The Lawyer Africa Elite 2014 features an in-depth look at 46 leading independent firms’ strategies in 15 key sub-Saharan jurisdictions, as well as the views of in-house counsel from some of Africa’s largest companies... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
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?