Clifford Chance launches in Australia via double merger

  • Print
  • Comments (18)

Readers' comments (18)

  • It's clear that CC and A&O are aligning themselves as closely as possible to the world's fastest growing flow of trade and capital - between China and resource-rich Western Australia. Last century the same strategy explained the rise of the Wall Street firms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous (11.10) - when you describe the two firms, you seem to agree that they are not part of the top tier, and where I say "niche", you say "small and nimble". But either way you cut it, we seem to agree that they only compete in a small part of the market. I don't doubt they are very profitable - but it's much easier to be profitable if you're an effective competitor in a good niche than if you're trying to be a full service firm.
    But surely the CC case is based on being able to expand beyond the niche. And i think that will be tough to do.
    It's not like Eastern Europe or the ME where the CC brand carries a promise of higher quality than the local firms can offer, justifying premium pricing. I don't think it follows that if you have a small group of partners making big $ doing mid-cap mining M&A, you can throw a bunch more Freehills or Mallesons refugees on board to do other things and expect PPP to stay the same.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The two Australian firms are high-class enough, there's no problem about that. Far less dead wood there than at some of the bigger firms in Australia. They are, however, quite different animals from each other. Chang Pistilli is a breakaway from Atanaskovic Hartnell, itself a buccaneering corporate boutique. Cochrane Lishman, on the other hand, is peopled by ex-Mallesons (and Blake Dawson) lawyers, experienced in, and, one assumes, comfortable with, big firm culture. Reconciling those differences will be quite an interesting challenge for CC, unless the firm intends to maintain a quite separate type of operation in Perth from the one it now has in Sydney.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • James (11.46). The deal nearly fell over because Cochrane Lishman were worried about the big firm issues. They set the firm up apparently because they thought the "big firm" approach to handling M&A work (that is, i) load the file with an army of lawyers for maximum leverage/revenue) and ii) have senior associates run the deal with partner making cameos)was a disservice to clients. So their firm has 7 partners with 7 senior associates - and that's it. The main concern was whether that model fits the magic circle model. Obviously they got over their concerms when they saw the CC top equity drawings. Time will tell.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Chris Merritt

    'World's fastest growing flow of trade and capital' between China and WA? Hardly. The lending limits Chinese banks are subject to have plateaued this year, so we should not expect an increased flow of capital from China to WA.

    Firms in Australia need to start cultivating their relationships with potential Indian investors - that is where the next major source of foreign investment will be coming from.

    Can you also flesh out: 'Last century the same strategy explained the rise of the Wall Street firms'?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting. Well, in getting Cochrane Lishman Carson Luscombe, CC didn't just latch onto a corporate boutique, although that was the original main focus of the firm when it was set up. Last year, Jon Carson joined the original Cochrane Lishman from Blake Dawson, giving the firm, and now CC, a strong Perth-based energy practice. It doesn't need much imagination to see CC being, at the very least, able to pick up another energy lawyer or two, a decent tax team and maybe an antitrust practice as well. After all, A&O did it from what was more or less a standing start. Hey presto, you've expanded beyond a niche already (John Nicolay 11.38). No, this move looks smarter the closer one looks at it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sympathy goes out to CP&S and CLCL. They have no idea of the misery they've opened their doors to.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @mary
    Simply not true that in Germany the MC merged with boutiques that are now breaking away. Freshfields with Bruckhaus; Clifford with Pünder; Linklaters with Oppenhoff. (Only A&O hasn't merged). 3 big firms and 90% of the profitable partners at those three firms have stayed.
    Oz is interesting for CC and A&O because of the finance work. They will want to build that practice fast and will raid the top Oz firms to do it and can offer better profits. Getting corporate capacity was the most difficult bit. Can't see a reason for Freshfields to go there. But Linklaters may want to defend its energy/mining franchise.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

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 (18)