Posted on

The lure of chambers

Why do City solicitors join the ranks of the independent Bar? The answer to that question is as varied as the partners and associates who leave the ivory towers of Big Law behind for a life in chambers – bewigged or otherwise.

Within the last decade, former partners and department heads such as Judith Gill QC at Twenty Essex, Peter Rees QC at 39 Essex, Nicholas Fletcher QC and John Bellhouse at 4 New Square, Christopher Style QC and Ian Terry at One Essex Court, and, most recently, Brian King at 3 Verulam Buildings and 3 Hare Court’s Jeffrey Golden, have all transitioned from the Magic Circle and international firms to successful arbitrator and mediator practices in chambers.

Others high-profile partners, such as Brick Court’s Jon Lawrence, Matrix’s Raj Parker, and Wilberforce’s David Pollard (all ex-Freshfields), as well as David Brynmor Thomas QC and Steven Lim at 39 Essex, Paul Cowan at 4 New Square, Etienne Wong at Old Square Tax Chambers, Matthew O'Regan at St John’s Chambers, and Fountain Court’s Andrew Pullen (formerly a consultant on the partnership track at Allen & Overy), have all gone on to establish successful counsel practices in their respective fields.

At the more junior, 3 Verulam Buildings has made a strategy of picking up promising senior associates, such as Mark Wassouf and Tariq Baloch (both ex-Freshfields), as well as Scott Ralston, who was previously at Clifford Chance. But they are not the only set to pick up talented litigators who have already cut their teeth in high-profile City practices.

The likes of new silk Daniel Saoul QC and Kendrah Potts at 4 New Square (former Herbert Smith and Mishcon de Reya respectively), Lucas Bastin and Anna Dilnot at Essex Court (ex-Latham & Watkins and Stephenson Harwood respectively); Tom Sebastian at Monckton (formerly A&O); Belinda McRae and Harris Bor at Twenty Essex (Freshfields and SJ Berwin respectively); Sandy Phipps at One Essex Court (ex-Freshfields); and Blackstone’s Fraser Campbell (ex-Clifford Chance) are also notable switchers.

But if you’re thinking of crossing the professional tracks, what do you need to know? Well, two recent defectors – Philip Stear (Travers Smith to Outer Temple Chambers) and Steven Fennell (DLA Piper and Kennedys to Exchange Chambers) – have the answers as they recount their individual journeys to the Bar, discuss why ‘lawyer’ transcends the titles of solicitor and barrister, how speaking the same language as your client is advantageous, and offer practical advice on how to requalify.

And if that isn’t enough to make you start measuring your head for a horse hair wig, Bill Braithwaite QC, head of Exchange Chambers, explains why you could be a big asset to the Bar and what to expect when entering chambers.

When news broke that I was packing my bags for the Bar after 13 years as a pensions partner at Travers Smith, reactions were varied and interesting. I’m not going to say which was which, but here are three reactions from a client, a Travers partner, and a Queen’s Counsel:

  • ‘Why on earth would you want to do that?’
  • ‘Brave!’
  • ‘Fascinating! You’ll have a tremendous time and be a terrific success!’

Actually, I was pretty clear why on earth I wanted to do it. It wasn’t as if I had been hankering after being a barrister during all my time as a solicitor. I loved lots about practice as a partner in a City law firm – getting to build long and strong client relationships; getting to design solutions that work for problems that have seemed intractable – and I loved Travers Smith. It was just that I also loved the law, in all its black letter, footnoted glory, and the commercial hurly burly somewhat kept me away from all that.

As a solicitor, if you can spot a way of avoiding having to tackle a tricky point of law, you do the choreography. I wanted to have an inbox pre-screened so that my to-do list mostly consisted of points that simply had to be confronted, with the chance to argue them out before a judge from time to time and find out if I was right.

Inevitably there are far more solicitors who are former barristers than vice versa, but the traffic between the Bar and the solicitors’ profession is not all one way. In fact, at Outer Temple, out of 89 tenants there are a large handful who started their professional life as solicitors.

The process of transfer to the Bar for a UK-qualified solicitor is bureaucratic and time-consuming but not especially arduous. There seem to be two routes. Route 1, which must have been there for approximately ever, involves sitting a few exams and, if successful, completing three months of pupillage.

Route 2, which I imagine must be the politically correct product of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, applies to solicitors with higher rights of audience. Under this route, you basically get waved through without any exams and are exempted from pupillage entirely. And given that the higher rights exams are (probably) rather easier than the Route 1 exams, this begs the question why anyone would ever choose the old way (and perhaps no one does).

It is notable however that the Bar Standards Board (BSB) advises (probably wisely, though it will clearly vary from case to case) that you consider serving a period of pupillage anyway. I had no plans to exercise solicitors’ higher rights of audience once I had them. I made my application to the BSB for transfer the very same day that the higher rights certificate came through from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Obviously finding a place in chambers and then building a practice are potentially mountains compared with the molehills of getting the BSB sign-off and being called to the Bar. I was fortunate, as a pensions specialist, to be part of a relatively small community of pensions lawyers – I knew (or knew of) most of the pensions Bar and they knew (or knew of) me. And, equally, I know and am known by many pensions solicitors, and there is no doubt this has helped develop a stream of instructions in the six or seven months since I opened for business early in 2019.

I suppose my experience has been a vindication of the belief that being a ‘lawyer’ is a more important professional identity than being a barrister or a solicitor. Doubtless Outer Temple is less stuffy than some other sets, but I have been pleased to be welcomed as a lawyer among lawyers. And those instructing me know that I know what it is like to be in their shoes, and that what they want is not ex cathedra pronouncements, but the contributions of a team player with shirt sleeves rolled up, helping them to help their clients.

I am having a tremendous time. I have the sort of work diet that I was after. Outer Temple is collegiate and fun and deliciously a little anarchic, as well as committed and hardworking. A strong theme of teamwork within the different practice groups in chambers co-exists with a culture of independence. But I suspect that the wit who suggested ‘managing a law firm was like herding cats’ would have found all metaphor failing her if she had been confronted instead by a set of barristers’ chambers.

Posted on

A modern framework

The UAE and the wider Middle East has always been a fascinating place for the outside world; known for its modern sophistication and exemplified by its many ground-breaking architectural and engineering achievements.

Its ability to provide an environment that’s conducive for doing business is a key reason why the UAE is quickly emerging as one of the most attractive investment destinations for global investors.

Having firmly established itself as a hub for multinational companies conducting business in the Middle East, many major international businesses have adopted the UAE for their regional headquarters, chosen for its logistics advantages and geographical proximity to the wider Middle East, Africa, Indian Subcontinent, Eastern Europe, and beyond.

In a region where trust and confidentiality are central to doing business, it is no surprise that arbitration continues to grow in popularity. In fact, arbitration remains the resolution method of choice for many multinational companies operating in the region and is an important commercial alternative to the judicial system.

After much anticipation within the legal and business community, on 3 May 2018, the new UAE Arbitration Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2018, was issued by the government (the New Law). By enacting the New Law, the UAE now has a modern framework for arbitration which largely reflects generally accepted legislative best practice around the world, and will contribute towards ensuring that investor confidence in the UAE remains high.

I recently participated in the The Legal 500’s inaugural Middle East Disputes Summit in Dubai. The panel sessions featured some of the most high-profile and experienced general counsel (GCs) operating in the region. During a number of panel discussions, views were exchanged on some of the key topics surrounding dispute resolution and compliance in the UAE and wider Middle East region.

