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.
THE FORMER senior partner of a leading Jersey law firm has been cleared of improper conduct over his role in the drawing up of the island's controversial limited liability partnership (LLP) law.
Reg Jeune, a prominent Jersey politician, was accused of improperly fast tracking the new law by a fellow member of the Jersey parliament - the States of Jersey - when it emerged that his old firm had lobbied for its swift adoption.
The controversy surrounded Jeune's role as chair of Jersey's senior parliamentary committee, the policy and resources committee.
In 1995 the committee allowed proposals for an LLP law to be included at short notice in the island's law drafting programme.
It later emerged that Mourant du Feu & Jeune, where Jeune is still a consultant, had lobbied hard for the law on behalf of UK clients Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young.
The committee of inquiry, which was set up to examine the way in which the law was prepared, absolved Jeune from improper conduct.
It ruled that Jeune, who retired from the policy and resources committee last year, had nothing to gain from the passage of the law and that, given the information he had at the time, it was not unreasonable for him to continue to chair the LLP discussions.
During the inquiry, Mourant du Feu & Jeune partner Ian James said he had informed Jeune of the practice's involvement in the passage of the bill, but emphasised that he did not believe it constituted a conflict of interest.