Stéphane Puel: The ties that bind a partnership

How would you define your firm’s culture?

Gide has always been a pioneer on the market: for instance, we were the first French firm to set up in Brussels in 1967. Agility is also part of our culture; we have always adapted to our client’s needs with our unique platform of diverse practices and specialties. Performance is also deeply rooted in our culture, and we’ve continuously achieved a great number of top tier rankings in legal directories.

Lastly, innovation is at the core of our strategy. Gide has set up Gide 255, the first team on the market dedicated to offering strategic, legal, and regulatory advice on all matters related to its clients’ digital transformation.

What advantages does a firm with strong French roots offer clients that they are less likely to find at Anglo-Saxon firms?

As a French multi-disciplinary firm with a leading position in all fields of business law, we advise and assist a wide variety of clients: businesses in very different sectors, public and private sector institutions, investment funds, governments, etc.

Gide also benefits from a first class position in the French legal scene. Over the years, we’ve maintained a strong relationship with French Authorities as well as European institutions, having thus in-depth knowledge of the workings and procedures of these authorities and therefore giving us the chance to contribute to the evolution of the French and European legal framework.

Lastly, Anglo-Saxon firms and French firms have a different approach to defence in the course of a litigation. The US procedure is focused around co-operation and negotiation with authorities. While this approach is efficient, it is not adequate for every case. Furthermore, issues related to conflict of interests, for example between US headquarters and a French subsidiary, are usually complicated to deal with for a US law firm.

What are the biggest challenges facing you in France?

Brexit will definitely have a structural impact on the market, as well as the legal framework. Compliance is also a very hot topic for companies in France, with an increasing share of legal department’s budget dedicated to these issues. The market is also currently undergoing privatisations of companies such as Aéroports de Paris or La Française des Jeux. The impact of blockchain, crypto money, and ICO’s and digitalisation in general on the business sphere is major.

Since the opening of your first office outside France in 1967 (in Brussels), you have significantly expanded your international presence which now accounts for 40% of your activity. Do you expect this development to continue?

Our strategy is to stick with our clients anywhere they might be, by providing seamless cross-border advice and being present in strategic and developing areas. We wish to continue expanding our global reach in the future, both through our own offices and our close ties to top ‘best friend’ firms in the world. In Europe in particular, we rely on a network of independent law firms with three other prestigious firms: Chiomenti in Italy, Cuatrecasas in Spain and Portugal, and Gleiss Lutz in Germany. Gide is also the exclusive member for France of the Lex Mundi network (more than 160 law firms in over 100 countries).

How close are the ties between your international offices?

Our 12 offices have a strong history of working together on joint pitches and panels. Our offices also regularly work together on cross-border matters, involving several top tier law firms. We also have a longstanding habit of meeting regularly in Paris (a monthly partners’ general assembly for instance) and regularly organise calls and video conferences to discuss joint action plans and strategies.

Mobility is also a good example of the ties between our offices: all our lawyers can benefit from this policy – whichever the office they work in – and are encouraged to spend some time and work in our international offices.

You appointed Franck Guiader as the Head of Innovation & FinTech in June 2018. How has this area developed since his appointment?

Franck and his team have contributed in developing new needs for our clients, enlarging notably our legal assistance to also strategic advice, and defining new complementary services for corporate lawyer, by handling issues pertaining to the digital transformation.

Gide 255 is rewriting the traditional codes of advisory roles, which increasingly require an overall approach – particularly when it comes to disruptive innovation and advanced technologies – to develop activities and thus serve very different clients with high demands.

What does innovation mean to you and how can firms be better at it?

In our view, innovation is first and foremost in the legal field to execute complex and international transactions. It is also technological, supporting market change. Highly aware of the challenges for our clients, we have created an Innovation Commission to analyse major trends and identify new challenges.

For example, we were the first law firm in Paris to launch an offer dedicated to digital transformation, with Gide 255. We also search for efficiency at every level, for example with our contract automatisation solution, to enable our lawyers to focus on added value tasks.

You’ve recently recruited Jean-François Louit and Caroline Lan as partners. How will their specialisms tie in with the firm’s existing practice areas?

Jean-François Louit and Caroline Lan are among the most active and recognised lawyers in their field, i.e. the assistance of management in connection with various corporate transactions in particular on management package and governance matters.

Their proximity to management teams and their entrepreneurial spirit aligns perfectly with Gide’s entrepreneurial culture. They will give the firm’s clients the benefit of their vast experience in a fast-growing field, essential for transactions and the development of company groups.

What have you found is the best way to retain talent – both at partner and associate levels?

Gide wishes to build a long-term relationship with its lawyers, offering them a unique framework to progress. Being inclusive is a key aspect of our culture and we wish to give each individuals a high level of responsibility very early on.

We have created an internal training school, Gide Académie, with an ambitious policy of knowledge sharing and learning. A number of programmes and formats are available to our lawyers, helping them acquire and share knowledge.

We have also just launched a skills guide, which aims to support each lawyer in his or her professional development throughout all stages of their career, from new associates up to partner level.

In addition, we offer our partners and counsels a soft skills programme starting from January 2020, developed with French political science university ‘SciencesPo’, which consists in a training programme on management, leadership, and business development.

Lastly, since March 2018, we have implemented a mentoring programme, where one partner (man or woman) mentors a female associate who is not a member of his/her practice group to give her another point of view on her development and broaden her network.

What advice would you give to the next generation of partners and law firm leaders?

Young partners need to be a true business partner, that won’t just provide technical advice for a specific task. They need to employ a broad perspective, and based on their knowledge of the business, proactively consider potential risks for a client.

Secondly, being open to innovation and attentive to the market’s evolutions is crucial to be able to constantly adapt to a fast-pace changing environment and new technologies. Soft skills and leadership management are also essential to being an efficient executive.

Lastly, as an international firm, we strongly encourage professional experiences abroad, to have a chance to know different legal frameworks and professional cultures.

“At Gide, we view diversity of origin as an absolute necessity. Our lawyers hail from 35 different nationalities and from more than 40 Bar associations worldwide”

What are your firm’s policies on diversity, inclusion, and wellbeing?

At Gide, we view diversity of origin as an absolute necessity. Our lawyers hail from 35 different nationalities and from more than 40 bar associations worldwide. Our diversity approach is steered by a dedicated commission, part of the firm’s governance and made up of an equal number of men and women partners. The commission has for instance redefined priority actions to reach an objective of 30% women partners by 2025.

Gide is also convinced that wellbeing at work is key to improving the health and performance of its members. We have initiated very early on a process to encourage flexible working and begun to roll out the appropriate tools.

What key market trends in France should lawyers from other jurisdictions be made aware of?

Again, France is facing the same economic challenges as any other country such as compliance and growing digitalisation. Brexit is evidently a topic to be watched carefully.

The French bill, Loi PACTE, constitutes a significant evolution for companies, reshaping the role of businesses in the society: with the introduction of concept of raison d’être (purpose) and other CSR evolutions.

We also expect the 2024 Paris Olympics to generate large PPP and infrastructure projects.

Ashkhan Candey: It’s like being at a zoo but only hanging out with the gorillas

For readers who don’t know you or Candey well, please provide us with a brief history of you and your firm.

Founded in 2009, we have grown into an international litigation boutique of 25 fee earners. We are a mix of solicitors and barristers undertaking large scale multi-million pound global and cross-border litigation with a focus on high value securities and shareholder disputes in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and in International Arbitrations. We plan to expand to up to 35 fee earners and stop there. At that size we think we can handle multiple complex cases at the highest level but retain our close-knit, collegiate, family atmosphere.

What’s surprised you most about launching and running your own law firm?

I’ve been most surprised at how most of our work comes from recommendations from other lawyers, and that lawyers in other firms are more like our colleagues than our opponents. I have also been surprised at the frequency with which we are in court, with so many cases fighting all the way to trial.

How would you define your firm’s culture and how important is that culture to you?

Liberating: we strive to encourage our staff to be themselves and to grow their own style to their maximum potential. We believe that above all you have to have emotional intelligence and a sense of humour.

We aim to ensure that staff enjoy their work, and there is definitely a play hard culture.

We encourage everyone to get to the point, and say it as it is, in succinct, concise language, providing clarity and leadership and not over burdening our lawyers with an hours recorded culture, but a value delivered one.

Through being a disputes-only firm the culture feels different to a firm where you have non-contentious colleagues. It’s like being at a zoo but only hanging out with the gorillas.

Everyone is on a perpetual war footing. That ethos brings with it a unique environment in which every lawyer needs to be properly equipped and supported by the firm and each other.

Absent these attributes, absent this culture, we may as well close up shop. Our culture is what defines the firm and is fundamental to its success.

What does innovation mean to you and how can firms be better at it?

Practically speaking, technology, flexible working practices, and flexible remuneration (rewarding success) are at the core of innovation. So too is challenging antiquated perceptions of hierarchy. We expect the most junior staff to show leadership and to challenge their peers in clients’ best interests.

The firm has been at the forefront of innovation by developing the law on funding, retainers, and costs and will continue to do so.

With funding of legal costs being paramount to obtaining access to justice, developing the law on finance and security in litigation is at the heart of innovation. As a party to proceedings against KPMG, we established before the Court of Appeal, the right of litigants to charge monies in court for the benefit of their lawyers, thus being able to use a pot of cash paid as security to also fund a no-win, no-fee retainer or an adverse costs policy in the event of success. That decision has immediately freed up millions to fund cases and achieve justice, particularly in a David and Goliath situation.

Similarly, in another reported case the court recognised our ability to switch from a damages based retainer to a conditional fee agreement only weeks before trial, rightly allowing lawyers and clients to be nimble and flexible in pursuit of justice.

Firms will only get better at this by taking more risk, should they want to! For most firms, the only option is to work with funders.

What’s the biggest change or innovation you’ve made of late that will benefit clients?

On the practical front adopting a mobile phone app that uses artificial intelligence robots to file current and historic emails, and capture unbilled time. The robot army reduces the time burden on the human one at no cost to the client.

We await judgment in our third Court of Appeal hearing in CANDEY v Crumpler and others where we have argued that allowing a third party funder (and only a third party funder) to be paid first did not waive our right as a law firm to be paid first from the fruits of litigation.

As a consequence of the abolition of recoverable insurance premiums as part of success fees, the reality is that funders are now an integral part of litigation and in many cases provide the funds necessary to pay insurance premiums thereby securing protection for clients from adverse costs.

What are the biggest challenges facing litigation boutiques like yours?

1. Competing with funders, and raising capital to fund contingency agreements. Where possible we prefer to fund cases ourselves.

