Posted on

Germany’s women in law: where are all the leaders?

Shortly after joining The Legal 500, I attended a training session at Stephenson Harwood in London. Such sessions are organised by law firms to explain the minutiae of a specific topic and help us in our research.

Occasionally, drinks and nibbles follow, giving researchers and lawyers an opportunity to mingle, exchange views on the legal market, gossip about hot topics, and explain how we perform our seemingly black magic of ranking firms. It was at such a gathering I made my way over to Sharon White, the chief executive of Stephenson Harwood. It was the first time I met a woman at the top of an international law firm.

The encounter has stayed with me to this day and significantly increased my awareness of gender representation in law firms. As a senior researcher, I speak to a large number of partners across Europe and the United States to collect more information on their work, the complexities of the cases highlighted to us, motivations behind team changes, and also to gather feedback on the last year’s ranking. Several interviewees, all of them women, have used this opportunity to ask my opinion on the progress law firms are making on gender equality at the partnership level.

A rough analysis of my hundreds of interviews reveals the following results: I speak to more male than female partners overall. I speak to more female partners when researching the UK than I do when researching France, Germany or the US. I speak to more female partners when researching France than I do for Germany. Germany and the US show a similar distribution of male to female interviewees, with male interview partners making up the vast majority of interlocutors.

While these results tie in with my personal impression of female representation in senior roles, they don’t allow for a solid understanding of gender representation in law firms. The roots for this unreliability lie in my editorial allocation: you don’t have to be Nate Silver to baulk at drawing reliable conclusions from a chequered pool of data that contains regional UK research, the French banking sector, and US patent experts. In combination with more trustworthy sources, however, my highly subjective set of experiences transforms into a piece of evidence, albeit one of the circumstantial kind. For several reasons, including my own training as a German lawyer, I’ve decided to look closely at the situation back home.

The German Federal Bar Association’s 2018 statistics show a steady increase in female lawyers since 1970, though women still make up less than half of the total numbers of lawyers in Germany. Women in private practice account for 33.8% of lawyers (in 2017, the figure was 33.7%). In-house, women are in the majority, though not by much. Women lawyers who are qualified as both in-house and external counsel accounted for 43.4% of practitioners, compared to 42.8% in 2017.

Meanwhile, lawyers who have also qualified as notaries, totalled 16.4% female this year, compared to 14.9% in 2017.

These statistics don’t distinguish between the different career steps available in law firms which makes the fact women are still in the minority even more surprising given that considerably more women than men study law in Germany. Recent figures show that out of 114,003 law students, 63,122 were women, an approximate ratio of 55% to 45% in favour of women. It is tempting to explain the considerable difference between the percentage of female law students and female lawyers as a generational issue. The same statistics from the Federal Statistical Office shows women overtook men in law studies only between 2003 and 2004.

The career of a lawyer can be long, often extending beyond the average German retirement age of 61.7 years or even the statutory retirement age of 65. This assumption would still hold when taking into consideration the data for gender distribution in the justice system. According to results published by the Federal Office of Justice in December 2017, 44.4% of judges are women. In the social courts, female judges account for 47.4% of the total judiciary. In all other courts (including the Federal Constitutional Court) the percentage is almost exclusively in the 40% range. The exception is the Federal Patent Court where female judges only account for 24.86% of the judiciary.

It is worth noting that these numbers account not for the number of heads employed, but for the actual contribution in time judges make. Two judges who both work part-time would account for one single unit in this statistic. Considering this, you would be forgiven for asking whether women don’t actually make up the majority, but not in terms of contribution in time. You would, however, also be wrong, at least as far as the Federal Court of Justice is concerned. Data published in February 2018 reveals women are not in the majority in this especially prominent court. The data published for the other ordinary courts also only disclose the numbers in terms of contribution in time.

After private practice and life on the bench, the third big career path for lawyers lies in the civil service, but even the numbers here are so comparatively low that they couldn’t possibly make up for the divergence between female and male law students and female and male lawyers, though they do account for a large number of female law graduates. To draw a long story short: women remain a minority in German law firms, partly because a disproportionately large number choose alternative career paths.

The ratio of female to male lawyers now stands at approximately 1:3. But while the total number of women is of course relevant, it is also worth looking at how present women are across the various hierarchy strata. Do the numbers hold up across the different career steps, from associate to senior associate to counsel and later to salary and equity partner?

One partner at a London law firm recently told me how his firm regularly loses a significant slice of its female senior associate workforce at an age where, statistically, they are most likely to start a family. When asked whether this presented a problem for the firm, he nodded emphatically, elaborating that firms not only put time and money into training, but that clients increasingly look at each firm’s commitment to diversity before choosing external counsel. While the UK does slightly better than Germany when it comes to female partners (just 18% of female equity partners in the UK’s top firms, and an even smaller 10.7% in Germany’s), both countries aren’t models for gender equality in the law. The situation looks particularly dire at the chief executive level.

A simple Google search reveals the following: in the UK, Sharon White is still the chief executive at Stephenson Harwood, while Sonya Leydecker has been joint chief executive at Herbert Smith Freehills since 2014, and Penelope Warne is the senior partner and chairman of the UK board at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang. Meanwhile, in Germany, among the 20 biggest law firms, ranked by lawyer head count, only Constanze Ulmer-Eilfort and Astrid Krüger stand out. Ulmer-Eilfort, who headed the German and Austrian offices of Baker McKenzie from 2012 to 2017, is now a member of the firm’s Global Executive Committee. Astrid Krüger has been managing partner at Allen & Overy since 2016.

Much has been said about why women are underrepresented at the top of the legal totem pole. Analyses tend to emphasise how many law firms now offer advanced programmes to foster a culture of inclusion and diversity, often specifically tailored to women. Milbank, which has the highest starting salary in the German market, established the Milbank Female Summit, in 2017; it offers trainees an opportunity to talk to partners and associates who are experts from specialisms with a notoriously low percentage of female lawyers, including mergers and acquisitions, antitrust, finance and stock corporation law. Elsewhere, Hogan Lovells has committed to a national diversity charter and uses its Women@Hogan Lovells programme to attract and retain female talent. And in August 2018, the firm’s Munich office opened a child care facility, making it the first major law firm in Germany to do so. Bird & Bird’s efforts combine under its Ladies@Bird initiative and in 2016 the firm launched a Global Women’s Development Programme as part of its wider gender strategy.

Approaches clearly vary from firm to firm, some preferring a focus on economic topics while others seek to establish a visible proximity to outside frameworks, such as the Charta der Vielfalt or Diversity Charter, established by four multinationals in 2006 and has now grown to over 2,200 signatories. In addition to the efforts made by law firms themselves, other organisations are also ploughing the fields of gender equality. Among the most established ones is The German Women Lawyers Association which was established in 1948 and sees itself as the successor of the German Women Lawyers Society, founded in 1914 to promote the admission of women to legal professions. The Female Lawyer Working Group, founded in 2004, is one of many active under the roof of the German Bar Association. And yet the numbers of women are still staggeringly low, especially at the top of the profession.

Why is that? In conversations with lawyers, the response has been both uniform and varied. Uniform in that women can definitely make it to partner provided they don’t have any career interruptions and put in the required hours. Varied in that the reasons for the underrepresentation, especially at senior level, are viewed through different lenses. Some point out that in spite of all the charters, commitments, and initiatives, law firm cultures are slow to change and that not only are women viewed as less reliable because they are the gender biologically responsible for growing babies, but that men are still often expected not to play a significant role during the early years of their children.

Anecdotally, one lawyer mentioned a male colleague who had approached his managing partner about taking parental leave, a possibility for parents to split the total 36 months between them. His request was met with surprise and the question of why he didn’t have a wife to take care of the child. Some claim women are often the parent more willing to stay at home and accept the career-hindering consequences this decision often entails. However, some firms are aiming to change this.

Such changes can be sorted into two categories: some explicitly aim at changing the culture within, providing options for their male and female employees which includes more working from home and full-time flex-time as core elements of a broader approach. Other firms prefer an exclusive focus on women, tailoring their initiatives to help female lawyers navigate a culture still dominated by men. While the former model is criticised for making adjustments when the real problem, supposedly, is the women who are simply not as eager to rise to partner level, the latter model is under fire for being too cautious, with critics pointing out that firms still largely measure success in terms of billable hours which makes raising a family difficult, particularly
for women.

Biological differences aside, psychological factors play an important role in how women and men approach their careers. Traditionally, women were exclusively in charge of child care and the home, while men were the bread winners. There is a small difference here between the formerly distinct parts of West Germany and the German Democratic Republic where a much higher percentage of women were active members of the workforce, but this has done little to change the overall perception of work distribution within families.

Keeping women in law and having them progress to partner level is both important for the women themselves, for the families they may have, and also for firms. The high salaries large firms pay first-year associates are likely to increase further and partners already spend time training the next generation of firm talent. Losing young lawyers after a few years is a significant financial loss (not to mention the income those leaving could have generated had they stayed). On top of this already considerable loss, firms with a lack of female lawyers in senior positions face losing an instruction because they don’t meet their clients’ diversity criteria or because they stick to traditional billing models. The increasing presence of female GCs places firms under further pressure as clients are more likely to be aware of diversity issues when the GC at the helm has been confronted with structural career obstacles themselves.

However, a lack of diversity is not yet a deal breaker, according to a study of 31 international companies undertaken by Bucerius Education. The research concluded that the majority of the GCs involved considered gender diversity an important topic for their company, with female GCs attaching greater importance to the subject than their male counterparts. However, in 2015 a little less than one-third of companies claimed to include gender diversity at partner level as a criterion in their choice of law firm. The numbers shifted slightly when the GCs were asked whether gender diversity becomes a criterion in regard to the specific legal team: 36% of GCs claimed gender diversity within the team assigned to a project played a role in choosing a law firm.

The numbers between men and women diverge more for this second question: the percentage of men not considering gender diversity, either within the partnership or within a team assigned for a project, stayed at 78%, yet the percentage of female GCs who consider gender diversity in their choice of external legal provider increased from 36% to 47%.

Given the results of this one study, in-house counsel, at least in 2015, weren’t the main drivers behind gender diversity initiatives. But combined with the data available from the German Federal Bar Association it seems likely that pressure from the in-house community will increase over time, creating an extremely powerful driver for change and, ultimately and hopefully, me less surprised when shaking hands with a female chief executive.

Posted on

We’ll be championing women but we need your help

Rankings, by definition, are never going to please everyone (nor should they). But, as the new UK editor of The Legal 500, there’s one issue in particular that I see as an area to progress: diversity.

Women make up more than half of those entering the profession, but in general far less than 30% of firms’ partnerships and – for some core areas – they struggle to get recognition in the industry from peers and, yes, the legal publishing sector in general.

This needs to change – it’s important to me personally and it’s important to the profession if it is to remain relevant to a changing business community and indeed society at large.

Leading legal research businesses like The Legal 500 can and should play a role in addressing the lack of diversity within the industry. However diligent our research there is always a danger that it can become an echo chamber, given that our contacts base is built on the most established figures in the profession, a group that historically has been male dominated.

When you add in the reality that many talented female revenue generators tend to be more understated than male counterparts, there is a compelling case for writers and researchers covering the legal industry to hunt that much harder to identify the next generation of female partners.

We need to be showcasing the very best legal talent in the UK (and globally) irrespective of race, gender or anything else.

The good news is that a quick glance at The Legal 500’s next generation rankings shows greater representation of women. High-profile lateral moves – still relatively uncommon by women – such as Amy Mahon’s switch from Clifford Chance to Simpson Thacher & Bartlett will add further impetus.

Strikingly, of the 21 core individuals featured in sister title Legal Business’ February cover feature on star women partners, three have since transferred to new firms; there is a fast-emerging demand from the top firms to recruit quality female partners when they can find them.

But more still needs to be done and we need your help to do it properly. I want to see the number of women listed in our rankings as both recommended lawyers and leading individuals rise. Not at the expense of men, or as a tokenistic gesture, but on merit and to reflect a changing profession.

As firms and practice heads, the onus is on you to put forward more of your female stars – both up and coming and established – across every practice you can so that we can consider them for our rankings. And on a personal level, we improve our research through an active ongoing dialogue – I encourage readers to contact me if you feel strong performers have slipped through our net. Without these names there’s a limit to what our researchers can do but once they’re out there, being talked about in the market, The Legal 500 can help build their brand and the firm’s for years to come.

Obviously, diversity extends far beyond gender and our rankings extend beyond individuals. This is not the end of the dialogue – just a beginning of a process where we can renew and update the analysis of The Legal 500 to reflect a rapidly-changing industry.

Because this matters to me and The Legal 500, I want your thoughts. Please do get in touch at [email protected].

Posted on

AI’s impact on IA: How far can tech go?

Legal technology already touches much of the work of the arbitration practitioner. Whether by streamlining document review, assisting with legal research or enhancing communication through video conferencing, technology has had a significant impact on how international arbitrations are conducted compared to a decade ago.

These developments, however, have been largely incremental in nature and artificial intelligence (AI), in its fullest sense, has yet to have its breakthrough moment.

Considerable discussion has been had as to the possible applications of AI in arbitration, from assisting with (or perhaps conducting) arbitrator selection, to being able to accurately predict the outcome of cases. Arguably the most revolutionary use of AI, though, would be for machines to replace humans as the decision makers in arbitration matters. This would transform arbitration as we know it but begs the questions of whether this is possible or desirable and, if it is, what kind of legal issues might be raised?

Technical limitations

AI is already able to perform many tasks better and/or more efficiently than humans given its ability to review and analyse vast quantities of factual information. In the medical field, for example, AI can now diagnose certain conditions with an accuracy rate far in excess of a human doctor. Clear parallels can be drawn with the legal field which similarly relies on applying an ever-growing body of knowledge. This should be all the more so if natural language processing continues to develop as expected and machines become able to more accurately digest complex legal drafting, seeing AI more readily deployable in additional areas to the already familiar document review process.

This comparison is often challenged, though, by the fact that international arbitrations tend to be particularly complex and tactical, with non-repetitive fact patterns and diverging decisions based on the application of different laws, making it more difficult to establish useful training data for AI applications. Likewise, there is uncertainty over AI’s ability to weigh evidence to reach appropriate conclusions on disputed facts. How will AI cope, for example, when it comes to assessing the credibility of conflicting witness testimony regarding an alleged oral agreement? Another significant obstacle to using AI to adjudicate disputes is that, for the most part, it is still unable to provide reasoning for its decisions. Machine decision-making can in fact be so complex at times that it is actually opaque, yet there is absolutely a need for transparency in the decision-making process, not least when it comes to enforcement. Moreover, the use of AI does not come without risks – bias, hacking and the amplification of human error are all real possibilities. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that parties will agree to enter an AI adjudication process and accept a decision given by a machine if they are unable to understand how or why that decision was made or if it may have been compromised in some way.

But what about the law?

One of the oft-cited barriers to the use of AI in international arbitration is the general confidentiality of its proceedings. This is particularly apparent when considering AI as a decision maker, since to achieve something that closely resembles human decision-making, AI would need to be ‘fed’ huge amounts of data on previous cases and awards. As it stands, however, in the arbitration sphere this information is not readily available or, where it may be (for example, in investment treaty cases or analogous litigation cases), it is not available in sufficient quantity to create a robust data set.

Whether this can be overcome may come down to the arbitration community’s appetite for AI in proceedings. Faced with increasing pressure from commercial litigation, where AI is already making significant inroads, we may see a shift towards publicly available awards, or at least disclosure of anonymised data to certain bodies (subject to confidentiality agreements), as a step on the road towards AI as the ultimate decision maker.

Another complication is the fact that existing arbitration legislation was not drafted with the possibility of an AI tribunal in mind. For instance, certain national laws, such as those in France and the Netherlands, specifically require that an arbitrator be a natural person. Of course, domestic legislation can be changed but that takes time: clearly no one wants to have an award rendered by cutting-edge technology only to have it be incapable of enforcement, either domestically or under the 1958 New York Convention, because the relevant national system is not yet ready for it. Of course, if blockchain enables self-contained dispute mechanisms within smart contracts, there may be situations where enforcement before national courts becomes unnecessary, but this will only relate to a proportion of disputes.

What then about other entrenched considerations, such as the requirement for due process? As it stands, we typically understand this to mean that humans, capable of equity considerations, determine a case. Can a machine really achieve justice if it is unable to show empathy or respond flexibly to changes in the proceedings? A related issue arose in the US criminal case of Loomis, where the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that a trial court’s use of algorithmic software in sentencing to assess the defendant’s likelihood of reoffending did not violate due process, since the software was used as an aid to the judge’s decision-making rather than a substitute for it. However, even if AI is used only to guide (rather than replace) arbitrators, perhaps in contained areas, such as damages or costs, where should the line be drawn as to what is the AI’s decision and what is the arbitrators’? This issue could become particularly apparent as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and arbitrators may hesitate to go against its recommendations.

Trust is key

Despite the promise shown by AI, it seems unlikely we will see it adjudicating on complex disputes any time soon. AI can and does, however, already enhance the work of arbitrators and provides them with tools to reach better and more efficient decisions.

Trust will likely be the key factor in determining the extent of the role that AI ultimately plays in the arbitration arena. Even if all of the above issues are overcome there will likely still be those who for a variety of reasons have a preference for human control. This scepticism is in line with a recent survey by Bitkom, in which only 10% of those asked said they would prefer to have a decision given by an AI judge.

The above said, as technology continues to develop and to show what it can do, AI is likely to receive wider acceptance and have a greater role in the arbitration process, particularly as the next generation of arbitrators, counsel and clients are introduced to it, both in education and in the early stages of their careers. When we consider the use of auto-piloted aircraft and autonomous cars, it is clear that what might seem difficult to envisage now could become an accepted part of arbitration practice in the future.

Posted on

Simon Konsta: Our outlook is very much global

How would you define Clyde & Co’s culture? How important is firm culture to you?

Entrepreneurialism, respect and a client-first mentality are the three words that best describe us. We know this in part because we devoted our global partner conference in September to the subject and this was the product of our partner survey. The broader context is that as we grow and build out in markets around the world, our culture and values are the glue around which we are built. So culture – our DNA – is very important to us.

Since becoming senior partner, what’s the main change you’ve made in the firm that will benefit clients?

We have implemented a number of changes in the past two years that are designed to fit the firm for both the present and the future. With clients in mind, these changes include developing our production models to meet client pricing needs and formalising a number of global sector and practice groups, we have also developed. We have also developed more sophisticated and practical client relationship programmes and devolved greater responsibility to our regional boards so that we are fleeter of foot in terms of responding to localised client needs.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms of Clyde & Co’s size globally?

The market remains as complex and competitive as ever but the challenges have evolved. The art of listening to your clients and adapting with them remains fundamental and in good part our sector and practice group initiatives are geared to that.

Similarly the need to attract and retain the very best people to service those clients remains key. But the dynamics of the market, coupled with the fact that we are operating at a greater scale, means that we also need to invest more time and energy into making sure we have the right infrastructure, cost base and technology in place to help us meet our strategic aims.

What do you think are the top three things most clients want and why?

1. True partnership;

2. Insight above and beyond pure technical matters; and

3. The right advice at the right price.

Is technology changing the way you interact with your clients, and the services you can provide them?

Yes. And it is moving at a rapid pace, albeit there is also plenty of hype out there. One of the interesting aspects of it though is that all of our clients
are feeling the pressure and the challenge as much as we are and that provides opportunity for new forms of partnership and relationship, which is exciting.

You mentioned talent retention earlier. What have you found are the best ways to keep your best people?

We analyse why people stay with us and why they leave and we know that, across the board, the number one key factor is opportunity to develop and progress. That is where we focus our time and attention.

How has your involvement in client-facing work changed since taking on larger management responsibilities?

A large part of my role is interfacing with clients across the firm, so in that sense I am spending more time with more clients than ever before. In terms of billable work I still lead some significant and challenging cases.

Looking back at your time as senior partner at legacy Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, and now as senior partner at Clyde & Co, how has your role changed?

The legal market tends not to do revolution but when you look back over, say, a decade it is remarkable how much the market changes. When Clyde & Co and BLG merged in 2011 it was the UK’s largest ever merger and it felt huge at the time but Clyde & Co is now double the size it was then and our outlook is now very much global.

That merger still stands out as an example of how, when you get it right, a merger can add up to much more than the sum of its parts, be hugely transformational and elevate you to a stronger position in the market.

Posted on

Ashwin Julka: Firms must become thought leaders

Remfry & Sagar is India’s oldest, and one of its largest, IP firms. How would you define its culture and how important is that culture to you?

If you ask me to answer in one word, I would say ‘unique’. A long history of nearly 200 years has given the firm a distinct culture. This has played a vital role in maintaining its leadership position since its inception in 1827. Values of excellence, professional ethics, diversity, close mentoring and teamwork, and a healthy work-life balance form the keystone of our philosophy.

Clients respect our organisation because of these facets and Remfry has become the benchmark in many ways for the legal industry. As managing partner, I am conscious of this precious legacy and do my best to maintain and enhance the firm’s commitment to its core values which distinguish us from our competition.

As managing partner, what’s the main change you’ve made that will benefit clients?

As a client you expect concise, business-centric advice, quick turnaround and competitive costs. These are the factors I have worked upon – by intensive in-house training of attorneys, removal of infrastructural bottlenecks and incorporation of state-of-the-art technology which promotes efficiency and transparency.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms of your size and specialism in India and across the Asia Pacific region?

The legal industry is in a flux – the top drivers of change being technology and pressures of competition. Remfry & Sagar is no exception.

The biggest challenge is to recognise these forces of change, respond to them and convert them into opportunities.

Firms must look to employ top of the line technological tools and digital solutions to support their core legal services.

As to greater competition due to a plethora of lawyers and non-traditional legal service providers (such as consultancies) in the market, and the resultant commoditisation of legal work, a law firm must create a meaningful point of differentiation from competitors, regardless of size. It must position itself as a ‘thought leader’ – a go-to authority in specific fields.

Also, pressures of cost are here to stay, particularly for lower value work. The traditional billing method – of billing by the hour or in terms of standardised charges for a particular legal activity – is fast evaporating. In its place, to foster long-term relationships, law firms and clients will increasingly enter into alternative billing models such as fixed, flat, blended, or capped fees.

At the same time, it is important to mention that the overall demand for legal services in India is rising. So despite the pressures of cost and competition, there is a lot of opportunity for law firms to expand services and clientele. But to do this successfully, practitioners must don multiple hats: a legal hat to come up with practical and useful advice for clients; a business hat to remain competitive; and an entrepreneurial hat to think out of the box and lead the market.

Can you expand on that? For example, what are the top three things most clients want and why?

To elaborate on what I said earlier, first, a client wants you to be relevant. What this means is that you must understand the client’s business and help it seize opportunities or avoid potential problems before it may even know it itself. Also, a business works to a budget – if market pressures squeeze the bottom line of a client, it expects a law firm to be responsive to fee adjustments. Engaging with clients is about consistently delivering top-quality, holistic solutions and establishing meaningful relationships.

Second, most clients attach tremendous value to responsiveness. If they have a query, one must acknowledge it and respond to it efficiently. Also, when it comes to information on deadlines, changes in the law or procedure, or even if there’s some unpleasant news – every client wants to be updated as soon as possible.

Third, when it comes to seeking legal advice today, clients can choose from an array of firms. But at the end of the day, legal services are all about the perceived value of the final product. If a firm can come up with solutions that combine generalist advice with deep specialist expertise – I think that is a combination that clients really value.

How is technology changing the way you interact with your clients?

To remain relevant, one has to be a part of the technology bandwagon and Remfry is one of the few which adopted this mantra very early on. We bought the first microprocessor-based Indian computer in the late 1970s. Today, the firm has a state-of-the-art infrastructure that ensures every member can securely access our database from any location in the world thereby drastically reducing our turnaround time for clients.

Also, the firm’s records are fully digitised and we have recently designed, developed, and implemented a proprietary (and award-winning) case management solution that enables end-to-end case docketing, tracking and deadline management. This ensures clients get timely alerts and matters are attended to efficiently within stipulated timelines. In addition, we have a proprietary database comprising records of all trade mark, patent and design details published by the IP office, enabling us to render accurate advice on a real-time basis. Also, new tools such as video conferencing and webex have facilitated closer contact with clients and increased efficiencies of time.

Technology is also throwing up new legal challenges. E-commerce calls for a new approach and solutions to deal with the rising menace of online counterfeiting. Streaming of content has created new challenges to copyright protection. Concerns of data privacy, cyberattacks and online piracy, too, are rising. As we assist our clients across such emerging areas of the law, the nature of our practice is also evolving.

Retaining talent is difficult in India. What have you found are the best ways to keep your best partners and associates?

You’re right, retaining talent is difficult, particularly in India where there is a limited supply of quality professionals. But we have tried to create an open and supportive work culture and our statistics speak for themselves.

We can proudly claim to have one of the lowest attrition rates in the industry – less that 3%. More than one-third of our members (including ten of 14 partners) have been at the firm for more than ten years – resulting in stability and continuity of service to our clients.

We are a merit-driven institution and I believe there are many factors which make us an appealing choice. Our reputation as an industry leader, the remuneration we offer, the value we attach to each member’s potential and the career path we envisage for them, our emphasis on teamwork and collaboration – all these factors together enable individuals to thrive and develop.

The firm rewards hard work and accomplishment, but equally it prides itself on the fact that team members enjoy a healthy work-life balance. Flexi-working hours and technological tools have been put in place to ensure our attorneys can log in to the office network from wherever is convenient.

How has your role/involvement in client-facing work changed since taking on larger management responsibilities?

My work profile has seen a sea change since becoming managing partner. Given the varied responsibilities and pressures on my time, I no longer work on matters on a day-to-day basis. My energies and expertise are directed more towards offering strategic advice to important industry/client issues.

So, what’s surprised you most about running a firm?

The position you always aspire to, is a challenge that you are least prepared for. It is surprising the amount of time one has to invest in ‘man management’. It is almost as time consuming and critical as client management.

Also, the range of responsibility calls for a very high degree of multitasking and in the background one eye must always be trained on the bigger picture.

So it is a role one cannot really shrug off at will – it is your constant companion whether it is day or night!

Posted on

David Hashmall: Differentiation is the biggest challenge

How would you define your firm’s culture? How important is firm culture to you?

Goodwin’s history spans more than a hundred years and we have prioritised our firm culture since our founding. It is our most valuable asset. Collaboration is at the heart of our culture, and we promote and prioritise it every day, particularly as we grow and expand globally. We believe our culture differentiates Goodwin in the marketplace, and it has and always will play a major role in our success.

Since becoming chairman, what’s the main change you’ve made in the firm that will benefit clients?

Promoting diversity and inclusion is one of my priorities. When I became chairman, we established the firm’s Inclusion Advisory Committee to bring increased focus and urgency to this issue. We strive to be diverse and inclusive not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because multiple perspectives lead to smarter decisions and stronger outcomes for our clients, for Goodwin, and for the legal community. We have made great progress, but we still have a lot of work to do. I am happy to see that our industry is increasingly focused on the importance of diversity and inclusion.

