Report this comment to a moderator

Outsourcing was 2009’s big deal

It's funny that Cat prefers to paint everyone else's support of the Hogan-Lovells merger as knee-jerk, when in fact she's the prejudiced one in her blind belief that all firms should ape the magic circle in all that they do. There's plenty of analysis behind the idea that this is a wise move: the nice overlaps in practices, the relatively good geographical matches. I suppose you could argue it's "born of strategic impasse" in the sense that neither firm was about to radically change its market position without a merger; but you can say that about any merger. Once this completes there'll be no high-end firm with the same critical mass on both sides of the Atlantic; why is it so hard for Cat to think that might be significant? Freshfields and Links are moving away from global coverage because they're refocusing more tightly than ever on the largest, most profitable deals. Hogan and Lovells both rightly realise that isn't an option for them: what does work for them is IP, litigation, real estate and corporate for US clients, all of which will benefit hugely from the merger. I should say incidentally that I'm in no way affiliated to either firm.

5-Jan-2010

1:05 pm