The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Olsen has filed a claim with an employment tribunal, complaining of age discrimination and harassment. His claims are absolutely astonishing.
They paint a picture of a partnership at war with itself. Indeed, one former partner describes the place as a war zone. The key figures in the dispute are head of trademarks Olsen, head of IP and IT disputes Nick Rose and head of just about everything else Mark Abell.
Abell is described as the “quasi-managing partner” of FFW – a position that is officially held by Moira Gilmour. He has long been the most influential partner at the firm, but one of the most interesting points of this complaint is that he’s barred from being managing partner by a clause in the FFW partnership agreement. It is understood that this unusual clause was inserted into the agreement in the mid-1990s after another dispute – this time between Abell, Rose and travel partner Peter Stewart.
Some say that Abell wouldn’t want to be managing partner anyway. “He likes power, but he’s not interested in the details,” says a source who knows the firm well. “He likes to do the grand strategy, but doesn’t want to hire and fire assistants.”
One source compared Abell to Putin and Gilmour to Medvedev. It’s clear that Olsen has a point about Abell’s power, but his power in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, however, a bad thing when it sows seeds of resentment. Which it obviously has with Olsen.
It is not an overstatement to say that Olsen’s dispute has the potential to destroy FFW’s IP practice. The complaints on both sides about the handling and servicing of major international brands such as Elizabeth Arden and Warner Brothers will make horrifying reading for other clients.
Abell and Olsen are both extremely stubborn men. Both think they are right and both will argue that the other is lying. This is very unlikely to settle. If you thought Bloxham v Freshfields was fascinating, then watch this. It’s going to get nasty.