The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. 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.
BCCI. Big case. Judgment splashed all over the newspapers on Thursday 13 April. Lawyers accused of mishandling the case, hefty costs blah, blah, blah.
Here at Tulkinghorn Towers an assumption was made that 'BCCI' could comfortably be used as shorthand for the rather clunky Three Rivers District Council & Ors v The Governor & Company of the Bank of England. Right? Besides, BCCI fits so much better in a headline.
Wrong, apparently. A day after The Lawyer exposed some of the more sensational comments made by Mr Justice Tomlinson in his judgment, one of Tulkinghorn's treasured scribes received an email from a lawyer requesting our hack do a spot of secretarial work and send our correspondent the judgment.
"I would be very grateful if you could provide me with the name of the case or point me in the right direction for my query," he wrote.
To save the blushes, the firm won't be named. But it was a large, well-established US firm with a decent domestic litigation practice. Which, frankly, makes this particular litigator's own inability to at the very least operate Google all the more baffling.
In two seconds, Tulkinghorn's scribe had the online link to the judgment pasted into an email and sent on its way. Next time, do your own dirty work!