‘Associates today think one is talking about the Stone Age when describing how you spent nights at the fax machine because no evening support staff was available and email did not exist’, says Dr. Werner Meier, head of Simmons & Simmons German finance and restructuring practice, when asked about starting his legal career in 1992.

To Andreas Bothe, senior partner and IP litigator at Hogan Lovells, the legal profession is largely unrecognisable from when he began his career some three decades ago. In years past, law firms in Germany were not allowed more than one office and they were much smaller, slower-paced environments than they are today. How times have changed.Bothe joined Droste, Pietzcker, Sprick, Ohlgart und Klosterfelde (DPSOK) in 1990, a law firm of around 15 partners, which at the time was considered substantial in size. Although described by some as ‘a factory’, the firm would be considered a far cry from the size, hustle and bustle of a modern law firm; documents were transported via regular mail, meaning clients wouldn’t receive correspondents for a couple of days, or even more than a week if it was sent overseas.

DPSOK eventually became Hogan Lovells, and instead of 15 partners Bothe now practises with more than 800, plus a couple of thousand employees, spread out over 50 offices worldwide, including four in Germany alone. But that is not the only change. The internet and digitalisation has meant instantaneous access to information and drastically reduced response times between lawyers and their clients, speeding up practices dramatically.

Each new generation of practitioners face their own unique challenges, whether that be new fields of law, the professionalisation of law firms or increased competition both locally and globally. For Dr. Michael Fammler, IP partner at Baker McKenzie in Frankfurt, where he has worked since 1990, believes the biggest challenge facing the profession is the speed of change in the market.

‘Technology has significantly increased the expected reaction time with unchanged demand for highest quality’, says Fammler. Many of the advances seen today are technology-driven efficiency, a focus on value-driven tasks, and client-demand-based business models, which therefore create a more client-centric approach and also an increasingly multidisciplinary working environment. The result, according to Fammler, is that, ‘the old approach of “better, quicker, cheaper – pick two” will not survive in a more-for-less environment of providing legal services’. But how does this affect the next generation of legal professionals?

Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and LegalTech are arguably the largest contributors to the transformation of law firms and the legal sector. With the increasing use of modern technology, many see a changing role for lawyers, including the way they interact with clients and the services they can provide. Tech can transform how, when and where law is practised, providing
on-the-spot access to documents and information, anywhere and at any time. In turn, work can demand instantaneous and constant attention.

The changes in communication speed and flexibility, and the adoption of new tech for increased efficiency purposes, is clear and visible, but will machines eventually take the place of roles traditionally held by lawyers? While there seems a general consensus that AI will not replace lawyers entirely, the robot lawyer does remove the need for certain tasks to be handled by humans.

As Bothe puts it: ‘There are a lot of chances coming up with modern technology so that, in the end, we will be able to concentrate on the most special questions of law, wasting our energy less on everyday work that, to a certain extent, might be taken over by machines, or, at least, assisted by machines.’ Meanwhile, Fammler foresees ‘a much closer interaction with clients and other advisors in a multidisciplinary fashion, broken down into smaller tasks and highly interactive facilitated by new communication technology’.

Stephan Kock, a real estate finance partner and chair of Goodwin’s Frankfurt office, also recognises how new developments in the legal sector may prompt debate about lawyer fees: ‘Legal tech in its widest sense will start discussions about what lawyers, law firms and the legal profession as such will be remunerated for. The gap between scalable business and bespoke structuring work will widen. As a result the profession will reshape in size, geographical cover and profitability. Law firms will need to monitor and be open to rethinking or adapting their profit share systems to react to the changing market positioning of their firms, core products and to maintain
their culture.’

As technological and economic savviness becomes increasingly crucial, the future may also bring new roles we have yet to see. Fammler envisions that, ‘the still sharp boundaries between the expertise of different professional service firms, technical and economic experts will vanish fairly quickly to be replaced by a more holistic and multidisciplinary approach’. Similarly, Bothe believes that not only will ‘coding for lawyers be one of the obligatory classes in law schools of the future’ but ‘it will be normal that IT specialists may become partners of law firms, besides legally trained partners’.

Meier is in agreement that ‘law firms will have specialised partners and employees who deal with the technological changes’, while Kock notes that ‘even very large law firms today are still organised as partnerships in the sense of partners being lawyers’, but this may not be the model of the future. ‘Lawyers are leaders, but they are not known to be the best managers,’ he continues. ‘Therefore, the management of law firms will need to include highly professional non-lawyer managers.’

IT-specialised partners, non-lawyer managers – what about the practice of law? Despite this largely predicted diversification and blurring of roles in law firms of the future, legal expertise will still remain at the very core of the profession. Meier opines that while ‘law firms need to adapt to market and technological changes, possibly including by downsizing in some departments’, there will ‘continue to be demand for complex legal work to be handled by law firms’.

‘Creating, enforcing and exploiting new legal concepts means both challenges, but also a highly creative environment for tomorrow’s lawyer with many new jobs, but excellent traditional legal skills and simply “knowing the law” will remain the basis to tackle the pressing issues the new generations will face,’ remarks Fammler. And while few doubt the transformative power of new tech and its impact on the legal profession, its potential sometimes still feels far off. ‘I am still waiting for the “killer app” making my life as a legal advisor much easier,’ Fammler exclaims.

Making life in law – for want of a better word – ‘easier’ is also a concern for the next generation of practitioners. Both standing in opposition to the technology-driven notion of constant availability, having to respond speedily and demonstrate greater working flexibility, but also perhaps resulting as a direct consequence of these developments, the young lawyers are placing greater importance on the need for that elusive work-life balance.

‘Work-life balance has become more important for many,’ says Meier. ‘Back when I started my career in 1992 associates were not only prepared but happy to work 80- to 100-hour weeks throughout the year, and in fact for those who managed to cope with the workload until the end of the partnership track, it was easier than today to become partner. Also, people joining law firms in the early 1990s actually expected that they would stay at the same firm until they retired. Today, all that has changed dramatically, in line with general changes in the society. Today, a far lower percentage of top law school graduates is interested in pursuing a career in a law firm.

‘Law firms have reacted to this. At most top firms the workload for younger lawyers is significantly lower than in the 1990s. Male associates taking paternity leave has become quite common, and people actually take their holidays these days. The flip side is that it has become much more difficult, and in many top firms impossible, to become partner. For this reason it has become the exception rather than the rule for new associates to expect a long-term career at the same firm where they start.’

Bothe also does not underestimate the need for greater work-life-balance: ‘New developments such as home office, agile working and different office structures will have a great impact on the work done by the next generation, which will be certainly more flexible, less bound upon one single office and involving bigger global teams.’

Teamwork may indeed be another noteworthy aspect of the profession’s transformation. Alongside a stronger client-focused approach, demanding a new kind of lawyer-client closeness, there is also the increasing necessity for practitioners to collaborate among themselves. ‘We will even work more closely together in the future law firm than we are already doing today,’ foresees Bothe. ‘The singular lawyer looking after his own clients alone would probably belong to the past in short course. Bigger teams with different qualifications will be needed to fully serve clients’ changing needs.’

This collaboration also extends from one generation to the next. Bothe recognises the importance of acting as mentor and role model, but at the same time learning from younger associates and ‘coming up with great new ideas so that we will hopefully get even better together’.

Fammler agrees that, ‘working daily and closely with young talents keeps [him] up to speed with what tomorrow’s lawyers expect from practising the business of law in an ever changing world’. Meanwhile, Meier even remarks that, ‘a partner who only focuses on getting a current deal done, without giving any attention to bringing up the next generations of lawyers, is not a good partner’.

While some elements of the profession are almost paralysed by the fear of change there is agreement among our Hall of Famers that ‘there are definitely more opportunities than threats’ (Fammler) and while ‘there will be a lot of change, at the same time this means a lot of chances’ (Bothe). ‘Wherever a new challenge arises, new opportunities arise with them’, Meier concludes.

Still, what practical advice would our legal luminaries impart on their successors – the ones who will see reforms to the profession through to fruition? ‘Love and live your job’, proclaims Bothe; ‘stay away from excessive specialisation and be a good team player,’ offers Meier; ‘smile even in tough times,’ suggests Kock; while Fammler’s recommends ‘adapt to changes, contribute to innovation, but always stand up for your own conviction and stay true to yourself’.

What makes a good lawyer?

Andreas Bothe, senior partner and IP litigator at Hogan Lovells

‘The qualities of best German partners mean that they are highly committed, dedicated to the client’s needs, have an outstanding legal education and – most important – stand in for the client and know about the client’s business, particularities and needs. In my view, it is also important there is a good personal relationship between a partner and a client representative, taking into account that this relationship is built on trust and understanding.’

Dr. Michael Fammler, IP partner at Baker McKenzie

‘High quality work and responsiveness have become a given. What distinguishes the market leaders from the other experts is a deep understanding of the client’s industry and business, a proactive approach to their needs by identifying what keeps GCs awake at night, anticipating future challenges and, on this basis, being a trusted advisor.’

Stephan Kock, real estate finance partner at Goodwin

‘The best partners are honest with their teams and clients and inspire their environment. They seek to grow young talent and support them all the way into partnership. The best partners take responsibility for their team and within the firm, for their office and within the partnership and their firm towards clients or competitors.

‘Externally, best partners do not only provide top quality advice as to the depth of the relevant question but also take into account how it impacts their clients and their client relationship; the best partners have a lateral vision and a fully committed to their clients. Lawyers need to protect, guide and nourish their clients to take them where they want to be. This includes being a loyal, reliable counsel, and – not to forget – it takes a smile even in tough times.’

