Clifford Chance has refused to rule out another US merger as the magic circle firm presses ahead with growth in the region.

David Childs
Clifford Chance has refused to rule out another US merger as the magic circle firm presses ahead with growth in the region.
The firm’s practice in the Americas grew 3 per cent in revenue from £140m to £144m in the Americas in the 2011-12 financial year, with global managing partner David Childs saying the firm wished to expand in the US.
He said litigation was focus of the growth, with capital markets also an area for expansion stateside.
“We’d like to be larger still,” he said.
Commenting on another US merger, Childs added: “[We] never say never to anything. We wouldn’t rule out anything.”
Clifford Chance rolled out a merger with Rogers & Wells in 1999 (26 April 1999), but since then the firm has been hit by major defections in New York, especially in litigation.
Management vowed not to shrink the US business at its partnership conference in Barcelona last month (26 June 2012).
It hired a team of litigators in New York late last year (13 October 2011) following a string of litigation exits and redundancies, including 20 layoffs in 2008 (14 October 2008).
Its US litigation chief Juan Morillo quit for Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton last year (9 May 2011).
Readers' comments (4)
Anon | 4-Jul-2012 2:09 pm
A "global" firm like Clifford Chance needs to have a scale presence in the United States. In reality that means annual revenues of at least £400 million, ideally well over £500 million.
In a flat market there is simply now way that they can there organically.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Jul-2012 5:04 pm
Why in the world would a self-respecting USA firm want to be taken over by a bunch of Brits?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Jul-2012 4:43 am
Gee Anonymous, don't know ... maybe we should ask the good chaps at Dewey Le Boeuf.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Jul-2012 2:25 pm
I did say self-respecting.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment