Voge triumphed in the firm’s partner vote, with more than 50 per cent approval – beating competition from LA-based projects partner Jeff Greenberg and corporate partner Paul Sheridan, based in Washington, DC.
Having previously spent stints in New York and California, Voge currently calls London home. While it’s yet to be set in stone, it looks likely that he’ll continue to be based in the City, becoming Latham’s first-ever non-US based managing partner.
That would mean that Voge would become a member of a fairly select bunch of UK-related US firm heads. This group includes the likes of Davis Polk’s Scottish managing partner Tom Reid and Shearman senior partner Creighton Condon, both of whom have much of their careers in the City.
Whichever side of the pond Voge decides to lay his hat, he’ll have some seriously big shoes to fill when he steps into his new role on 1 January 2015. Latham’s current head, Bob Dell, has been in the role for 20 years. During that time, he’s overseen the firm as it’s ballooned from a $262m outfit with 11 offices, to a $2.2bn mega-firm with 31 outposts scattered worldwide.
Over to you, Bill.
Also on TheLawyer.com:
- Willkie Farr hired Kirkland & Ellis private equity partner duo Claire McDaid and Matthew Dean to launch its private equity offering in London
- Jones Day worked on more mid-market M&A deals than any other firm in the first half of 2014
- Shearman & Sterling lost one of the biggest litigation mandates for the year after business tycoon Robert Tchenguiz switched the US firm for Stephenson Harwood in his £300m case against the SFO
|Litigation/dispute resolution – Dentons: Thouron v US: Third Circuit holds reliance on counsel may relieve penalties for late payment of taxes|
|Tax – DLA Piper: Non-US investors in US real estate: tax challenges and solutions|
|Litigation/dispute resolution – Dentons: Duck, duck, goose? No, says the court — Aereo remains yet another duck|
|Human rights – Dentons: Ontario’s New Human Rights Policy|
|Healthcare – Pillsbury: California court limits liability for loss of certain patient information under CMIA|