Dr Werner Meier, head of finance and restructuring at Simmons & Simmons Germany

‘For every law firm, when it comes to assessing the quality of its partners, top revenues is close to the top of the list. However, a partner who is a mere rainmaker, bringing in top revenues, but lacks the required soft skills, is not a good partner. That partner may be economically successful in an eat what you kill environment, but it takes more than that to be a good partner.

‘In some fields, and with some clients, it is possible for a partner to be economically successful without having top legal expertise. However, any such success is typically short lived, and in any event legal expertise must be the basis for the assessment of the quality of any partner.

‘A good partner is able not only to attract new clients, but also to retain those clients and refer them to his or her colleagues. This requires positive interaction with the relevant individuals and the client.

‘A partner who may be excellent academically but lacks the ability to go out and successfully pitch for new work is not a good partner. Every major law firm has some lawyers of this type, but these are typically not made partner at all.

Regular seminar presentations and publications are important in this regard as well.

‘A partner who acts aggressively vis-à-vis the other side (or in some cases even their own client and colleagues) is not a good partner. Aggressiveness jeopardises the client’s goals. A partner must act constructively to be serve his or her client.

‘An aggressive partner may be economically successful, particularly in an eat what you kill firm, but he or she will not provide the best possible advice to clients. Collegiality means not only cooperating well with a partner’s colleagues, but also staffing each transaction team such that the client’s interests are served best – including with partners and other colleagues from other practice groups or offices, rather than hoarding work for oneself with the hope of maximising one’s own revenues.’

This culminated in 2018 with the publication of Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken, which became a surprisingly mainstream success, remaining in the Sunday Times Top 10 bestsellers list for twenty four weeks, selling over 165,000 copies across all formats.

The content would surprise many readers outside of the UK, which is frequently held up as a shining example of justice but has suffered from many years of neglect and underinvestment. The real strength of the book is showing how access to justice in the UK has become more and more removed from the most vulnerable in society. In an exclusive conversation, The Secret Barrister outlines to The Legal 500’s Publishing Director David Burgess, why the book was written and what impact is has had.

David Burgess: For those lawyers around the world who don’t know much about you, explain why you launched ‘The Secret Barrister’ persona on Twitter.

The Secret Barrister: The Twitter account and blog were actually the brainchild of my partner, who, having patiently sat through yet another evening of my post-work spleen-venting, suggested that I start a Twitter account and companion blog to share my experiences with the wider public (or, to quote them directly, with “anyone but me”). Something that has astonished me since starting in criminal practice is how little public awareness there is of the serious failings that we see in the courts every day. When I first started, I hoped that I might be able to attract a few followers and shine a little light on the reality of criminal justice. Things rather spiralled from there.

DB: For those who have yet to read your best-selling book, what should be the takeaway message from Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken?

SB: Our criminal justice system is broken, and we, as a society, need to start caring before it is beyond repair. Since 2010, the Ministry of Justice has been cut more severely than
any other department. Every aspect of the criminal process – policing, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, legal aid, prisons, probation – is falling to pieces, ultimately for want
of resources, yet so few people outside our legal bubble are aware of it. I want the public to know, and to press for change, before it’s too late.

DB: Politicians often describe the UK as having a Rolls-Royce justice system. How true is that when compared with other jurisdictions and how much worse can it get for those seeking justice in the UK?

SB: For multi-billionaires and corporations litigating in the commercial courts, there may be something akin to a Rolls Royce system, or at least a very nice
Volvo. Criminal justice is more of a Robin Reliant on bricks which has been stripped for parts. Historically we have prided ourselves and marketed legal services on the international reputation of our justice system, but I think you would struggle to find anybody working in publicly-funded law who believes our system is currently working as it should. The legal aid cuts heralded
by LASPO removed access to justice for swathes of the population, and the effects have been catastrophic. The fact that the MoJ’s budget is still being reduced year-on-year to 2020 means that I fear the problems are only going to get worse before they get better.

DB: A copy of the book was sent to every member of parliament, but in reality, do you think it will make a difference? The justice ministry has suffered the biggest cuts of any government department, and this doesn’t look like changing anytime soon. Do you fear that the system you have described in your book will simply get worse?

SB: I don’t expect that the book will cause the Treasury to immediately atone and reverse the cuts to the justice system, but I do hope that it has coincided with a growing awareness of the problems within the justice system. The concerns of the legal profession, particularly over legal aid, are getting an airing in the media that would have been unlikely five years ago, and I remain (perhaps naively) optimistic that we are making incremental gains towards winning the argument for a properly-funded justice system. As I said above, things may well get worse before they get better, but I feel more hopeful than I did in 2013.

DB: When it comes to legal aid and the fair remuneration for both barristers and solicitors, what must the legal professions do to keep up the pressure on the government?

SB: This is a question probably better aimed at those in leadership positions with the strategic nous that I don’t pretend to have. My observation as an amateur outsider would be twofold.

Firstly, unity between the Bar and solicitors is essential. Every successful attempt by the government to head off resistance to legal aid cuts has relied on dividing and conquering, and we all seem to fall into this trap time and time again. Secondly, we should not be afraid to use our power to force the government’s hand. There is a reason why tube drivers earn over three times as much as junior criminal barristers. And it’s not, with respect, because their public service is three times as important.

DB: What advice would you give to lawyers in other countries who, seeing how you’ve been able to highlight critical justice issues in the UK, might attempt to replicate your success abroad with their own anonymous lawyer persona?

SB: I think I’ve been the beneficiary of extraordinary good luck, so I’m not sure how well-placed I am to offer advice on replicating what has happened. But quite a lot of the positive feedback I’ve had is from non-lawyers who are grateful for having the legal system explained in layman’s terms, which is something I think we as professionals often struggle with. I think that’s key.

DB: Last year, The Bar Council and The Times asked if you should be unmasked. The common feeling was this was another example of an out of touch ‘establishment’ focusing on the whistleblowing rather than on the root of the problem. How disappointed were you with this survey question?

SB: I have to accept that adopting a name with ‘Secret’ in it is an invitation to ask the question, but I had also hoped that I had done enough to demonstrate that my identity adds absolutely nothing to the substance of what I write. I think something like 95% of respondents said that they would not wish for my identity to be made known, so hopefully that will settle the question for now.

DB: Do you think your career at the Bar would suffer if people knew who you really are?

SB: I don’t know. There is obviously a risk; hence the need for anonymity. I hope that people understand why I write what I write, and see some value in what I do. But I also recognise that few whistleblowers escape intact.

DB: On the subject of legal training, what if anything do you think law schools could do better to prepare their students for legal practice? Do you think the current training regime represents value for money?

SB: I’m over a decade out of Bar school so can’t comment with authority on the current training regime.

What I would say, however, is that my BVC certainly didn’t feel like value for money given the contact hours. Whether that is an issue today, I don’t know.

DB: What advice would you give to lawyers in other countries who, seeing how you’ve been able to highlight critical justice issues in the UK, might attempt to replicate your success abroad with their own anonymous lawyer persona?

SB: I think I’ve been the beneficiary of extraordinary good luck, so I’m not sure how well-placed I am to offer advice on replicating what has happened. But quite a lot of the positive feedback I’ve had is from non-lawyers who are grateful for having the legal system explained in layman’s terms, which is something I think we as professionals often struggle with. I think that’s key.

DB: What predictions would you make about the future of the Bar and the chambers structure?

SB: None with any certainty.

DB: What about the clerks’
room – can you see it remaining an integral part of the chambers environment or will barristers
take more control of their
own BD and administrative
tasks?

SB: I certainly couldn’t cope
without my clerks, and I know few colleagues in crime who have the time or organisational skills to manage the administrative side of practice. Whatever models chambers adopt in the coming years, I believe a clerks’ room will remain integral.

DB: Do you think a fusion
of the barrister and solicitor professions is now more
likely than in previous years?

SB: In crime, I think it probably is, at least partially. Unless there is an unlikely injection of funds into
criminal legal aid, the criminal
Bar will become increasingly
unviable for young graduates.
I could see us ultimately gravitating towards a model as suggested in
the Jeffrey Review, where the
majority of advocates are employed
in-house, with a small, specialist criminal Bar existing for private
payers and the most complex
trials. I don’t endorse that approach,
but I can see it coming to pass.

DB: What’s next? Is there another book planned?

SB: There is a second book
due for publication in 2020,
looking at how the myths
we are fed about the law
enable those in power
to chip away at our rights.

For further information on
The Secret Barrister, visit
the website and blog https://thesecretbarrister.com/ and
follow on Twitter @BarristerSecret
Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken is available to buy via your usual online stores.

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

Culture is incredibly important. It sets the expectation for how our people work together and, in turn, how we work with our clients. Our culture is underpinned by our values which prioritise innovation, collaboration and high performance, and which give us a collective clarity of who we are. This has been a big part of our success in recent years, especially as we have become a larger, more diverse and more internationally focused business.

You’ve been described as ‘the person responsible for bringing the great ideas of the people at DWF to life’. What’s the main change you’ve made in the firm that has benefitted clients?

I would highlight two significant changes from our recent past: international growth and Connected Services. Our international footprint has accelerated over the past three or four years and has given us a broader geographical reach, enabling a real step change in how we can service our clients.

We are now better positioned to meet their demands, wherever they are in the world. Connected Services consists of a range of professional, business or consulting services which are complementary to the traditional legal services offered by our other divisions. It allows us to provide multi-disciplinary teams to our clients in an integrated way and differentiates us in the market.

What are the biggest challenges facing UK firms of similar size and expertise to DWF?

Staying one step ahead of our clients and understanding the challenges of their sectors, while reacting and adapting to the pressures and changes of our own industry. Technology and the diversification of legal services creates more competition and pricing pressure, and all firms must contend with how to better harness new tech solutions while delivering value for clients.

It’s important to start looking outside of the traditional partnership and growth models and explore how we can adapt in order to stay competitive, attract talent in a crowded market and keep delivering added value for clients.

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

Clients need to know you’re delivering value, but it isn’t about doing ‘more for less’ – you’ve got to demonstrate that you truly understand their business objectives and can identify and anticipate sector-specific challenges and opportunities; that you have a clear and commercially attractive approach to resourcing, whether that’s by using technology solutions in new ways or offering a flexible contracting or service delivery model; and that you’re genuinely driven to deliver beyond their expectations.

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

Technology is fundamentally an enabler, opening the doors for us to explore new types of solutions, solve problems more quickly, efficiently and cost effectively than before and ultimately offer a different experience to clients.

The key is to have a problem-solving mindset and look to understand where the application of new technologies can deliver competitive advantage to clients, rather than deploying the latest solutions just because you can, or because it’s different.

What is your growth strategy? Where does DWF go from here?

We are a client-led business, so our growth strategy is informed by how we can better service our clients while staying consistent with our culture and our delivering on own business needs.

We’ll continue to enhance our international presence, by further investing in areas where we have a presence as well as exploring new jurisdictions. This can be achieved by establishing a formal on-the-ground presence or through strategic partnerships with leading firms in key regions.

We’ll also continue to diversify our service offering through the ongoing development of our Connected Services offering as well as look to increase our investments in technology and data solutions.

You mentioned earlier the challenge of attracting new talent. What have you found is the best way to retain talent – both at partner and associate levels?

We want to attract and retain people who embody our values and who are committed to going further for our clients, so we have a clear focus on recognising and rewarding people based on merit, not by time served or any other measure.

We also believe that it’s important to recognise the wide range of contributions that our people make to the success of our business, not only financial but through their technical expertise, client service, innovation
and more.

Today’s lawyers are also keen to explore different ways of working, so it’s important to provide a diverse range of experiences and alternative career paths.

Finally, what’s surprised you most about running a firm?

How much effort is required to achieve collective buy in, but once it is there, how powerful it actually is. Also, how the importance of having a broader purpose – transforming legal services through our people for our clients – really galvanises our people.

Kiril, Emmanuel, how would you define your firm’s culture?

Firm culture is essential to us. After 30 and 20 years, respectively, of professional practice at international law firms, we chose to create in January 2017 an ambitious business litigation boutique with a strong white-collar crime focus where lawyers – 15 as of today – combine the culture of major international law firms, of which they all come from, with more independence, liberty, flexibility and creativity. These are Bougartchev Moyne Associés’ hallmarks. In this respect, we are pretty unique in the French market.

In launching the firm, what’s the main change you’ve made that will benefit clients?

We are now fully independent in the development of our activity. Working in international law firms means regularly facing commercial conflicts issues that prevented us from taking instructions, even from our long-time clients. Moreover, a lot of other international law firms were reluctant to seek our assistance. This is no longer the case.

Being no longer attached to the network of our previous firms also allowed us to continue the development of a dynamic international network in various jurisdictions. Bougartchev Moyne Associés is a French law firm, based in Paris, but we act in numerous cases with a cross-border element and often involving one or more foreign jurisdictions.

We are very often appointed by French or foreign colleagues, from international or from boutique firms, to defend the interests of their clients together. We are also frequently appointed to select firms within the above mentioned network as well as to coordinate the work of said firms.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms of your size and specialism in France and across EMEA?

The biggest challenge for a local specialised firm is obviously its cross border reach. As our previous firms had no international white-collar crime coverage, we had already developed a strong and reactive international network. Since our opening, we took time to strengthen it. That is what we are currently doing by visiting talented colleagues around the world. Having worked notably in the context of urgent matters which required to have lawyers acting in three continents at the same time while being coordinated from Paris, we know that this is a fundamental need for us.

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

Clients want to have the best legal service for the best price at any time.

Besides, our clients want us to be their real partners, not just their lawyers and they expect from us, at the same time, pragmatism (quickly identify the procedural and strategic options that are available to them) and innovation (they want us to be creative and promote innovative solutions).

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

Technology obviously facilitates interaction with our French and foreign clients and that is much appreciable. However, we would say that the major issue with respect to technology and the changes it implies in the way we interact with our clients is confidentiality.

To ensure the utmost degree of confidentiality and to ensure that the same standards will be applied by all providers of services whom we engaged (such as other counsel, experts, translators, accountants, etc.), we combine technology-based and in-house solutions.

We are also very active in various lawyers’ organisations to exchange on the subject of legal privilege with our colleagues from around the world.

From another perspective, technology is an even growing source of fraud. We are therefore also very active to assist our clients in the cybercrime world.

How has your role/involvement in client-facing work changed since taking on larger management responsibilities?

The partners are active on all cases and structure an appropriate team in which the client is the concern of all. More precisely, depending on its complexity, each matter is managed by one (or two) partner(s), assisted by one (or several) associate(s).

The partners keep a close watch on each matter, at each step of the proceedings, ensuring that the firm’s style and strategy – which is a strong distinctive mark for us on the market – is always carefully crafted, with the help of the associates assisting them in the day-to-day conduct of the matter.

The firm’s lawyers are accustomed to working together and the younger lawyers acquire immediate responsibilities, which is more cost efficient for the clients.

What do you believe is the best way to retain talent?

The traditional partnership structure in major international law firms struggles. The number of new partners decreases from year to year. Partners in place will often have no other choice than let senior associates go, whatever training they have been provided with and however talented they are.

This is not our approach. Our policy is to promote all lawyers’ talents within an open organisation in which the transmission of knowledge and expertise is an essential value.

We are already a strong team for a white-collar crime boutique but we will continue to grow.

Since founding Bougartchev Moyne Associés, what’s surprised you most about running your own firm?

Founding and running your own law firm is a big challenge. We received a warm response from our clients and colleagues. This is very rewarding as well as demanding.

We are constantly thinking about our potential developments and meeting both with our long-time clients and new ones as well as with our colleagues around the world who give us multiple new areas of improvement. This is what makes us enthusiastic every day.

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

Our culture is deeply rooted in the power of the collective and in these days that togetherness – within the partnership, among the fee earners and the staff – is what`s needed to help our clients be successful.

Clients are confronted with so many challenges – globalisation, innovation, the speed of business – that their issues and legal questions are more complex than ever. That calls for a multidisciplinary approach from our side, making the call for team work and the ability to work together louder than ever.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms in the Netherlands?

The war of talent is an ongoing struggle and investments in new technology is a constant challenge. The Netherlands is a small country, and people and money are less abundant that in the UK or the US. But as the saying goes, if you are not big and strong, you have to be smart.

For instance, we took the initiative to have 15 Dutch law firms join hands to fight cybercrime by exchanging information and experiences. Based on that success, we might team up in other fields too, because we’re all dealing with the same issues.

What still needs to happen to make the legal industry more inclusive?

Compared to 20 years ago, the drive to have a more inclusive work floor has become much bigger. This is not only being pushed by developments in society, it’s also because clients, who in general outperform law firms in this field, expect us to be more diverse.

But to make it even more inclusive, it’s imperative we keep a close eye on the ratio between men and women. We must also speed up our efforts to attract more people with a different cultural background and continue to raise more awareness on the importance of being inclusive.

How can law firms best encourage innovation?

In our view it is best if this is institutionalised as well as stimulated throughout the firm as a whole. So anybody within the firm can pitch an idea. And to make the most of this grass roots approach, we have an Innovation Council installed, consisting of lawyers, consultants and other staff professionals. They evaluate the idea, test its usefulness and help bring it to the next level. This ensures creativity doesn’t go to waste, but also a thorough vetting process of an idea before we start doing anything.

How do you stand apart from the rest of the market?

Our clients expect more from us than ‘just’ the delivery of excellent legal services. We are proud to be a
full-service law firm, but simply being really good at practicing law is not enough. Our broad experience means that we always look at the context. Our focus is on how we can contribute to solving our clients’ business challenges.

We aim to deliver peace of mind, not just answering legal questions. We believe in doing that by putting our clients’ interests first, by seeking constructive and smart collaboration with our clients, and by constantly adapting to ever-changing client needs in an ever-evolving world. It is our mindset, and our adaptive thinking, that really sets us apart.

What do you think clients care most about?

Putting our clients’ needs first also means that we regularly ask our clients for feedback. One of the questions we pose is when they feel cared for as a client. Their answers consistently show that, above all, clients value responsiveness, transparency, and proactivity.

By being available when clients need us, by proactively putting legal issues in our clients’ business context, and by delivering on our promises we provide certainty – an important asset in a world that is rapidly changing – and show our clients that we care about their business needs.

What is your one major prediction for the legal market?

Global trends such as digitisation and increased regulation and supervision are changing the world our clients – and we – operate in, making it more complex. Of course, this also has an effect on the legal market. It makes it even more important for law firms to take an outside-in approach and constantly adapt your thinking.

If you look at top brands outside the legal world, there is one thing they are all obsessed about: winning the hearts and minds of the customer. That should be a top priority for every law firm too, because failing to meet the needs of clients will result in losing them. The future competition won’t revolve around price, it will revolve around client experience.

Paul, you spent ten years as a clerk and deputy senior clerk at Fountain Court. Tell us why you decided to leave chambers for Vannin Capital and what your responsibilities will be as the litigation funder’s new UK managing director.

I had a tremendous time as a clerk, especially at Fountain Court, where I was very happy to work with some of the brightest minds, and best barristers, in the business, alongside great colleagues like senior clerk Alex Taylor. However, the opportunity to work with a market-leading litigation funder was too good to turn down; building upon the skills and knowledge I’ve learned across my career.

It’s a challenge I’m really relishing. My primary focus is on cultivating and further developing the strategic relationships I have developed with law firms, corporate clients, and barristers both in the UK, and globally, while also applying my overall management and marketing skills to the business of litigation funding.

How has your experience in chambers prepared you for this new challenge?

What I am known for at the Bar is client service, professionalism, and innovation, all combined with the personal touch, which ensures the strategic experience I bring to Vannin has a solid management grounding.

Those experiences, whether in terms of commercial insight, people skills, strategic fit, cultural understanding, and, crucially, strong business development and people management skills, are central to the work I did at the Bar; I wrote in a recently published book that: ‘The game is changing, and those who don’t adapt quickly will be left behind.’ That is as true of funding as it is of the Bar. It’s a challenge I am keen to meet.

There are a number of litigation funders active in the market. What is Vannin’s USP and where do you see your competition?

What sets Vannin apart? Our global expertise in legal finance is exceptionally strong, for one thing. The bench strength of our people and our ability to support law firms and corporations in the successful resolution of high-value commercial disputes is, in my view, second to none.

Our team comprises both leading lawyers and finance professionals, who work seamlessly together. As such, we have people with superb insights into not just law and business, but the business of law and the funding of disputes.

What else? Global coverage, active in all the areas you would expect us to be, with deep national, regional, and local knowledge and expertise. Like many of our friends and rivals in the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF), we see our competition working to ensure work is done to the highest standards – only ours are that bit better!

We recently addressed the issue of funding at a general counsel roundtable, and the sense was that this was something for their law firms. Why should GCs be more aware of the value of litigation funding?

This is a really important issue. Part of the fun of the job is showing the value that funding can bring not just to law firms, but also general counsel within corporates and – critically – the finance functions within those organisations. I have really enjoyed explaining to corporate clients how funding can enable the in-house legal team to create value, by taking the cost of litigation out of their P&L and the risk of litigation off their balance sheet, and how the funder and client can work effectively together to achieve a common objective: to maximise the value of a litigation portfolio.

What else can you tell us about Vannin’s future growth plans? What types of disputes and value of claims are you targeting?

We have ambitious growth plans, which are focused on looking at commercially strong business propositions for funding that meet our robust due diligence requirements, in a range of commercial litigation and arbitration contexts. These include sectors such as energy, commercial contract claims, cartel damages actions, and investor-state disputes. That said, we do not limit ourselves to specific sectors or types of claim; if the case is strong and the economics work for us and the client, we will look to fund it.

The funding market has more than tripled over the past six years. What do you place this growth down to and what does it tell us about the UK’s litigation landscape?

I can only speak for Vannin, but would say this goes down to our positive outlook on managing risk; our strict adherence to market standards and reliance on strong legal advice; our excellent relationship management skills; and the fact that if you choose the right cases for the right clients that are run by the right lawyers, ours is an investment proposition that works.

What effect (positive and/or negative) do you see this growth having on the Bar?

For those who are willing to advise and take risks, the Bar, which has developed its approach from initial resistance to modest acceptance, and now widespread adoption, can act both as neutral guardian of legal opinions, in assessing the third-party risk involved, or active participants in a funded case, as counsel in the usual way. The number of counsel familiar with costs and funding issues, as a specialist niche, has also grown in recent years and will continue to do so.

Some claimants – and lawyers – are still sceptical about funders as they fear the exertion of undue influence on how a case is run or that the eventual cost of funding a claim would be prohibitively high for most claimants. How do you respond to that criticism?

I don’t accept that. As a professional funder and member of the ALF, we are not allowed to exert undue influence over the running of a case. This is why choosing cases with the right team is so important to us. That said, the law firms and clients that we work with often recognise that we can add genuine value as part of the team, and we therefore find ourselves welcomed into the key strategic discussions throughout the life of a case.

As for the cost, I think it is important to bear in mind that these are non-recourse investments, so there is a complete transfer of financial risk from the claimant to the funder. And when people take the time to consider the benefits that funding can bring, whether accounting benefits for corporates or driving better and quicker settlement outcomes, they will generally conclude that the terms that we offer represent excellent value.

There have been calls for UK funders to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, rather than self-regulated. What impact would such a change have on the funding market?

At the time of the publication of the Jackson Review, the FSA (as it was then) indicated that regulation of litigation funding was not required as it was not aware of significant risks to consumers. Nonetheless, the industry has moved forward and established the self-regulatory body, the ALF in England and Wales and I would not be surprised if we see similar self-regulatory bodies being established in other parts of the world. The establishment of ALF has been a good thing as it has weeded out the weaker players in the industry and it ensures that claimants are working with funders who can fulfil their promises and fund cases all the way to trial. At Vannin, our view is that regulation will be a positive for the leading funders, ensuring best practice takes place across the industry, a win-win for funders and claimants.

Finally, for those lawyers still on the fence about whether third-party funding is right for their case, what advice would you give them?

Pick up the phone, and give Vannin a call, or better still, send us a case and let us explain how we can help you and your clients.

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

Our culture is based on several main values: contribute effortlessly to create long-lasting effects, make a difference by a positive approach, take the lead and engage to create solid results that will stand the test of time. The driving force of our success also thrives on the values of loyalty and ethics in doing business, and on cultivating a mindset for constant improvement.

Our mindful culture constantly reminds us what Suciu Popa should stand for, it guides our strategy and development, and it attracts and retains the exceptional professionals that align with us.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms of your size in Romania?

As a full-service business law firm acting in a somewhat unpredictable but very competitive market such as Romania, we believe important to deliver first-in-class services and results for our clients.

We engage with clients not only to find one-time solutions to their legal problems, but to help them integrate the legal strategy with their overall business goals and discover cross-functional approaches and synergies that give them a competitive advantage. We are mindful of the client’s various challenges on multiple fronts and we make availability, reachability, and efficiency our key differentiator.

Since its founding, what’s surprised you most about running your firm?

Running a firm involves wearing many hats and juggling with many different roles at the same time, from working alongside the team on clients’ files to generating and developing new business, to overseeing and getting involved in the admin, marketing and HR flows of the firm, which multiply significantly as the firm grows and expands.

There were hard times, but we never lost positive energy and enthusiasm. We start each day and new project as if it’s the first, and go every step of the way being convinced this is the best project we set out to do in our lives.

What challenges did you face as women establishing your own firm?

Fortunately, we didn’t face any specific challenges other than the usual ones start-ups and entrepreneurs generally face in any market. Being women in the profession did not prevent us at all from implementing our project nor has it hindered in any way our ability to get ahead in business.

Suciu Popa is drawing on the strong reputation built during 20 years of acting in the legal market, on its extraordinary team of professionals with whom we have constantly served a wide base of international and domestic corporate clients.

Complementing this incredible team and track record, we managed to place the firm in a top position in less than three years, and this has been confirmed by all major international legal publications, as well as by the international and domestic business community.

How have attitudes to diversity changed over the past 20 years? What still needs to happen to make the legal industry more inclusive?

We believe that, as legal experts, no matter the gender, we are joined by a common goal – providing value for clients through deep understanding of their legal needs, mitigate legal risk, but also discover opportunity. What should matter is the values the individuals possess and how they can provide clients with the best solutions. Neither ethnicity nor gender should interfere with individuals’ and firms’ performance and ability to advance in the legal profession, and in business overall.

Shifting the attention on what really counts – mentoring, giving feedback, and encouraging personal and professional development – will definitely bring a positive impact and help towards diversity.

How can law firms best encourage innovation?

For a while now, innovation has been the centre of attention in a variety of businesses, law firms included. Innovation may mean many things, like technological advancement, disruption in the way the business is managed, or valuable ideas are generated, etc.

In our view, many firms acting in the legal industry advocate innovation, but rarely practice it in reality. Apart from immersing in the technological solutions that are now more easily available to firms across the board, we apply innovation in the way we manage the firm, deal with clients, and encourage the team to think proactively for and meaningfully for the client.

Differentiation is critical to buyers of legal services – how do you stand apart in the market?

As stated, the critical difference in securing long term, high-quality clients is earning their trust and keeping it. We do that by delivering on our promises, by offering genuine engagement, and by never projecting an image of us or the firm that comes short of our true selves as human beings and as professionals. In short, being genuine and true to the client and the profession is what sets us apart. We understand that to be able to make the difference you need to help, not just advise, you need to uncover new options, not just stand by and tell the client which legal provisions apply or what flat regulations they should consider. Last but not least, doing business not for the immediate (financial mainly) rewards, but with a cooperative approach in mind which addresses the future, has placed us in a position where top-rate clients want to have and keep us on-board.

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

During our professional career, we found very diverse clients look for a few key basic things in their advisors: proactivity with a sense of business; honest and agile advice; and a natural availability for genuine engagement with their needs.

We saw good clients leave their advisors for compromising on their professional and ethical values, or for gradually scaling down on the quality they, or their teams strive to offer as clients become long-term clients. That is certainly a pity, and a pitfall we do our best to avoid, as one unsatisfied client leads to another and bad reputation in this industry is a killer.

What is your one big prediction for the legal market?

As we are witnessing an internal political crisis. Adding the political tensions in the wider Euro zone, the Romanian market is exposed to a number of challenges, such as the stagnant level of direct foreign investments, delays in implementing much needed infrastructure projects or developing a clear public strategy promoting real and steady growth in the wider Romanian economy.

Against this backdrop, and concerning the Romanian legal market, we believe the effects of economic stagnation, coupled with the difficulty of some of the players in rethinking their business culture, will have a transformational effect, to the disadvantage of some firms that continue in their old ways and to the advantage of those who understand and adapt.