Exclusive: Greenberg hires Maher to build '21st century firm'
Related images
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)
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 5:13 pm
I suspect Mayer Brown are very happy with Maher's final destination as it won't offer any sort of threat to them. This is also a vindication for those who doubted Maher. No big firm has taken on the risk of his well known issues and he's clearly gone for the Man is Bigger than the Firm option by insisting the new firm use his name. Good luck to the 3 of them as both sides are no doubt happy with the outcome.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A fact or two. | 15-Jun-2009 5:19 pm
Maher has a 20 million pound client base; he has taken the very two lawyers who have been working closely with him on this clientele base over the last 10 years.
As for Greenberg they're bigger and a far more highly respected law firm than Mayer Brown; call it a boutique firm if you like but their turnover is the same as Mayer Browns.
As for Mayer Brown Chicago, distort the facts as much as you want but you have just lost a big chunk of your business; you’re not the Chicago giant you were 20 years ago so stop trying to live of that reputation; you’ve even been surpassed by Kirkland and now sit at no.3 in Chicago. I sense there is even a hint of jealousy in the 4:55 Bloggers writing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
disappointed | 15-Jun-2009 5:27 pm
I know Maher well as the chairman of a large law firm and i can tell you that he has turned down a bunch of legal giants to join this firm; may I just remind everyone GT is bigger than Mayer Brown.
I am very disappointed you're not joining us Paul but I wish you luck. We almost had you!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 5:31 pm
Apparently Cate Sharp was head of environmental law at Mayer Brown in the UK. Not sure what she and Greenberg are going to offer each other...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Question | 15-Jun-2009 5:33 pm
Sorry when did Mayer Brown last win law firm of the year outside london?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Question | 15-Jun-2009 5:55 pm
sorry when?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 6:03 pm
These comments are wierd
"I am very disappointed you're not joining us Paul but I wish you luck. We almost had you!"
Is this for real? Somehow I think not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 6:03 pm
If Greenberg is a 3rd tier firm Mayer Brown must be a 6th tier firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 6:26 pm
5:19: you are sorely mistaken if you think Greenberg is "bigger and more respected" than Mayer. Greenberg barely cracks the top 70 US firms on Vault which, for all of its problems, is probably the best measure of "prestige" in the US market. Sure, things could change, but they are a third tier firm with third tier rates that has only grown by a series of roughshod mergers and high profile lateral hirings. Yes, the aggressive policy may pay off down the line, but it hasn't yet. And your comment on Kirkland shows that you know nothing about US firms. Kirkland is one of the top 10 law firms in the US and has been that way for a long time (and anyone who works there would argue top 5). It's no slight to Mayer to say that they aren't Kirkland.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2009 6:29 pm
there are also more mcdonalds in the world than GT offices. Does that make mcdonalds better than GT? With reasoning like this you people can't be lawyers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment