The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Clifford Chance bans brief fees for barristers in favour of hourly rate" />Clifford Chance is squaring up to the bar by banning the payment of brief fees to leading counsel, such as the £3m Gordon Pollock QC has charged BCCI’s liquidators for suing the Bank of England.
Clifford Chance will no longer tolerate being charged brief fees, the lump sums paid in advance to secure top QCs, which is considered as payment for preparing a trial. It will now pay QCs for preparing cases hourly with a rate to be determined by the firm’s clients rather than the silks themselves, as well as a small commitment fee to compensate silks for settling cases early.
The firm is refusing to pay brief fees to stop silks walking away with inflated advance payments when cases settle early, as it believes that many of the best QCs will not have trouble finding new work.
The firm has designed its new scheme to reduce its spend on the bar. This is ultimately passed on to its clients and last year it came to between £10m and £15m for the London office alone.
Jeremy Sandelson, managing partner of Clifford Chance London’s litigation and dispute resolution practice, told The Lawyer: “We face continued pressure on legal fees and this pressure will inevitably be felt by the bar too. A number of our professional clients have ex-pressed dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the current brief fee system. The idea of paying a lump sum fee to secure the future availability of counsel for a lengthy trial – which may well settle early in the trial – has become increasingly unattractive.”