What are the biggest challenges facing US firms of your size?

Differentiation is the biggest challenge in today’s competitive market. There are a lot of great law firms, so what compels a client to choose you over your competitor? All top firms do great work; that’s not a real differentiator. Neither is price. The key differentiator is something law firms talk about all the time but rarely master: developing a true strategic relationship with clients – the kind of a relationship built on a deep understanding of your clients’ industries, flexibility, transparency and communication, and shared risk and reward. We pursue these elements in every client engagement, and we believe this approach sets Goodwin apart.

What are your biggest success stories to date and what is your growth strategy?

Growth is not our strategy; our strategy drives our growth. We have set out to be a dominant player in specific client industries and practice areas – private equity, real estate, financial services, technology and life sciences, intellectual property litigation, and securities litigation and white-collar defence.

We have had great success in the most competitive legal markets because we have focused strategically on these areas. This has led to our significant expansion in London and to the opening of our new offices in Frankfurt and Paris over the past several years. At the same time, we have attracted best-in-market lateral talent that is also a perfect fit for our culture. Our growth has not been dilutive to our culture, and this, undoubtedly, has been one of Goodwin’s biggest successes.

What do you think are the top three things most clients want and why?

Responsiveness has to be at the top of the list. I’m a big believer in being responsive 24/7. You must also, of course, provide the quality legal advice expected of a top firm. You must excel at what you do, period. In addition to outstanding legal judgement, you must have a thorough and up-to-date understanding of your clients’ industries. You must be an industry expert because to be a true partner you must know your clients’ business as well as or even better than they do.

You mentioned attracting top lateral talent, but how have you found is the best way to retain talent – both at partner and associate levels?

We are a profitable and successful firm, and of course compensation is important to retaining talent. But there has to be more. If you are going to look forward to coming to work every day, it has to be about more than money. People at Goodwin want to accomplish collectively what we cannot individually. That attracts people to our firm. Lawyers and staff at Goodwin like working with each other, and they appreciate the firm’s collaborative spirit. So they stay.

Looking back over your time as chairman, what’s surprised you most about running a firm?

How much I have enjoyed this job. Frankly, I was not sure what to expect taking on this big responsibility. Being chairman of a global law firm is a completely different job from being a trial lawyer for the pharmaceutical industry, which is my background. What I have enjoyed most is the opportunity to meet and connect with so many of our people around the world. I have also developed a deep appreciation for how much our staff contributes to Goodwin’s overall success. Our success is driven not just by our lawyers doing excellent work, but also by the incredible contributions of our professional staff – our global operations team – to our clients’ and the firm’s bottom line.

Posted on

Tricia Hobson: Women lawyers have every reason to aim high

What is the leadership structure at Norton Rose Fulbright?

The firm is led by global and regional managing partners. They are supported by global and regional chairs that sit on our various boards and undertake a range of responsibilities that involve business strategy, firm culture, diversity and inclusion, and charitable initiatives, among other things.

Since becoming global chair, what’s surprised you most about managing a firm?

In my role as global chair, I have visited most of Norton Rose Fulbright’s offices. I’ve been most surprised that, despite their different countries and cultural backgrounds, our people have more in common than they think; they have similar drives, ambitions, and aspirations, and the challenges and issues that they face are also very similar.

My message to everyone has been: Don’t feel or be alone with your challenges. Share them with your team – both local and global – and they will give you the support you need.

How would you define the culture at Norton Rose Fulbright?

As global chair of the firm, Asia Pacific head of insurance, and an active adviser to clients, I have seen all aspects of Norton Rose Fulbright’s culture across the world.

We align our culture globally to our values, which are quality, unity, and integrity. Quality means we put our clients first and motivates us all to produce the very best standard of work that we can. Unity is driven by a team culture and a united, global perspective. Integrity is about valuing our people, being open, trustworthy and fair, and adopting the highest professional, ethical and business standards in everything we do.

Culture is everything to a business and it is critical for me. Norton Rose Fulbright has given me a lot and one of the many reasons I decided to take on the global chair role was that it would provide me with the opportunity to give back to the business.

The thing about culture is that it isn’t static; we need to keep evolving and improving our culture as our business grows and develops, and that is something we are very focused on doing. We need to be the best firm we can possibly be.

What’s the main change you’ve helped to bring about that will benefit clients?

As global chair, I have been working with the firm’s leadership – chiefly the global and regional managing partners and others in senior executive roles – to drive diversity, innovation, and collaboration right across the business to ensure that we deliver the best teams, services and solutions to every client.

You’ve mentioned diversity a couple of times now. We know clients value diversity in their external law firms, but how do we get more women into leadership roles in firms?

It’s all about being proactive and creating opportunities and mentors for the next generation. In Australia, we were the first law firm with more than 100 partners to break the 30% female partner barrier. At the same time, we’ve made a lot of progress in appointing women into leadership roles. Having senior female role models is incredibly important for law firms.

Being appointed the firm’s first female global chair was personally important to me and I hope it has demonstrated to our talented female lawyers that they have every reason to aim high and expect their successes to be recognised and rewarded.

What else do you think clients value and why?

Our research shows that clients want trusted advisers who understand their specific business as well as their broader industry. They no longer just want legal advice, but commercial advice that is cognisant of their particular risks and opportunities.

Clients also want their lawyers to deliver value. This doesn’t mean that they want the cheapest price; it’s more about receiving a mix of high-quality and practical advice, along with tailored products and services, which combined provide innovative solutions to their problems.

Third, clients value responsiveness. They want the reassurance that lawyers understand the pressures they are under and are able to clearly articulate how they can help, in the form and at a time that they need it most.

How do you split your time between fee-earning and management?

Running a busy insurance disputes practice for many years now, as well as overseeing our insurance team throughout Asia-Pacific, has taught me the value of prioritising competing demands and multi-tasking. They are also important skills when you’re running complex class action disputes, which have been a big focus of my career.

My fee-earning work has not slowed down since I took on the role of global chair and I have my experience as a lawyer and regional and national team leader to thank for that. I am also fortunate that I can rely on a strong team of talented partners and lawyers to support me.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms of your size, not just in Australia but also globally?

Being an elite global firm requires seamless work and collaboration across borders. Technology plays an increasingly important role in facilitating this, and so a challenge that we are working hard to overcome is making the substantial investment in systems and processes to enable closer collaboration and the power to connect our people no matter where they are.

Law firms are also people businesses, and so having the right advisers to address every aspect of our clients’ evolving needs is a priority.

For example, in our global risk advisory team, we have addressed this challenge by retaining a combination of legal and non-legal risk experts to form a core group that is supported by a substantial team of industry and practice experts across the globe.

What do you think lawyers generally could be better at?

We are really lucky that we can attract and retain impressive, high-quality lawyers across our business. But as the market evolves and clients’ expectations continue to change, our lawyers are going to need to keep working hard at being adaptable and capable of re-skilling when required.

We are already experimenting with lawyers who are working on projects that call for artificial intelligence, programming, and design-thinking skills and we expect that this sort of diversification of work, albeit grounded in a strong legal discipline, will continue.

What have you found is the best way to retain talent?

There are various ways of retaining talent. Recruitment of the right talent is the first step! We have a well-rounded recruitment programme. We look at a person’s experience and their fit with the firm and its culture. We seek motivated and positive people who are driven to achieve their best. The firm has a number of business principles and behaviours and all roles and candidates are considered against these. Retaining talent is an art. Monetary compensation is never enough. To retain the best legal talent at both partner and associate level, we need to provide our lawyers with a stimulating work environment, which is dynamic, inclusive, and innovative. Lawyers join us because they want to do the best work for the best clients – ensuring that we are able to provide this for them is a never-ending job.

What advice would you give to those just starting out in law?

From day one, prove yourself as a team player and make sure you join the best team in your organisation. Keep an open mind in your early career too. It’s often hard to see where you might end up, and you don’t want to close off opportunities before you’ve had the chance to fully explore them. Contribute to your organisation in every way you can. Use your voice from the beginning – particularly if you are a female lawyer. Your ideas and opinions do matter, so make sure you share them. Accept that it is no longer enough to be a high-quality lawyer to succeed; today’s lawyers also need to be on top of the latest developments in project management, marketing and, of course, legal technology.

Work hard but always find ways to have fun and enjoyment in your work.

Posted on

A different skillset

Described in the latest edition of The Legal 500’s UK Bar guide as ‘a major force’ who has ‘built up an excellent set’, Carolyn McCombe’s career in chambers – like many other standout leaders in law – took a more circuitous route.

When studying law at Cambridge, McCombe recalls how ‘all of the most intelligent and talented people were set on a career at the Bar’. While admitting to ‘flirting’ with the idea of one day donning a horse hair wig and black gown, she concluded she was ‘neither intelligent nor talented enough’ to become a barrister and so ‘became a litigation solicitor instead’ (no offence to litigators intended).

