Clifford Chance launches in Australia via double merger

Readers' comments (18)

• Baron von Munchausen | 16-Feb-2011 9:12 am

  Interesting that CC wants to distance itself from saying this is about Aus as a jurisdiction in itself. Did they think it was all about Asia when the Mallesons deal was on the table?
  Or is this about Asia because they couldn't find bigger firms to do a deal with?
  Have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but still hard to imagine FF or Links following - more evidence of a two-tier magic circle maybe

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Larry the Lamb | 16-Feb-2011 9:56 am

  @ Baron von Munchausen 9.12am
  The issue may be more about client perception - and that will have an impact on Links and FF.
  We now have 2 MC firms in Oz, plus one chasing pack global i.e. Norton Rose, (and little old DLA.)
  Looks like a market trend to me, and clients tend to expect everyone else in a market segment to have the same capability and get upset when they don't. The pressure on others to follow suit will grow and grow. Just look what happened in Europe, or the race to build, arguably pointless, NY offices just because one or two MCs in the UK did it.
  Sheep-like behaviour perhaps, but a fact of life all the same.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Natalya Brass | 16-Feb-2011 10:22 am

  This is destined to fail - just like a lot of foreign ventures that CC enters into.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Nicolay | 16-Feb-2011 10:34 am

  I'm skeptical. Australia is a very overserviced legal market with a number of very large, very sophisticated domestic firms that have very close relationships with he big corporations and banks. I don't see how rebranding two lower-tier, niche players is going to suddenly turn them into real competitors. The only way they will build market share is to offer huge fee discounts, which A&O is doing ... and not that successfully.
  And as for this being an "Asia" play, do these guys realize that Beijing is further from Sydney than Los Angeles is from London?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 16-Feb-2011 10:40 am

  Having worked in the Australian legal market for a number of years I can safely say that I have never heard of either of these firms. Random.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Stephen Pipes | 16-Feb-2011 10:49 am

  Australia is a very important market in its own right, with a very high GDP per capita and a massive presence in natural resources. More than that it is English-speaking, common law, culturally similar to the UK, and a perfect launchpad for Asian expansion.
  This is a complete no-brainer. The puzzle is why it has taken UK firms so long to take this step.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Prince of Coburg | 16-Feb-2011 11:03 am

  CP&S and CLCL are well-respected firms, but neither have a finance practice - finance partners at the Big Six are on notice.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 16-Feb-2011 11:10 am

  John (10.43am) - these are not lower tier firms. The firm in Perth comprises 2 ex Mallesons partners and a number of other heavy hitters who focus mainly on takeovers and M&A for resources companies and investors - probably the hottest spot in the legal market. The Sydney firm is a boutique break away which again does only high end M&A work. Partners at both firms already earn a lot more $$ than 100 point partners at the "top tier". They are small, nimble and very profitable - why else would a magic circle firm want them?
  The old argument that Aust is overserviced with many big firm and entrenched relationships no longer is true. Plenty of big firm partners will be on the move to join these smaller, but now global firm. The big losers will be the top 6 firms in Aust.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Yin and Yang | 16-Feb-2011 11:10 am

  Where A&O lead, CC follow.
  Meanwhile Links and Freshfields ignore them both.
  Says a lot.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• mary | 16-Feb-2011 11:26 am

  Interesting that CC chose to go with boutique firms after ditching the Mallesons plan. Makes sense and if the other magic circle firms follow they'll probably do the same thing.
  They need to be careful though as boutiques are small for a reason, generally because the people running them have spun out of larger firms because they don't like the culture. Look at Germany, where all the boutiques that tied up with the MC in the 90s have begun spinning out to be on their own again.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment