MoFo bags HMRC, NPIA and Tata sourcing work

Readers' comments (7)

• The Queen | 30-Jan-2010 5:06 am

  Would the IRS hire a UK firm to help it with its IT contracts? I don't think so.
  There are 100's of English law firms that could restructure an IT contract ( presumably governed by English law). I am sure English firms could be competitive on price, quality and service. So if your listening HMRC, please buy British and do us all a favour.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 1-Feb-2010 11:38 pm

  Would HMRC instruct a bunch of CA/NY qualified lawyers to advise on its English-law contract? Unlikely. Of course, what you don't realise is that the vast majority of MoFo's London office is staffed by "British" solicitors who are qualified to practice in England & Wales. And remember, hardly anything is purely British nowadays, be it manufacturing or services. If you want choice, you have to go - gasp - foreign a lot of the time. Is that so hard to fathom? Perhaps for some people it is.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• USA USA | 3-Feb-2010 3:52 am

  Well said anonymous(1/2,11.38pm). English tax payers should be grateful that MoFo are in London. Sure, they may be a branch office of a Californian firm, and yes they are a limited liability partnership registered in the State of Delaware, but they do employ English people in London and pay them wages which HMRC taxes.
  Competive on price? I don't believe local firms could compete with MoFo on price. HMRC didn't need a brain surgeon, they needed an in-grown toe nail removed. A low cost service provider was all that was required. They did English taxpayers a favor.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Sherminator | 3-Feb-2010 8:13 am

  It could be argued that firms like these are making a contribution to the legal industry here by hiring British solicitors. But in the last 30 years ( they opened in 1980) how many British law graduates has this firm hired, trained, qualified as solicitors and then retained for a period of at least 5 years? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the answer is zero. Not much of a commitment to the legal industry in London/UK. The best that can be said, is that they offer refuge for partners and solicitors looking to trade down in troubled times. But then again, the industry and market might be in better shape if there weren`t any bottom-feeders nibbling away at the fringes.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 3-Feb-2010 12:25 pm

  I'm sure a firm that's consistently ranked highly for the work it does in the UK in Legal 500/Chambers qualifies as a "refuge for partnerse and solicitors looking to trade down". That would make perfect sense, wouldn't it? And whilst US firms have traditionally stayed away from hiring trainees, a lot of them actually take on trainees and you know what, that incldues those "mofos", who have been taking trainees for the past few years - those "mofos" even have their own home-grown NQs, but such a shame that they're tainted by the "Non-British Produce Label". On the bright side, those NQs are not hired by some narrow-minded crusty bigots who can't even be bothered to dust off their dundruff from their shoulders.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• The Dentist | 3-Feb-2010 11:24 pm

  Maybe you will see them on the way down Sherminator. Be sure to be on all fours then, and ditch the pinstripe and get those Limey teeth fixed. A little dental hygiene never hurt anyone. Brush, whiten and straighten, and maybe you will be client ready. And never forget Shermy, we saved your Limey skin in two World Wars.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 5-Feb-2010 9:25 am

  Editor:
  Why don't you run a story the use of external lawyers by government departments in the UK. Which departments have the largest legal budgets; what do they spend it on and which law firms (UK or foreign) do their work. It would be interesting reading.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment