Private equity-backed funds boutique MJ Hudson opens its doors

Readers' comments (7)

• Peter Rouse | 19-Jul-2010 3:47 pm

  The real issues have always been ownership and reward. A model that is properly funded for growth and rewards participation as well as loyalty on the part of its staff, if this is what this is, will surely attract talented lawyers and quality clients and deserves to succeed. Not all potential investors are interested in volume - niche high value services stack up too it seems.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Ashley Balls | 20-Jul-2010 1:50 am

  This is one to watch with interest. It would be intersting to learn whether the external stakeholders sees their investment as long term or just another get-rich-quick private equity punt. Assuming the investors (sorry, lenders) have taken a long term view this could deliver a very rewarding future for all parties; the clients, the lender and the law firm.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 20-Jul-2010 9:02 am

  From The Times (20 July 2010, p41)
  
  Coller denies plans to back new City law firm
  
  A new City law firm that hopes to take on non-lawyer shareholders under new rule changes was forced to placate its star client yesterday after Coller Capital distanced itself from claims that it was providing support.
  
  The investment vehicle of Jeremy Coller, the private equity investor, denied that it was providing start-up funding for MJ Hudson, a boutique law firm that will specialise in advising investment funds.
  
  A spokeswoman for Coller Capital said that it was a client of MJ Hudson but that "Coller Capital is categorically not an investor in MJ Hudson, nor is Jeremy Coller, and nor do they intend to become investors."

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 20-Jul-2010 3:30 pm

  [panic in Marketing team as (i) bright young thing sends out press release; and ii) someone then bothers to read SRA guidance relating to options to buy]

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Rhubarb & Custard | 20-Jul-2010 4:32 pm

  For those wondering what all of this is about, here is the following SRA rule about not forming agreements with external investors until AFTER October 2011 (see SRA website, code of conduct).
  
  *** Preparing for ABS, Point 8. "Nor can you enter into any arrangement which would:
  
  involve selling your ownership interest in the practice or any part of it (or its service company) before ABSs are permitted—e.g. you should avoid granting any option to purchase your interest in the firm for nominal value, in circumstances which would suggest that the ownership and/or control of the firm has already passed. However, there is nothing to preclude an arrangement which would enable transfer of control in the future, so long as it is clear that a positive decision has to be made by the firm at the appropriate moment.
  
  Aside from this PR cock-up, I think Hudson is doing something great and original and wish him all the best. Also, as seen in the latter part of rule 8, this Coller backing can still be retrieved and publicised, it just needs rewording.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• EPresley | 21-Jul-2010 12:56 pm

  Smart, Matthew. Well done. I've heard lots of "pub chat" about doing something like this. You've done it and I wish you every success.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Ben Williams | 21-Jul-2010 2:46 pm

  Great to see people doing new and exciting things after the last couple of years.
  
  As mentioned above there will always be a demand for niche operators, especially those who can offer a level of service that is on par with the bigger city alternatives.
  
  Wishing Matthew all the best of luck.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment