Acumen+giving+you+the+edge

King & Wood Mallesons &... Someone Else

21 May 2012

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Time was that two firms looking at a merger that would create a £150m player in the UK market would have caused some excitement. But now it seems that any kind of expansion within the UK is met with the response: “They should be looking at China”.

There’s good news for UK firms though: Asia-Pacific powerhouse King & Wood Mallesons wants to meet you half way. Only two months after Aussie outfit Mallesons and China’s King & Wood officially merged, the combined firm is mulling how best to expand into the US and UK (see story).

The firm’s global managing partner Stuart Fuller spoke at a conference earlier this month about how the firm was now looking at linking up with a firm in North America and later confirmed to The Lawyer that the US and UK were definitely on the agenda.

Nixon Peabody and SJ Berwin are two firms that have already been associated with King & Wood Mallesons. Fuller would only confirm that he was talking to one of those two, without specifying which.

And while we’re free to speculate on which firm (Nixon Peabody or SJ Berwin) is talking to King & Wood Mallesons, in both cases there are road blocks. Nixon Peabody only recently announced an alliance with another Chinese firm, while SJ Berwin is said to be still engaged in discussions with Mayer Brown.

But with consolidation among law firms going at the rate it is, it’s probably wise to have a few balls in the air at once.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (1)

  • Anonymous | 30-May-2012 7:33 am

    Who on earth would look at a merger between law firms in the UK and respond "They should be looking at China"? Is the Lawyer quoting the marketing department of KWM? If the "Asia-Pacific powerhouse" (the Lawyer's word, not ours) of King & Wood Mallesons is anything to go by, a merger with a Chinese law firm is a good way to lose business and embarrass yourself. We have gained nothing by merging with KW and lost a great deal. We do not share systems or finance with the China outfit, and have lost clients who fear China's lack of client protection. The only perceivable benefit is that we can now attract the attention of the US or UK firms we were trying to merge with before being forced to look elsewhere. That's not a by-product, as the Lawyer seems to think - that's the sole purpose.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed