Exclusive: Greenberg hires Maher to build '21st century firm'
Share
US giant in retreat from Olswang alliance as it launches in London with former Mayer Brown star
Paul Maher
Former Mayer Brown co-vice chairman Paul Maher is joining US giant Greenberg Traurig to launch its London operation, Greenberg Traurig Maher.
The corporate lawyer will become chairman of London and co-chair of Greenberg’s global M&A practice. He will be joined by former London Mayer Brown partners Fiona Adams and Cate Sharp.
Maher told The Lawyer: “We believe we can assemble a high-quality team with intense client focus.
“It’s a very ambitious strategy, but it can be done. We want to build a transactional team.”
Greenberg is the tenth-largest firm in the US, with a revenue of $1.2bn (£720m) in 2008 and an average profit per equity partner of $1.31m. It has one of the most extensive domestic networks of any US firm with 32 offices in North America and has recently embarked on a hiring spree, bringing in more than 30 partners since 1 January 2009.
As part of its London launch, Greenberg Traurig Maher will also investigate radical alternatives to current law firm structures. It is understood that the new firm will be structured to take advantage of external investment opportunities in the UK legal market in the future, should they be needed.
Maher said: “It’s a good time to come into the market and push back some of the boundaries. The pricing model has to change. Clients are pretty unhappy paying large sums of money for junior lawyers who are being educated on the job. We want to put together a 21st century law firm.”
Maher’s future has become the focus of intense speculation since his departure from Mayer Brown last month. He is known to have been courted by a variety of firms.
Greenberg’s move heralds a retreat from its relationship with Olswang, its current UK alliance partner.
Greenberg chief executive Richard Rosenbaum told The Lawyer that the firm would continue to work with Olswang when clients required, but added:
“How we’ll work together in the future hasn’t been determined.”
Rosenbaum stressed that Greenberg was committing considerable resources to the launch.
“London is a market that, as a brand, we haven’t really entered - we’ve relied on our relationships with others in the past,” he said. “We want to make the statement that this is a UK firm, not a satellite or branch office of some US firm, so with Paul’s name being incorporated it makes that statement.”
Greenberg’s move will make London its third European office, following its launches in Amsterdam and Zurich in 2003.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (43)
mary | 15-Jun-2009 11:27 am
Wow, this looks like an amazing move, especially as Maher gets his name on the firm. But who the hell are Greenberg Traurig?????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 11:42 am
Oh only a firm that generates $1.2bn has 1350 lawyers and more offices than any other firm in the United States. I’ve certainly never heard of them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 12:16 pm
Precisely man, also the last time I checked their overall global ranking was greater than Mayer Brown’s.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 12:17 pm
Greenberg is a perfect example of a firm making the most of the downturn. The hires it has made in the US have been fantastic. There is no doubt that GT would not have been able to hire the likes of Zirinsky during the boom. I suspect it's the same with Maher.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gary | 15-Jun-2009 1:02 pm
I'm not sure if the point about Maher is right, they're obviously paying him a huge premium whilst offering him the potential to achieve a vast amount. I believe this is a deal that both parties would have clutched regardless of the economic climate; it's not often a lawyer of Maher's calibre is available.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 1:06 pm
What happened to all the talk of going to top firms like Lathams? I wonder if either side know what they're getting here. Greenberg are a third tier firm in the US, like an Eversheds or at best lower second tier like a DLA. They may have size and a few highly paid partners, but they're otherwise very average or below, mostly known for real estate and certainly not for corporate. Is anyone surprised he moved from Maher Brown to Greenberg Maher? Will be interesting to see if anyone else jumps from the safety of a full service practice to a boutique firm with little to offer in the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 2:50 pm
Mayer Brown’s just bitter Paul, Greenberg's better in every way; facts speak volume and paint a clear picture for every onlooker. I don't remember Mayer Brown being awarded law firm of the year! Good luck with your new venture it sounds fabulous.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 3:49 pm
Who are the two he has taken with him? Never heard of either of them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 4:55 pm
Re; 2.50pm
"Paint a clear picture for every onlooker"? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you predicted that Maher would move to a boutique (at least in London) firm in the City, you're a better man or woman than I. Where has all the talk of Maher moving to one of the London giants, taking wave after wave of associates with him?
In my opinion, this is a good move for Maher (in that he gets his name 'in lights'), a riskier one for Greenberg (in that they are starting a relatively new venture with a man that is known to be a divisive as he is talented) and a better-than-expected for Mayer Brown (as I can't see them losing out dramatically from this move).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 5:05 pm
This may be a good opportunity for Maher, but make no mistake about it: Greenberg is most definitely a third tier firm in the US and rarely get attorneys from the top 25 law schools. We will see if Maher can make something different and better in the US. Ask anyone who is familiar with both firms - comparing it to Mayer is laughable.
Let's just call it what it is: a surprising move by Maher to not join a peer (or better) firm than Mayer, in exchange for probably a ton of money and the opportunity to do whatever he wants at his own office.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment