life.

You don’t really become the guy in charge, you become the bottom of a bigger pile. We have lovely associates but also lovely partners. I thought there would be a bit of a bedding-in period because I’m a fair bit younger than everyone else. From day one I was treated as an equal around the table.

How would you describe the typical ‘Millennial’ lawyer?

I went to my first partner meeting this year and I did a session called ‘how to treat Millennials’. I was born in 1985, and was surprised when told: ‘We count Millennials as anyone born after 1980.’

Millennials question people. There are massive benefits to people saying ‘This is what I want with my career’; it’s someone who knows where they are going. It takes a lot of thought to think about how to benefit from the different traits Millennials have but it’s worth it.

‘It’s different to 15 years ago when old white men would invite friends to the golf course.’

Valerie Kenyon, litigation partner at Hogan Lovells. Made up in 2018

What’s your career history?

I went to Oxford, and was the first person in my family to go to university. Having been impressed by the vacation scheme at Lovells I applied for a trainee scheme then qualified in February 2010. My first day at the firm was the day the firm became Hogan Lovells!

Have you always wanted to be a partner?

I remember looking at what the partners were doing and thinking it included so much travel and looked so complicated. Clients were calling them without even knowing who they are.

Have you noticed any changes since becoming a partner?

I started getting invited to conferences and people start noticing who you are. There’s an imposter-feeling at first.

What do you enjoy about your job?

I’ve always loved being part of the clients’ trusted team. Whether I’m talking to a client’s legal, engineering, marketing or design team it’s an easy conversation if you keep in mind that a great deal of what we do is about building trust and relationships. It’s a given that lawyers at top law firms in the City excel at providing legal advice: there’s got to be more to it than that to build a team and a strong and exciting client base. It’s different to 15 years ago when old white men would invite their friends to the golf course. If you recognise the business world has changed and what was successful 15 years ago is unlikely to be today, you’ll pick up more client relationships.

Do you identify as a Millennial?

I identify very much not as fuddy-duddy middle class. I was the sort of person who at university thought ‘I’m going to come up with loads of cool business ideas!’ but none of them came to fruition.

Was it difficult to transition from an associate social group to a partner one?

You become part of management and you have to be respectful of your senior associates having space to let off steam! You want them to look after each other and feel like colleagues.

Please click here to return to the Partnership Special menu

The post Partnership Perspectives appeared first on Legal Business.