Eversheds wins battle to trade under own name in South Africa
Eversheds’ South Africa office has won a longstanding dispute to trade under the global law firm’s name.
Brian Biebuyck
Alliance firm Routledge Modise became a member of Eversheds International in April 2008 and practised under the banner ’Routledge Modise in association with Eversheds’.
However, the firm got into hot water after it formally changed its name to Eversheds in July 2009, leading to The Law Society of the Northern Provinces, the local law society, to argue that the firm had broken the Attorneys Act and its own rules. It ordered a name reversal (7 December 2009).
This provoked a standoff, with Eversheds claiming that the Law Society’s move was “anticompetitive” and that it should be able to trade under the global brand, just as its competitors can.
Brian Biebuyck, the Eversheds partner who also represented the firm, said: “We’re very pleased that the court took a decisive stand and ruled in our favour. While we’re permitted to continue trading as Eversheds, we’ve invited the Law Society’s attorney to meet to reach a practical resolution to the issue pending the promulgation of the new Legal Services Bill.
“It’s significant that the court also commented that it was high time for the Law Society to reconsider what essentially are archaic provisions, given the environment in which we practise law in this day and age, competing against other international law firms within a global village.”
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 23-Feb-2011 2:08 pm
"...under the global law firm’s name..."? Global? Seriously?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
global spin | 23-Feb-2011 3:46 pm
Sorry to be pedantic, but Eversheds doesn't even describe itself as a 'global firm'. It calls itself:
'a progressive international firm' - which sounds a bit Nick Clegg-ish, but basically means most of its foreign offices operate through a branded alliance system (Eversheds International). It's a referral club with an umbrella brand.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 23-Feb-2011 4:31 pm
@global spin - Eversheds is both larger and more profitable than Norton Rose, Simmons & Simmons, Berwin Leighton Paisner or SJ Berwin.
It suffers from a reputation that is way below the reality. Is it truly global? Not yet. But it is way more than a referral club.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
global spin | 23-Feb-2011 5:26 pm
@Anon 4.31pm.
Eversheds may have PEP that is higher than Norton Rose etc. However, Eversheds also has (according to data on this website):
1898 total fee earners,
but only 136 equity partners -
Unless my maths is very wrong, doesn't that give an equity partner to fee earner ratio of around 1:13. No wonder PEP is high.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Feb-2011 6:44 pm
Eversheds = Tesco
Eversheds = Sub Way
Eversheds = Starbucks
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Feb-2011 8:37 pm
@ Anon | 23-Feb-2011 4:31 pm
In prestige terms, Eversheds is in the 5th division and going nowhere fast. Whilst the firms you list may have had PEP blips recently, I would be surprised if they were not ahead again pretty soon. Besides isn't Eversheds' current PEP a result (at least partly) of savage cuts to the associate and support stagg ranks and mean pay offs?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Pipes | 24-Feb-2011 11:33 am
Anonymous | 23-Feb-2011 6:44 pm
Eversheds = Tesco
Eversheds = Sub Way
Eversheds = Starbucks
-----------------------------------
Considering that Tesco, Subway and Starbucks are all huge and hugely profitable I would say that is very encouraging for Eversheds.
I would far rather own Tesco than Fortnum & Mason.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Feb-2011 4:03 pm
Quite right. Does anyone believe that Ernst & Young, PWC, KPMG, D&T, etc. are local firm names? Why can't lawyers do what is already being done succesfully in other professional sectors?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment