Lovells will axe lockstep to push through Hogan tie-up

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • What no one has mentioned is that Warren Gorrell is one of the most difficult, divisive, and egotistical people in law firm management anywhere. He has transformed Hogan but made it a miserable place -- and heaven forbid if you are not one of his golden boys. Lovells partners should think carefully if they really want to jump in bed with this Machiavelli

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hogan's management may be like the Borgias, but that's not the point. The issue is that the Lovells/Hogan tie up would be something special. Despite comments on the earlier story that it's just two 'OK' firms merging, that's really not seeing this for what it is. To say Lovells is average just means they're not an MC firm, OK, so what? They're still one of the top 20 firms in Europe by reputation and revenue. Hogan has 27 offices worldwide and a huge list of US clients with cross border needs - its revenues and stature are not too shabby either - (and, alright, they're not Wachtell - but who would expect them to be?). The end result of this will be a massive firm with huge potential - perhaps the first true global firm as it will be fully integrated into a single partnership, unlike giants like DLA Piper that still runs two partnerships, and different to the MC who have made a tiny impact in the US. I think a lot of the disparaging comments are comming from people that don't want this to work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Hogan Lovells"?! But they would be missing a great opportunity to name the new entity "LoveHarts"...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Seriously, doesn't anyone ever learn? 10 years ago, CC and Rogers & Wells merged with great fanfare. Look at the results 10 years out: with two exceptions, every single rainmaking partner in the Americas has left; the Americas have shrunk by over 400 lawyers from the immediate post-merger period, CC - NY is a non-entity in all but primarily European deals (despite what the formerly fat (now just fatuous) Brian Hoffman told The Lawyer), CC cannot even allege full service capabilities without a litigation practice, and the economic contribution of the US to the firm is still non-existent. Proceed with caution, boys and girls. Misery lies ahead.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I've suggested "Harlots" to a partner at Lovells. Don't know whether he liked it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A little birdy tells me that a number of key Lovells partners may not hang round for any tie-up and are already talking.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Former CC partner seems to be missing the whole point of the article. CC lost the top R&W partners by forcing onto the lockstep. Lovells is clearly not going to make the same mistake, effectively allowing itself to be taken over to win over its best-performing partners. Problem is, what will its less well-performing partners - of which there are a hell of a lot - make of this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (7)