2. Ever increasing globalisation requires us to build relationships with overseas firms. This gives us a competitive advantage as we can work with the best firm in a region, instead of having to use a local office of a global firm, which may be top notch in London, but mediocre elsewhere. This investment of time is challenging, given that we are very busy and may have family commitments.

“Look after your staff. Without the people, the firm is nothing”

What key litigation or arbitration trends are you seeing at the moment, either domestically or internationally?

In England, funders are treading into champertous waters, trafficking in litigation via the commercial backdoor. Internationally, funders are increasingly major players in cross border litigation, looking at achieving eye-watering returns that are revolutionising the legal industry.

What do you think are the most important things to clients and why? Have these changed over time?

Accessibility, affability, and ability in their lawyers together with drive, commerciality, and emotional intelligence. These desired attributes have not changed at all, and never will.

Is technology changing the way you interact with your clients and the services you can provide them?

Yes. Clients are using a plethora of different apps (Viber, WhatsApp, WeChat, etc.) to send documents and communicate. Being able to use data rooms and platforms and having better mobile access is helpful: it also expands the size of the office in one’s pocket, which can be dangerous to the work-life balance. No one wants a lawyer who is consumed and worn out by work. It tempers the ability to succeed. We are mindful of this.

What have you found is the best way to recruit and retain talent at all levels?

Ensure you create a workplace that people enjoy working in, and give them a stake in the culture so that they genuinely feel that they are integral to the organisation. Always seek to recruit the best people, identifying that a winning team requires different strengths, a mix of skills and personalities.

What are your firm’s policies on diversity and inclusion and wellbeing?

Happy well-balanced people are far more effective than overworked stressed, bored, and unfulfilled lawyers. We encourage a work-life balance, have no billing targets, and want staff (where possible) to switch off and make time for their minds and bodies and to have a life.

Wellbeing requires sufficient resources, effective systems to manage and access information, and above all, supportive colleagues. We provide in-house massage therapy, encourage pilates and Alexander Technique lessons, acknowledging that we were not built to hunch behind computers.

On diversity, it’s obviously all about who you are on the inside. We have an open management structure where systems and policies are there to be improved by all staff.

Finally, what advice would you give to the next generation of law firm leaders?

Show leadership by looking after people and retaining your values, without shying away from difficult decisions. Act quickly, fairly, and decisively. Encourage and empower your staff to lead, and always retain a sense of humanity and humour, even in really tricky situations. Have a military style with your opponents, but be gentle with your staff; reward them and ensure there’s as little hierarchy as possible within the team. Don’t let age be a factor, the young and inexperienced can be a real match. At the same time there is a wealth of talent in those who have seen a lot of life.

Look after your staff. Without the people, the firm is nothing.

The forgotten legal professionals

For a top legal firm, productivity and profitability are probably the two main concerns for the business. All the more reason to consider the value of paralegals and what they can do for you.

Paralegals are emergent as the go-to profession for the assistance they can give to consumers, but the value that the paralegal profession holds still remains an unknown quantity to the sector meaning paralegals are often dismissed and undervalued.

Solicitors and barristers are perplexed, as they mostly believe that the term ‘paralegal’ is a term to describe a law graduate who can’t find a training contract; a ‘wannabe’ solicitor.

But this isn’t necessarily the case. Many individuals are qualifying as paralegals independently, as a definite career option. Since this trend is growing, the conventional professions should recognise paralegal qualifications, especially if they are bespoke and regulated by a government body on a national basis. Unfortunately, this is not happening since they appear to be rejected out of hand.

Without a shadow of a doubt, paralegals will play a key role in the future of legal services – especially in assisting consumers with everyday matters – but, more importantly, may well make the difference between a struggling law firm and one that recognises their value, and thus be the saviour of many top legal firms in the future.

Paralegal professionals will sit alongside solicitors and barristers within the legal sector – filling a gap, and a need, that is currently being underserved. Paralegals are already starting to be an important, if not very visible, section of the legal services industry – and this will only increase. Solicitors and barristers should recognise the opportunities this brings them and the sector as a whole and embrace paralegals as a way in which their business can grow – no matter what their pathway has been to get to this point.

“A paralegal trained and educated to perform certain tasks, and who has experience and competency in such tasks, will be more efficient and quicker to assimilate documents and understand legal principles and matters of procedure than any law graduate”

A paralegal trained and educated to perform certain tasks, and who has experience and competency in such tasks, will be more efficient and quicker to assimilate documents and understand legal principles and matters of procedure than any law graduate.

A qualifying law degree covers academic law and therefore someone having gained such a degree should not be considered superior to an individual that has gained a paralegal qualification, such as the NALP Level 4 Diploma in Paralegal Studies, since the latter covers academic law as well as practice and procedural law. A law graduate does not necessarily have the monopoly over legal knowledge and procedure in comparison to a NALP graduate.

The point is that both routes incorporate the study of law, so why differentiate?

A paralegal who is a member of a professional membership body, such as the NALP, has been vetted very carefully. Those that have gained a licence to practise have to go through a rigorous checking process to ensure they understand their legal limitations, that they have competency, and have professional indemnity insurance under their belt.

For a top law firm, outsourcing work to an individual paralegal or firm of paralegals may prove to be financially beneficial to both parties.

However, although the paralegal profession has progressed significantly in 30 years, there is no statutory regulation as there is for solicitors and barristers. But that is not their choosing. The UK government has said it will not statutorily regulate paralegals because it believes: (1) there is far too much regulation within the legal sector already, and (2) there is no need to regulate paralegals.

If the government continues with this viewpoint then, in order to ensure synergy with the other legal services providers, there needs to be acceptance of the paralegal profession by the sector generally, the role these professionals play, and a recognition of the paralegal self-regulatory body, NALP, which, as an awarding organisation through Ofqual, plays a significant part in ensuring paralegals are properly trained and qualified.

The future of legal services must depend on co-operation between all the professions. Since paralegals are here to stay and there is evidence to suggest that it is definitely the fastest growing sector in the legal services industry, then why not make use of these professionals not only for the good of the sector as a whole, but, more importantly, for the benefit of your business.

Amanda Hamilton is chief executive of the National Association of Licenced Paralegals (NALP), a non-profit membership body and the only paralegal body recognised as an awarding organisation by Ofqual (the regulator of qualifications in England). Through its centres, accredited recognised professional paralegal qualifications are offered for a career as a paralegal professional. See http://www.nationalparalegals.co.uk for more information.

Competing against the best in the US

Evan Cohen cover photo

When you’re asked to lead a region identified as the top strategic priority for one of the world’s largest globally integrated firms, you are faced with two distinct but intertwined challenges: supporting your firm’s global ambitions while also developing a domestic strategy that addresses the challenges unique to your local market. It’s no easy task.

But Evan Cohen – who was elected Clifford Chance’s managing partner for the Americas in 2013 – has likely exceeded the firm’s expectations based on the increasingly impressive results his US team has produced in recent years.

Initially, not many in the market took notice. But that’s beginning to change.

“In my view, we’re not a Magic Circle firm in the US; we’re a strong US firm comprised of US lawyers competing against US firms for domestic work”

The five pillars and the right market

Clifford Chance’s global strategy has five pillars: right markets, right work, right clients, best team, and best delivery. ‘Right markets’ is where Cohen places the US practice.

‘The firm’s overall vision is to grow the US and to grow Asia,’ he explains. With the aim of being ‘the global law firm of choice,’ Cohen goes on to highlight the importance of the US legal market. ‘To be a global leader, we needed to be more significant in the US. We recently surpassed 300 lawyers, we’ve developed several leading practices, and we like the trajectory we’re on.’

But growth is just a small piece of this story. Cohen and his team developed a strategy that was rolled out early in his tenure and it’s been paying huge dividends. ‘That strategy is run here locally, with the support of the global management committee. They have left us to get on with it.’

The right work

When asked what his US strategy entails, Cohen sums it up by saying: ‘It sounds simple, but you have to play where you can win – especially in a legal market as fiercely competitive as the US.’ And that’s exactly what he has done.

After six years with Clifford Chance in Hong Kong, Cohen moved back to New York in 2004 and took over the banking and finance group in 2005. ‘At that point, we had already done the merger with Rogers & Wells and we were still integrating the two practices,’ he confirms. Cohen quickly identified the challenges and decided that focusing on the right areas of work – and selecting where he believed the firm could build market-leading practices – was the best way to address it. This would prove to be a winning strategy.

Cohen selected asset finance and projects – two areas in which the global firm had already established tier 1 status in other legal markets around the world, but not in the US. His strategy hinged on attracting top tier talent to the team. Enter John Howitt from Paul Hastings and Zarrar Sehgal from Milbank in 2006, and the two went on to build a market-leading US asset finance practice. Both are now recognised in The Legal 500’s Hall of Fame. Emily Wicker later joined the practice from Debevoise. The team went on to reach the highest tier within The Legal 500 rankings for US aviation and air travel finance.

‘We also now have Patrick O’Reilly and Madalyn Miller as younger partners within the team, and today it is one of the leading asset finance practices in the country,’ Cohen proudly states. ‘It is a $35m practice, with two female partners out of a five-partner team, which I am also proud of as diversity has been a real focus of mine.’

Cohen replicated this success with the projects team. ‘The projects practice covered not only the US but also Latin America and was filled with people like me – Americans who did not speak Spanish. There was one senior associate in our Washington, DC office who was Argentinian and who was the only one who spoke Spanish.’ That associate, Fabricio Longhin, went on to make partner and helped build what is now a market-leading practice. Shortly after Cohen became managing partner, Longhin highlighted the need for more fluent Spanish partners within the team. This led to the recruitment of Gianluca Bacchiocchi from DLA Piper, as well as the promotion of Guido Liniado to partner.

Today, projects is also a tier 1 practice with its own leading lawyers. It has also sat atop the Latin America project finance league tables for three years running. ‘Although the results say LatAm,’ Cohen notes, ‘the legal work is done by US lawyers in New York and DC, the transactions are largely governed by US law, and the capital for the deals is mainly coming from US investment banks. The work benefits countries in Latin America, but it’s a true US practice.’ Here too, Cohen proudly points to the diverse makeup of the team – 80% of the partners are diverse, and 40% are women.

As a result of Cohen’s strategy and the work of its teams, banking and finance has grown to become an $80m practice.

“Lockstep culture and the lockstep system makes it better for the client. And at the end of the day it is all about the client and we have to put clients first”

In 2013, Cohen became regional managing partner for the Americas. Given the success of his approach with the banking and finance practice, the same focus was adopted for the Americas strategy in 2015. Along with his practice leaders, Cohen once again decided to focus on building those practice areas where Clifford Chance US could compete with the elite. ‘We have focused on building out our partnership in those areas where we can have leading positions. For us, that meant identifying areas where, with reasonable investment, we could develop leading practices, as we had already done in asset finance, projects, REITs, and tax. We are a firm that wants to be known for quality, so we had to identify the areas in which we could compete with the best firms, and then begin to build those teams.’

One area where Clifford Chance already had elements of clear strength in the US was its wider LatAm practice. It took what it had and built from there.

Cohen points to several key partner additions across different transactional practices: ‘We promoted Thais Garcia in corporate M&A. We brought in Hugo Triaca from Skadden to bolster our capital markets offering. And Ignacio Suarez Anzorena returned to the firm to give us more heft in international arbitration. All of these individuals have native fluency in Spanish, and their associate, secretarial, and BD support are also Spanish speaking. Today we have one of the most robust international LatAm practices in the region.’

Cohen’s regional strategy has resulted in year-on-year growth for the firm in the US and a growing abundance of domestic work. ‘When I came back from Asia, we were thought of as that British firm that merged with Rogers & Wells. Today I don’t hear that anymore. In my view, we’re not a Magic Circle firm in the US; we’re a strong US firm comprised of US lawyers competing against US firms for domestic work. In fact, of our nearly $300m in revenues last year, 85% of it was self-generated, so we don’t sit here waiting for the phone to ring from London or elsewhere.’

One of the primary drivers of the firm’s success in the US in recent years has been its litigation and dispute resolution team, which is currently advising on one of the world’s most highly visible anti-money laundering cases. The investigations practice, in particular, operates at the top of the market, advising on headline-grabbing matters, often opposite the US Department of Justice.

In addition to multiple representations in the Mueller-Russia investigation, Clifford Chance’s litigators have led on several precedent-setting matters in the US, including: a US court ruling that set a new precedent for deferred prosecution agreements; another ruling that produced a significant setback to prosecutors seeking expansive theories on which to build an FCPA case against non-US companies and individuals; and representation of Chinese telecoms giant ZTE, where the firm secured a first-of-its-kind temporary general licence to allow the client to continue operating during a multi-agency, multi-year US export control investigation.

The best team

The asset finance team, and the projects team, effectively highlight the importance of having the right people. The firm has very carefully selected lateral partner hires to ensure a ‘cultural fit’ and have focused on hires that aid in the execution of the Americas strategy.

Culture and compensation

Clifford Chance is still a lockstep firm within the US – a differentiating factor from many New York firms. Cohen says the firm does not wish to break lockstep to attract lateral partners who may take their practices and jump to the next firm that pays them more money. ‘We’ve taken a different approach, and it’s worked well for us,’ he says.

‘What we have done is to focus on talented, young, and ambitious partners who want to build their practices at Clifford Chance and develop within the firm culture. After they’ve built their practices, we see other firms reach out and try to lure them with increases in comp, but their roots are here, with us. We brought them in, we supported them, and they stay because they love the firm. That cultural glue is a key differentiator for us.’

“I can’t change society – but at least within Clifford Chance I can make this a place where anyone can succeed based on merit”

He goes on to highlight what he sees as the client-focused benefits of their lockstep system: ‘The nice thing about lockstep is you are less focused on your own compensation – instead, you are focusing on the client and bringing a team together to serve them in the best way possible. Clients have a lot of choices – there are a lot of good firms in New York – and we want them to appreciate the value Clifford Chance brings to them and come back to us. Lockstep culture and the lockstep system makes it better for the client. And at the end of the day it is all about the client and we have to put clients first.’ And clients say they notice the difference. As Cohen noted, ‘one of our clients recently told me they can tell when partners who visit them are from a lockstep firm because they bring colleagues and are willing to share the business.’

Cultural fit and hiring for the long-term are important within the firm. ‘We don’t recruit people with sharp elbows. We have even turned down people with books of business others would take. I am not focused on “buying a book” today; instead, I want to add partners committed to growing their practices, with the support of the firm. I think that’s why our attrition is so low and why others choose to join us – it’s because of our culture of collaboration, collegiality, and respect.’

Cohen can back this up with examples, one of whom is Sharis Pozen, who joined the firm’s antitrust practice in Washington, DC in 2019. Pozen was the global head of competition law and policy at GE before joining the firm, and was the target of a number of leading US firms. However, she joined the team at Clifford Chance because she had worked with them during her time at GE. ‘She loved the culture and she loved the people she knew and met during the recruitment process. We offered her one of the best antitrust teams in the world, but I still think culture was a big part of the reason she joined us’.

Another example is Gary Boss, who favoured a move to Clifford Chance in 2012 instead of the perhaps more obvious move to Willkie Farr with his then fellow Dewey & LeBoeuf insurance partners. Cohen has an explanation for this: ‘He saw an opportunity to build his business with us because of the platform we have here and because we are supportive of partners who are innovative. We surrounded him with the support he needed to leverage his creativity and make things happen. He has helped raise $14bn and launch 11 new reinsurance companies in the last five years. He has become one of the leading insurance M&A partners in the world and rightfully earned a tier 1 status he did not have when he joined us. We couldn’t be more proud of the team he has built around him, or what he has accomplished since arriving here.’

Attracting top talent who have numerous other options, or more seemingly obvious choices, makes the wider legal market pay attention. But what really tells the story are the numbers. Of the last ten US laterals who now have at least four years at the firm, fees billed have increased, on average, by 350% between their first and fourth full years.

The focus on inclusion

What is clear from how Cohen speaks of the US offices is that building a diverse and inclusive team is a critical component to building the right team. In fact, the last US partner promotion round consisted of entirely diverse candidates. ‘We want to be a place where female, minority, and LGBTQ lawyers feel they can succeed. And instead of just saying it, we are putting our commitment into action, and it is clearly working as our new class of partners is 100% diverse. I don’t know how many other firms in New York can say they had a 100% diverse class at their last partner promotions.’

Cohen can freely cite the diversity statistics of the firm and openly expresses his pride in the role he has played in achieving them. ‘I am very happy to have doubled the percentage of female partners in the firm here in the US – we have almost 20% female partners and the US partnership overall is almost 30% diverse. I am working to continue driving those percentages higher. The Americas Management Committee is 30% diverse because you want and need that diversity of thought and ideas. I can’t change society – but at least within Clifford Chance I can make this a place where anyone can succeed based on merit.’

Tackling the war for talent

The focus on culture and inclusion within the firm is evidenced by three no.1 rankings in US survey results for associate satisfaction, diversity, and the summer associate programme. ‘We are also number three in the list of top firms in the country to work for,’ Cohen states [referring to the 2019 Vault US Survey].

He recognises the importance of this ‘because there is a war for talent’. Every law firm wants the best associates from the best law schools, so the firm’s status as number one for associate satisfaction and number three in the top firms to work for is a huge advantage on the recruiting trail. ‘Young people take notice,’ says Cohen. ‘If you bring in the right people and you support them and create the right environment, then good things happen.’

The right clients

Having seen the work to put their house in order, so to speak, the next area to look at is the firm’s client roster in the US. This is another area in which they have succeeded, having built an enviable client list of domestic companies. From advising iconic US-based Fortune 500 corporate enterprises on cross-border M&A and cybersecurity issues, to advising the largest US investment banks on aircraft securitisations and energy and infrastructure, the firm’s New York and DC offices have developed strong relationships while undergoing a bit of a transformation.

Although always recognised as one of the world’s premier banking firms, Cohen has worked hard during his six-plus years at the helm to diversify the firm’s US revenue streams. At the beginning of the decade, Clifford Chance was overly reliant on mandates from banks in the Americas; however, the region will close this decade with revenue from financial investors and corporate enterprises now both outpacing the banking sector – a notable transformation in a short period of time.

And although they still benefit from the support of and the opportunities to collaborate with other offices across the Clifford Chance network, the US firm now enjoys the position of sending out more work to other Clifford Chance offices than they are taking in. As Cohen acknowledges, ‘this was not the case ten years ago, but things have really turned around. This region is now a net-exporter of work to the rest of the global firm.’ With a healthy list of US clients and domestic work, the US firm is no longer merely an aspiration, but a critical component to the continuing growth of the global network.

“This region is now a net-exporter of work to the rest of the global firm”

Delivering the best

The final pillar in Clifford Chance’s global strategy is what it refers to as ‘best delivery’. In the US the firm is focused on differentiating themselves in a number of ways. The first is through innovation. Clifford Chance Applied Solutions was launched in 2018 to deliver digital solutions designed to more efficiently address large-scale client challenges. Added to this was Clifford Chance Create, which looks at ways in which the firm can create products for clients to help with their legal operations – products such as CC Draft.

The firm’s best delivery component comprises a team of people (including continuous improvement experts, project managers, and legal technologists) who are able to streamline processes for lawyers advising on legal matters – usually of significant size and scope.

‘It all starts with the client and bringing added value to them. You pair that with our collaborative approach and lockstep culture and that is how this firm has produced the results it has in recent years. The legal profession is changing. We are committed to being out front and leading the transformation. We are very focused on process improvement. Increasingly, our partners are looking to add the best delivery team to their matters for a variety of reasons. For example, a matter may have fixed pricing; if our best delivery colleagues can work out a way to run that matter more efficiently, that benefits both the client and the firm. For the first time since I’ve been practicing law – and that goes back decades – you have someone totally focused on process and efficiency for the client. That is a real game changer and we have won a lot of deals because of it.’

The focus on clients and creative ways of thinking about their legal issues, and the investment in innovation and development, are competitive advantages. Cohen attributes this to their success in the legal rankings, saying: ‘We don’t compete on size, but our rankings reflect the overall quality of our offerings. That’s important when you’re competing against the best US firms – as a US firm.’

“It all starts with the client and bringing added value to them. You pair that with our collaborative approach and lockstep culture and that is how this firm has produced the results it has in recent years”

Looking forward

When asked what lies ahead for Clifford Chance in the Americas, Cohen says: ‘The areas where we have already achieved tier 1 status will continue to receive the necessary investments to maintain their leading positions, but we’d like to get closer to 500 lawyers over time. Our strategy is working for us, so where there are opportunities to grow we will. I want to grow, but I want to grow strategically and not just for growth’s sake. I always want to be known as a top tier firm doing the best quality work for the best clients.’

The US firm has evolved and is vastly different from where it was five or ten years ago. While the odd competitor may still enjoy the opportunity to refer to it as a British or foreign firm, it has now well established itself within the US market – as evidenced in its top tier status within legal directory rankings and some creative, aggressive marketing that has people talking and running into the Clifford Chance brand more often in the US.

CMO Mike Kachel has worked closely with Cohen to develop the Americas strategy and promote the unique aspects of the firm’s culture. For example, Kachel collaborated with The Legal 500’s GC magazine to develop a bespoke publication, Advice To My Younger Self: Reflections of Successful Women Lawyers. The book, which profiles Clifford Chance female partners and alumnae from around the world, launched in April 2017 and has now been seen globally by nearly 30,000 people. In April 2019, the firm followed up with another collaborative effort with GC magazine to produce Their Voices: Insights From Today’s Rising Lawyers – a second publication that is being used by the firm’s US recruiting team to help law school students understand what’s it’s like to be a junior lawyer at Clifford Chance.

‘I’m always mindful,’ says Kachel, ‘that our offering is legal services, but our product is people. There are a lot of great lawyers in the US, and the truth is, many of the matters we advise on could just as easily have been handled by a different firm. But a key question for clients is this: who do I want to work with, and who do I trust? Highlighting our people – what drives them, what’s important to them, what their values are – is an important part of our marketing platform.’

It cannot go without note that despite all of its efforts, Clifford Chance remains excluded from one notable list. ‘The American Lawyer’s Am Law 100 has evolved into the arbiter of elite firms [in the US], and because the majority of our lawyers overall are not in the US, we do not qualify to be included in its various performance rankings,’ explains Cohen. But as he points out, ‘we’ve found other ways to get our brand out there, and more people are beginning to understand we are a real US firm, with US born, bred, and educated lawyers working from US offices for US clients. We’re no longer flying under the radar.’

The proof is in the pudding

So is the US strategy working? If further evidence is needed in addition to the firm’s position within the top tiers of many of the US rankings, or in addition to its ability to attract top US talent and sought-after US clients, then the ultimate proof is in the numbers.

The firm has achieved a 50% increase in US revenue since Cohen became managing partner at the beginning of the 2013/2014 financial year. And in the current fiscal year, they are on track to exceed $1.2m in revenue per lawyer. ‘We’re closing in on the top 25 for US RPL, which is pretty good for a group of 300 lawyers not recognised as a NY firm,’ jokes Cohen.

Mitigating the known unknowns

It is easy to talk a good game when it comes to putting people at the heart of what you do but, in a global market where uncertainty is rife and there are more known unknowns causing sleepless nights than ever before, one of the few things we can all be sure of (apart from ever increasing pressure on costs) is that demand for top talent will continue to increase.

No matter how the geopolitical tectonic plates settle in the coming months (if they do settle), providing clients with better service will depend on employing the right professionals with the right talent, development tools, and environment to deliver the best service.

A constant focus on having the right balance of services in the jurisdictions that clients need us to be in is part of the answer, as is finding the right tech solutions and delivery systems for clients and allowing personnel to move freely around a multi-jurisdiction setup, but just as vital as that agility is the ability to get the right people in the organisation and contributing all of their talent.

“The basic premise is not difficult to grasp, but it really does resonate. It is about respecting and supporting the individual, treating our people as the talented adults they are, and delivering on our promises when it comes to supporting people and their work-life balance”

The market in which we operate is only going to get more competitive, and experience and having a deserved reputation for a strongly commercial approach is going to be ever more important – not just for our clients, but for the people who want to work for us and alongside us. Although there may well be more consolidation in the market over the next 12–24 months, top individuals still have a wealth of offshore firms looking to harness their knowledge and expertise for the most complex international transactions and cases. That means standing out in a crowded market.

We are all searching for that next generation of partner who can combine technical excellence with the interpersonal skills, commercial sixth sense, and project management needed for leadership. Recruiting and retaining that talent relies on much more than lucrative (and transparent) remuneration packages and clear progression pathways. The expectation of employees has changed and firms need to alter their own focus to develop a higher level of trust and partnership throughout the business and to find ways to give autonomy and purpose in every role.

A few years ago, we made a conscious choice to combine a client-led approach with the development of an inquisitive, supportive, and fun culture, actually walking the walk on innovation (before going public with it), continuous talent development and moving away from a top-down hierarchy by recognising and listening to the talent we have throughout the business. We don’t get everything right, and we have the confidence to acknowledge when that happens and learn from it, but we have got enough right to sustain strong organic growth with people who get what we are setting out to do and want to be part of it. It is an approach which is serving us well.

Involving legal teams – alongside a dedicated service innovation function – means that they are engaged at the outset in infrastructure development and streamlining the way that client work is undertaken to deliver a consistent service meeting client expectations.

Employee engagement, a focus on wellbeing and an emphasis, at all levels of the business, on supporting people to be the best version of themselves at work all increase that sense of a working partnership.

At Ogier, as befits our strategy of ‘getting to the point’, we focus on tangible things. Supporting flexible working, providing the technology to enable that, operating an ‘open from day one’ approach – so you don’t need to wait until you’re at a senior level to have your ideas taken seriously – all reinforce the value of individuals.

Ultimately, while in some respects this required a cultural shift, the basic premise is not difficult to grasp, but it really does resonate. It is about respecting and supporting the individual, treating our people as the talented adults they are, and delivering on our promises when it comes to supporting people and their work-life balance; genuinely enabling flexible working and making sure everyone has a voice. You’ll very quickly get found out if you are just paying lip service to these ideas, but people get it when they see it happening for real.

Get that right, and with 600 empowered, intelligent, and aligned people, an agile platform, and sophisticated and robust systems, the known unknowns which could derail the best thought-out strategies are at least mitigated.

If 2020 is the year the economic cycle shifts decisively, we are prepared. If not, we continue to build a better place to work.

Going further to move the needle on diversity and inclusion

Diversity cover image

The Diversity Lab announcement regarding the Move the Needle Fund (‘MTN’) in September 2019 revealed the most ambitious, public, and collaborative effort by global law firms to achieve measurable diversity goals. The participating law firms have set aggressive five-year diversity goals and will publicly report on their progress and the actions they take to achieve them by 2025. Eversheds Sutherland, Goodwin, Orrick, Stoel Rives, and Nixon Peabody will work with Diversity Lab and 28 founding GCs to tackle the legal profession’s diversity problem.

As one of the founding firms, Goodwin has committed $1m to MTN and, in January 2020, officially began measuring progress on its publicly announced goals. Helen Donegan, US editor (content) from The Legal 500, sat down with David Hashmall, Goodwin’s chairman emeritus who will lead the firm’s MTN involvement together with the firm’s chairman, Rob Insolia to find out more.

“We ultimately decided that setting goals and publicly announcing them would elevate their priority and hold us accountable for doing everything we could to achieve them”

Becoming an MTN founding firm

Goodwin has worked with Diversity Lab for a number of years, including participation in its Mansfield Rule and OnRamp Fellowship initiatives. Leveraging that relationship, Diversity Lab founder Caren Ulrich Stacy contacted Goodwin directly to invite it to become an MTN firm and discuss what would be involved. ‘Caren called us because she knows how important diversity and inclusion are to us,’ says Hashmall.

This sentiment is echoed by Caren Ulrich Stacy when asked to comment on the reason for approaching Goodwin: ‘Goodwin’s leaders are always receptive to trying new things on the diversity and inclusion front when we approach them. They were one of the first firms to pilot the OnRamp Fellowship and the Mansfield Rule. Instead of asking “who else is doing it” as the initial question, they ask “how can we make sure this is successful for the benefit of our lawyers, staff, and clients?” This experience, even though the stakes were higher – public goal, substantial monetary investment – was no different.’

And so began Goodwin’s journey to become a founding MTN firm. When asked why Goodwin was open to being involved, Hashmall responds: ‘We have been focused on diversity and inclusion (D&I) for a long time. When I became chairman in 2014, I announced D&I as a top priority in my leadership agenda, and we formed our Inclusion Advisory Committee (IAC) to unify and work strategically across our firmwide diversity and inclusion initiatives. I have been working with Laura Acosta [Goodwin’s managing director of diversity and inclusion] and a terrific team that’s 100% committed to our firm becoming fully inclusive and highly diverse. Yet, making significant progress has been difficult. What attracted us to MTN was the opportunity to collaborate with others, gain different perspectives, and realise the benefits from working together to address these difficult challenges.’

The firm does not take its MTN participation lightly. Hashmall candidly describes Goodwin’s initial deliberations over whether it wanted to join: ‘We gave a lot of thought as to whether we wanted to put ourselves out there and say this is what we want to achieve in the next five years – and then face what would happen if we didn’t. We ultimately decided that setting goals and publicly announcing them would elevate their priority and hold us accountable for doing everything we could to achieve them.’

This commitment is not something all firms were in a place to accept. ‘We initially approached ten firms that are often open recipients to experimentation on D&I initiatives, in hopes of getting five commitments,’ confirms Ulrich Stacy. ‘Some of them were just not ready or set up for the combination of committing to a totally transparent, public goal, experimenting with new methods, and the financial investment. It’s well known that lawyers are generally risk-averse and prefer to follow precedent with proven ideas. The problem is, we’ve been following that plan for decades with little progress to show for it. The five firms that did go “all in” with us and the founding GCs are truly courageous trailblazers.’

Setting the goals

What followed for Goodwin was a nine-month period of deliberations to determine the actual goals the firm would set. As part of the process, Goodwin reviewed its proposed goals with MTN’s participating companies and fellow founding law firms, and revised the goals based on collective feedback. ‘There was a lot of back and forth between the law firms and client companies about exactly what the goals are and that took some time,’ says Hashmall.

Goodwin’s goals focus on the development, retention, and advancement of diverse lawyers. ‘We have done a pretty good job of recruiting young, diverse classes of lawyers. If you look at our associate recruitment in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ identity, we pretty much mirror graduating classes around the United States. But then you look at our senior associates or young partners and see the change in our diversity makeup,’ explains Hashmall, highlighting an issue not unique to Goodwin. ‘The other part is the leadership component. We wanted to not only focus on promoting and advancing diverse lawyers, but also on giving them the opportunity to participate in leadership roles. This is really the next step from the Mansfield Rule, which focuses on the slate of possible candidates for leadership positions. We thought we would take that one step further.’

Setting its own goals was not the only investment Goodwin made to MTN in these early days. The firm’s involvement in helping to shape MTN is praised by Ulrich Stacy: ‘Goodwin played a very important role in helping us, the founding General Counsels, and the legal community leaders further develop the framework for the Move the Needle Fund – all of their leaders, including their firm chair, the COO, and the CHRO, were super engaged in the early decision-making and provided incredibly thoughtful input. Their enthusiasm and strong desire for forward momentum is a driving force on this effort. Goodwin is definitely in it to win it (i.e. achieve their goal), and also truly committed to collaborating meaningfully with the other MTN firms and legal departments.’

Now what?

With objectives set by each MTN firm, the focus moves towards what the firms are actually going to do to achieve them. ‘One benefit of working with Diversity Lab is that they have advanced data analytics that can help us determine why we aren’t yet achieving what we want to achieve in the D&I space,’ Hashmall notes. ‘A lot of the work, in terms of advancement and promotion, will be in creating initiatives to give our diverse lawyers access to new opportunities at our firm and with the MTN companies.’

Herein lies one additional advantage of MTN. The opportunity to work with client organisations will obviously benefit the founding firms by boosting their diversity efforts. For the diverse lawyers involved, it offers direct business and career opportunities. ‘One of the key ways to succeed in a law firm is not only by being a great lawyer but also by showing you have the ability to work with clients, expand client relationships, and attract business.’

Working with client organisations on diversity-related initiatives is not new to Hashmall and Goodwin. ‘When I was chairman, I visited 12–15 of our clients each year and talked about how we could help them with non-legal services – at no charge. We have a whole team at Goodwin dedicated to diversity and inclusion, and many of our clients have benefitted from our help on D&I challenges at their own organisations’. And clients have taken note of Goodwin’s MTN involvement. ‘After the MTN press release was issued, many clients asked how they could work with us on this initiative, and several already are.’

“Our goals are as much about inclusion as they are about recruiting, development, promotion, and advancement. Inclusion is critical – only when people feel like they belong do they feel like they have an opportunity to succeed”

When asked if the firm has made practical plans to achieve its goals, Hashmall says that Goodwin is preparing to disrupt some of its processes to support its objectives – and that the firm has been doing this for some time. He explains that unconscious bias disruption has been a particular focus of Goodwin’s ongoing work in this area. ‘We decided it was not just about education and awareness, but also the systems that impact people’s day-to-day experiences, so we updated our hiring and assessment processes, and our partner promotion processes as well.’

Goodwin has been working diligently to incorporate its MTN involvement throughout the firm, says Hashmall. ‘Our firm is organised into what we call business units (BUs). Each BU has named partners responsible for its diversity initiatives, and members of our Inclusion Advisory Committee have been working with those representatives to form action plans. We are building on a strong foundation and are selecting ambassadors from each BU to be part of MTN and to work with Diversity Lab, the other firms, and the MTN companies.’

The ‘I’ in D&I

Often the focus of D&I initiatives is more on the diversity aspect (with an emphasis on diverse lawyer numbers and related statistics) and not enough on inclusion. This is not the case at Goodwin according to Hashmall. ‘Our goals are as much about inclusion as they are about recruiting, development, promotion, and advancement. Inclusion is critical – only when people feel like they belong do they feel like they have an opportunity to succeed.’

Goodwin’s MTN goals

Goodwin’s five-year goals are based on the firm’s desire to retain and advance its diverse lawyers at equal rates – from entry-level through the upper ranks of the firm – by ensuring everyone has equal access to career-enhancing work, sponsorship, and leadership opportunities. In order to accomplish this, Goodwin aims to achieve the following:

  1. The diversity of (i) Goodwin’s senior associate population and (ii) its population of partners and equity partners elevated in the preceding five years will match or exceed its entry-level associate diversity, which will be consistent with or greater than the diversity of graduating law student classes by gender, race/ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ identity; and
  2. The collective composition of all firm leadership committees will be at least 40% diverse.

(In all of Goodwin’s efforts to enhance diversity, inclusion, and equity, the firm remains committed to equal opportunity for all of its people.)

Measuring success

How will success be measured at Goodwin, and will it be based solely on meeting the goals set? ‘Obviously we hope we reach our goals,’ states Hashmall. ‘Part of our success is already baked in – we have buy-in and commitment from Goodwin leadership and across the firm. We don’t have to force it; this is something we believe in as a firm.’

And who will ensure that Goodwin is working towards its goals? ‘It’s a strategic goal of the firm, and as such senior management is responsible to ensure we achieve it,’ Hashmall says. ‘Our affinity groups (a women’s initiative, a Pride group, and an initiative on race-ethnicity) and our Inclusion Advisory Committee will continue to play important roles by advising senior management and sharing perspectives on what’s working and what’s not.’

The challenge ahead

Goodwin’s ambitious MTN goals will pose a considerable challenge but one well worth the intended outcome according to Hashmall. ‘We are giving our people an opportunity. We have talented and passionate lawyers joining Goodwin each year, and there is no reason why they cannot succeed with us.’

The next question to ask was how Goodwin’s MTN involvement will affect the firm’s day-to-day operations over the next five years. ‘I firmly believe that our MTN campaign will lead to more engagement across the firm. With goals this ambitious, we are now seeing colleagues who haven’t traditionally been involved in the diversity and inclusion space getting involved, and that’s what’s so powerful about this.’

‘It’s going to require some changes to our approach, and it has to be done in a way that’s consistent with our culture. The biggest impediment, I believe, will be unconscious bias. Even with the best intentions, it always seems to come back to this. I don’t want to underestimate how challenging this will be.’

Nevertheless, Hashmall is optimistic and is clearly enthusiastic to get started. ‘I am very proud that we have taken this step. I believe it reflects who we are as a firm. Goodwin is all in on moving the needle on diversity and inclusion. We are in it together.’

Sweden’s ‘one-stop-shop’ versus the ‘best-of-breed’

Senior partner departures, lateral team hires, boutique firm establishments – these are all gold dust for Legal 500 researchers seeking to determine which are the serious players in any given legal market. I have covered some countries – such as India, Malta, and Nigeria – where these changes are few and far between. On the other hand, recent developments on the Swedish legal scene have been marked by more twists and turns than a finely crafted kannebulle.

Following 2019’s establishment of intellectual property boutique Westerberg & Partners and corporate outfit Cirio Advokatbyrå – a spin-off of MAQS Advokatbyrå’s Stockholm office – 2020 kicked off with a market first. Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, one of the leading commercial firms in Norway, has entered the Swedish market by way of acquiring the mid-sized, full-service firm Hamilton Advokatbyrå.

“While Sweden and her Nordic neighbours share similar legislative frameworks, any market-entry strategy is bound to encounter some roadblocks along the way”

On the face of it, the advantages for an international firm in establishing a Stockholm office are obvious. The thriving capital markets are considered the de facto Nordic hub for international investors and, despite talks of a recession, industry remains strong with more unicorns produced per capita in Sweden than anywhere else barring Silicone Valley. The dynamic, forward-thinking economy has brought global firms from London, the US, and other parts of northern Europe (most notably Finland’s Roschier and Hannes Snellman) to the fold. So why have we waited until now to witness an entrance to the market from Sweden’s important cultural and economic neighbour, and will the Schjødt in the dark pay off?

On the face of it, one potential difficulty will be managing Schjødt’s transition from a collaborative cross-border counsel to direct market competitor. Since Swedish firms and their clients benefit from affiliations with others across the Nordics (and vice versa), could Schjødt be taking the risk of burning bridges with the already established names on the market which will now see it as a direct competitor? According to Johan Kahn, co-founder of Kahn Pedersen, that could be the case.

‘I believe this would be a natural consequence of a cross-border merger of this type,’ he says. ‘If I were a client I would consider it a benefit to have seamless services in day-to-day multijurisdictional matters. If, however, a matter is really important I would definitely prefer the “best-of-breed” approach coordinated by a lead counsel I know and trust.’

While Sweden and her Nordic neighbours share similar legislative frameworks, any market-entry strategy is bound to encounter some roadblocks along the way. I ask Kahn, what are the primary issues a new player on the scene faces when it comes to understanding the Swedish client and how a domestic transaction works?

‘I think the Swedish buyers of legal services are less “transactional” and more “relationship” oriented in their view of legal advisors,’ he replies. ‘This is in many ways great for both parties involved but would require more thought when it comes to client management. I also believe that few qualified Swedish buyers of legal services appreciate junior staffing and partners who are simply overlooking the work. Partner time and top-tier skill is required.’

“Few qualified buyers of legal services would value the ‘one-stop-shop’ higher than the ‘best-of-breed’ for important matters”

The partner loyalty of Swedish clients is evident through the extremely high level of client retention when it comes to lateral movement; the successful recent establishment of boutique firm Westerberg & Partners is partly due to that loyalty. This may well be the exception to the rule though – while client loyalty is evident, numerous voices have also suggested that it’s becoming increasingly important to be a ‘one-stop-shop’ in the Swedish scene. So what does the future hold for Swedish boutiques?

‘I think there is a fair amount of wishful thinking in this viewpoint,’ says Khan. ‘Few qualified buyers of legal services would value the “one-stop-shop” higher than the “best-of-breed” for important matters. I think most peers and clients agree that the firms facing the real existential challenge would be the large number of mid-sized and smaller large firms that indeed provide a one-stop-shop but that are not top tier in any area of practice. I would guess only a smaller number of clients would find such an offer attractive in any other way than related to specific individuals or lowest-bidder fees.

‘None of these motives are sustainable. At the end of the day it is all about the founding individuals. Their standing in the market is of course an important factor, but equally also is the ability to build a new business which requires quite a complex set of skills.’

This mid-market squeeze is likely a primary motivator for Hamilton’s merger with Schjødt, with the key to success hinging on client and senior talent retention. And bearing in mind the level of senior talent remains the same, regardless of how many new players set up shop, retention strategy looks set to become more competitive down the line. But what are other typical cultural or economic hurdles that must be dealt when it comes to a merger in the Swedish legal market?

‘Any differences in profit per partner, client acquisition, and the amount of billable partner hours must be dealt with. This is of course quite similar to the situation where firms in the same jurisdiction merge and it is evident that it could be a real challenge. I am sure any merger would draw some blood since not all partners would be willing to accept the results of the compromises that have to be made.’

On that note, I asked Eric Halvarsson, banking and finance partner at Schjødt’s Stockholm (hear that Champagne pop) office, what the biggest challenges going forward will be in terms of recruiting and retaining talent. From my observation, Swedish clients are particularly loyal to the individual, with ‘brand power’ not having the gravitas it perhaps has in London or elsewhere. So will it further become an employee market down the line?

The Swedish legal market has indeed traditionally been driven to a large extent by personal relations between clients and individual lawyers while brand recognition has been of more limited value, although not insignificant,’ says Halvarsson. ‘That is a situation that we see changing, with clients taking a more institutional approach to allocating its external legal work, more akin to the approach in the UK and parts of continental Europe.

 

‘With the significant footprint in the Nordic region of our combined firm, we believe that we are well positioned to capitalise on these changes in the market. Similarly, we believe the size of the firm and the strength of the brand in multiple markets will make us very attractive in the recruitment market. It is encouraging that we have already seen an uptick in the number of applications from law students and unsolicited approaches from talent wanting to join us.’

 

One certainty is that other firms throughout Sweden and Norway will be following the pioneering work of the Hamilton/Schjødt merger as an indication for whether others will follow suit. As Schjødt’s head of dispute resolution, Per M. Ristvedt, recently mentioned in an interview with The Legal 500’s Caribbean and Nordics editor, Amy Ulliott, (fivehundred, November 2019), ‘we know that other law firms have contemplated this, but none have had the guts to try it. When the merger was announced several other firms in Norway complemented us and actually told us: “This is impressive, only Schjødt could do this!”’ So, in short, watch this space.

Estonia’s legal market – serene despite economic uncertainty

Estonia has maintained its strong transactional environment despite concerns over an economic downturn, with the country’s favourable regulatory environment remaining attractive for foreign and domestic businesses. Estonia’s long-standing record of low taxes and favourable regulation, combined with the country’s innovative approaches to attracting investment, such as the nation’s e-residency scheme, has long seen the Baltic state as a bastion of safety for business and a reliable source of work for law firms engaged in transactions and technology.

Prime Minister Jüri Ratas has held power since 2016, initially in a coalition between his own Centre Party, the centre-right Pro Patria, and the centre-left Social Democrats. The Centre Party finished second in the parliamentary election held in March 2019. Despite expectations that Ratas would cede the premiership and form a government with the election’s victor, the market-liberal Reform Party, the leader bucked expectations and instead formed a three-party coalition with the conservative Isamaa and national-conservative EKRE. The inclusion of EKRE, labelled far-right by many observers, attracted criticism, amplified by the appointment of the party’s Martin Helme as finance minister. Helme has previously expressed criticism of the European Union, particularly Estonia’s participation within the Eurozone. This has sparked concerns that Estonia’s light-touch approach to regulation and business affairs may change, though no major alterations have been made at present.

M&A and real estate transactions have somewhat decreased after a boom last year, though investors remain optimistic, with a notable increase in outside investment from Asia. Blackstone’s acquisition of a majority share in Luminor Bank is now complete, with the fund now tipped to play a leading role in banking and financing work in the future. The downturn in real estate transactions can be traced to a drying up of supply following a steady stream of purchases in past years, with infrastructure and construction projects now taking up much of the market, in particular the estimated €15bn construction of a Tallinn-to-Helsinki train tunnel.

Following the money-laundering scandal, Danske Bank has dissolved its Estonian operations, with its assets purchased by several former competitors. This has produced some major opportunities for domestic firms, with the transaction-focused FORT benefitting especially, advising LHV Pank on the acquisition of Danske’s private loan portfolio for an estimated €410m.

“M&A and real estate transactions have somewhat decreased after a boom last year, though investors remain optimistic, with a notable increase in outside investment from Asia”

The after-effects of the money-laundering scandal, notably a tightening of residency requirements for new bank accounts alongside renewed due diligence for investors, have led to a boom in alternative payment services, with many fintech companies seeking banking licences and establishing payment platforms. This innovation can also be seen in financing work, with ICOs, crypto, and crowdfunding transactions increasingly common. These developments have worked to the benefit of smaller firms focused on growth clients such as LEXTAL, NJORD Law Firm, and Hedman Partners, though traditional powerhouse firms have also seen plenty of work.

In general, the ‘big three’ of Cobalt, Ellex, and Sorainen have maintained their dominant market position, aided by connections to other Baltic and Europe-wide law firms. This has been especially apparent in transactions and banking work, with smaller firms unable to match the strong international client list of these firms, though opportunities have arisen in some cases, as seen with the LHV Pank transaction.

The slight downturn in M&A transactions has led to an increase in disputes, with many businesses seeking to consolidate, while real estate-related disputes are also on the rise for similar reasons. Additionally, actions against state authorities have increased thanks to new policies on tax and public transport pricing.

“The slight downturn in M&A transactions has led to an increase in disputes, with many businesses seeking to consolidate, while real estate-related disputes are also on the rise for similar reasons”

Arbitration has become more popular as a dispute resolution mechanism, something previously less common in Estonia. Other prominent pieces of litigation include anti-money laundering (AML), corporate malfeasance, and public corruption cases, with the Edgar Sarvisaar and Port of Tallinn cases particularly prominent on the latter front. A former prime minister and mayor of Tallinn, Sarvisaar stands accused of multiple instances of bribery and corruption, though he has presently been ruled medically unfit to stand trial. The Port of Tallinn case has implicated a wide range of executives from various businesses, providing multiple opportunities for litigation-focused firms to pick up high-profile mandates.

Contentious work, particularly, and tax advice are areas where smaller domestic firms flourish alongside Cobalt, Ellex, and Sorainen, with Leadell PILV and Glikman ALVIN Levin especially impressive in both areas, while tax boutique HansaLaw has also been recognised by clients and peers alike for the strong capabilities of its partners. In the field of employment, specialist lawyer Rando Maisvee has won plaudits for his work for Nordic-wide firm Magnusson, having one of his damages proceedings aired live on Facebook by the Estonian court system as an example of the ‘Art of Justice’ (in Estonian). Maisvee has recently set up his own firm, MOSS Legal.

Major international firms present in Estonia include Eversheds Sutherland, as well as the likes of KPMG and PwC. These Estonian outposts are largely mid-market players, though KPMG and PwC are understandably strong in tax advice, while Eversheds Sutherland’s employment practice has been a market leader in politically-sensitive workplace harassment matters in the past year.

The end of the GDPR rollout has seen firms re-orient to work on data protection more broadly on behalf of corporate clients, alongside Estonia’s traditional focus on start-ups and growth companies. Additionally, the alignment of Estonia’s trade mark system with the European Union is now complete, leading to a new wave of mandates relating to trademarks and copyrights.

After several years of upheaval the legal market has remained relatively stable, with the most notable development being the creation of Cuesta Law Office by two former partners at Leadell PILV. Firms such as Derling Primus, TGS Baltic, and TARK maintain a prominent market position despite their involvement in the series of mergers and consolidations that occurred in recent years.

In a global economy increasingly subject to dire warnings of recession, Estonia remains a safe bet for international investors, aided by a legal market that features strong local counsel, Baltic-wide network firms, and three strong firms able to manage high-profile and high-value work on behalf of major multinationals.

Anand Sharma: We are distinctly different

Given your experience in having studied mechanical engineering and then working as a space engineer at NASA, why then did you decide to study law and pursue a legal career?

Law was not a career track for me when I was an undergrad. I really did see myself working as an engineer and actually continuing on the path in engineering all the way through to a doctorate degree. However, what I found when I got into practice working at NASA was that the work was exciting, but it just wasn’t the right fit for me.

So, I looked at different options, including business school. Even then, law was not one of my considerations until I was visiting my uncle in Rochester, who worked at Xerox as one of their chief inventors, and he suggested I come into the office and meet the patent attorneys there. Talking with them and learning about how they use their science backgrounds in combination with their advocacy skills was somewhat of a revelation. I didn’t know that was a career option, and that’s what put me on the path to law school. I was at Xerox in January, sat for the last possible LSAT exam you could sit for to apply to law school, then I applied, and six or seven months later started law school.

Even through law school and up until I summered at Finnegan, I still wasn’t convinced it was the right decision for me. But at Finnegan I got to see how it worked in practice and how I could marry science and the law, and it was truly a perfect fit for me.

“We work hard to remember and remain guided by the vision of the two founders of the firm, Marc Finnegan and Doug Henderson”

You started as an associate with Finnegan in 1997 and made partner in 2006. Would you say the managing partner role or a senior firm leadership position was something you aspired to?

It’s somewhat similar to the law school example in that law firm leadership was not on my radar. When I made partner in 2006, I mostly focused on litigation in the district courts and the US International Trade Commission (ITC), and I was thoroughly enjoying my practice.

What happened was, about a year after I made partner, I spoke to our managing partner about some diversity initiatives and ideas I had about what we could do to complement our existing diversity and inclusion efforts. When I had that conversation, I thought I was passing those ideas on to management for management to implement them. But our managing partner said he liked the ideas and wanted me to lead our efforts as the firm’s first diversity and inclusion chair. So, that was essentially my entrée into leadership.

I spent about four years in that role, and found that over time I really enjoyed creating and implementing strategies. After serving as the diversity chair, I then had the opportunity to lead the firm’s mechanical practice group. From there I transitioned to join the management committee. Each subsequent role was a three-year term and a distinct model to Finnegan’s leadership development. During that time of experiencing different areas of leadership within the firm, it really gave me a chance to learn the different aspects of the firm – including our talent and our business. It wasn’t aspirational, it was more transitional in the same way as you go from being a junior associate to being the first chair litigator.

You mention D&I so we will come back to that in more detail. First, how would you define the culture at Finnegan?

We take our culture somewhat seriously – and I am sure all firms are the same way. For us, we work hard to remember and remain guided by the vision of the two founders of the firm, Marc Finnegan and Doug Henderson. Doug would often say their goal was to create a first class, full-service intellectual property law firm that produces top quality work in a collegial and enjoyable atmosphere. So it is not just that we are recognised as a leader in intellectual property, but we want to ensure that we work in an enjoyable environment. We are equally as proud of the recognition we get within the legal industry for our expertise as we are for our quality of life and the way that the attorneys and the staff value working at the firm.

We have tried to maintain this over time as we have grown. We now have ten offices, though we try not to operate as ten separate offices – we operate as one firm and look at our clients as firm clients who have available to them the full expertise of the firm. We look to maintain the same culture and sustain an environment of high-quality work, collegiality, teamwork, and respect. Something that Doug used to talk about, and something that you really start to understand as you get more senior in your practice, is that it is a circle: you strive for good clients who give you good work, and that good work allows you to employ good attorneys, and those good attorneys again allow you to get the good clients with the good work… and the circle continues!

What are your main areas of focus as managing partner?

When I stepped into this role, I was somewhat blessed as the firm has long had a reputation as a leader in intellectual property. So, for me, one of the primary goals is to maintain and grow Finnegan’s reputation in that regard.

What I also wanted to do, even though I had the opportunity to gain management experience in previous roles before becoming managing partner, is learn all aspects of the business, particularly related to the other parts of the firm that I didn’t previously have exposure to, and I wanted to meet all of the members of the firm. I started by meeting the partners and attorneys, but then I met with all of the different departments within the firm. For example our paralegal department, our IT department, and our secretarial department. I am still going through that process of meeting the departments and introducing myself. I give them a bit of my background and we discuss the strategies the firm has implemented, and the strategies that we will implement, so that everyone can be a part of one team and work together to achieve our singular goal of ensuring we are giving our clients the best work product we can in the most efficient way.

Important to IP, we are a technology firm, and we have nearly 300 lawyers that are focused on a variety of technical issues. So, another natural area of focus for our business is to leverage technology. We are looking at continued opportunities for efficiencies in the way that we deliver our legal services, and we are using technology to better manage our existing knowledge. It is all geared towards strengthening relationships with clients so we can share that knowledge more efficiently.

In working with clients, we are looking for ways in which to continue strengthening our partnerships with them. Not just on the legal services we provide, but also in the pro bono work that we do. We are starting to look at some opportunities for joint pro bono with our clients. In the area of diversity and inclusion we are also looking for more opportunities to work with clients to improve the diversity of the legal industry as a whole and not just at our firm. Often, depending on the size of an internal legal group, you may not have the bandwidth to manage a pro bono programme, or to manage some of the diversity and inclusion initiatives, but if these are things we are already doing as a firm then it is a natural fit to invite our clients to join us in these opportunities. If we have the infrastructure set up, it just makes sense to include our clients as we know these are efforts that are important to them as well.

“Overall, it is a balance of ensuring the consistency and stability that has allowed us to stay at the top, while looking for opportunities to create improvements along the way”

In the months since you have taken on the managing partner role, what changes have you made already, or what changes do you plan to make?

I am trying to balance the consistency and stability of the firm, which has helped us enjoy the reputation that we have had for many years, with introducing opportunities and ways to improve. We have implemented some changes already and many of these deal with the evolution in the industry in general, as well as feedback we get from our clients. They tend to revolve around improving the client service experience, which may include delivering some of our services through the use of technology, creating different formats for client engagement and communication, and knowing our client’s business to stay ahead of emerging client needs.

Management has tried to provide different tools within the firm to achieve these goals in terms of creating a knowledge management team, a pricing and budgeting team, and different platforms to partner with clients on the D&I or pro bono initiatives of the firm.

Because we are a firm focused on virtually all areas of technology we are looking at our internal structure, which has been tied broadly to industries, and are considering sub-groups to really showcase our technical expertise as well as our legal experience across those different areas. Overall, it is a balance of ensuring the consistency and stability that has allowed us to stay at the top, while looking for opportunities to create improvements along the way.

In light of all of that, how much time do you spend on client work versus on your managing partner responsibilities? And how do you balance them?

That certainly is a balance! We are not a firm of just one attorney or a management team of just one, and that works for both my billable practice and my efforts to manage the firm.

In terms of my billable practice, I work in teams, and what I have had to do is be more selective in the matters I take on. These are matters where I am more intimately involved, creating and implementing client strategies. From a billable practice perspective, in the past, if we were to talk about litigation, I may have been involved in eight to ten litigations at one time. Now, the number may be three to four. As for balancing the management of patent prosecution portfolios, I am also looking to other team members to help at times.

That same team approach applies in terms of management of the firm. We have a lot of different management teams, and I try to work with different groups to develop strategies and manage the implementation of those strategies. It may involve a different leadership group within the firm depending on the strategy. We have a management committee, we also have our coordinating committee where practice group leads are involved, and we have industry sub-groups that have leads as well, as well as a pro bono coordinator and a diversity and inclusion chair. So depending on the initiative that I am working on, I am always working with a team.

What I find with my practice now is that balance of client work with managing partner responsibilities changes over time. In October, I had a trial in Delaware, so there was a period during the trial when I had to lean more heavily on other members of the firm who are also in management positions, including our firm chair. Typically, the managing partner transitions to chair, so the person in the chair role was recently in the managing partner role and understands the responsibilities well. While I was at trial, I was able to share responsibility with Mark Sweet, our current chair.

Then, there are also times in the year when management responsibilities become greater – whether it is partner compensation, new partner admissions, or other things – and those are situations in which I will be more involved in the management activities and leaning on members of the client teams to make sure we are continuing to implement our client strategies. It’s a balance, and there are times when it is more challenging, but so far the balance has worked out.

“My hope is that all managing partners put great emphasis and focus on D&I efforts. For me, it is in my DNA already, so it is about continuing to improve on what we have been doing and looking for opportunities to partner with industry because this is an initiative that law firms can work together on, as well as with clients”

Since becoming managing partner, what (if anything) has surprised you the most within the firm itself and/or externally in the wider legal market?

Internally at the firm I’ve always known we had a great staff – something we have prided ourselves on over the years is not just hiring the best lawyers but hiring the best staff as well – but in the role I have now, the opportunity to work with the different chiefs and directors within the firm has increased, and I have been truly amazed by the talent that we have in all of our different departments. Working with them has really been a pleasure because they also understand the culture we talked about earlier and our business model, and when we meet one-on-one or have larger chief or director meetings it has been amazing to be more immersed in the creativity, solutions, and approach from those groups. I knew we had a great staff, but it has still been enlightening to work with them.

Externally, because I have had different management positions, I have been attuned to what is happening in the legal industry over the past few years. I try to stay abreast of the different trends in the industry either on the client side or the law firm side. I am now spending more time in that area. I think the surprise for me was when I went to my first managing partner meeting at the national scale. It really reminded me that you can sometimes live in a bubble. Within Finnegan, our management team is diverse. I am sitting here as the managing partner and our management committee is 66% diverse in terms of attorneys of colour and women attorneys. But going to that first national managing partner meeting was a quick reminder that, at least at this level of managing partner, there is not that same diversity. In a large conference room of AmLaw 100 or AmLaw 200 firms, I could quickly and easily pick out the partners of colour. I knew this was the case, but to see it was something different.

That leads well to the next question I was going to ask, which is what significance do you place on the fact that you are the first managing partner of colour within Finnegan?

I would refer back again to that national managing partner conference because that is where it really hit home. You really start to recognise that it is rare for an attorney of colour at a top law firm to be serving as managing partner. For me, it shows the firm is open in creating a pipeline that supports diversity and inclusion. It is not just me as managing partner; as I mentioned, we have a diverse management committee. To achieve that requires pipelines and efforts.

Whether you are an attorney of colour, a woman, a member of the LGBTQ community, or any group that is traditionally underrepresented in the law firm space, you look around and see who is in the leadership positions. I find that the new generation of attorneys coming out of law school are much more aware of diversity as a whole and understand the value of diversity in terms of diversity of ideas and coming to better solutions as a result. I think part of the significance also is having attorneys at the firm see that there is an opportunity within the management ranks, if that is something that interests them.

I knew taking on this role was going to require me to sacrifice certain areas of my legal practice, but because of those areas of significance, I felt it was important not just for us as a firm, but also for the industry in general. The hope is, in years from now at that national managing partner meeting, the room will look a little different.

So, to add to that, what do you think your role is in furthering the firm’s D&I efforts? And do you think you have more responsibility for this as managing partner?

As far as my management style goes, I try to place the other leaders and attorneys within the firm in positions to succeed. For me it is more about the initiatives that get implemented and succeed instead of whether I or someone else gets credit for them.

We have an excellent diversity and inclusion chair who just stepped into the role in July 2019, when I took on my current role. Her name is Mareesa Frederick, and she is one of the ITC experts at the firm. She started her career here and then went to work at the ITC for five years before returning to the firm.

Years ago, I worked with Mareesa on an initiative to try to increase the number of black attorneys in the field of intellectual property. In the area of patents, you are taking someone with a science degree, who then (in what some would call a stark shift) decides to go to law school. Like myself, that was not even known as a career path to most. Our DC office is not too far from Howard University – a historically black university – where my father studied as well as some of my uncles. We asked if we could teach a class on patent law to expose them to it. It doesn’t mean the students are necessarily going to go on to become patent attorneys, but even if they stay on their current course they will come across patent law as engineers. So, we taught that course for a number of years and there are IP attorneys in the field today that have taken that career path through the course we taught at Howard University.

Within the firm on the recruitment side, Mareesa has already had ideas for a few D&I initiatives that we have started to implement. This year we started a secondee programme for first-year law students, where a first-year summer associate will work at the firm for a number of weeks, and then they will spend another portion of the summer working in-house. We are partnering with a number of companies near a Finnegan office on this programme.

On the retention aspect, which I would say is even more important right now to ensure you are advancing people within their careers, another initiative which Mareesa proposed to the management committee, which we are going to move forward with, is for our diverse junior to mid-level attorneys to partner with members of the management committee to receive mentorship and guidance in the areas of law firm leadership.

Those are a couple of the things we are doing now, and I look forward to more initiatives coming through D&I and pro bono, as well as through pricing and knowledge management, and giving different leaders at the firm the opportunity to succeed and support them.

As far as having more responsibility as managing partner goes, my hope is that all managing partners put great emphasis and focus on D&I efforts. For me, it is in my DNA already, so it is about continuing to improve on what we have been doing and looking for opportunities to partner with industry because this is an initiative that law firms can work together on, as well as with clients. It is not something we should be competing on.

Final question: how do you think Finnegan is differentiated from your competitors?

Looking at Finnegan and who we compete against in the intellectual property space, we are distinctly different. We are a firm that is focused solely on intellectual property, and it has been our practice now for 55 years. We have nearly 350 professionals who are all focused on intellectual property, over 300 of whom have scientific degrees and most with advanced scientific degrees.

Some of our competitors may have a broader service of offerings, and intellectual property is just one of those. For Finnegan, IP is our practice. For each of the areas that fall under the intellectual property umbrella, we have been identified as leaders – whether it is litigation, prosecution, or counselling, and whether it is patents, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets.

One of the areas where I really feel we may be different than some of our competitors is in the types of experiences we look to give our attorneys. Because our practice is wholly IP, we make sure our attorneys have experience in the different areas of intellectual property. Often there can be separation between the prosecution side of the practice, which is the obtaining of the IP, and the enforcement side, which often results in litigation. Some firms have their attorneys choose one track over the other. We encourage our new attorneys to get experience in all areas of the litigation and transactional work. After they have experience in the different areas, we allow them to choose the kind of practice they want. For some that may be a blended practice, for others it is either as a litigator or a prosecutor.

As we see it, if you choose to become a litigator, knowledge of the process and what it takes to get a patent or trademark allows you to see things differently and become a stronger litigator. If you choose the path of prosecutor in terms of patent or trademark applications, knowing what is going to happen later to that patent or trademark really changes your approach to how you communicate with the US Patent and Trademark Office in terms of the statements you make to get that IP allowed. We believe that experience is very different from what you can get from any CLE or training class.

For us, nothing beats real-life experience. I think this has helped us to remain a leader in the intellectual property space.

Building and sustaining a top tier litigation practice

Kirkland & Ellis benefits from a well-resourced and expert New York litigation team comprised of over 80 lawyers – including 25 partners and over 50 associates. These individuals are a key team within the overall figure of 700 Kirkland & Ellis litigators worldwide, and were described within The Legal 500’s 2019 US guide as being ‘widely regarded as leading players in the market’.

Helen Donegan spoke with three partners from the team – Stefan Atkinson, Aaron Marks, and Matt Solum – to find out what they attribute to the team’s successes and consistent status within the top legal rankings.

“Whether the case is to be tried before a jury in the Southern District, a NY Commercial Division judge, an arbitration panel, or a US Supreme Court special master, our lawyers are ready to take cases to trial and win.”

Strength of the NY team

With no fewer than eight partners from the team noted in the editorial for their 2019 tier 1 ranking (the highest number of partners noted in any 2019 editorial for tier 1 practices in this area), ‘the New York litigation team is a versatile group of hard-working, strategic, and skilful attorneys that has expertise in a number of key areas,’ confirms Marks.

Marks is one of a number of significant new hires for the New York team over the past couple of years, with the arrival of Sandra Goldstein and Atkinson from Cravath, Josh Greenblatt (along with Marks) from Kasowitz, Zach Brez from Ropes & Gray, and Bob Allen from the US Attorney’s Office. The newcomers have expanded the group’s focus and capabilities, building on pre-existing expertise within the team from partners such as Jay Lefkowitz, Lauren Casazza, Atif Khawaja, and Matt Solum, among others.

The team’s lawyers have expertise in M&A, securities, complex commercial, financial restructuring, and class action litigation, as well as in corporate governance and investigations. They regularly litigate in the Delaware Chancery Courts, New York’s Commercial Division, and federal and state courts around the country. ‘Whether the case is to be tried before a jury in the Southern District, a NY Commercial Division judge, an arbitration panel, or a US Supreme Court special master, our lawyers are ready to take cases to trial and win. This trial focus is key in achieving outstanding results for clients in settlements as well,’ says Solum.

When queried on the strength of the New York litigation team, and asked how they see themselves in terms of differentiation from competitors, the straight-forward response from Marks is: ‘The team is unique in a couple of ways. First, given the areas of expertise for the group, the team is accustomed to regularly taking on fast-moving, intense matters representing the most sophisticated of commercial clients (private equity firms and hedge funds, investment banks and other financial institutions, pharmaceutical giants, multinational corporations) – often when such clients are in circumstances of critical transactional time pressure or under great public and/or political scrutiny. Being a team of experienced trial lawyers who are accustomed to operating in pressured situations enables us to be the first call for clients in their hour of need.’

‘Second, the structure of the firm, with very large offices in DC, California, Chicago, Texas, London, Hong Kong, and several other major hubs, and the daily seamless work we do together, enables us to handle complicated cross-border and multi-jurisdictional matters in a highly coordinated and effective way.

Today, when so many major financial and other commercial disputes involve global interests, we readily tap other resources at the firm (both litigators and other practice area expertise) in order to provide clients with the best possible representation.’

Marks’ response leads on to two additional factors which are identified as key components in the team’s successes for their clients – two factors which are driven by firmwide capabilities: (i) scalability; and (ii) teamwork across Kirkland’s offices.

Scalability and the ability to staff effectively

With a large number of lawyers to call on, Kirkland prides itself on its ability to quickly assemble client teams, as well as the ability to scale teams effectively depending on the matter at hand.

As Atkinson illustrates: ‘Across its various offices, Kirkland operates as one firm, with lawyers in one city working closely with lawyers in others. This close collaboration and coordination among our attorneys allows the firm to staff its matters quickly and easily, on short notice and at any time, regardless of the size or complexity of the dispute. In a recent matter that arose over a holiday weekend, Kirkland quickly pulled together 30 of its lawyers (across multiple offices) to work on the case. Within hours, these attorneys were reviewing documents, researching the law, and preparing litigation materials. We are able to staff our matters with as many highly qualified attorneys as the circumstances require.’

With the mention of Kirkland’s various offices, the obvious next question was how the firm ensures effective collaboration across its offices, and how the New York team work with colleagues in different locations.

Diverse geographical expertise

“Across its various offices, Kirkland operates as one firm, with lawyers in one city working closely with lawyers in others.”

Solum notes his team’s ability to ‘work seamlessly across offices and practices’ and their experience with international as well as domestic work.

‘In addition to handling matters throughout the US, our team has significant experience worldwide, including in international arbitration, securities, and complex commercial litigation. Given this, we have been asked to represent clients overseas in numerous foreign complicated securities cases. For example, one recent matter included lawsuits throughout Europe in the UK, France, Austria, Israel, and the Netherlands, among other places. We often work with experienced co-counsel to resolve the most complicated securities and commercial cases.’

Atkinson goes on to highlight an additional benefit of Kirkland’s geographic reach in their ability to have local presence and expertise in the jurisdictions in which their clients often find themselves in litigation throughout the US: ‘We are at home in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Texas and Washington, DC. So, when our clients have cases before state courts in Texas or California, federal courts in New York or Chicago, or regulatory agencies in Washington, Kirkland comes armed with knowledge of the relevant norms, procedures, and decision-makers. As a result, we are able to apply our deep subject-matter expertise effectively wherever we find ourselves in a dispute.’

‘As a general matter, when Kirkland opens an office in a new market, within a relatively short period of time that office will grow to be at the top of that market’ adds Marks. When asked what he attributes this to, Marks notes the high standards expected across all of the firm’s offices, which is also a key factor in his and other Kirkland teams’ ability to place trust in colleagues and collaborate effectively across teams.

‘Having standards of uniform excellence across the board makes collaboration among offices and among practices easy to facilitate, as the participants are all able to trust they are working with the best in the field. I have countless cases where I am working with individuals or groups in other offices and in other practice areas and it is always a good experience. For example, I am currently representing a private equity client that had bid to acquire a competitor. The deal was not consummated, and the competitor has now sued the private equity client for purported trade secret misappropriation. I am working closely with the M&A team that represented the client in the bidding process and with our IP group on certain aspects of the trade secret case – all in different offices.’

When asked if they believe the culture of the firm has changed and if this has contributed to their ability to work so effectively across teams and offices, Solum confirms: ‘We have a culture of collaboration, and focus on working in teams in a collegial manner. We avoid sharp elbows and work together to achieve our clients’ goals.’

Attorney training and experience

An obvious area to ask about when reviewing the strength of the New York litigation team is attorney training. How does the New York team (and indeed the wider firm) ensure clients can rely on excellence from Kirkland attorneys at all levels? Solum notes the firm’s focus on extensive trial training for associates and the importance of trial-readiness. ‘Kirkland’s litigators are trial lawyers. For associates, we have extensive trial training programmes for first- to sixth-year associates. That prepares lawyers to be trial-ready. In New York this is a key focus as we are routinely called on to step in to handle matters heading to trial.’

As featured in the July/August 2019 edition of fivehundred, the Kirkland Institute for Trial Advocacy (KITA) is a firm-wide trial advocacy and litigation attorney training programme that prepares Kirkland associates for all a courtroom can throw at them. As highlighted within that article, KITA is ‘the largest, most comprehensive litigation training programme at any firm. It emphasises core trial skills and becomes more complex as associates advance.’

KITA fulfils a Kirkland promise to clients that their teams will always be trial-ready and well-trained. As noted within the fivehundred article, KITA ‘gives our partners confidence to put associates in on-their-feet roles, and allows partners to advocate to clients with confidence that our associates are ready for those roles… Rather than young associates getting their first trial training raw, unprepared, and on the client’s dime, Kirkland associates are getting that experience every year at the firm’s expense, with our own partners doing the work, making them ready for trial.’

“As a general matter, when Kirkland opens an office in a new market, within a relatively short period of time that office will grow to be at the top of that market.”

Independence of the practice

A further strength of the New York litigation practice is the generation of work independent of the firm’s wider corporate practice. The team does undertake client work referred from other practice areas, such as M&A, but are quick to note that they are not dependent on it.

‘Our M&A litigation practice is recognised as a best-in-class practice. Clients call on us frequently to litigate issues on deals that were handled by our firm, which has a leading M&A practice, as well as on deals that were negotiated by other law firms’ says Solum. ‘For example,’ he continues, ‘we are handling a substantial matter right now where another major law firm negotiated the underlying deal. We identified a series of additional claims that could be pursued that prior counsel overlooked and achieved great results for the client. Directors, officers, financial advisors, and others call our M&A litigators directly to represent them in matters given the depth and breadth of our experience.’

What lies ahead?

The final question for the partners concerns future challenges and where they see their team’s expertise being applied. ‘With the anticipated volatility in the economy, we are already seeing an uptick in commercial litigation and class actions,’ states Marks. ‘Companies, investment firms, and pension funds and insurers appear to have an increased willingness to take action to protect their rights and are viewing commercial litigation as an investment with a potential return. And, the courts appear to be more open to considering the possibility of class actions, and plaintiffs’ class action attorneys are accordingly filing more of these cases,’ he says.

Atkinson also weighs in on this.

‘Securities cases are on the rise,’ he says. ‘One example of this is the uptick in cases brought in state court under the federal Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs are allowed to bring these federal claims in state court as a result of the Supreme Court’s March 2018 decision in Cyan, Inc. v Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, which held that ’33 Act claims may be brought in state court and are not removable to federal court.

‘Separately, we’re seeing (and have been seeing for years) securities cases arising from disclosures of “bad news” that have nothing to do with the securities laws. For example, government investigations, news reports of unfair business practices, and accusations made in litigation – all having no connection to the company’s disclosures – have become harbingers of securities litigation. The plaintiff’s theory in these cases is that the company misled investors by not sufficiently informing them sooner of the bad news, thereby committing securities fraud. We’re seeing companies become more and more vigilant about their level of risk under the securities laws.’

The team have been successful thus far (up to and including the 2019 US guide) in retaining a consistent tier 1 standing in The Legal 500 rankings. From speaking with Atkinson, Marks, and Solum it is clear, in summary, that they attribute this (and anticipated future success) to the expertise within the team, collaboration, the firm’s investment in preparing trial-ready lawyers, and their independent standing with clients.

Stefan Atkinson handles a range of complex litigation matters in the United States and abroad, including securities, M&A, and antitrust suits. He also regularly counsels companies and their directors on issues of corporate governance and litigation, often in connection with major strategic transactions.

Aaron Marks is an accomplished trial lawyer focusing on complex commercial litigation relating to securities, financial products, real estate, entertainment, mass torts and trade secrets. He routinely ranks among the best trial lawyers and commercial litigators in the country by industry surveys.

Matthew Solum is a senior litigation partner. Having tried more than twenty cases to decision, he is a go-to trial lawyer for high stakes disputes, including in the securities, M&A, and complex commercial arenas.