After almost a decade of working at small City firm Stafford Clark – during which time she made partner – McCombe began to wonder whether she really wanted to continue her career as a solicitor. It was then, in the mid ’80s, that she saw a well-timed advertisement for a graduate to join the clerking team at One Brick
Court.

‘I have now been doing a job I love for over 30 years,’ she says. ‘I still feel something of a fraud being called a chief executive. When I first joined Brick Court in 1984 there were no chief executives and I was part of the clerking team which, in those days, combined clerking with whatever management there was.’
McCombe moved to 4 Pump Court in 1990 as its new senior clerk, a position which quickly evolved into a chief executive role as the non-clerking aspects of managing a chambers became ever-more complex and time consuming. Still, the biggest challenge she faced upon arriving at her new set was to reinvent it from an excellent common law and circuit set to a leading commercial chambers. A challenge it may have been, but one that has been overcome.

4 Pump Court is now recognised by The Legal 500 as a leading set in the fields of arbitration, commercial litigation, construction, energy, IT and telecoms, and shipping, among other areas. McCombe is quick to praise others for this successful transformation: ‘Achieving that transition has only been possible because of the calibre, energy, and determination of the members of chambers, but any part I have been able to play in the process has been immensely gratifying.’Having spent almost three decades in post, McCombe is well placed to explain how the role of chambers CEO has developed and been embraced by many other forward-thinking sets. ‘Most sets now appreciate that combining the tasks of clerking with the responsibilities of running a multimillion-pound business is no longer viable and requires different skillsets,’ she
remarks.

‘That is why there has been an influx of new blood into chambers to take over the CEO role, bringing with them different experience and qualifications. This works well when both CEOs and clerks appreciate the contribution the other makes to the success of a modern set.’

The unique business model that is chambers has seen some CEOs survive and thrive while others have crashed and burned. McCombe puts her own success down to having been a solicitor first, and combining this background with the experience she gained as a clerk before then taking on the CEO role. This rich history of experience to draw upon has enabled her to appreciate the very different aspects that contribute to the success of chambers as a whole.

‘In the last decade I have certainly found my solicitor background useful in dealing with the introduction of contractual terms, complaints procedures, and compliance generally,’ she says. ‘It is always a challenge balancing the interests of individual members of chambers, who are each a small business in their own right, alongside the business of chambers which has its own responsibilities and issues.’

One of these responsibilities must be the fair treatment and protection of all members and staff from harassment and inappropriate behaviour. In the #MeToo era, and with more women joining chambers than ever before, I ask McCombe how she feels life has changed at the Bar?

‘I have no personal experience of sexism or bullying,’ she begins. ‘However, I’m sure it exists both at barrister and clerk/staff level, and everything possible should be done to eradicate it. It should not be overlooked that bullying is not just a male issue; there are women who abuse their position as well.’

‘I do think the Bar has modernised and now recognises that there is no place for attitudes and behaviour which do not conform with best practice in, for example, recruitment,
equality and diversity, allocation of work, and policies which support barristers trying to balance family commitments with a career. There are still elements at the Bar who do not understand the need for such modernisation, but I hope and believe that they are a dwindling minority.’

McCombe says she has never personally found chambers a difficult place to work. ‘On the contrary, I think being a woman in a clerking/CEO role can be an advantage and I have never had anything other than support and respect from both the barristers and clerks that I have worked with,’ she continues.

On the subject of female leadership, I wonder what additional skills, experiences, and/or viewpoints women can bring to leadership in chambers. ‘Barristers and clerks often have large egos, which make them good at their respective jobs but can mean there is a lot of weight being thrown around,’ offers McCombe. ‘Most women take themselves much less seriously and are adept at ego juggling. I think that makes them particularly suited to leadership roles in chambers where they can achieve their goals in a rather more subtle way.’McCombe believes that the best way to encourage more women to aspire to work and lead in chambers is for current senior clerks and CEOs to lead by example and create an environment in which women feel comfortable and appreciated.

‘I am delighted to be involved with a new initiative set up by several women senior clerks called COCo (Clerks in Open Conversation), which aims to offer encouragement, support, and advice. It is open to all but is particularly aimed at female clerks who have fewer role models within the profession,’ she explains. However, McCombe also wants to encourage graduates into chambers so to increase the pool of able clerks who have the skills necessary to manage the modern Bar.

In July 2018, McCombe stepped down from her role as chief executive to take on a new position in chambers which she describes as ‘the oddly entitled mix of’ head of professional standards and ADR. ‘During my time as chief exec, I became increasingly pre-occupied by issues of regulation, compliance, HR, and business management which were the roles I enjoyed far less than being on the front line,’ she explains. ‘This new role brings together the two aspects of chambers life that I enjoy and feel most strongly about.

‘The very high professional standards under which the Bar operates makes it the extraordinary profession that it is. Supporting barristers at all levels, particularly when there is a problem, is extremely satisfying. Working with 4 Pump Court’s arbitrators and mediators brings me closer to the clerking role which was the aspect of the job I used to most enjoy.’ Shedding the responsibility of all aspects of chambers life and having more time to concentrate on the two aspects she enjoys the most is ‘a fantastic compromise’, she says, while also enabling her to have more time for herself (‘in theory at least’) and to develop other interests outside chambers. Still, one issue McCombe remains passionate about is the importance of secondments for the Bar and how they can become a compliance trap for unwary and ill-prepared counsel.

The positives for a young barrister going on secondment are many and varied, explains McCombe. Most obviously junior barristers can build up a relationship with a particular law firm or in-house team and gain an appreciation for the pressures under which solicitors operate. A secondment often grants them an opportunity to increase their expertise in a particular area which they can then bring back to chambers. Examples might be working with an insurer dealing with GDPR issues or with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) providing an understanding of the regulator’s perspective.

Another positive can be financial. This is particularly crucial for the publicly funded Bar, but any junior will benefit from the stability of a guaranteed, promptly paid income, even if it is just for a few months.

There is, of course, a negative side to secondments. The barrister may miss out on opportunities while away and chambers must find suitable cover when it is short its usual stable of juniors. For this reason, McCombe suggests that secondments be limited to no more than three months in length and be flexible enough to enable the secondee to keep their self-employed practice ticking over.

As they became increasingly more popular, McCombe recognised that many barristers were undertaking secondments without complying with their own professional rules and in some cases without insurance. The advice that was, until recently, on hand was ‘at best confusing and in some parts inconsistent’, and led McCombe and others to lobby the powers that be to take action.

‘Having got the Bar Council and Young Bar Committee on side, I was fortunate that the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) and the Chancery Bar Association (ChBA) agreed to pool their resources and produce excellent guidance and a draft conflicts protocol. In addition, Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund agreed to extend the scope of its indemnity and to issue fresh guidance in relation to secondments which made it clear what they were and were not covering.’

As she enters this new chapter in her career, transitioning away from the responsibilities of a CEO, I ask McCombe what she believes has been the biggest change in clerking over the last three decades? ‘Undoubtedly the transformation of the role from diary keeping and fee negotiation to running a multimillion-pound business with increased regulation and compliance issues,’ she replies, ‘and the need to market chambers as an entity in its own right, rather than just promoting each individual member of chambers.’
And finally, what, if anything, would she change about life at the Bar? ‘One of the key challenges for chambers is to maintain its sense of community and support while embracing the flexibility that working from home can provide for individuals. I think this is a particular issue for the junior Bar,’ she replies. ‘The Bar can be an immensely stressful and lonely career and we need to ensure that there is an environment which will support members of chambers in all aspects of their working life.’

Posted on

Chambers by numbers

It’s been just over a couple of months since we launched the 2019 UK Bar guide, and in only a couple of months’ time our research team will begin work on the 2020 edition (I know, I know, no rest for the wicked!). Ahead of our March submissions deadline, I wanted to take another look at the current rankings to highlight those sets which came out on top during the 2019 research.

Leading the Bar with nine top-tier rankings is Blackstone Chambers, followed closely by Essex Court Chambers and Brick Court Chambers with eight rankings each, while Fountain Court Chambers, Matrix Chambers, Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, and Serle Court are not too far behind them with five rankings a piece.

Meanwhile, with four rankings each, One Essex Chambers and 3 Verulam Buildings (3VB) round off the top tier results.

Overall, chambers with the most leading set rankings include: 39 Essex Chambers (15); Blackstone (14); Matrix (14); Maitland Chambers (12); 3VB (9); Fountain Court (9); and Outer Temple Chambers (9); while XXIV Old Buildings, Brick Court, Doughty Street Chambers, Garden Court Chambers, Serle Court, and Wilberforce Chambers all have eight set rankings each.

Looking at the individual rankings, No5 Barristers Chambers boasts the most barristers ranked overall, with 97 members recommended in the latest guide. Doughty Street leads the chasing pack with 90 ranked barristers, just ahead of Garden Court (87), 39 Essex Chambers (82), and Blackstone (73).

Breaking down these results further, the sets with the most leading silks are: Blackstone (40); Essex Court (37); 39 Essex (36); and Brick Court (32); while Fountain Court and Matrix share fifth place with 31 silks rankings each.

At the junior end, however, the sets with the most leading juniors are: No5 (71); Garden Court (69); Doughty Street (63); Kings Chambers (56); and with 54 juniors each, 3PB and Exchange Chambers round off the top five places.

