Davis Polk hit by $1.4m lawsuit from recruiter over Clifford Chance HK hires

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • I confidently predict that everyone in this tale will come out with a great deal of credit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting information came out of the filings, but will any firm dare to use Alan again?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • $1.4 Million? For that? I would say money for old rope, but that would be an insult to old rope sellers (who at least market something both tangible and of some use). Of course, given the typical terms of business operated by these "professionals" the only real surprise is that only one company is claiming a fee.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This doesn't make anyone look good: Mr Metz for making it all public and damaging his own brand by revealing fundamental weaknesses in his relationships with both parties; Mr Rogers for being disingenuous with someone who was providing useful assistance; Davis Polk for being disingenuous and not paying for very privileged and accurate market intel that will benefit them significantly in the long run. They all look bad.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Worth every penny: according to this piece, his personal billings of 100m HKD divided by his hourly rate of 9,5k HKD would mean he is working about 10,000 billable hours a year. Considering there are 8765 hours in a year, that is damn impressive. Davis Polk are lucky to have him.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think his personal billings of HK$75m-100m (£6.4m-7m) refer to his billing and the billings of the associates on matters which he is the billing partner. £6m-7m sounds about right to me. His supervised billings for his practice is the billing for the whole team including other litigation partners.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Without knowing any party its hard to pass any opinion. But it sounds luke the guy was working with Metz. He should have given Metz full disclosure or none at all if only to protect his own interest. Headhunter has the right to pursue this if he feels he has a case. As for bad PR why would lawyers get flustered about a headhunter instructing lawyers. Its normal and supportive of the industry isnt it. Will follow this one.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great publicity for all...including the new recruits! That's why I love the profession so;)

    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 (8)