The first panel session discussed the role of the GC in minimising litigation and regulatory risk. Sometimes formal disputes are unavoidable, but in many cases there is often a more cost-effective outcome achievable through the implementation of the right strategy before a dispute or investigation materialises. The GCs on the panel, armed with many years of experience in managing disputes and compliance risk, provided invaluable insights into a range of diverse and sometimes high-risk jurisdictions.

During the second session, we looked at the enduring popularity of arbitration in the Middle East, with a review of the new rules, laws, and centres across the region. The panel also looked at the often convoluted range of options available to GCs when it comes to choosing the optimum seat, and the key considerations to bear in mind.

Within the Middle East, third-party funding (TPF) is widely acknowledged to be on the rise. This is in no small way encouraged by arbitration centres, and is being increasingly demanded by users. The third panel session looked at TPF in the region and asked how GCs and practitioners can utilise TPF to reduce the financial implications for disputes, as well as manage balance sheets and generate revenue.

These discussion points are important, as they provide the opportunity to inform and shape the future of the UAE’s arbitration landscape. Ensuring that the New Law provides for a more efficient arbitral process which is less susceptible to tactics that are designed to cause delay is paramount.

The New Law has strived to codify a number of principles so as to avoid this:

Procedural certainty and efficiency: arbitration proceedings can be continued notwithstanding an application to court for interim measures or an application to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator.

Separability: a fundamental principle which supports the integrity of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution process is that the arbitration clause is separable and severable from the broader agreement to which it applies. Accordingly, even if the main agreement is found to be void, the arbitration clause survives. Whilst the UAE courts have acknowledged this principle previously, it is now codified within the New Law.

Competence: another well-established principle of arbitration is that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to make decisions on its own jurisdiction and that it does not have to delegate this decision- making process (at first instance) to the courts of the jurisdiction in which the arbitration is seated. As with separability, this principle is now codified in the New Law.

Precautionary measures: the New Law provides the tribunal with powerful remedies to support the process on an interim basis. These remedies include interim awards to preserve evidence and assets with a mechanism for a party to then enforce and execute such interim awards through the courts.

Enforcement: perhaps most significantly from the users’ perspective (who ultimately want their awards to be converted into cash), the New Law significantly enhances the enforceability of the award. Award creditors will now be able to leapfrog the Court of First Instance and commence enforcement.

The UAE courts have, on the whole, adopted a progressive, arbitration-friendly approach. The emergence of the UAE financial freezones (the DIFC and the ADGM) has also provided strong support for arbitration in the UAE with each enacting their own English language, UNCITRAL Model Law-based arbitration law, and each openly cooperating with respected international arbitration bodies (the LCIA and ICC respectively).

The New Law will ensure that arbitration in the UAE continues along on its positive and progressive course, and that the UAE remains on a par with the other major arbitral seats around the world. For as long as the UAE maintains this encouraging trajectory, it should stimulate continued investment from key global markets, cementing its place as one of the strongest and most internationally diverse economies in the region.

Posted on

Women are ready. Is the legal industry?

Dorothy. For most of us that name immediately evokes images of a young woman, a hurricane, and a wicked witch. Yes, The Wizard of Oz. But one image Dorothy never conjures up is that of a female leader. And yet, isn’t that exactly what Dorothy is?

She takes the Scarecrow, the Tinman, and the Cowardly Lion (all of whom are men), identifies what they need, and then leads them down the yellow brick road to Oz. And when they arrive there, she makes sure each of these men gets what they came for; the Scarecrow gets his brain, the Tinman his heart, and the Cowardly Lion his courage. That is exactly what a leader does. She sets goals, devises a strategy to achieve those goals, and then delivers results.

So why don’t we think of Dorothy as a leader? She certainly exhibits the skills we associate with leadership: confidence, collaboration, risk taking, as well as innovative and creative thinking. And yet, it is not until these things are pointed out to us that we are able to think of her as more than just a girl from Kansas who went to Oz. Why is that?

The easy answer is that it is a movie and no one is thinking about anything other than Dorothy getting back to Kansas. But even if that is true, the underlying truth is that Dorothy just doesn’t fit our concept of what a leader looks like, and this provides a context for discussing the dilemma that women have been facing in the legal industry for years: we don’t fit the traditional image of law firm leaders.

It is no secret that the vast majority of law firm leaders are white men. And, most of the time, they are also among the biggest rainmakers in the firm, and therefore the most highly compensated lawyers. Thus, our image of law firm leaders – much like that of corporate America – is anchored in this group of white males who control the firm’s most lucrative clients.

The question law firms have tacitly been asking for years is the same as that posed by Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady: Why can’t a woman be more like a man? And, because that is the question, the answer seems obvious: Fix the women. Make them more like men, and then women will rise into positions of leadership and power.

That mindset led to various well-intentioned actions by firms to ‘help women succeed’. Yet, after decades of these kinds of ‘fixes’ for women, we still have few women in power positions in our firms. Is that because women are not capable of being leaders? Or is there something else that is interfering with women rising into positions of power in our firms? Could it be the system – not the women – that needs fixing? In my opinion, the obstacles for women ascending into positions of power are systemic, requiring an overhaul of the way we think about how we practice law and reward attorneys in our firms.

Sources of power

There are two kinds of power in law firms: institutional and economic, and they are inextricably linked. To get institutional power (leadership), you must have economic power (business). For decades, however, there have been only a few women who have economic power in their firms, and because of the link between institutional and economic power, this explains – in part – the lack of women in leadership positions.

Firms have tried to solve the economic power problem by giving women special training on business development and, in many cases, individual coaches to help them develop books of business. But even though these actions have had little to no impact, firms continue to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into these programmes.

What firms have not done is examine whether there may be a reason other than some alleged deficiency in women to develop business that is interfering with the desired outcome to increase economic power. For example, firms rarely take a deep dive into the ways in which business opportunities are doled out: who goes on pitches, who is assigned to lead counsel roles, who gets high profile case assignments, who is chosen to take over institutional clients.

Those kinds of opportunities in most firms are not monitored or systematised. Rather they are left to individual lawyers to dole out as they see fit. As a result, women have traditionally received fewer opportunities to develop their profiles, to interact with potential clients, and to demonstrate their ability to take on leadership roles in their legal work. Their exposure to potential clients has been limited not by lack of ability, but by lack of opportunity. The same is true of existing clients. Most firms do not have succession planning for institutional clients. As a result, those lucrative client relationships, which are usually controlled by white men, are passed on to white men.

These systemic issues stand in the way of women getting economic power. No amount of training or coaching is going to change that. Instead, firms need to examine their systems and insert controls into those systems that will level the playing field and provide the same kinds of opportunities to women lawyers as has traditionally been provided to their male colleagues.

The economic power fix

How do we solve it? We do what many of our clients as well as some law firms are doing. We take intentional actions to diversify the sources of economic power so that we can yield a positive impact.

  • Succession planning for institutional and large clients. This means firms act intentionally with respect to passing on long standing clients of the firms. No longer is there a ‘tap on the shoulder’ process for bringing new attorneys into a client relationship. Rather, there is a conscious effort to ensure women are given the opportunity to inherit these relationships by intentionally introducing them into the mix so the client gets to know and trust them.
  • Monitoring of pitch teams. Who goes on a pitch is critically important to building economic power because it gives women the ability to deliver new clients or expand client relationships. Too often pitch teams are composed of ‘friends’ of the person who got the call to pitch rather than a strategic combination of skill sets, personality fits, and diverse attorneys. This is changing as clients are demanding diverse teams. Firms that voluntarily get ahead of this demand by affirmatively making pitch teams diverse may have a leg up on the competition and be able to increase the economic power of women attorneys.
  • Lead assignments for women. No one should ever put an unqualified person in charge of a case, as the lead counsel in a litigation or corporate matter, or as the spokesperson for a client in court or in a deal setting. But, it is clear there are more women than are currently in these roles who are qualified to serve – they just haven’t been chosen. Making a targeted effort to ensure that women are getting these types of opportunities raises their profiles and is essential to their ability to build a book of business.
  • Rethinking origination credit. Some would say origination credit is the root of all evil in our industry. It makes us think about ourselves instead of the institution; it creates silos; it inspires bad behaviour; and it negatively impacts the ability of women to get economic power – particularly in those systems where origination credit is assigned for life, regardless of who actually does the work. Origination credit systems have especially plagued women for years – in part because while women have been instrumental in the success of matters, they are often not the originating partner and thus they get no credit. The system needs to be rethought and changed. Until that happens, firms need to have systems in place to ensure that people who are critical to the relationships, and/or who are actually doing the work and keeping the relationship alive, are getting credit for their contributions – even if they didn’t bring the client into the firm.

These are just some of the actions firms could take to increase the economic power of women. And if that economic power base is expanded to include more women, the opportunities for institutional power – e.g. leadership positions – should increase as well.

The opportunity fix

There is another lever that firms should consider to ensure women are being considered for power positions in their firms: implementation of the Mansfield Rule. Designed by the team I co-chaired at the Diversity Lab’s 2016 Hackathon, this rule has been refined and enhanced and adopted by over 60 law firms across the US. The premise is simple: ensure women (and minorities) are in the candidate pool for the important leadership roles in the firm. It requires that for each significant leadership position, 30 per cent of candidates must be women or minorities. It doesn’t require the women or minorities are chosen. It simply requires they be included in the pool.

And what does that do? It raises the visibility of these attorneys; it requires transparency into the qualifications for these positions and the process itself; and it requires that law firms increase the pipeline of women and minorities so that they can fill the 30% requirement. It is for that reason the Mansfield Rule is an action that has immediate impact and hopefully will begin to change the face of power in our firms. However, the rule can easily become a ‘check the box’ action unless we also address the implicit (or unconscious) biases that infiltrate the decisions about who will be chosen from the candidate pools it creates.

Implicit biases are based on stereotypes. They are the stories we tell ourselves about people before we have met them. Everyone has these biases. And there is no question that implicit bias can interfere with how we perceive the people with whom we interact.

Take Dorothy. Her pig tails, her high-pitched voice, the gingham dress, and her youth are not characteristics we associate with a leader and, as a result, they get in the way of our ability to see Dorothy for who she is and what she accomplishes.

Implicit biases cannot be ‘trained’ away. We cannot eliminate them completely. But we can raise consciousness about these biases so that we are able to check the behaviour of ourselves and others. The way to do that is twofold.

First, firms can use appropriate training to bring the issue of implicit bias to the forefront. The type of training is critical. For lawyers, shame and blame doesn’t work. Nor do ‘touchy feely’ presentations. What works is training that puts implicit bias into context, that talks about the science and law behind the concept, and that is interactive and based on real-life and believable scenarios so that people are forced to discuss and consider the consequences of unchecked biases in the workplace. The messages are simple:

  • We all have biases.
  • We cannot eliminate those biases overnight and, in some cases, never.
  • We have laws and science that back-up the concept of implicit bias.
  • We can learn to recognise implicit bias when we see it in others and check them appropriately.
  • We can learn to recognise implicit bias in ourselves and to step back and reconsider.

Second, firms must look for pockets of implicit bias in areas such as compensation, promotion to equity partner, assignments, and firm leadership. This requires an honest and transparent examination of the criteria, for example, of setting compensation or for moving from a non-equity to an equity partner position. Once the criteria are determined to be valid and reflective of what the firm values, then there must be an examination of whether the standards are being applied equally, and a commitment to making changes if the standards are not equal.

Only if these implicit biases are addressed can a solution like the Mansfield Rule work. Until we change our image of what a leader looks like, it won’t matter how many women are in the candidate pool: they won’t be chosen as firm leaders.

The self fix

It would be disingenuous to ignore the fact that women must also step up to the plate if we are going to move more women into leadership positions. And, for many women, that means they have to learn to self-promote, take risks, abandon the ‘perfect’ standard for everything they do, and ask for opportunities that will lead to leadership positions.

Call it a growth mindset or grit or resilience. Women have to be willing to put themselves on the line, to show confidence, ambition, and strength. It doesn’t mean we have to become men. But it does mean that we have to assert ourselves and insert ourselves into positions and opportunities to demonstrate a desire for power and an ability to exercise it.

Of course, there are gender norms that may be violated by such actions. Some women will manoeuvre around those; others will take them on. Each woman must determine for herself how to deal with this issue. Ignoring this reality is not an option.

And we have to bring men on as allies. Baby boomer men can be champions for women because they have the power and the clout to work for the kinds of changes suggested here. Millennial men are taking on some of the same causes that women have advanced for years and that gives more momentum and power to move the dial. Women need to reach out to these men; to seek their input and assistance; and to make these issues of diversifying leadership law firm issues not ‘women’s issues’.

Dorothy didn’t need a man to give her power. She had it all along. She simply needed to figure out where it was and how to use it. For her that power was in the ruby red slippers.

If we want more women leaders, we have to find our equivalent of the ruby slippers and insist upon changes to the law firm structures and systems that are holding us back.

Posted on

Postcard from Tokyo

A stereotype it may be, but if talking about the weather was an Olympic sport, Great Britain would be sure to take home gold every four years. If one nation could knock the Brits off top spot, however, it may just be Japan. This year’s research trip coincided with the end of a long, drawn-out rainy season, a topic which many lawyers were keen to discuss throughout my week-long stay in Tokyo, as well as the impending summer games due to be held in the nation’s capital next year.

While preparations for the games are well underway, their potential legacy is raising more than a few eyebrows. So far, London is one of few exceptions to the ‘Olympic curse’ which stipulates a sharp drop in real estate prices and economic growth in host countries following the games. Most experts I spoke to confidently explained that a steady flow of foreign investment into Japan and the capital’s solid real estate market will stand the test of the games.

On the subject of investment, the majority of corporate and M&A practices reported little more than ‘steady as she goes, Captain’ as foreign private equity continues to proliferate in Japan – the fact that KKR declared Japan its ‘highest priority’ after the US was certainly a statement of intent – while Japanese investment firms continue to streamline their portfolios and look for new markets overseas.

The subject of venture capital, and its significance to Japan’s legal market, was also a hot topic of conversation. Seemingly inspired by Softbank’s Vision Fund, Japanese trading houses have set up platforms to invest in start-ups in Israel and Silicon Valley, especially in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and life sciences sectors. Attributed by some to the ‘copycat’ effect found among Japanese investment giants, the trend has spread fast and wide. Others, however, credit common sense.

‘Japan-based outbound venture capital investment is growing leaps and bounds,’ said Mayer Brown partner Gordon Palmquist. ‘The Japanese market is full of copycats; most trading houses here have a venture capital or tech investment platform simply because their competitors have one.’

‘Venture capital is absolutely a hot topic, to the point where the government sometimes co-invests with the trading houses for a 5-10% stake,’ explained Ashurst partner Tracy Whiriskey.

Some remain sceptical, however, as to the significance of this. Ken Siegel, head of corporate at Morrison & Foerster and key counsel to SoftBank, explained: ‘Venture capital is not material from a corporate perspective. Most deals are so small they are barely worth mentioning.’

‘It’s not the kind of work that big practices will do. For now, one M&A deal is still worth about 30 venture capital deals,’ concurred Karl Pires from Shearman & Sterling.

Will trading houses have the appetite to see venture capital through? Will the success stories outweigh the failures? ‘We can almost consider these investments to be joint ventures,’ said Lance Miller of DLA Piper. ‘This kind of financing is still very rare in Japan so these deals are negotiated in great depth to offset fears of failure. Japanese investors will either partner up with a foreign entity experienced in venture capital or throw such staggering amounts of money at their target that they can’t possibly fail.’

And speaking of throwing around money, a key sign of a thriving market is mobility. Conversation was ripe regarding high-profile moves. A ubiquitous appetite for team growth across Tokyo made these updates all the more notable as, in some cases, they significantly impacted firms in a highly competitive recruitment market.

Arguably, the most notable move this year was the departure of Noah Carr, Ivan Smallwood, and Stuart Beraha from Morrison & Foerster to Latham & Watkins, doubling the partner headcount at their new firm. While peers were eager to speculate on the potential future of Carr and Smallwood’s corporate practice – considering their relationship with SoftBank was 'sure to stay' at MoFo – the significance of Beraha’s brand-new technology transactions practice somehow stayed below the radar. And having just appointed project finance expert Stephen McWilliams as new head of the Tokyo office, it will be interesting to see how Latham & Watkins looks a year next year.

Meanwhile, Withers recently made a substantial push in the real estate and funds market by hiring Gerald Fujii from White & Case alongside Naoki Ueyama and Steven Wheeler who joined from Masuda & Partners and Wheeler Law Offices, respectively.

Elsewhere, Ashurst, Orrick and Herbert Smith Freehills experienced a reshuffling of the deck in Tokyo. Ashurst’s David Wadham moved from London to Tokyo following Matthew Rickards’ and Anna Hermelin’s relocation to New York and the departure of projects and energy practice head Dominic Gregory to Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s Singapore office. Herbert Smith Freehills sent Lewis McDonald back to London as global head of energy (he also remains the firm’s head of the Asia corporate practice).

Also returning to London is Orrick’s head of projects and energy, James Atkin in order to run the firm’s global practice, while intellectual property litigator David Case relocated to the US to start his own boutique.

Continuing market trends include the adaptation of corporate culture to the regulatory requirements of an international market which places an unfamiliar emphasis on corporate governance and transparency, specifically with regards to disclosure obligations, and employment disputes that revolve around harassment claims arising from allegations of abuse of power by senior team members.

Coming full circles, parallels can certainly be drawn between the Olympics and trends in Japan’s legal market, which is clearly adapting to modern times. While skateboarding and sport climbing have replaced equestrian vaulting and handball in the 2020 games, venture capital investment and proactive shareholder transparency replace traditional corporate dogmas. You could say that now, more than ever, Japanese and international clients rely on lawyers to make them ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’.

Posted on

Does the SFO lack bite?

Is the UK heading towards a US-style justice system? That is the question many of London's white collar crime experts have been pondering ever since former FBI lawyer Lisa Osofsky was appointed head of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in August 2018.

A dual US/UK national, Osofsky’s experience includes pursuing the mafia, bank robbers, fraudsters, and money launderers as deputy general counsel and ethics officer at the FBI; special attorney in the US Department of Justice’s Fraud Division; money laundering reporting officer at Goldman Sachs; and, prior to joining the SFO, regional leader and head of investigations for EMEA at Exiger. However, many London firms believe this appointment might lead to closer cooperation with the US authorities which may affect the way criminal cases are carried out here.

‘Spend time in jail or wear a wire and work with us,’ Osofsky told the Evening Standard in April, giving criminal practitioners’ further pause for thought on the new SFO chief. An SFO spokesperson told fivehundred that Osofsky’s comments were misinterpreted and wearing a wire was not a statement of SFO policy.

Even so, some argue that the approach could be a welcome change, saving time and resources on investigations and, therefore, taxpayer money. Most lawyers, however, remain dubious.

First, the doubters highlight a cultural barrier to this proposal – the British attitude to witnesses who cooperate to save their own skin is different to that across the pond. Second, and perhaps more pertinently, our legal system is too structurally different for this method to work.

Specifically, the use of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) agreements would be too difficult or unattractive a proposition for witnesses. Issues with SOCPA agreements include reluctance by some prosecutors to make a deal with suspects; suspects having to make admissions before they know the strength of evidence against them; suspects having to appear as a witness in the trial(s) of their co-accused; and a SOCPA agreement does not prevent prosecution overseas.

Putting the profession’s concerns to the agency, a spokesperson said: ‘The SFO will continue to use [SOCPA agreements] where appropriate, where a defendant is willing to plead guilty and be genuinely cooperative in a way that will help the SFO’s investigation. While a SOCPA agreement does not automatically prevent prosecution overseas, if another jurisdiction attempts to prosecute a cooperating witness the SFO will dissuade them from doing so, making clear that it would undermine the UK’s SOCPA scheme and adversely affect the interests of various parties.’

How else have lawyers rated Osofsky’s tenure to date? Citing insufficient evidence and a lack of public interest, the SFO recently dropped its high-profile and costly six-year corruption investigation into alleged corruption at Rolls-Royce and five-year probe into bribery allegations at GlaxoSmithKline, decisions it was criticised for, as well as the collapse of the prosecution case against two former Tesco executives.

Some lawyers saw the decision not to pursue individuals in these cases as an embarrassing defeat for the agency; having already secured deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) with Rolls-Royce and Tesco, securing individual convictions should have been a slam dunk, according to some.

Others, however, see this clearing of the decks as a pragmatic move to save taxpayer money and, with a 2018/19 conviction rate of just 53%, an attempt by the SFO to refocus resources on cases with a greater chance of success. There is currently a significant backlog of cases – in December 2018, Osofsky said she was personally reviewing over 70 cases awaiting charging decisions. If there is one thing many lawyers agreed on, it was that this process needs to be sped up.

In August, the SFO produced new guidelines which contains a non-exhaustive list of the ways companies can cooperate with the prosecution agency. While the move by Osofsky is in stark contrast with that of her predecessor, David Green, some lawyers, such as Aziz Rahman of Rahman Ravelli, see the five-page guidelines as ‘a missed opportunity’ as is it ‘seems to offer little valuable advice and comes dangerously close to raising more questions than it answers’.

‘It was a miss-step not to make more positive noises about what a cooperating company might receive in return,’ said Greenberg Traurig’s Barry Vitou. ‘Cooperating firms are looking to ensure a DPA, and so to state in the guidance that, “It is important that organisations seeking to cooperate understand that co-operation – even full, robust co-operation – does not guarantee any particular outcome”, is unnecessarily off-putting.’

Companies considering cooperation will understandably weigh their options carefully. ‘Unfortunately the guidance does not assist in adding much weight to the calculus and may in certain cases make it harder to argue for,’ added Vitou.

Speaking at the Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime in September, Osofsky called for greater global cooperation in fight against fraud. ‘Both worthwhile and necessary – especially in today’s digital age – we still seem to lack real detail about the investigative efforts of the SFO,’ said Neil Williams, of Rahman Ravelli, in response to the speech.

‘Other jurisdictions will surely expect cooperation from the SFO to include the products of its own investigations – not just that provided to the SFO from those it may or may not choose to prosecute,’ said Williams. ‘The SFO wants cooperation to be the norm. But cooperation is a two-way process. And that means the SFO has to now show it can produce its own goods rather than rely on the efforts of others.’

Williams continued: ‘Given the much-anticipated recent guidance issued by the SFO on corporate cooperation, cynics might query whether the SFO is truly confident in its own investigative abilities. That has to be considered an issue in light of the numerous, high-profile failings in certain investigations – failings that have hung heavily on the shoulders of Ms Osofsky in her first year.

At a time when children are returning to school, Ms Osofsky’s end-of-year report has a “could do better” feel about it.

‘In fairness, those historical investigations that have brought unfavourable outcomes can be attributed to the caseload that she inherited. But in the short term, they define the SFO, and highlight a need for a new approach. So far, the new approach is less bombastic than in the past; which is a good thing.

‘But the danger – for all Ms Ososfky’s well-crafted speeches – is that the SFO will be perceived as lacking bite.’

Newly launched investigations into Greenergy and Patisserie Valerie might signal that the agency is now looking to the future rather than dwelling on the past. However, it seems Osofsky’s new direction has created more questions than answers. The legal market is unsure of the SFO’s intentions and unsure of the implications of its recent decisions. Perhaps when we see companies putting the new cooperation guidance into practise, we will find out if the much-anticipated advice works in a real world setting. Only then will we have a clearer picture of how the course of Osofsky’s tenure will run.

Posted on

How climate change affects fundamental human rights

Seventy-one years have passed since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War. Yet, human rights violations remain all too frequent, both in developed and developing countries.

While the 1926 Slavery Convention confirmed that slavery is unlawful as a matter of international law, estimates suggest that over 40 million people still live as modern slaves. In addition, forced eviction and displacement, torture, unfair trials, detentions, discrimination, and restrictions on expression and free speech continue today all around the world.

Modern human rights abuses can be the result of armed conflicts, a lack of appropriate local legislation (or the means to enforce legislation) or autocratic leadership. However, all too avoidably, poor business practices that respond to the wrong incentives, can be key contributors to adverse human rights impacts. At Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), we place human rights at the core of our operations and of the advice we give to clients so that we all can contribute towards an economy that respects human rights.

The conversation about the impact of climate change traditionally revolves around the scientific, economic, and environmental aspects. Only recently has more attention been given to the human and social aspects, particularly to specific segments of the population as attention has been focused on increasing levels of evidence about the impact on living conditions and human lives.

Environmental quality and human rights are inextricably linked.

Environmental quality, including a safe and healthy working environment, impacts the right to life, health and adequate living standards, property, freedom of movement, and education can contribute to modern slavery issues. The enjoyment of many human rights can also contribute to adverse impacts on the environment. A failure to integrate considerations of human rights and environmental considerations can lead to steps intended to protect one, unintentionally adversely impacting the other. On the other hand, if these issues are considered together, the protection of the environment can facilitate the enjoyment of human rights and those rights can then be enjoyed without unnecessary damage to the environment.

At a legislative level, climate change is not legally bound to the universal human rights treaties, but the link between a safe and healthy environment and human rights is now recognised. There is an international movement – both in the private sector and at state level – to integrate climate change issues within policy statements and through joining sustainable development frameworks and international pledges. In addition, the UN Guiding Principles (UNGP) place a responsibility on corporations to respect human rights. Given the link between human rights and environmental protection, it is arguable that, by not addressing the causes of climate change (e.g. reduce GHG emissions), corporations contribute to human rights violation, in contravention of the UNGP.

The effects of, and accountability for, climate change are not uniform across the world, with states and regions dealing with different types of threats. This contributes to a fragmented coverage of climate and environmental law. In addition, climate change-related litigation against governments and industry players is an emerging trend in a growing number of jurisdictions.

While it is clear climate change has impacts on human rights, it is more complex than simply stating that climate change is a violation of human rights.

Figure 1: The complexity of the impact of climate change on human

Figure 2: Human Rights are becoming an increasingly important concern for businesses, particular since the United Nations’ endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011

This is for at least three reasons:

1. Complexity: as shown in Figure 1, it is almost impossible to disentangle and isolate the impacts of existing environmental and social circumstances from the impacts of climate change (i.e. more recent emissions of green-house gases).

2. Attribution: it is difficult to attribute a particular factor to a particular human rights impact.

3. Time-lag: there can often be an extended period between a climate change impacts of climate change, which are often future projections of today’s human activity and the violation of human rights following that impact.

However, these three elements should not stop us looking at climate change through a human rights prism and developing adaptation and mitigation policies that address the implications of climate change on human rights.

Many governments have made commitments at an international level to tackle climate change and to improve environmental performance. Companies are also bound to certain standards by national and supra-national environmental regulation. However, looking at climate change through a human rights prism reinforces the position that both governments and businesses should act to mitigate their environmental impact. Under the UNGP, states have a duty to protect human rights and businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights. That responsibility is being increasingly codified and given ‘hard law’ status in increasing amounts of national legislation.

In circumstances where poor environmental performance can inhibit the free enjoyment of human rights, states have a clear duty and businesses have a clear responsibility to take steps to combat climate change in order that some of the most fundamental human rights can be capable of realisation for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.

International cooperation that brings together the private sector and states is required to address the cross-border impacts of climate change; through sharing knowledge, technology, and resources. While there should be reasonable flexibility for countries at different stages of their industrial development, consistent cross-border standards would ensure a level playing field and prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ by jurisdictions adopting materially lower standards to offer investors a competitive advantage. It is a shared environment and its protection must be a shared responsibility.

That said, policy cannot just be dictated by one group of countries. The global inequalities in the area of climate change are highlighted where those who contribute the least to climate change often being the ones who are affected the most. There is a disproportionate dependence in developing countries on climate-related resources. In these countries, there is usually a higher proportion of vulnerable individuals.

Therefore, equity in climate action is absolutely necessary to ensure adaptation and mitigation measures will benefit those groups and inequalities are not exacerbated.

Article 21 of the UDHR declares the human right to participation in government. Therefore, within a particular country, the most affected segments of the population should be part of decision-making process in relation to climate action. For example, indigenous people have a vast knowledge of their environment and their knowledge and interests should be incorporated into climate change policies. In doing so, we can develop effective adaptation and mitigation strategies and measures, which are cost-effective, inclusive, and sustainable.

The human right to information is fundamental in climate change and that right should be used to hold states and businesses to account. Transparency regarding the environmental impact and contribution to climate change of both businesses and governments is necessary.

Figure 3: Populations affected by climate change

Nurturing children’s environmental knowledge and awareness is also vital, through both informal and formal environmental education. Children and young people should be seen as actors who could drive the climate agenda now and in the future. Therefore, states and businesses should take a more active role in disseminating knowledge and information of climate change to all their audiences.

Businesses likewise should be open and transparent about their environmental impact and contribution to climate change, through their corporate reporting obligations and by joining additional voluntary disclosure and reporting initiatives. They should seek to understand better the role they can play in tackling climate change and how they might use their power and network to encourage collaboration and to lobby for improved law and policies. They should look to reallocate resources, share their knowledge and expertise, and promote environmental education within their organisations and raise awareness internally and externally. After all, it is not ‘just’ a climate change issue; it is also a human rights issue.

Posted on

Gibraltar’s lawyers: Between the rock and a hard Brexit?

While 2019 saw America’s most beloved Rock named Hollywood’s highest earner, the territory known for housing Europe’s most famous rock continues its equally successful run of financial good fortune.

Gibraltar, still primarily regarded for its shipping trade, offshore banking, and position as an international conference centre, has profited from an innovative approach to emerging markets that has seen the British Overseas Territory neatly swerve the recession vortex that claimed so many other European economies, connect with key trends, and weather Brexit uncertainty better than most of the UK.

To add a bit of context, the historically high British military presence in Gibraltar was drastically reduced in the last couple of decades and now contributes to only about 7% of the local economy. This has naturally focused attention on other areas of the economy, and a defining feature has been the favourable – and by favourable, read low – tax rates, which have also contributed to attracting new foreign investment.

Investment has principally come in the form of the financial, tourism, and the shipping sectors, which according to various sources contributed to 30%, 30%, and 25%, respectively, of GDP in 2018. The remaining 15% was accounted for by e-commerce, telecoms (due to significant investment in infrastructure), and e-gaming (thanks to the tax advantages of the territory and its support of the gaming industry).

The jurisdiction set out to build on this remote gaming environment by making itself a hospitable ground for other innovative industries, notably fintech and cryptocurrency start-ups. In 2016, the Gibraltar Stock Exchange launched a Bitcoin exchange traded instrument and in October 2017 the territory became one of the first jurisdictions to enact specific Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) regulations.

‘It was a big boost to the economy’ states Vikram Nagrani, partner and co-head of the fintech team at Hassans, ‘since 2015 the economy has grown year on year, the regulation put Gibraltar ahead of the game in terms of DLT, creating a functioning well thought-out framework.’

The benefits of gaming and fintech regulation is noted by Albert Isola, barrister and Gibraltar’s minister of financial services and gaming, who highlighted in his June 2019 budget speech how ‘DLT framework has continued to grab much attention all over the world,’ with the territory now boasting ‘eight firms fully licensed, with a further eight firms licensed in principle and soon to be completed.’

This follows the precedent set by the success of remote gaming regulation, a sector which ‘continues to make a very significant contribution to the economy in terms of corporation tax, PAYE and gambling charges and fees, providing…significant value for money with modest operating costs,’ said Isola, who went on to suggest ‘there is undoubtedly more to come… we will continue to Innovate and lead in this sector.’

The success of the financial and e-commerce sectors in Gibraltar is largely down to several key factors, namely: a legal system based on English law; recognised status within the EU, allowing companies to benefit from cross-border authorisation and passporting rights; and a tax system with no capital gains tax or VAT.

The gaming and fintech industries have also mitigated some of the concern around the dreaded B-word.

‘Gibraltar faces the same Brexit worries and uncertainty in relation to food and medicine, as well as waste disposal,’ says Nagrani, a point highlighted in the newly released no-deal Yellowhammer document, which references disruption to goods, medicines, and ‘trans-frontier shipments of waste’ – Spain current flushes the latter problem for the territory. However, the damning appraisal has been contradicted by the Government of Gibraltar, which stated that the report was ‘out of date and wrong’ and relates to matters the government has ‘already dealt with’; As Hassans’ Nagrani notes, ‘the government has reacted well and prepared well.’

Nagrani also suggests that it is the booming fintech industry that might be responsible for allaying many fears as, ‘it’s a Brexit-proof industry…a global product’, and he cites the legal changes in China as another reason for the popularity of a well-regulated fintech space.

Cryptocurrency exchanges or trading platforms were effectively banned in China in September 2017, with 173 platforms closed down within a year. In this environment, a favourable jurisdiction with a ready-made and functioning framework becomes an attractive proposition for traders and companies dealing in the DLT market.

As is often the case, the local economic market is reflected in its legal market. The success and prominence of Gibraltar’s law firms over the last five years is consistent with the degree of expertise in some of these key emerging areas, as well as the traditional bread and butter work of the territory.

Standing out from the crowd is Hassans, which dwarfs most of its peers in terms of headcount and market share, with Isolas the next largest. Over the past five years the two feature 49 times each across The Legal 500’s various practice areas, however, Hassans continues to distinguish itself as the firm with most top-tier rankings since 2015.

Isolas and Triay & Triay are consistent mainstays in the rankings, but also notable are TSN Barristers & Solicitors, a go-to firm for construction, and Ramparts, which has notable experience in the gaming sector.

Hassans maintains its leading market position thanks to the range and depth of expertise it provides, as well as strong connection with the Gibraltan government. This can be seen in the firm’s individual rankings, where it leads the way again with 20 practitioners ranked since 2015, while Triay & Triay come in second with 11.

So far, the relative comfort with which Gibraltar’s economy, and by extention its law firms, has weathered the storm of Brexit uncertainty so far augurs well for the territory. However, Gibraltar will lose its EU status if and when Brexit happens. Thus, as in the UK, the nemesis of business – uncertainty – still casts its shadow across the peninsula even more so than its steadfast landmark.

Posted on

There is a war for talent

How have the roles of senior clerk and chief executive changed/evolved during your time in chambers?

Roles have had to evolve in response to the changes in the commercial environment in which barristers’ chambers operate. I started my career in the early 1980s and at that time there were no titles such as CEO. The head of clerking/administration was ‘The Senior Clerk’. However, the modern business world is increasingly complex and in the leading commercial sets we deal with larger clients, across the world, often on larger matters, and against a background of changing technology that has created a culture of 24-hour working.

This shift has required chambers to grow and develop while investing in more advanced systems and processes, across finance, IT, marketing, and business development. There is also a need for a greater level of governance reflecting doing business in a more complex legal and regulatory landscape. This creates more management challenges to which senior staff and roles have had to respond.

What skills does the modern clerk require to progress in chambers?

Clerking has always required a broad range of skills from effective administration to great people management skills as well as an ability to be proactive about client retention and acquisition.

There is, I believe, a greater recognition that clerks do need to wear many hats and those looking to progress, and do well, need to work on a broad range of skills, particularly the ability to act as a trusted adviser to members as well as their clients. Clerks need the ability to nurture and develop those relationships effectively.

At the same time clerks have recognised specialist staff working in finance, marketing, and operations help complement the traditional administrative skills within chambers.

There is increasingly more movement of barristers and clerks between sets. What do you put this down to?

This phenomenon isn’t peculiar to barristers’ chambers. It’s a feature of the wider professional world. Fewer solicitors, for example, join one firm for life and there is more movement between firms and in-house legal teams in a way that there really wasn’t when I started in chambers 30 years ago.

There are lots of reasons for this increased movement. Much of it a reflection of the more globally competitive markets in which we are all operating and a demand for more specialist practice area expertise. Sets will evolve and change shape to better serve clients and take advantage of commercial opportunities.

For barristers one key driver for the increased movement is the divide between the specialist and non-specialist sets has widened. Specialist practitioners in non-specialist sets believe their practice will grow and develop more rapidly if they move to specialist sets. For clerks, as chambers have developed so have the requirements for successful and effective management. I have seen, therefore, a corresponding escalation in the war for talent. Good clerks are in demand.

What advice would you give to a set considering bringing in a CEO?

It entirely depends why a set feels it needs to create a specific CEO role. Sets need to think what they are trying to achieve strategically and what additional skills a CEO might bring to help get a chambers to where they want to be. I would also strongly recommend that chambers involve the senior clerk in the process as their buy-in will greatly enhance the prospects of the new CEO succeeding in the new role.

The size and demands of the modern chambers require a more defined structure with the need to clarify responsibilities between clerking and administration. Bringing in an external CEO may be right for a set, alternatively they may look creatively at the roles and people they have, look at bolstering operational management rather than executive management.

One needs to be aware of the particular nature of the chambers set up – it’s not the chambers or service company that provides the legal services, it’s the self-employed members. CEOs new into chambers can find it difficult to adapt to that operating model. They can also underestimate the importance of the trusted adviser role – to the barristers as well as to clients.

There has been an upstairs-downstairs mentality in some sets. How conducive is that to working at the modern Bar? Should clerks and practice managers be seen more as ‘business partners’ rather than ‘staff’?

This dynamic is a feature of professional services firms globally where the fee-earning professionals have invested in a range of ‘support functions’ to enable them to focus on client work while delegating IT, finance, business development, and so on. It’s an effective way of operating in a world where increased complexity means no one can be an expert in everything.

Over time such support functions have matured and senior support professionals are increasingly taking a seat at the management table in chambers where they have built that trusted adviser status and relationship with members. A good example is that the chairs of the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks and the Legal Practice Management Association are now invited to take a seat at the GMC committee of the Bar Council. This was something that I fought for when I was the IBC Chairman.

Barristers work in a high-pressure environment. How can clerks best alleviate the stress members face?

Stress management is a serious topic and I would not like to imply that clerks can alone solve the problems barristers may be facing. But good clerks can take the stress off members by actively helping them to manage their workload. In addition, a good relationship with their clerking team allows members to reach out in a timely fashion when their stress levels may be rising.

What about wellbeing in the clerks’ room? How do you ensure your team stays healthy when they too are under pressure?

It is important to create an environment in which clerks can raise issues early and where acceptable standards of behaviour are clear and enforced. It also helps if problems are raised early and if everyone works effectively as a team so individuals are supported in doing their job and can call out for practical and emotional help when they need it.

How can the clerking profession become more gender and ethnically diverse?

I think that we have seen an improvement in recent years but inevitably these things take time to get to where we want to be. Sets need to make it clear that they are welcoming environments for new joiners regardless of background, gender, ethnicity, and so on, and that they actively encourage candidates from a broader range of sources. The challenge for sets is that they are relatively small enterprises and don’t all necessarily have the resource to reach out as widely as they might like to when recruiting. This is something that sets need to think about when they embark upon a recruitment process.

How would more graduates becoming clerks benefit the profession and chambers?

I think the key point is less about graduates but more about hiring good people with a range of skills. A degree isn’t necessarily going to make someone a better clerk in of itself for example. That said, it’s a positive we attract a wider range of professional skills and qualifications into clerking and other roles like operations, marketing, and finance to ensure we have the right broad mix of expertise and experience.

What practice trends are you seeing in chambers at the moment? Where is your growth coming from?

Atkin Chambers has a pre-eminent position in both domestic and international disputes whether they are handled in London or further afield. Drivers are often a reflection of external market changes like the dynamic energy market, and investments being made globally in major transport infrastructure, which is creating a high demand for barristers’ services. In terms of the geographic spread we are seeing work from, it’s an increasingly broad spread – internationally fast developing and maturing economies in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa feature heavily.

If there was one thing you would change about the Bar/chambers model, what would it be?

Beyond continuing to invest in our staff and our client service, I am not sure I would change anything fundamental. It’s a model that is flexible and which serves to offer extremely high-quality personal service to members and their clients, while allowing chambers to manage the cost base to everyone’s benefit. The size of sets has grown over the years which is why chambers have needed to invest more in property, staffing, and technology. Some sets are further along the maturity curve with regard to their operational and infrastructure and governance structures, but generally the basic model is robust.

What are your predictions for the Bar and clerking profession over the medium to long terms?

In my opinion, clients will continue to engage the highly specialised services that the Bar offers – quality advocacy and a specialised consultative service. However, we mustn’t rest on our laurels about how we deliver the service to clients. Sets will undoubtedly need to continue to invest in people and technology to meet rising client expectations. The commercial Bar will continue to thrive so long as it adapts to the changing needs of clients. However, if chambers dilute their defining qualities in the future they will cease to add the value they do today.

Posted on

Wang Ling: Dare to tackle new areas

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

If I had to summarise our culture in one word it would be collaboration. By that I mean not only collaboration internally and with clients, but also with other professionals, including from other law firms.

Client-centric, commitment and dedication, collaboration and sharing, teamwork, and striving for excellence.

The firm’s culture defines us as who we are and how we get here. As the firm expands and more people join us, it is important that we share the same value. This culture binds us together and motivates our people to release their potential and increase cohesion. It will also attract talents who appreciate the same culture. It ensures healthy expansion, stable and sustainable development, as well as enables us to achieve common goals and face challenges. We appreciated very much our clients’ recognition of our firm’s culture.

What’s the main change you’ve made in the firm that will benefit clients?

It is our top priority to provide high quality and efficient services to our clients. In addition to continuously improving our service quality and consistency of the quality among the firm, in recent years, we also took several structural development and initiatives based on our understanding of the client business strategic direction and the opportunities provided by the country’s economic development policies, to ensure us enter the same market with our clients.

As our clients’ businesses become more and more sophisticated, we need to grow with the clients in multiple dimensions, from the scope of services, to geographical landscape and new areas of legal service and products. To satisfy fast increasing demands of the client service, we must understand the industry and our clients’ business goals as well. The firm has been working towards industry focus and coordinating our legal resources of different practice groups and regions with very clear vision on certain traditional and emerging industries, such as energy, medical and healthcare, TMT, fintech, etc.

Our firm has been regarded as the fore runner in many practice and sectors by the clients and market, such as fintech, cyber securities, debt-for-equity Swap, securitisation/ABS, and so on. Having been involved in many industry sectors’ ‘firsts’, now KWM is deemed by peers and clients as being able to offer the most cutting-edge services in some areas of practice and complicated deals/cases.

In April, 2018, we announced the establishment of KWM International Center (KWMIC) in the Greater Bay Area, corresponding to the countries’ new development strategy of forming China’s Great Bay Area, combining the Pearl River Delta of Mainland, HK SAR, and Macau SAR into one economic entity. This strategic move will further enhance regional integration of our four offices in South China (Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hong Kong ,and San Ya) as well as globalisation of the firm in general.

KWMIC focuses on providing an integrated service offering to assist our Chinese and international clients with exploring more business opportunities in the Greater Bay Area, including Belt and Road projects, cross-border investments, high-end financial services, PE/VC investments, capital markets, IP protection, and cross-border dispute resolution, etc. KWMIC was launched to best serve our clients and capture the historic opportunities arising from the Greater Bay Area.

In March 2019, we also established the BRCICF, as a comprehensive professional service platform combining legal services, think tank studies, consultation services, and international cooperation. It has been established to connect the government and enterprises, and to provide high-level professional services to both Chinese and foreign participators who explore the opportunity brought by the Belt & Road Initiative.

KWM has been engaged in a great number of Belt & Road projects for the last a few years, gaining extensive practical experiences covering all types of cross-border projects across various Belt & Road countries and industries, such as energy, transport, infrastructure, manufacturing, finance, etc.

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

Innovation is a mindset, it should not be limited to technical as such. For us, innovation means less mental restriction on what we do and find solutions, means always dare to tackle into new areas. Over the years, we have done numerous ‘firsts’ in the Chinese legal industry, including adapting western law firm compensation and management systems and IT infrastructure, expanding into new areas of practices and sectors, etc.

Being innovative also means we are always willing to look into new solutions for our clients. KWM is constantly thinking differently and redefining what is possible to enable us to deliver exceptional business outcomes and service to our clients. Wang Junfeng, our Global Chairman, and our management, have been keeping open-minded and paying attention to innovation to promote the firm’s development. The innovative mindset has been rooted in our strategy and development as well as in our management and our people.

The combination between legacy King & Wood and legacy Mallesons Stephen Jaques was an historical event in the world legal history where the first time a Chinese law firm and an established Western firm with long history merged, making the first global law firm headquartered in Asia. The firm took many innovative initiatives to accelerate the integration of two cultures and systems.

What are the biggest challenges facing you in China?

The challenges we are facing mainly relate to how to ensure the firm maintain the same pace of rapid development and continue to lead the market. We also need to ensure continuity of same quality client service across the firm, as well as constantly improve the level of globalisation and management level.

What are the biggest trends facing your practice?

Globalisation of Chinese legal services has become the biggest trends, alongside which is increasingly deeper competition in the local market. Chinese law firms are rapidly maturing and entering the international legal market competition.

What do you think are the top things most clients want and why?

  • Understand clients’ businesses and their commercial goals behind the business decisions and align with it;
  • Quick response;
  • Deliver high quality and comprehensive service; and
  • Value-add service

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

Modern technology has changed the ways of interaction between lawyers and clients. Through mobile applications and other means, it has become much easier and efficient for communication. As a result, new ways of client interaction and maintenance at personal level become possible and easier.

Technology in data collection enables lawyer to access more information so that lawyers can provide the client with value-add additional services and products through data analytics. We can foresee technology will make more changes to the way of interaction between the legal counsel and their clients which will further change the way of providing services.

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

KWM always regards talent retention and cultivation as one of our primary development strategies. To keep our competitive advantage in the highly competitive legal market, we take people-oriented approach in all areas of management, firm culture, humanistic care, training and career development, and build a multi-dimensional system around it. This covers from interns to associates of all levels and partners.

We consider that the best way to retain talents is to provide a good platform and support them to develop and become successful. Based on this approach,KWM was elected as one of the China’s Most Attractive Employers 2018 by Universum for the third consecutive year.

Since becoming managing partner what’s surprised you most about running a firm?

Chinese law firms have experienced phenomenal rapid growth for 30 years, it has always been a challenge to get involved in management keeping up with the growth. I am very lucky that I can work with a group of highly talented and devoted partners in the management, who are diligent and conscientious on driving business forward, and dedicated to the firm and strive for perfection.

Our global chairman, Wang Junfeng, has been the driven force behind all of our developments, with his entrepreneur spirit, long-term vision, innovative thinking and the courage.

We also have a very dedicated operational team to support the implementation of management decisions.

Going forward and with further growth of the firm, we will definitely face more challenges in law firm management, we must continue to improve ourselves and management styles and learn in order to keep up with the development.

How has your involvement in client-facing work changed since becoming managing partner?

My responsibility requires me to focus more on the management and maintenance of the clients from the overall consideration of the firm, including setting up strategy and structure for the firm’s client management system as well as oversee its implementation. I also need to look into internal resource coordination among practice groups, regions, etc. from the business strategy level of the firm.

What advice would you give to the next generation of partners ready to rise the ranks?

Stay hungry, stay foolish; become a master of your area, while broader your horizon with wider range of knowledge; gain transboundary experience and commercial sense, understand the market and the client, and with a view on the big picture.

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

We encourage a diversified corporate culture from the establishment of the firm and we always keep an open policy on nationality, culture background, gender and so on. In our firm, people from many countries work together closely, and female staff members have always been a key part of our community. Currently, 34% of our partners are female and 57% of associates are female.

Posted on

Exchanging places

My route into law started with a training contract in 1994. Before then, I completed a postgraduate degree and taught at a university for a few years. I decided to go into practice because academia wasn’t as interesting or rewarding as I thought it would be and even then, the system seemed to be offering students less and less and charging them more and more.

I decided to qualify as a solicitor for a few reasons. One of them was definitely money. I was a bit older than most trainees and I had more commitments. I wanted the security of a job with a monthly salary. Things are much better at the Bar now for new entrants and I wouldn’t want anyone reading this to be discouraged by the way things were 25 years ago. The other reason was that I was initially attracted by the idea of doing transactional corporate and restructuring work and didn’t see myself as a litigator.

I spent the first half of my career at what is now DLA Piper in the restructuring team. There was a mixed caseload of contentious and non-contentious work and I found litigation more enjoyable than the transactional work. I spent the last few years as a partner at a large firm doing contentious fraud insolvency work for HMRC and insolvency practitioners. I enjoyed the fee earning work and dealing with clients, but realised that I didn’t enjoy the ‘running the business’ side of partnership, and I wasn’t particularly good at it either.

I decided to make the change to the Bar to allow me to spend more time doing what I enjoy and to get away from financial management and supervising a team. I had been thinking about it for a few years before I made the move in 2014, and that’s the only regret I have – I should have done it earlier.

Transferring to the Bar was surprisingly easy. If you have higher rights, which I did, you’ll normally be excused pupillage and have to do six qualifying sessions, which you can complete after you’ve been called. You can be called to the Bar without it affecting your status as a solicitor – you don’t have to resign from your firm or give up your practising certificate.

When I made my move, I was looking for a chambers which had experience of solicitors transferring to the Bar. I already knew the clerks and many of the members of the commercial team at Exchange because I had been instructing them for years as a solicitor. I knew that other former solicitors had moved there and built very successful practices.

The other members and the chambers management were incredibly supportive to me when I joined. I wasn’t required to do pupillage but chambers arranged for me to spend some time following some of the more senior members around. It was really useful to me and reassured me that I had made the right decision.

Some of my initial practice at the Bar came from former colleagues. I was also lucky enough to have some former clients steer work to me from solicitors I didn’t know well. The clerking and management team at Exchange have superb contacts and have been able to put me forward for work which suits me.

During my time at Exchange, I’ve experienced the huge differences between partnership in a large firm and practice at the Bar. The Bar offers a combination of more flexibility and freedom at the price of far less certainty about what you’ll be doing at any given time. There’s a greater variety of work at the Bar. You don’t have the opportunity to work closely with the same people all the time, and you don’t have a team of solicitors to whom you can delegate work.

To anyone thinking about transferring, the first thing I’d recommend is getting hold of some books on advocacy and cross-examination techniques. If you spend some time understanding techniques for preparation and appearing in court, you’ll probably overcome some of your fears and at the same time understand whether it’s the sort of work you’ll enjoy.

The other thing to do is to ask yourself what you enjoy most about being a lawyer. If it’s the client contact, working in or managing a large team, and (if you’re fairly senior) having a fair degree of control over what you’re doing and when, then the Bar might not be right for you. If it’s doing the law, and if you enjoy the challenge of taking on something complicated at short notice and making it make sense, you’ll love the Bar.