But the #humblebrags do not stop there. We recently announced our winners of The Legal 500’s UK Awards (the full list of law firm, chambers, and in-house winners is available here).

Our awards follow months of rankings research – including tens of thousands of interviews with UK-based in-house counsel, law firms, and chambers. Once the research into the latest guide is completed our team of editors and researchers come together to answer one simple question: ‘Who stood out this year?’

The awards are as much about highlighting the leaders in each respective field as they are in recognising those which have exceeded expectations. In Scotland, Axiom Advocates (2 awards) and Ampersand (1) were the big winners, while in England and Wales congratulations are due to Blackstone (4), Matrix (3), 3VB (2), Brick Court (2), One Essex Court (2), Three Raymond Buildings (2), 4 Paper Buildings (2), 8 New Square (2), XXIV Old Buildings (2), Garden Court North Chambers (2), and Quadrant Chambers (2). Taking home one award each in February are: 1 Crown Office Row, 1 King’s Bench Walk, 4 Pump Court, 7 King’s Bench Walk, 11KBW, 20 Essex Street, 39 Essex, Crown Office Chambers, Devereux, Doughty Street, Erskine Chambers, Essex Court Chambers, Garden Court, Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers, Hardwicke, Hogarth Chambers, Keating Chambers, Landmark Chambers, New Park Court Chambers, Pump Court Tax Chambers, Queen Elizabeth Building (QEB), Selborne Chambers, Serjeants’ Inn, and Wilberforce.

Of particular note are: Queen Elizabeth Building (QEB), which won this year’s clerking and practice management award; Amanda Illing of Hardwicke, for winning senior clerk/chief executive award; One Essex Court’s deputy senior clerk Jackie Ginty, who has won our inaugural clerk of the year gong; and Serjeants’ Inn, which takes home the client award for communication and innovation.

Congratulations to all our ranked/awarded sets and barristers but remember, everything is up for grabs again this year. The editorial guidelines for the 2020 UK Bar research have been released, and can be found at the following web page Get involved

We have introduced new sections and made a number of structural changes to our coverage across the UK Bar guide. In the London guide, Agriculture and Property litigation have been split into two distinct chapters, as have Data protection and IT and telecoms.

In the Regional Bar guide, Clinical negligence and Personal injury have also been separated into two chapters, while Immigration has been introduced as a new section. In instances where chapters are now split, chambers are encouraged to put forward submissions for each section.

Regional chambers should note that individual barrister rankings will now be tiered just as they currently appear in our London guide. This is to allow clients greater insight into the leading silks and juniors on the circuits. If you have any queries concerning the above, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Good luck for 2020!

Posted on

A market of contradictions

G’day from Australia, where the term jurisdiction commonly refers to a state, not the entire country. Outlining common trends is therefore a challenge. Australia does not have one economy, or booming sector. In fact, whatever can be said about Australia, the opposite is also true – somewhere. Many international firms, among them Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance, therefore sandwich the country between their Sydney and Perth offices.

Western Australia is Australia’s biggest state and covers a surface larger than France, the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland combined; its economy is predominantly mining sector-driven. Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart, the chairman of mining exploration business Hancock Prospecting, is worth A$21.5bn. As one lawyer told me: ‘If you’re bidding for an asset, and you’re up against Gina – well, what can you do?’ Unsurprisingly, a number of law firms manage their global mining sector pursuits from Perth, but when activity slows down there’s not much wriggle room. Mining, construction, and disputes in the sector are the firms’ lifeblood.

Over east, the market is divided into the state capitals Melbourne and Sydney on one end, and Queensland on the other end. The latter is a hub for energy and resources lawyers, mostly driven by coal and coal seam gas work, and for lucrative PNG work, which is still predominantly done out of Brisbane. Australia’s two largest cities are the seat of
the majority of banking, capital markets, regulatory, technology, and M&A lawyers.

The most dramatic change over the past decade, albeit delayed compared to other (particularly European) jurisdictions, has been the influx of foreign law firms, notably from the UK and US, and the subsequent disappearance of local firms through merger: Freehills (now Herbert Smith Freehills), Middletons (now K&L Gates), Mallesons Stephen Jacques (now King & Wood Mallesons), Blake Dawson (now Ashurst), Truman Hoyle (now Bird & Bird), parts of Gadens (now Dentons), Phillips Fox (now DLA Piper), and Chang, Pistilli & Simmons and Cochrane Lishman Carson Luscombe (now Clifford Chance) are all no longer part of the legal landscape.

And the trend continues. Just in the past twelve months, additional domestic firms have been absorbed: DibbsBarker (by – again – Dentons), TressCox (by HWL Ebsworth), and Henry Davis York (by Norton Rose Fulbright). Baker McKenzie remains the outlier; it opened its Sydney office back in 1964 and stands out for its remarkably steady performance (good on ya!).

Australia’s main drawcard is its potential as a Southeast Asia hub and its proximity to economic giant China: not only infrastructure lawyers whose work partly stems from the ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative rejoice; other sectors benefit from outbound China work as well. It is far from Australia’s largest foreign investor, which remains the US, but China and Hong Kong have seen the most growth in terms of investment over the past five years. This is in spite of increased scrutiny of foreign investment by the Foreign Investment Review Board, which prompts some corporate lawyers to consider carefully who they act for.

Looking at The Legal 500’s coverage, King & Wood Mallesons is ideally placed to leverage its Asian, and particularly Chinese, network, and has added top tier rankings in eight practice areas over the past six years.

Herbert Smith Freehills falls behind when it comes to the overall number of recommendations in the guide, but leads the pack in terms of top tier recommendations between 2014 and 2019, while Ashurst’s brilliant feat was to more than double its top tier rankings over the same period, from seven to 16. Interestingly, even though not outperforming its rivals in terms of top tier rankings, Norton Rose Fulbright remains the only firm currently ranked in all 24 practice areas; it is followed by both Clayton Utz and King & Wood Mallesons in 23 areas (maritime and shipping makes all the difference).

Many firms want a piece of the cake: undeterred by political turmoil and – yet another – new prime minister (Australia’s seventh, in ten years), the country has just entered its 28th year of continued economic growth. But setting up shop here has not always been easy. There are a number of ‘fiercely independent’ – and firmly entrenched – incumbents, among them Corrs Chambers Westgarth and Clayton Utz; in spite of increased competition both have shown steady performance over the past six years and have managed to, albeit moderately, increase their top tier recommendations.

New entrants have also grappled with fee structures dictated by US or UK headquarters that proved to be unsustainable in the Australian market (‘No one here is charging the equivalent of £600 per hour,’ I am repeatedly told), and have had to come to terms with an economy driven by a few key sectors and dominated by a few key corporate players. ‘It’s a country of monopolies and oligopolies,’ lawyers never fail to point out, deploring the fact that competition for roles acting for the four major banks, the two major supermarkets, and the two dominant resources sector companies, for example, remains fierce.

Still, the legal market is growing, and The Legal 500’s coverage of Australia has significantly expanded in recent years. We have introduced tables covering project finance, and separated debt from equity capital markets work due to more and more complex and structured products coming to market; there is now a significant debt capital market to complement the country’s longstanding profusion of equity capital markets work.

At The Legal 500, we are not losing sight of emerging sources of legal work either. For the first time this year, we have reviewed the performance of firms in the cryptocurrency and blockchain space as part of our banking, corporate, and IT coverage. We now also provide a substantial review of regulatory compliance and investigations work, partly in response to the increasing assertiveness of Australia’s regulatory bodies and the uptick in workflow stemming from the Banking Royal Commission, among others.

Infrastructure work is equally booming, and the pipeline remains strong for at least another ten years. White & Case, the most recent arrival to Australia in 2016, has quickly made its mark here with a clear focus on the sector.

There is certainly no shortage of work, and teams are stretched. Legal technology tools, machine learning, and artificial intelligence platforms allow lawyers to focus on more complex and lucrative work and are therefore recurring themes in our interviews with managing partners. Read on to find out how the country’s leading firms rise to the challenge (but after all, there are problems much worse than having too much work).

Integrated legal services

Paul Jenkins, global managing partner of Ashurst

How are client demands in Australia changing?

The demand for increased efficiency and genuine innovation in the delivery of legal services is accelerating.

Clients are under significant internal pressure to deliver operational efficiencies and greater value to their businesses, and are increasingly looking for us to provide new and innovative ways of accessing legal service delivery options.

The rapidly increasing availability of a range of legal technology tools and these evolving client requirements are further challenges to the traditional legal services model for firms in Australia. This increased adoption of legal technology in the delivery of legal services, aligned with client requirements for greater rigour in process and project management means we are also seeing a growing demand from clients for lawyers working alongside professionals with deep skills in these areas.

There has also been a clear shift towards collaboration, with clients wanting to work with law firms to co-create solutions – learning from the experience of each other to develop new solutions and new ways of working together in this ever evolving legal market.

How are you adapting to these changes?

We are committed to continuing to develop a broader and more diverse integrated legal services delivery model for clients.

We created Ashurst Advance, our integrated legal service efficiency platform, to deliver time and cost efficiencies in many areas of our work, while still maintaining a high-quality service experience. It comprises a legal analyst team, legal technology team, and legal project management team, each working on a global basis focused on providing innovative resourcing, process and technology solutions to deliver high-quality, cost effective legal services to our clients.

Expanding our alternative legal services coverage, we recently launched a second global delivery centre in Brisbane. By introducing an Australian team of legal analysts focusing on a structured approach to document intensive projects or work of a more recurring nature, we can build on our existing significant capability in Glasgow to reduce timescales and enable other parts of Ashurst to focus on the more complex aspects of our client matters.

The Ashurst quality will be retained throughout, so overall, we are ensuring we have the right people, with the right skills, doing the right work from the right location. The firm has also formulated a collaboration programme to encourage lawyers, clients, project managers, and process experts to work together in solving business problems. This broad-based team participation in solution development and testing enables us to deliver innovations that best serve the needs of Ashurst and our clients.

How do you set yourself apart from the competition in Australia?

To me, what sets us apart is our culture – working and collaborating as one firm globally, with a commitment to creating a more diverse and inclusive working environment, and a desire to constantly innovate and adapt.

Innovation continues to play an integral role in shaping the future of the legal industry, not just in Australia, but globally. Innovation is at the heart of our culture at Ashurst and we ensure it is embedded in everything we do. It’s about creating a progressive mindset, working together, and encouraging people to think differently and look for new ways of doing things. As such the firm maintains a portfolio of innovation projects directed at all aspects of the matter lifecycle, client journey, and firm business model, which ensures we continue to operate at the forefront of the market in terms of innovation.

We were delighted to receive market recognition for our commitment to innovation at this year’s Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Awards Asia Pacific 2018, where we were named the Most Innovative Law Firm (Internationally Headquartered Law Firms). The firm also won the award for Innovation in Legal Expertise: Driving Value, while a number of our initiatives were also acknowledged. This is a testament to our focus on delivering innovative solutions to our clients, and a reflection of the fantastic people we have at Ashurst who contribute to and drive these innovative and transformative projects.

In order to deliver better outcomes for our people and clients, the firm is also dedicated to further developing our strategic focus on diversity and inclusion. The firm has introduced a number of initiatives to address equality including flexible working, unconscious bias workshops, as well as our reverse mentoring programme. This diversity of thought and input is an absolutely critical ingredient to our wider innovation strategy.

This year we also reconfirmed our commitment to financial resilience for our staff and clients, as the first global law firm to join the Financial Inclusion Action Plan (FIAP) programme. FIAP provides an opportunity for organisations to take real action to realise financial inclusion in Australia. Our FIAP strategy focuses on specific priorities for our pro bono clients, training for our staff, and providing legal support on the FIAP programme to other participating organisations.

Where are you seeing growth from domestic clients and also those outside who are looking to invest in Australia?

There continues to be a strong flow of direct foreign investment into Australia coming from the historically important economies such as Japan, the UK, and the US, and North America in particular. China is also still a significant source, despite changes to Australia’s foreign investment regulations for strategic infrastructure assets leading to a drop in Chinese investment.

As a firm, we are seeing this foreign investment focused across three key sectors: energy and resources (with a renewed interest in mining and substantial growth in renewable energy), banks and funds (with a surge in investment into financial and insurance activities, including divestments by some established institutions), and real estate (which continues to be seem as an attractive investment).

Client collaboration

Melinda Upton, co-managing partner, Australia at DLA Piper

How are client demands in Australia changing?

Like areas outside the law, legal clients are wanting more for less; innovation that provides a client return – not just an increase in the profitability of law firms; and legal support from teams to work effectively and with consistency across borders in order to service global businesses, execute multi-national transactions, and also to have access to, and be able to leverage, international best practice.

With increasing regulation and government intervention across many sectors, clients are also increasingly looking for law firms who are able to identify and provide guidance on these trends and changes, given the extent to which governments and regulators are sharing and borrowing approaches.

In-house teams have been getting larger and this is having an impact on the type of work for which many clients are using firms. The best firms are working as true partners with their clients and aligning their service to reflect what they need.

How are you adapting to these changes?

First, we make a concerted effort to listen to our clients and truly understand their business. Our client and sectors strategy is very focused around this.

We have a dedicated legal project management team and this year in Australia we ran an innovation road show for our people and clients in which we bought ideas from across our international offices. These range from client opportunities such as our Legal Delivery Centre in Leeds servicing high-volume work worldwide, through to AI technology used in due diligence, real estate, and projects work.

We are collaborating and sharing knowledge with our clients about how we are transforming our legal practice through implementation of technology and project management techniques so that our clients can also transform their internal legal functions can focus on strategic issues and being trusted business advisers to their own stakeholders.

We are also seeing clients wanting advice in areas beyond strictly legal matters. In part to meet this we recently opened the first Australian office of our associated government communications business, The Cohen Group. This is one of the largest and most connected such consultancies in the world with headquarters in Washington, DC.

We also recognise that some of our clients are keen to explore alternative pricing models and we work with them to offer a range of different pricing options that focus on value and transparency.

How do you set yourself apart from the competition in Australia?

DLA Piper is arguably the most international law firm in the world and it puts us in a unique position to service clients in Australia as their markets change. In particular, our footprint in the US gives us access to a range of VC funds that are looking for start-ups to invest in, as well as detailed knowledge of best practice for investing in sophisticated, tier one start-ups.

This expertise and experience has enabled us to both make introductions between start-ups and investors, as well as advise a number of Australian corporates on their venture capital strategies and investments in a range of both domestic and international start-ups.

Our market-leading global data protection practice is also a key differentiator, and our expertise in GDPR has seen us advise a range of clients on their GDPR compliance programmes.

We have worked on many high-profile and complex deals and matters in the market, including the Link Group acquisition of Capita Asset Services for A$1.49bn; advising on the Timor-Leste historic maritime treaty with the Australian government; advising Pfizer on a number of product liability and patent-related matters; and advising Reliance Rail on its A$2.2bn refinancing.

Where are you seeing growth from domestic clients and also those outside who are looking to invest in Australia?

We see a lot of cross-border activity and last year we saw a 72% increase in work between the US and Australia alone.

International arbitration remains a big growth area, but we are also seeing a lot of growth in technology-related business, and real estate funds and development.

Emerging clients, such as technology start-ups requiring venture capital is another area of strong growth. Again we have seen cross border work here, including with our teams in Israel and the US, which have a strong technology sector and innovation culture.

The financial services sector remains a busy area for instructions across a range of work types notwithstanding the heavy focus on Royal Commission.

Data protection and privacy are strong growth areas too, with our IPT, corporate, and litigation teams working together to advise a range of clients on both the front-end (policy and compliance) and back-end (regulatory notification, directors and officers duties, contentious matters) ramifications of the mandatory data breach notification regime under the Privacy Act.

Embracing disruption

Richard Gordon, managing partner, Australia at Clifford Chance

How are client demands in Australia changing?

Our clients are increasingly sophisticated users of legal services. Considering also the emergence of disruptive technologies, the profession in Australia is at a point of axis that will shape the way lawyers develop and serve clients into the future.

All lawyers need to be more digitally and economically literate. In addition to technical legal knowledge, our clients now expect problem-solving skills, project management, risk management, change management, and a high level of business acumen.

As lawyers we are truly entering the realm of consultant, or trusted adviser. It is critical that lawyers become more adept at configuring the most appropriate mix of legal, process, and technology resources to solve problems.

Across the firm, not just in Australia we are seeing increasing demand for legal project managers, but also for our senior lawyers to take the lead on project management.

We are observing that businesses are now facing pressure to control external legal spending. I believe the figures are something like 10% growth in in-house team size over the past year, which is ahead of most law firms.

This growing pressure will likely impact the mid-tier and large domestic firms where large sections of work can be increasingly subject to intense price competition and commoditisation.

A couple of law firms in the market have launched non-legal services. This is not the model we look to pursue – our clients use Clifford Chance as we bring knowledge to the more complex, top-of-the-market matters, with the backing of one of the strongest global networks in the world, which is where we deliver the best value.

How are you adapting to these changes?

All industries, the legal sector included, are facing disruption. Embracing this change is critical and firms need to be committed to evolve to provide the best service to clients. It is also important to collaborate with the public sector and the wider industry to drive innovation where possible.

We expect legal tech solutions to impact the more commoditised areas of services and will thus free up lawyers to focus on the higher value, strategic advice for clients that I previously mentioned.

This means ensuring our lawyers receive the support and training required for the lawyer of the future, and building the infrastructure so they can more efficiently deliver advice to clients.

Earlier this year we launched an Innovation and Best Delivery Hub for Asia Pacific. The hub establishes teams of cross-functional professionals including legal project managers, legal tech experts, resource managers, pricing specialist,s and continuous improvement practitioners and an opportunity for lawyers and technologists to collaborate. We also have best delivery hubs in London, New York, and Continental Europe.

We are already seeing success: the firm’s investment in innovation and legal technology has resulted in a number of advancements in client service delivery. This includes the launches of CC Dr@ft, a contract automation tool for clients; an online MiFID2 client regulation toolkit, powered through Neota Logic; SMCR Manager tool, which will be launched this month, which helps managers of companies regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority comply with the new Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMRC) and a cloud-based transaction management solution, delivered through Workshare. We are also adopting AI tools to improve the speed and efficiency of large-scale due diligence exercises.

How do you set yourself apart from the competition in Australia?

Our Australia partners are leaders in their fields. They bring decades of experience, expertise and specialist knowledge to the firm’s core practice areas of corporate, banking and finance and disputes.

Unlike many in the market, our Australia practice has direct, integrated access to the latest global thinking and developments. Our global network ensures that each of us is abreast of the very latest international trends and practices.

We offer a seamless and cost-effective service as we operate as a fully financially integrated global firm. This ensures consistency of quality and service levels across the world, with access to market-leading expertise in each jurisdiction in which we operate.

Feedback from our clients is that they appreciate a flexible and scalable service – allowing them to complete large-scale, complex and cross-border transactions from Australia.

One final point that deviates slightly from the client side, but delivers value back accordingly, is that we acknowledge Australia is one of the best sources of lawyers globally. We provide exciting opportunities for lawyers to build a genuinely global career in law in a diverse range of practice areas. Very few other firms in the market offer that prospect and we find that, accordingly, our junior lawyers are far more global and commercial in their thinking, and as a result build much stronger relationships with our international clients.

Where are you seeing growth from domestic clients and also those outside who are looking to invest in Australia?

I think over the past 12 to 18 months we have seen rapid growth in demand for legal services, in particular in the disputes space, which stems from increased regulation across multiple sectors. This of course includes recent high-profile Royal Commissions.

I’d expect more demand will follow the results of the Hayne Royal Commission, which must present its final report in February 2019. There will likely be a wave of class actions and further litigation. Regulatory pressures are also shaping demand from clients, as there is pressure on financial institutions for example from the UK financial services environment. Some regulatory changes that have made their way from the UK to Australia are driving demand for compliance and risk lawyers.

Our sweet spot in the market is financial services, including private equity work and advice around credit regulation – this has been a buoyant space with ongoing interest from Asia and beyond, investing into the country.

Australia continues to be impacted by the wider challenges of rising protectionism and geopolitical uncertainty. Most recently we have seen the blocking of Hong Kong’s CK Group’s planned $13bn bid for gas pipeline operator APA Group by the Australian government due to national security concerns. There is also the ongoing debate around Huawei and Australia’s 5G mobile network upgrade.

That said, there is much to be positive about. We are seeing strong growth in the corporate sector as organisations mature in their approach in M&A – there is a strong pipeline of infrastructure projects across the energy sector and in real estate. We can’t ignore the huge tech influence either, with technology now straddling all sectors including with the firm’s heritage clients, and also a number of new entrants to the market.

Reshaping the workforce

Michelle Dixon, CEO of Maddocks

How are client demands in Australia changing?

Clients’ needs have been evolving for some time. One of the more interesting changes that we are seeing is the opportunity to collaborate with clients on new service delivery models and project management of their workflows.

We have seen in-house legal teams focusing on internal efficiency improvements, with a greater emphasis on moving to a self-service model for parts of the businesses that they support. We now have a far greater opportunity to work collaboratively with our clients on these types of projects.

Of course, clients also expect us to be using technology tools that increase efficiency in the delivery of our services.

How are you adapting to these changes?

There are myriad different ways we have been adapting to these changes. Like all businesses, we have been investing more heavily in technology and developing software tools to assist our clients and the management of their information. We have reshaped our workforce, and particularly our IT team, quite significantly. Our IT team is now largely comprised of business analysts and project managers who work within our business and directly with clients. For example, we will sometimes place BAs in a clients’ business so that we can collaborate on software and other solutions.
We have also invested in technology to perform certain types of work, such as Luminance’s artificial intelligence platform to do due diligence work in M&A matters. We are also developing online products and services as an alternative to traditional methods of delivering these services. This includes Maddocks eContracts, which is an electronic contract exchange developed specifically for the property development sector, and Fair Deal, an online portal to help local government with enterprise bargaining.

We have done a lot of work around pricing models and offering pricing choices to our clients based on the work to be done. This has included training with leading pricing experts for our senior lawyers and finance and business development managers.

We are also increasingly offering secondments – and reverse secondments – as a way of getting to know our clients better and to provide them with a resource during busy periods.

How do you set yourself apart from the competition in Australia?

In an era of mergers and takeovers in the Australian legal sector, Maddocks has taken the decision to remain an independent Australian law firm. What this means at a practical level is dedicating ourselves to building expertise in sector and practice areas that are of most relevance to Australian organisations in the private and public sector, and to overseas organisations looking to invest into Australia. This manifests itself in our sector strategy, where we have built depth and experience in the built environment, education, government, healthcare, and technology sectors, which are key areas of the Australian economy.

While many firms will talk about being close to their clients, building strong personal relationships with our clients is at the heart of everything we do. Our clients tell us through our client feedback channels that the way we go about building trust with them sets us apart from our competitors.

Where are you seeing growth from domestic clients and also those outside who are looking to invest in Australia?

There are numerous areas where we are seeing growth amongst our clients both within and out of Australia.

Australia is renewing its infrastructure, led by ambitious programmes set out by the federal government and various state governments. We have seen several significant road and rail projects over the past five years and an increased focus on renewing social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. Maddocks has also been involved in many large local government projects that have rebuilt key local infrastructure, such as water treatment plants.

We are also seeing an increased scrutiny of regulated industries that has led to Royal Commissions and government inquiries. In Australia, there is a Royal Commission into the banking industry underway and one about to begin on the aged care industry. The federal government has also flagged a possible Royal Commission into energy and the current Victorian state government, if re-elected, into mental health.

Australia’s ageing population is creating opportunities in the healthcare sector. In the private healthcare sector, the federal government is continuing to tweak policy settings to address questions of affordability and access. The public healthcare sector is in the middle of a building boom with significant investment in public hospital infrastructure underway or pending.

The pace of change in technology is also creating opportunities for players in that sector. Data and privacy are huge issues that our clients are grappling with, while the need to keep up with changes in technology has seen numerous opportunities to work with government on IT procurement projects. We are also starting to see the first opportunities in the cryptocurrency space in Australia come online.

‘First-of-its kind’ assignments

Anthony Foley, national managing partner, Australia at Baker McKenzie

How are client demands in Australia changing?

The demands made by clients reflect, and change with, the needs and imperatives of their own businesses and markets. The need for our clients to ‘do more with less’ has become a regular feature of our discussions with our clients. As a result, our clients value a firm which can both provide the specific expertise needed for a specific assignment (because clients engage people, not firms) and a long-term and flexible approach to pricing and resourcing. In other words, clients are seeking both a transactional and institutional relationship.

Our clients also increasingly need legal support, which extends beyond legal and regulatory compliance. It’s well understood that this requires more commercial, pragmatic, and solutions-based advice, but as illustrated by the Banking Royal Commission, it also extends to providing boards and in-house lawyers with independent and balanced advice about social licence and corporate responsibility issues.

How are you adapting to these changes?

At our firm, we are reimagining the way in which we can help our clients simplify and navigate a complex world. Without losing sight of enduring needs such as quality, independence, and value, we are focused on optimising the delivery of our services (with the deployment, for example, of legal project management skills) redesigning our service model (with the introduction of machine learning and increased automation), and planning for the law firm of the future (which will require a broader range of skills and resources).

How do you set yourself apart from the competition in Australia?

We are set apart by our unique culture and our demonstrated record for doing things differently. The global dimensions of our firm are well recognised, and the scale and depth of our firm provide us with unique opportunities to share world’s best practice and know-how with our clients (such as through our exclusive association with the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution based in San Francisco – part of The World Economic Forum).

Our long-term success, and the quality of our services, ultimately depends upon the talent of our people and we are able to attract and develop some of the best young legal talent in Australia because of the unrivalled learning opportunities we can provide to our people with corporates, universities, think tanks, and policy makers across the globe.

Where are you seeing growth from domestic clients and also those outside who are looking to invest in Australia?

We don’t dwell too much on the distinction between domestic and global clients because, in reality, we are helping all of our clients succeed in local markets and, where appropriate, to capitalise on global opportunities. We enjoy a strong reputation and work flow in our energy, technology, healthcare, media, and restructuring and insolvency practices. We see growth in our work with funds and other sponsors in projects involving infrastructure and renewables.

Our cross-border work is a core strength and advantage, as illustrated by our recent work for Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation on its $4.1bn acquisition of Colonial First State Global Asset Management from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

We are fortunate to win a key role in many ‘first-of-its-kind’ assignments – such as the first-ever scheme of arrangement for Tokyo Stock Exchange-listed LIFULL on its acquisition of ASX-listed Mitula Group; advising on the first ever Basel III true perpetual hybrid transaction in the Australian market; advising Pyrolyx in becoming the first German company to list on the ASX; working with BHP Billiton in co-developing a first-of-its-kind bond to boost climate finance and prevent deforestation; and acting for volt bank on the first-ever restricted banking licence under the Australian government’s innovation agenda.