Perspectives: Dan Neidle

Why did you decide to become a lawyer and – why tax?

I studied physics at university because I thought I was brilliant at maths. Then I hit the wall of my maths ability about two weeks into the degree so I decided I wanted to be a crusading criminal barrister. I then made the mistake of doing a mini-pupillage and, seeing how the criminal law impacts people’s lives, decided it wasn’t for me. Complete respect to people who can do that, but I can’t.

I then decided I wanted to be an IP litigator, and that the two best firms were Clifford Chance and Bird & Bird. Both firms binned my CV. By sheer luck, I managed to win a debating competition sponsored by CC, and then had dinner next to the senior partner. Fifteen years later, I discovered that the next morning he asked graduate recruitment to take my CV out of the bin and give me an interview.

My discovery of tax was equally haphazard. I was doing a seat in banking, which was fantastic, albeit I worked harder than at any other time in my life. My supervising partner, the wonderful Rob Lee, suggested I might do well in a tax seat. To my utter shock and horror, I enjoyed it and ended up qualifying into tax. It was something of a source of personal embarrassment for years. People would literally run away from me at parties if I said I was a tax lawyer. My wife claims it was only six months into our relationship that she found out what I did for a living. I have come to terms with that. Not sure if my wife has.

What were your career highlights at Clifford Chance?

The problem with being a tax lawyer is that the biggest obstacles you have to overcome are generally things that you can’t talk about. I have one exception. I was closely involved in structuring Citibank’s enforcement, acquisition, restructuring and eventual auction and sale of EMI. It was an amazing transaction for a whole host of reasons. And, even though it’s now 12 years ago, it’s probably the most fondly remembered transaction of my career. It had everything: a soap opera background, multiple difficult issues in multiple difficult jurisdictions, a wonderful client, brilliant colleagues and, ultimately, a great result for the client.

Aside from deals, the highlight is the partner made up to succeed to most of my practice, Jemma Dick. She’s amazing and deserves all the success she’s already achieved, one year in.

What makes a good tax lawyer?

Being good at tax is quite important. Other than that, I think it’s a mistake to think there is a particular set of skills, or personality type, that makes a successful tax lawyer. Chris Davies, Doug French, David Harkness and Jonathan Elman are the four tax partners I learnt the most from, and they are four very different people, with very different skillsets and personalities. What’s probably hard these days is to be a very reserved academic type, who isn’t comfortable with clients, and still make partner. That used to be possible but in the modern world I’m doubtful that it is. In many ways that’s a shame.

Why did you leave private practice?

It’s a pretty boring and clichéd story of reassessing priorities during a challenging lockdown. I realised that while I loved my job, I didn’t need to do it any longer from a financial point of view. That was an absurdly privileged position to be in, but if you’re doing something because you enjoy it and not for the money, then it’s not a job. It’s a hobby. And being head of tax at a City law firm is a really strange hobby. Quite a selfish one too. So, from the moment of that realisation, there wasn’t really a decision to make.

And what was the motivation for setting up Tax Policy Associates?

It would be easy to say that I did it to make a difference, to nudge tax policy in a slightly better direction, and to act as a corrective to what I think most tax lawyers see as a generally poor-quality public debate on tax.

That’s all true, but my primary motivation was that I needed to continue to be a lawyer because psychologically I enjoy it, I’m good at it, and I think it’s good for me.

It was just a question of how exactly I’d do it. After lots of conversations with lots of different people, I concluded the best model would be one where I tap into all of the friends and contacts I had made over 25 years in practice. So I’d always be working in association with other people who would usually have more subject matter expertise than I did. That was the idea behind Tax Policy Associates.

What do you regard as your biggest accomplishment at TPA and why?

Identifying that there was a serious tax problem with the compensation for the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal, and being part of the campaign to fix it. That ended up with the government agreeing to fund about £36m pounds of ‘top-up’ payments to postmasters to undo the tax mess the Post Office had dumped them in. Many other campaigners and MPs were also involved, and we were pushing at an open door: full credit to Kevin Hollinrake, the responsible Minister, who responded within hours of our first report on the subject to say that the government would act.

What prompted your decision to look into the affairs of Nadhim Zahawi?

I got onto Zahawi because I’d been looking into reports that various other Conservative Party leadership contenders had avoided tax. These reports were rubbish and I was getting a little bored of that when The Independent ran an incredible front page saying that Zahawi had been the subject of investigations by HMRC and the National Crime Agency. This was just after he was appointed Chancellor.

The unusual thing about Zahawi was that YouGov, which we thought was his main source of wealth, had been listed years earlier. So there was an amazing quantity of high quality legal and accounting documentation on the history of YouGov (thank you, Mishcon de Reya, for a really high-quality piece of work). This let me put the pieces together in much the same way as if I was looking at a transaction for a client. And just as one occasionally looks at a transaction and immediately sees a problem, I immediately saw that there was something very strange going on. That initial review only took half a day. Proving it by going through all of the historic documentation took rather longer and involved many more people.

Were there moments when you regretted your decision to stand firm and publish Osborne Clarke’s letter?

When I first received the Osborne Clarke threat and had an initial discussion with defamation counsel, my wife and I were definitely concerned about the potential to lose a year of my life and hundreds of thousands of pounds if we won a libel suit. Potentially millions if we lost.

But we both decided quite quickly, and after speaking to a lot of very experienced tax people, that Zahawi was bluffing. There were so many highly questionable elements of his financial affairs that it seemed inconceivable that he would be willing to provide disclosure or be cross-examined. So it was just a legal game and I am a very bad person to challenge to a legal game.

How do your former private practice colleagues feel about your calls for HMRC to tax partners in law firms and other professional services firms in the same way as employees?

I confess to having been slightly provocative here. I have a serious point that I very much believe though, which is that it is indefensible that we tax employment income so much higher than self-employment income. That should absolutely be fixed and law firm partners and plumbers should be taxed in the same way as bankers and teachers. That would be more fair and it would also eliminate what is currently a huge distortion that creates uncertainty, tax avoidance and tax evasion.

It’s politically difficult, but can be done, for example staged over a ten year period, with national insurance dropping by 1% every year, and income tax going up by (probably) around 0.8%. Eventually eliminating employer’s national insurance as well. For most people, that would be a rise in take-home pay. For law firm partners, a slight decrease – but I reckon they can live with it. I’m confident the profession is 100% behind me on this.

Would you ever return to private practice?

I loved private practice, but I think that’s now behind me.

What are your next goals at TPA?

I’m trying to continue to highlight what I think is a very serious – and under-reported – problem of HMRC automated late-filing penalties being issued to hundreds of thousands of people on incomes so low that they don’t actually have any tax to pay. Often, these are people with difficult lives, in difficult circumstances, and the state should be supporting them – not making their financial circumstances even worse. My goal is to change that, and return to how things were before 2011, when late filing penalties were capped at the amount of tax due.

What new hobbies have you taken up since leaving CC and moving to the countryside?

Growing tomatoes.

What do you think is the single biggest change that needs to happen in the UK tax system and why?

Tax exemption for tomato growers.

Dan Neidle founded Tax Policy Associates after retiring from Clifford Chance in May 2022.

Pillar to post

After an extended and often troubled development, the OECD’s new ‘global minimum tax’ is at last coming to fruition. With adoptees including South Korea and Japan, and the Council of the European Union in addition to the UK government announcing plans to follow suit by the end of 2023, the prospect of Pillar Two, long seen as distant and perhaps uncertain, is now ever more tangible. Continue reading “Pillar to post”

Firm profile: Vieira de Almeida

About VdA’s tax team

VdA’s tax practice has unique analytical abilities and is best known for structuring efficient innovative structures within a highly scrutinised and regulated environment, in every market where our clients operate. We are pragmatic and agile, working in cross-practice tailor-made teams that focus on the relevant demands of each matter and jurisdiction.

Our team steadily increased its involvement in the most relevant transactions taking place in the Portuguese-speaking markets or involving several jurisdictions, as well as in key cross-border transactions within the scope of VdA Legal Partners, comprising a wide range of sectors, particularly energy, financial sector (including banking, insurance, and asset management), real estate, infrastructure, healthcare, life sciences and information and communications technology.

VdA provides tax advice in more than 20 countries, with VdA Legal Partners’ local offices in seven Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa, as well as in East-Timor. The team is part of the leading international tax network WTS Global, with representation in over 100 countries, offering a full range of tax services and aspiring to be the pre-eminent non-audit tax practice worldwide.

About VdA Legal Partners

VdA Legal Partners stands for all lawyers and independent law firms associated with Vieira de Almeida for the provision of integrated legal services in Africa and Timor-Leste.

Through VdA Legal Partners, clients have access to a team of 330 lawyers across seven jurisdictions, who deliver consistent quality of service and sectorial coverage.

We offer a unique combination of world class know-how and in-depth knowledge of each local situation. Each file entrusted to us is assigned to teams comprised of lawyers specialising in the relevant sector and lawyers residing in the relevant jurisdiction, who can effectively follow-up on the matter locally.

Meet the partners

Firm profile: Lee & Ko


About Lee & Ko’s tax practice

Lee & Ko’s tax practice group is comprised of over 100 of Korea’s most renowned tax professionals, including former Supreme Court tax research judges, seasoned Korean and foreign attorneys with a wide range of transactional and litigation tax experience, as well as tax-focused certified public accountants (CPAs), many with extensive experience at top-tier law firms and ‘Big Four’ global accounting firms.

We are supported by senior advisers, including former government ministers, such as a former official from the Ministry of Economy and Finance in charge of drafting international tax law, a former commissioner of the National Tax Service as well as other high-ranking officers from the National Tax Service, Korea Customs Service and other governmental agencies. Our senior advisers have vast experience with regulatory tax issues, tax rulings and working with the government to draft and revise tax legislation and regulations. We are ranked a Tier 1 tax practice by The Legal 500 as well as many other reputable international ranking organisations.

One-stop solutions and tax expertise

As a fully integrated tax practice group, we maintain the highest practice standards to provide industry-specific solutions so that our clients can stay ahead of current market trends. Our tax practice group provides seamless service to our valued clients for a wide range of matters, including:

  • tax appeals and litigation;
  • general tax consulting and advisory services;
  • international tax planning and structuring – inbound and outbound;
  • tax audit defence and pre-tax audit review;
  • inheritance and gift tax planning for high-net-worth individuals and families;
  • transfer pricing;
  • advance pricing agreement and mutual agreement procedure assistance;
  • tax due diligence, transaction and structuring review;
  • tax ruling requests and tax legislative consulting; and
  • tax compliance.

About Lee & Ko

Founded in 1977, Lee & Ko is one of the largest full-service law firms in Korea. Comprising of more than 860 professionals and organized into eight practice groups and 80 speciality teams, we offer one-stop solutions, providing our clients with responsive, effective and practical solutions to their legal issues.

Our excellent reputation for trustworthiness and reliability has been built on a foundation of judiciously maintaining time-proven practices and giving priority to substance over appearance. While valuing innovation that brings genuine improvement, the firm continues to eschew attention-getting gimmicks and novelty. Our key values are specialisation/expertise, professionalism and full consideration for each client’s needs. We are committed to doing our utmost to at all times conduct ourselves in the role of Korea’s leading law firm in a socially responsible and positive way.

Lee & Ko is ranked ‘Top Tier’, ‘Band 1’ or ‘Outstanding’ by all prestigious law firm and tax practice ranking organisations. Lee & Ko has won many awards and earned wide recognition as a top law firm in Korea throughout our long history.

Meet the partners

Interview with… Patricia Barclay, President, Cicero

How has the pandemic and the flexi-working revolution affected the network model?

A feature of our network has always been close personal relationships. We meet as a group twice a year and many members meet up both professionally and socially in between so not being able to get together was a challenge. Like individual firms we tried to keep in touch with online meetings. Although it was good to see people it was certainly not the same as physically getting together and having the “water cooler” moments between formal meetings that are the natural result of a physical meeting. Online meetings tended to be more formal and focussed which meant that some of the serendipitous opportunities were missed. One good thing that did come out of this was that we all became more adept at managing online meetings and realised their potential. Post covid although our normal meetings have returned we have continued to use regular online meetings for subject specific working groups

How are networks adapting to fit into the post-covid world?

We have definitely seen some changes. Many firms have reassessed their business model and in some cases have sought to change the focus of their work or to seek mergers. A number of older partners have decided to retire and tragically one of our members lost a number of colleagues to covid. We have to address not only a desire for different working models within our firms but also that clients have changed how they want to work. Business has become less formal and much more has moved online. Because of the ease of bringing people together online we are seeing more teams coming to the “meeting” when in the past it might be just one or two people. While this may have advantages in some situations it does tend to make meetings longer!

What are the key differentiators your network offers?

Cicero has a close relationship with Clarkson Hyde Global an accountancy network greatly simplifying cross border deals. We also have a Junior League where up and coming lawyers who are not yet partners can start to develop the global network to support their future careers. They

can learn about other jurisdictions and in some cases spend some time in the offices of other members. There is an added advantage for juniors in smaller firms in that it gives them people of their own age to share ideas and concerns with that they may not be so comfortable discussing with older people in their own firm

· Have client perceptions of networks shifted in recent years? Clients are becoming more cost conscious which will naturally guide them towards networks rather than going to a major international firm with its own offices around the world as they perceive that as being more expensive but if they do choose a network they want to be confident that the project can still be run smoothly and that their usual lawyer who knows their business can oversee the international aspects.

What are some of the key issues currently facing clients and how are networks positioned to deal with them?

Costs are probably the biggest concern for most clients. They are looking to work smarter and want to see that their advisors are too. The growing costs of doing business may mean they are looking to structure their deals differently or may have put off hiring additional people so may be struggling to handle the logistics of the transaction. A lawyer who really knows their business can help them explore their options and can also take on much of the management of the transaction. Midsized businesses may only go to a major global firm occasionally so no matter how engaged that lawyer they are unlikely to understand the business in the same way as their usual lawyer however if that usual lawyer is active in a network then they can provide those services directly and there is no need to bring in a global firm

What do networks offer that global firms do not?

A network can offer more choice. A global firm will normally be obliged to send work to its own colleagues in other countries while with a network the client’s usual lawyer that knows their needs can make a judgement as to whether the network partner is suited to addressing that issue or whether an alternative supplier should be instructed – often with the help of the local partner who can help identify someone with the appropriate skills. There is also usually a cost benefit in going to a network where you can expect to be charged at local rates and not at a blended international rate

What types of work are increasingly being won by networks over firms without such connections?

This will vary from market to market but ambitious companies who are looking to grow from their home territory but perhaps lack the overseas contacts to hire lawyers locally are attracted to firms that can handle that for them. Even if they do not yet have international work they may well be planning for the future and see outward looking firms as reflecting their own ambitions and able to handle their work over the long term

How are networks changing the way that they promote themselves?

At one time I think there was a tendency to promote a network by the number of members it had or the number of jurisdictions it covered but clients are much more sophisticated now and are more interested in whether the network will work for them rather than the fact that it can offer support in a country they are unlikely to ever trade in. What you need to show is that the firms in the network have key features in common so that if a client is happy with one firm they can be confident that they will get the same sort of service from similar firms in the rest of the network.

There is of course the whole question about whether you promote the network or the individual firm. This is something that we have discussed as a network and the clear preference was to promote individual firms rather than the network. One of the strengths of the network is that our members while sharing common values have distinct personalities of their own and we would not like to lose that with everyone subsumed under the same branding Membership of our network is a feature of our member firms rather than the individual firms being features of the network. Our clients tend to be independent businesses with hands on owners and they are attracted to our more boutique individualistic members

What types of firms should be considering joining a network?

If you have clients with international ambitions then a network may be beneficial for you. Being able to offer clients assistance around the world from people that you actually know well rather than firms you have found through a directory or occasionally at conferences is hugely valued by clients. As with most things however you get out what you put in. More active members tend to reap greater benefits – other members get to know them and what they can offer however it goes beyond referrals. Being an active member of a network is an opportunity to learn from others, to organise joint events and tenders and to pick up new ideas. It may also be seen as a defensive move: firms in small jurisdictions are unlikely to pick up as many referrals as say a US member but by showing clients that they are outwards looking and can cover cross border projects they give themselves an advantage over others in their home market

What is the future for the network model – which networks are best positioned to thrive in future?

Firstly you need to consider what do you mean by thrive? It has to be more than just having a large group of members or counting how many referrals are made. A thriving group has to have members that are active and that are getting value from their membership. This could be from overseas in comparison to local competitors or it could be from the sharing of business ideas with similar firms. We like to think it is a combination of all these things and are constantly looking as a board at how we increase value.

Your England-based member firm is currently Surrey-based firm Downs Solicitors. Tell us more about that relationship – would you ever consider adding other English firms to the network?

Our articles prohibit more than one member per country other than in the US where we are currently represented on both the east and west coast however that said Downs are a terrific member with a wide ranging practice so we really have no need to look elsewhere. They are used to working with international clients and provide an excellent service. Cicero rules do not oblige a member to send work exclusively to other members of the network so if some specialist service was required that Downs could not provide or if they were conflicted on a particular project the work could be referred and Downs would assist the other member in finding appropriate representation if the other member did not have a suitable contact

Cicero is affiliated with accounting network Clarkson Hyde Global. What does that relationship offer your law firm network, and how closely do the two work together?

Having a relationship with an international accounting network is very helpful as it means we can quickly pull teams together for cross border projects. The relationship has grown over the years and we now share marketing resources and attend each others conferences and social events. This autumn we are taking the relationship a step further with a joint conference in Vilnius where in addition to our own sessions we will be offering local businesses an opportunity to meet and get advice from lawyers and accounts from across our two networks. This is an exciting innovation and has come out of the close working relationship between our respective member firms in Lithuania. In many countries our offices are regular collaborators as one can open doors to the other. In Norway the two businesses even share offices

What have been the most recent law firm additions to the network, and what was the thinking behind those moves?

Our most recent additions have been Morris Law in Sweden and Lex Ajia in India. Morris Law are regular collaborators with Hulaas, our Norwegian member so when a vacancy arose it was natural that we should invite them to join us. They are well known for the quality of their work and are totally aligned with our values so we were thrilled when they agreed to come on board. Lex Ajia approached us when they noticed our previous member had left due to a merger with a much larger firm. They are a young firm with strong ties with Japan where we are also seeing business growth so we look forward to their insights on the potential there too.

Regulations on Standard Contract for Cross-border Personal Information Transfer in China

One of the legal bases for a personal information processor to export personal information is to execute a contract with an overseas recipient based on a standard contract enacted by Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) according to the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. On February 22, 2023, CAC issued the Regulations on Standard Contract for Cross-border Personal Information Transfer (“Regulations”) with a standard contract attached, which will come into force on June 1, 2023, aiming to better protect personal information by specifying procedures and requirements for exporting personal information overseas.

1. Conditions to Use Standard Contract

A personal information processor may cross-border transfer personal information through executing a standard contract only when all the following conditions are met:

  • ·It is not a critical information infrastructure operator;
  • It processes not more than one million individuals’ personal information;
  • It has accumulatively transferred abroad personal information of not more than 100,000 individuals since January 1 of the preceding year; and
  • It has accumulatively transferred abroad sensitive personal information of not more than 10,000 individuals since January 1 of the preceding year.

The Regulations expressly prohibit processors from circumventing mandatory CAC-led security review by splitting volume of personal information and executing standard contracts.

2. Prior Impact Assessment

Processors should conduct a personal information protection impact assessment prior to cross-border transfer of personal information, focusing on the following:

· whether the purpose, scope and means of personal information processing of the pressor and the overseas recipient are lawful, fair and necessary;

· the volume, scope, categories and sensitivity of personal information to be transferred abroad, and risks to legitimate rights and interests of individuals;

· obligations that the overseas recipient undertakes to perform; whether managerial and technical measures and capability for performing such obligations can ensure the security of personal information to be transferred abroad;

· risks of personal information falsification, damage, leakage, loss, abuse after cross-border transfer; whether individuals may easily defend their rights and interests with respect to their personal information;

· the impact on the performance of standard contract by the personal information protection policies and laws in the country/region of the overseas recipient; and

· other matters that may affect the security of personal information transferred abroad.

3. Standard Contract

The Regulations require processors to enter into their standard contracts strictly in accordance with the one released by CAC while they are free to add their discretionary clauses which however shall not conflict with the standard contract clauses.

The Regulations further underscore that processors shall not transfer personal information abroad unless and until the standard contract has become effective.

The standard contract released by CAC mainly includes the following:

  • basic information of the personal information processor and the overseas recipient, including but not limited to name, address, name and contact information of contact person, etc.;
  • description of personal information cross-border transfer, including the processing purpose, means of processing, quantity, types, storage period, storage place, etc. of personal information to be transferred abroad;
  • obligations that the personal information processor and the overseas recipient undertake to perform for protecting personal information, as
  • well as the technical and managerial measures adopted to prevent the possible security risks arising from the cross-border transfer of personal information;
  • impact on the performance of the terms of the standard contract by the personal information protection polices and laws in the country or region where the overseas recipient is located;
  • rights of personal information subjects, as well as approaches and means to safeguard the rights of personal information subjects;
  • remedy, contract termination, liability for breach of contract and dispute resolution, etc.

4. Filing with CAC

Personal information processors should file the standard contract together with the personal information protection impact assessment report with provincial-level cyberspace administration within 10 working days from the date when the standard contract takes effect.

The Regulations require personal information processors to reconduct an impact assessment, resign a standard contract and make a new filing in the event of any of the following circumstances during the term of the standard contract:

    • changes to the purpose, scope, categories, sensitivity, means, storage place of the cross-border personal information transfer; changes to use and means of processing of personal information by overseas recipient; or extension of overseas storage period of personal information;

 

Interview with… Michael Reiss von Filski, Global CEO

How has the pandemic and the flexi-working revolution affected the network model?
The pandemic has undoubtedly changed the professional services sector by pushing firms to rethink the way they establish and maintain relationships with their clients. It has also motivated firms to adapt the ways in which they operated considering the paradigm shift which was brought about by the necessity to work remotely and flexibly.

Just like any other association or network which was not operating fully remote in March 2020, here at GGI, we found ourselves suddenly in a situation where business travel was no longer possible, and which pushed us to reconsider the best ways for our members to continue to connect. GGI has always provided several digital tools, activities, and projects to foster the exchange of business opportunities and best practices between member firms. Our first response was to develop even further our offerings and to increase the direct communications with and between our members worldwide. We invested in technology to make things easier and also to improve functionality.

Ultimately, these times of uncertainty translated to clients requiring more support from their advisors, both locally and internationally. GGI member firms were able to rely on fellow members all over the world to meet the needs of their clients, not simply because they were fellow contemporaries in the same network but also because they had remained in close contact each other virtually during the lockdowns and travel restrictions. This was a tremendous asset that our member firms could leverage from day one at a time when establishing new connections and maintaining long-distance relationships with business partners was substantially more complicated than before.

How are networks adapting to fit into the post-covid world?
We did not need to recall Charles Darwin’s famous quote to understand that the ability to adapt to a changed market was necessary for the future of GGI.

During the pandemic, we understood even better what our members, our partners, and our people need from our global alliance. We were able to outline solutions to problems that we did not know existed until just a little while before, since we had never been put in a situation which made such problems arise. We were fortunate to be able to rely upon a great team from our Swiss head office and our regional offices in Boston, Buenos Aires, Dubai and Bangkok to be the strong backbone upon which all GGI members could count at any time.

I am confident that other networks and associations went through such internal changes and developments as well, but if they did not, I either applaud them for their outstanding pre-pandemic structure or I am afraid they might not be around much longer with their old format in place in today’s fast-changing market.

What are the key differentiators your network offers?
GGI is the largest multi-disciplinary association of independent professional services firms. Our members are law, accounting, audit, tax and advisory firms from each major financial jurisdiction worldwide. In our experience, the multi-disciplinary model is extremely beneficial for both member firms and their clients, because it allows each individual member (whether a law firm or an accounting firm) to be able to support their clients with any kind of specific professional services they might require, without limiting the service-offering to a single profession. This creates considerable additional business exchange opportunities for GGI members, which would be to a certain degree quite limited if members were only law firms or only accounting/advisory firms, as might be the case for other groups.

Our global alliance also has a particular focus on M&A and investment banking services, highlighted by the establishment few years ago of a special M&A unit called Geneva Capital Group (GCG, www.gcg.com), the members of which are M&A boutiques and investment banking firms. GCG members have concluded more than 5,000 transactions, with a cumulative value of over USD 77 billion and a 30% cross-border rate. The connection to GGI allows GCG members to take advantage of GGI’s global presence of lawyers, accountants, tax advisers and business consultants, and to originate considerable cross-border M&A opportunities. GGI is also the first global alliance to have achieved a CSR accreditation with CSR-A (https://csr-accreditation.co.uk/), a UK-based organisation providing independent validation and recognition of an organisation’s socially responsible activities. Our motivation to become a sustainability-accredited company comes from our wish to drive change within the professional services sector, highlighting how we as an organisation and our members can adopt sustainability practices.

Have client perceptions of networks shifted in recent years?
End-clients who are in continuous need of professional services by trusted advisers demand transparency, responsiveness, and flexibility. Ultimately, the resources which their advisers have at their disposal in terms of reach and accessibility to global services must reflect such needs, and consequently impact the perception that end-clients might have of specific networks. Certainly, the market has become even more fast-paced than ever before, with easier access to new providers who tend to offer also cutting-edge new tech-based solutions.

If we consider professional services firms as “clients” of global associations and networks, we believe the perception is pretty similar to what we mentioned before: firms need to be able to respond to fast-changing clients’ requirements which in many cases require cross-border support. In our experience, the independence and flexibility offered by GGI to our members enables them to respond to their clients’ needs quite effectively, without cumbersome delays which might be the consequence of more integrated or rigid structures.

What are some of the key issues currently facing clients and how are networks positioned to deal with them?
The most evident aspect that networks and associations assist their clients with addressing is their need for cross-border support by reliable firms, without the need to invest more time and resources into vetting such partners.

Integrated networks address this by establishing a global group composed in many cases of single-branded offices which are immediately recognisable and which feature similar standards, policies, and rates. The downside of such structures are the lower degree of flexibility that can be provided to clients, and the average higher fees charged.

Alliances and associations of independent firms (like GGI) offer a similar solution whilst at the same time guaranteeing their member firms are able to maintain their own brands, policies, and fee structures, which they have built in the course of many years. Clients can benefit greatly from such structures, as it represents a very efficient and competitive alternative to global networks.

An additional benefit for GGI members is the multi-disciplinary approach, which integrated networks do not openly offer. This enables our members to pitch for global mandates by being able to leverage the membership in our global alliance, in cooperation with fellow member firms from any of the jurisdictions required.

How are networks changing the way that they promote themselves?
Networks position themselves as an efficient alternative to global firms, offering independent practices and the opportunity to be perceived as a global firm whilst avoiding having to reshape their entire business model, depending on the degree of integration that a firm desires to achieve (networks becoming less attractive the lower such a degree might be).

A global alliance like GGI is particularly attractive for long-established firms which are leaders in their specific market and which need to continuously refer business to similar reputable, reliable and like-minded firms abroad, whilst maintaining their full independence with no risk for potential vicarious liability.

This trend seems to be still rather strong to us, but as we said before, networks and associations alike need to be responsive and prepared for sudden changes which might push them to reconsider the way they promote themselves.

What types of firms should be considering joining a network?
Global associations and networks respond to a specific challenge that professional services firms face regularly: whom to rely upon when clients are in need for support in different jurisdictions.

By having in place a professionally tested approval membership vetting process, global associations and networks set their own standards that members can rely upon in order to overcome the time and resources needed to identify and eventually trust other firms that one might have not worked with before.

The next aspect to focus on when evaluating joining an association or network is to define the degree of independence that the firm intends to keep after joining. Being the leading multi-disciplinary association of independent professional services firms, GGI is the go-to alliance for well-established firms which want to maintain their full independence whilst being able to leverage an outstanding and extensive network of reputable law, accounting, and advisory firms worldwide.

What is the future for the network model – which networks are best positioned to thrive in future?

We see a strong trend towards consolidation in the market, with firms actively acquiring smaller practices in order to expand in new locations, and associations and networks alike trying to merge or to take over smaller groups.

At GGI, we strongly believe that our multi-disciplinary approach provides what firms need in order to thrive in the current fast-paced environment, enabling firms to pitch potential new clients by offering a more flexible approach, as opposed to more integrated or single-profession-focused groups.

GGI is different to other legal networks in that it has a multidisciplinary model, comprising accounting and consulting firms as well as law firms. What types of clients is this model particularly attractive to (as opposed to those who would turn to a more conventional law firm network)?

By being part of a multi-disciplinary association, GGI members worldwide are able to support their clients with literally any type of professional services they might need. This model is particularly attractive to firms’ clients who have strong international needs (multinational companies, entrepreneurs and business owners, HNWI and UHNWI, and so on), which represent the largest share of our members’ client-base.

On the other hand, firms which operate mainly locally and whose clients do not require any cross-border services, would probably not see a multi-disciplinary association as the right fit for them.

Your England-based member firm is currently Ward Hadaway. Tell us more about that relationship – would you ever consider adding other English firms to the network?

Ward Hadaway has been a member of GGI since 2013. It is one of the UK’s Top 100 law firms and a major player in the North of England with offices in Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle.

Robert Thompson (https://www.wardhadaway.com/our-people/robert-thompson/), Partner and Head of Corporate) sits in the GGI Executive Committee and has recently taken over the role as Global Chair of the GGI M&A Practice Group. Among many other outstanding achievements, he is also the General Editor of the leading practitioners’ guide “Sinclair on Warranties and Indemnities on Shares and Asset Sales” 11th Edition, widely regarded as the lawyers’ dealmaking bible, and the technical benchmark for the legal M&A community.

Besides Ward Hadaway, GGI can count also on the support of various further member accounting and advisory firms from England, namely: Haines Watts (https://www.hwca.com/), Citroen Wells (https://www.citroenwells.co.uk/), Lawrence Grant (https://www.lawrencegrant.co.uk/), USTAXFS (https://www.ustaxfs.com/), Cork Gully (https://corkgully.com/), Theta Global Advisors (https://thetaglobal.co.uk/), Regent Assay (https://regentassay.com/), and Sentio Partners (https://sentiopartners.co.uk/).

We are also right now in the process of accepting a strong law firm in the London area.

GGI is of course present all over the UK (e.g. Scotland and Northern Ireland) with further member firms providing both legal and accounting/audit services.

In 2020 GGI changed its name – what was the thinking behind that move?
GGI is a recognised and well-established brand that has been built in several years since the organisation’s establishment in 1995.

As both members and management of the organisation started referring regularly to “GGI” rather than the full “Geneva Group International”, we saw the need to structure and protect more formally our brand by first renaming the organisation “GGI | Geneva Group International”, and then “GGI | Global Alliance”, which ultimately reflects more effectively the our value proposition.

One of the most recent additions to the network is Egypt-based law firm Matouk Bassiouny, which has a network of offices across the MENA region. What was the thinking behind that addition and what strengths does that firm offer?
Matouk Bassiouny is one of the most recent new member firms which we have had the pleasure of welcoming into the GGI family. With over 200 attorneys specialised in advising multinationals, corporations, financial institutions and governmental entities, Matouk Bassiouny reflects perfectly the expertise and profile of leading law firms which seek the membership in GGI in order to address their clients local and cross-border needs even more efficiently and effectively. We continuously receive requests from our member firms worldwide to establish contact with suitable advisers in the MENA region. Matouk Bassiouny will be instrumental in advising fellow GGI members with all their clients’ legal requirements from various jurisdictions.

Our goal is to be present in each major financial jurisdiction worldwide with at least a full-service law firm, an accounting/audit/tax firm, and an M&A advisory firm in order for all GGI members to be able to respond to all their clients’ needs within our global alliance. We believe we are on the right track to achieve this goal and we look forward to welcoming many new member firms from all over the world in the coming months and years.

Joining the dots

Since the late 1980s, when globalisation became a force the legal profession needed to reckon with, law firm networks have become a vital tool for independent, local outfits seeking to provide a cross-border service to their clients without the expense of opening offices.

While many international firms have expanded rapidly in their bid for global dominance, including many top UK and US players, legal networks have continued to flourish.

Adam Cooke, CEO of Multilaw, says: “when most of the networks first started coming into existence around 1990 it was assumed that the global law firms would soon grow big enough to render the network model obsolete, but for various reasons this has not happened and legal networks are here to stay”.

If proof were needed of their ability to adapt, the Covid-19 pandemic has delivered it. As Lindsay Griffiths, executive director of the International Lawyers Network, which counts 91 member firms across 67 countries, explains: “Networks have always been able to remain nimble because of our model – so pivoting to a virtual environment during the pandemic wasn’t a big shift for us; many of us were doing it already”.

This sentiment is echoed by Glenn Cunningham, chairman of Interlaw, whose 88 member firms span 79 countries.

He confirms that “pre-pandemic, we were already operating in a world where clients were increasingly requiring borderless, tech-savvy and accessible legal services providers” and that therefore “many elite global networks had already become agile, digitally enabled organisations”. Scott Guan, president of 61-member firm World Law Group, also agrees that “networks have been well-adapted for the post-Covid world since long before the pandemic”.

