The Lawyer’s newest product is the most comprehensive overview of the Asia-Pacific legal market yet produced. With rankings of the top 100 local law firms by lawyer headcount as well as analysis of the leading 50 international players in the region, it is essential reading for anyone interested in the strategic future of the world’s fastest growing legal market
I refer to the article in The Lawyer (15 November) regarding the refusal of the (English) Law Society to permit Scottish lawyers to use their firms' names when practising south of the border, despite the Law Society of Scotland permitting English firms to do just that when setting up branch offices in Scotland.
I am a dually-qualified Scottish and English solicitor. A few years ago I established the first Scottish firm of solicitors practising simultaneously in both jurisdictions. While I was at great pains to abide by the professional requirements of both the Law Society of Scotland and its English equivalent, my firm's name was never an issue. This was presumably because I used my own name as the firm's name when practising as a Scottish solicitor here in London (D Levine and Co).
I could, however, fill your columns with amusing tales of the contradictory requirements of each of the two Law Societies, and the problems outlined in your article do not surprise me in the least.
It is time that the two Law Societies developed a consistent approach - or is it more fun for them to conduct themselves like this?