Camerons, DLA square up to Bulgarian court

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • A reminder of old-school lawyer attitudes at their worst. Big foreign firms do not have an "unfair" advantage. The advantages a local smaller firm have are: (1) local knowledge - invaluable for projects with a regulatory aspect; (2) costs; and (3) direct part5ner contact.
    They can compete if they wanted to; it's pathetic that their first instinct is to hide behind protectionism.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The above seems to be a rather simplistic representation of the case. I didn't see a single word on what the actual subject of the dispute is. "Protectionist stance" and the quotes from the representatives of the international firms are more of one-sided qualifications than a summary of the facts, which are totally missing from the article. I am not trying to suggest who is wrong or who is right, I am just saying that the readers should be respected enough to be allowed to make their own judgements based on true representation of the facts and the standpoints of both sides.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think the article represents the conflict pretty clearly and as a reader I don't need more facts then those presented on this page. 'Unfair advantage' - in this case, Bulgarians seem to prefer to use the services of a better qualified, more experienced and more professional international law companies then the local Bulgarian ones. That’s life when you are in EU. Learn to be more competitive, more professional and stop complaining!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Natalya,

    What you are saying is simply not true - take some time to look at Legal500 and Chambers for Bulgaria and you will see who the top law firms in Bulgaria are.

    But this is not my point - what I am saying is that the article is biased and relies on subjective assumptions rather than facts. Based on the article, can you tell what the subject matter of the argument was? Can you tell on what the unfair advantage statement was grounded? Maybe it had something to do with the international law firm’s liability, but how would you know? Do you really believe that it was because of the international law firms network or supposed expertise that they were penalised?

    I am working in an international law firm, by the way.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter, as is clear from the article this has been going on for some time - remember this has been to the CPC, the firms have been fined, they have appealed the fines and had the court's decision on that. Perhaps the original subject of the dispute is now less relevant? I'm sure it's easy to find that information out but it would seem that things have moved on somewhat and it is protectionism pure and simple that is now at stake.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having had first hand experience of Bulgaria, and its legal market, I can confirm that the Bulgarian government's stance is most definitely protectionist.

    The basis of the claim; i.e an "unfair advantage" is laughable. So Cameron's and DLA have more money, and better international networks? Deal with it!

    The fact that two of the fines have already been rescinded is telling.

    Bulgaria is one of the most corrupt nations in the EU, and is going to have to learn that if it wants access to EU subsidies, then it must also make some sacrificies; i.e liberalising markets.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (6)