Funny how multijurisdictional firms are viewed in binary. First, there’s the global elite made up of the super-profitable group of New York and London transactional firms.
Then there are the internationalists. They may not be blessed with quite the same M&A heritage, but compared with the strategic sterility of much of the Sweet Sixteen many internationalists are fascinating examples of self-made organisations where expansion is king.
Actually, the internationalists are a more diverse bunch than the binary view suggests. Take White & Case, whose institutional bias is historically more akin to Clifford Chance, say, but whose global growth rate has not kept up with those of its internationalist rivals. In our interview with White & Case chairman Hugh Verrier (see page 16) it’s clear that senior figures in the firm lay considerable stress on the concept of a unified partnership. Unfortunately for those senior figures, the comparative growth success of White & Case’s rivals implicitly makes the case for the much-derided Verein, operated by the permanent revolutionaries at DLA Piper and Norton Rose. White & Case’s current structure means it is unable to pursue the route of serial acquisition because of potential integration issues. Verrier reveals that White & Case is “studying” Korea and Australia, but we won’t hold our breath.
The entrenched timidity when it comes to acquisitions wouldn’t matter a jot if White & Case’s internal culture prioritised organic growth. For years, cross-selling was stymied by an office-centric accounting system that allowed silos to build up. Compare this with Reed Smith, which upon merging with Richards Butler instantly imposed a remuneration system that rewarded intra-firm referrals.
As always, a law firm pays McKinsey to come up with the darned obvious, and following the consultants’ report three years ago White & Case finally moved to a P&L model based on regional practices and sector groups. But it took a crisis to bring about a change in mindset; one partner now admits the 14-partner mass resignation to Latham early last year was a necessary wake-up call. The question now for White & Case is whether the habit of caution is too ingrained. Time to stop aping Cleary and start making like Baker & McKenzie.
catrin.griffiths@thelawyer.com; www.twitter.com/lawyercatrin
Readers' comments (12)
Mel G. | 22-Oct-2011 7:51 am
I am a little puzzled by the two comments above ("W&C has lost reputation in several markets" and "W&C losing out in terms of top-tier work to the higher ranked firms"). Sounds like typical law firm-bashing to me, which is all too common on websites like this one.
I am an emerging markets' lawyer myself, and I see W&C all over in the Middle-East, Africa and Eastern Europe, doing the largest deals. I can't speak about Brazil, Russia, China and Latin America - where I don't practice - but my colleagues tell me that W&C is very much on top of the market in these jurisdictions as well.
W&C is not huge on London/NY M&A work and, it seems to me, not even trying to compete with Cravath, Davis Polk and the likes. But the future is not all about NY and London, far from it...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mel G. | 22-Oct-2011 7:56 am
PS: this is also why I disagree with the George Clooney analogy above (although it's funny): yes, moving up the ranks in M&A in the US and Europe is exceedingly difficult, and saying that one could have a top M&A practice if only one had a top M&A practice is preposterous. However, moving up the M&A ranks wordlwide possible if one targets the key markets of tomorrow, and I think that's what W&C is doing. Seems like the right approach to me.
Remember also that a few years back it was trendy to bash Shearman & Sterling, who was so stuck-up and who seemed to be missing out completely on the new markets. Now S&S is very much back in the game and has even managed to increase profitability to record highs. No one is bashing S&S anymore.
I am an emerging markets lawyer by trade and hence I am probably biased, but if I had to bet on which firms will be dominant in 10-15 years, as far as US firms go I'd bet on Skadden, L&W, W&C and S&S. Would also probably bet on Cleay as well, but they don't have the same breadth of practice and coverage.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment