K&L Gates chief blasts Norton Rose's 'Noah's ark' mergers

  • Print
  • Comments (16)

Readers' comments (16)

  • Some of the above postings must be from people who simply don't appreciate or understand that all international law firms must operate in compliance with applicable local laws and bar regulations, as well as in a tax efficient manner. Of course KL Gates uses a number of different legal entities - AS DOES EVERY SINGLE OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM.
    As far as Kallis' comments are concerned, although I am not associated with any of the three firms, from where I am sitting this looks very positive for them, and I wish them well.
    For firms with turnovers of less than £500m or so (including my own), you had better be the absolute market leader in what you do, or else accept that you will come under every greater marging squeezing competition. UK-mid-market firms.... you have not got much time. Get on with the mergers!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Simple Simon is right - even the Magic Circle have to use particular entities in certain jurisdictions. Linklaters in Sweden, CC in Italy etc.

    The issue is whether partner share the same profit pool.

    As I understand it K&L Gates only operates one profit pool so Kalis is no hypcorite.

    And to those pointing to the accountancy firms - oh the irony! The fact is that the accounting firms are all ditching the verein model! Just look at how E&Y has merged its European firms into one. E&Y did this because the verein model is too tolerant of different service levels, cultures, quality etc.

    Why should or would a partner in Calgary or Cape Town put himself out for a partner in London or Sydney when he doesnt share upside or downside with that other partner?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Vercingetorix - 'Why should or would a partner in Calgary or Cape Town put himself out for a partner in London or Sydney when he doesnt share upside or downside with that other partner?'
    For the same reason as any worker in any business, because if they don't they will be out of the door.
    Re the Big Four accountancy firms, yes they are slowly merging their various national partnerships, but all of them still have over 50 each and it will take quite a while. I don't doubt that they will each eventually be single companies with stock listings.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wood?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sounds to me like "The Lawyer" engaging in its usual Daily Mail type hyperbole. I'd wager that Kalis made this comment on an offhand basis in the course of some more general interview and certainly did not refer to "blasting" or "slamming" the NR step.
    The decision not to share profits during the "getting to know each other better" phase sounds like a pretty good one to me -- the debacles encountered on the recent spate of scuttled mergers probably stemmed from the inability of the firms concerned to resolve the issue. In the meantme, NR gets a very good foothold in Africa and a place on the North American continent. Fair cop, I'd say.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For regulatory reasons, US LLP cannot be registered at the Paris Bar, only UK LLP are able to be registered. So most US law firms must keep their UK LLP to do so.
    US LLP can be registered in Germany for example.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (16)