In practice, for many networks, the fact face-to-face meetings weren’t possible and virtual communication was de rigueur during the pandemic meant Covid proved to be a boom time, with many seeing concerted growth over this period.

At Multilaw, for example, “the pandemic era resulted in a surge of new firms joining”, according to Cooke, taking the network to 90 member firms covering 100 countries.

According to Cunningham, there were already signs that networks were challenging the status quo of the ‘traditional’ law firm model” pre-pandemic, with the organisation’s GC survey revealing that in-house teams were more focused on the quality of service than the structure of provider.

The continued drive towards globalisation additionally means that even the biggest international law firms can’t have an office everywhere – an admission acknowledged by the fact that even one of the most aggressively expansionist firms in the world – Dentons – chose to create its own global referral network in late 2016 to enhance its coverage.

In Cunningham’s eyes the pandemic “has arguably accelerated this shift, as international businesses need instant access to trusted legal experts wherever they operate, [meaning] the traditional model of global legal services is somewhat behind the aspirations of clients”.

Tech developments
So far so good. But in today’s tech-driven world, how well do networks comprising dozens of different firms, all with different IT strategies, hold up when it comes to investing in infrastructure?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those within networks stress that technology has become a watchword for networks in this post-Covid era.

For many, including Griffiths at the International Lawyers Network, the pandemic provided “the ability to try a lot of things out, to see what worked and what didn’t, and then to use successes to move forward”.

World Law Group “got creative with virtual offerings during the pandemic to help lawyers maintain existing relationships and build new ones – and those offerings have continued post-Covid”.

Multilaw, meanwhile, had its first meeting in the Metaverse in October 2022, and Cooke is sure that it won’t be the last.

Cooke stresses that it is vital for networks to embrace even more innovative technologies, and is encouraging the development of “AI, blockchain and machine learning to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and provide better services to clients”.

Aiming high
But of course, the future isn’t just virtual. The pandemic also proved the ongoing value of in-person meetings and the idea of close relationships is central to the ongoing success of the networks.

As Griffiths succinctly puts this fundamental idea: “it all comes down to being able to serve the client at the highest level because the lawyers know, like and trust each other”.

But how is that trust build in a system of inter-connected but fundamentally independent service providers? How is the quality control that engenders trust in the network model maintained?

According to Cooke: “In the past, legal networks were often viewed as a loose collection of individual law firms, with little coordination or consistency in service delivery. And that view was largely correct! However, in recent years, legal networks like ours have become more sophisticated and client-focused”.

At Multilaw, for example, there is a “rigorous vetting process for new member firms” as well as an appraisal process for existing members which “sees each member firm assessed every three years to ensure they are still a good fit for the network”. Cooke maintains he is “as proud of the number of firms we have said goodbye to during my time as CEO as of the number of new ones we have admitted”.

Griffiths, meanwhile, describes the self-regulating nature of the model, pointing out that “the firms in a network all have to do good work for each other, because if they don’t, they won’t last in the network very long”. The incentive to perform at a consistently high level is, therefore, extremely strong. In Griffiths’ view: “Network members are always having to do their best work for each other, or they’re out”.

It is this pressure on each member firm to deliver to the same standards which those within networks argue sets them apart from the big global firms.

Local Roots
As Cunningham explains: “We firmly believe that corporate ‘flag planting’ – where major firms open an office in a jurisdiction and parachute in a few lawyers in the belief that they will win work by trading on their international reputation and track record – is no substitute for the in-depth market knowledge that only established independent firms can provide, particularly for global clients”.

Guan echoes this conviction, suggesting that clients “know that when they are being cared for by a network, they are working with firms with deep roots in the local business communities in which they operate and not just someone sitting in a satellite office of a megafirm”.

This ability to tap into all the currents and intricacies of local legal markets is an advantage that networks are quick to highlight.

Cunningham believes that “clients want to know they can trust their legal provider to deliver the best service and advice, both in terms of legal knowledge and through understanding the nuances of the local culture of a specific jurisdiction”.

According to Griffiths, this is becoming ever-more important in light of the today’s uncertain geopolitical environment. In relation to the ongoing global uncertainty, she maintains that legal networks are well-placed to cope with turmoil, as they “always have somebody somewhere, and, if they don’t have a member in a location who has that expertise, they know someone who does”.

As Cooke summarises: “Legal networks can help clients navigate this complex global legal landscape by providing access to local legal expertise and resources in different markets”.

Network members highlight that in the current market – where it’s increasingly important to maintain a local outlook while also becoming increasingly widely connected globally–law firm networks need to continue growing and developing.

As such, several leaders in the space have been ramping up their membership. Both International Lawyers Network and Multilaw have recently bolstered their presences in Africa, for example, through the addition of firms based in Cameroon and Ghana, respectively.

For those firms that are still considering joining whether or not to join a network, Guan suggests that “the network model is well suited to regional or mid-size firms that are looking for both a flexible schedule and the ability to work for global clients”.

Cooke also believes that new firms and boutiques can be strong candidates for networks, adding that by joining one, “these firms can leverage the brand recognition and reputation of the network to attract new clients and grow their business”.

Membership benefits
It’s a position that many member firms agree with. Michael Pattinson (Vice-Chair of Interlaw and a partner at Trowers & Hamlins) and Peter Dernbach (Asia Pacific Chair at Winkler Partners) have both recognised the business benefits since joining Interlaw in 2014 and 2017, respectively.

In the case of Trowers, even though the firm has its own international presences across the Middle East and Malaysia, Pattinson still values the additional reach offered by Interlaw, stressing that without it Trowers would “never be in a position to have an office in every jurisdiction”.

Pattinson also highlights the fact that “these days, it’s more about having agility, resilience, and the ability to work together” affirming that “cultures are different, and we should embrace that”.

Russell Brimelow, a partner at Lewis Silkin in London, which operates as part of the specialist 51-firm employment network Ius Laboris, has noticed that the cross-border and cross-firm collaboration across jurisdictions which has long been fostered by networks has been enhanced further by the pandemic, adding that “in terms of work output, it possibly makes things even easier, as people are always on, frankly”.

Dernbach also argues that “the pandemic accelerated a number of changes that were already taking place, and now a new generation of lawyers are coming through, with a new set of skills and expectations”.

This feeds into the continued sense that firms and networks must remain hungry and competitive. For Pattinson, “one of the challenges now is to move away as far as possible from being a purely reactive referral model, to becoming a proactive, dynamic organisation that looks to create opportunities”. Brimelow, likewise, urges the need to “be more entrepreneurial and do more to dominate the market”.

Having weathered the Covid-19 storm, and flourished in the subsequent period, it is clear that law firm networks are eager to embrace the new ways of working which now characterise the legal world. As Cunningham sees it: “The pandemic has undoubtedly resulted in lasting change in how the legal sector works. For networks that were already working collaboratively and successfully across digital channels, the shift has brought a fresh perspective to the benefits of the network model”. Guan puts the case for networks even more starkly, suggesting that: “Midsize and regional firms that aren’t already part of a network will need to consider this in their strategy in the very near future, because most clients nowadays have global needs. In order to compete with megafirms, networks will be an essential part of their survival”.

Focus on… Cicero

Cicero was founded with clients in mind and our clients remain the focus of our businesses. This is central to everything we do and is reflected in our website which was designed to showcase our clients’ interests rather than simply our own offices or locations

Most of our clients are ambitious mid-sized companies where the owners are actively involved in the business. Although of course many of our members also act for public bodies or large listed organisations our core activity is supporting the owner managed business. This has implications for which firms we welcome into the network. Our typical client wants a personal relationship with a single or small group of lawyers who will manage all their affairs and even where a piece of work is handled by a different department to their usual contact they want that person to oversee the work. Our lawyers tend to have long term relationships with the client business and to develop a deep understanding of its needs so that they can anticipate what the client may require and ensure that their advice on one matter is aligned with the needs of other parts of the business. It is important that firms joining the network work in this manner and can offer pragmatic and cost effective business advice.

We are proud of how many lawyers in our network have won awards and are considered leading experts in their jurisdictions supporting both traditional industries such as banking, oil and gas, construction and real estate and the industries of the future such as space and satellite, cryptocurrencies, biotechnology and innovative foods. More unusual expertise such as the recovery of looted artworks, digital gaming, and cosmetics regulation are also well represented within the network. The network is particularly strong in arbitration and mediation which we believe in many situations offers a more appropriate method for dispute resolution than traditional litigation. Some members have been recognised internationally with awards or through invitations to advise outside their jurisdiction or to sit on international panels.

As companies expand overseas they may also need to set up a new headquarters or distribution centres in a “neutral” jurisdiction with solid governance rules and an appropriate tax regime. We are well represented in key countries and experienced in offering this type of corporate support.

Key to Cicero’s working is the close nature of the relationship between member firms. The network meets physically twice a year and special interest groups meet regularly online between meetings. The half yearly meetings are an opportunity to share news and experiences, to learn from each other and

outside experts and to get to know each other better. These meetings and the sharing of ideas takes the value of membership well beyond simply providing referrals. Different members take turns in hosting the event with costs covered in part by Cicero itself and in part by participants. It is our intention that the host not be out of pocket so that smaller members are not excluded from showcasing their country and their firm.

An exciting feature of our network is our Junior League which is designed for associates to start developing the networks that will sustain their careers in the future. They meet online and also with their own activities as part of the twice yearly meetings. We have also arranged opportunities for associates to work in the offices of other members.

Day to day management of Cicero is handled by a board elected by the members for three year terms and chaired by a President elected annually by the board.

We recognise that as our clients expand overseas they will often need accounting advice too so we have a long term partnership with Clarkson Hyde Global an accountancy network and their international partners. Representatives of CHG attend our meetings and our members can attend theirs. Autumn 2023 will see our first fully joint meeting when both networks will meet together in Vilnius. The networks share administrative support which again helps to foster a collaborative approach

Over the years the relationship within and between our networks has become very close with many warm friendships resulting which in turn as led to some regular social gatherings such as our popular annual skiing trip to Norway.

Our clients trust us to identify and often manage cross-border support. Our close relationship with our partners both in Cicero and CHG means we are able to identify appropriate assistance. Having friends on the ground means an ability to get help to find other forms of professional support.

Only one firm from each country is permitted to join Cicero with the exception of the US where we have both West and East coast representation. Through regular meetings it is hoped that referrals and cooperations will flow as people get to know each other and understand their skill set however there is no obligation to refer work to a network colleague. Over time this is something that should grow naturally but as our clients must come first members are free to send work to whomever they think can best serve their clients. We believe that this is one of the strengths we have over a large international law firm who will generally have to use a colleague. We are free to pick and choose and when we do use a network colleague we know that they will treat them as if they were their own client and will keep us in the loop to ensure ongoing joined up support. While many of our members are multilingual Cicero meetings are held in English and every member firm has good English speakers.

Cicero began in 2000 and it is a source of great pride that in spite of mergers and retirements a number of the original participants are still involved and bringing on the next generation in a spirit of collaboration and friendship to support our clients whatever their needs and wherever they may be.