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 bad reputation is a killer

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

Our culture is based on several main values: contribute effortlessly to create long-lasting effects, make a difference by a positive approach, take the lead and engage to create solid results that will stand the test of time. The driving force of our success also thrives on the values of loyalty and ethics in doing business, and on cultivating a mindset for constant improvement.

Our mindful culture constantly reminds us what Suciu Popa should stand for, it guides our strategy and development, and it attracts and retains the exceptional professionals that align with us.

What are the biggest challenges facing firms of your size in Romania?

As a full-service business law firm acting in a somewhat unpredictable but very competitive market such as Romania, we believe important to deliver first-in-class services and results for our clients.

We engage with clients not only to find one-time solutions to their legal problems, but to help them integrate the legal strategy with their overall business goals and discover cross-functional approaches and synergies that give them a competitive advantage. We are mindful of the client’s various challenges on multiple fronts and we make availability, reachability, and efficiency our key differentiator.

Since its founding, what’s surprised you most about running your firm?

Running a firm involves wearing many hats and juggling with many different roles at the same time, from working alongside the team on clients’ files to generating and developing new business, to overseeing and getting involved in the admin, marketing and HR flows of the firm, which multiply significantly as the firm grows and expands.

There were hard times, but we never lost positive energy and enthusiasm. We start each day and new project as if it’s the first, and go every step of the way being convinced this is the best project we set out to do in our lives.

What challenges did you face as women establishing your own firm?

Fortunately, we didn’t face any specific challenges other than the usual ones start-ups and entrepreneurs generally face in any market. Being women in the profession did not prevent us at all from implementing our project nor has it hindered in any way our ability to get ahead in business.

Suciu Popa is drawing on the strong reputation built during 20 years of acting in the legal market, on its extraordinary team of professionals with whom we have constantly served a wide base of international and domestic corporate clients.

Complementing this incredible team and track record, we managed to place the firm in a top position in less than three years, and this has been confirmed by all major international legal publications, as well as by the international and domestic business community.

How have attitudes to diversity changed over the past 20 years? What still needs to happen to make the legal industry more inclusive?

We believe that, as legal experts, no matter the gender, we are joined by a common goal – providing value for clients through deep understanding of their legal needs, mitigate legal risk, but also discover opportunity. What should matter is the values the individuals possess and how they can provide clients with the best solutions. Neither ethnicity nor gender should interfere with individuals’ and firms’ performance and ability to advance in the legal profession, and in business overall.

Shifting the attention on what really counts – mentoring, giving feedback, and encouraging personal and professional development – will definitely bring a positive impact and help towards diversity.

How can law firms best encourage innovation?

For a while now, innovation has been the centre of attention in a variety of businesses, law firms included. Innovation may mean many things, like technological advancement, disruption in the way the business is managed, or valuable ideas are generated, etc.

In our view, many firms acting in the legal industry advocate innovation, but rarely practice it in reality. Apart from immersing in the technological solutions that are now more easily available to firms across the board, we apply innovation in the way we manage the firm, deal with clients, and encourage the team to think proactively for and meaningfully for the client.

Differentiation is critical to buyers of legal services – how do you stand apart in the market?

As stated, the critical difference in securing long term, high-quality clients is earning their trust and keeping it. We do that by delivering on our promises, by offering genuine engagement, and by never projecting an image of us or the firm that comes short of our true selves as human beings and as professionals. In short, being genuine and true to the client and the profession is what sets us apart. We understand that to be able to make the difference you need to help, not just advise, you need to uncover new options, not just stand by and tell the client which legal provisions apply or what flat regulations they should consider. Last but not least, doing business not for the immediate (financial mainly) rewards, but with a cooperative approach in mind which addresses the future, has placed us in a position where top-rate clients want to have and keep us on-board.

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

During our professional career, we found very diverse clients look for a few key basic things in their advisors: proactivity with a sense of business; honest and agile advice; and a natural availability for genuine engagement with their needs.

We saw good clients leave their advisors for compromising on their professional and ethical values, or for gradually scaling down on the quality they, or their teams strive to offer as clients become long-term clients. That is certainly a pity, and a pitfall we do our best to avoid, as one unsatisfied client leads to another and bad reputation in this industry is a killer.

What is your one big prediction for the legal market?

As we are witnessing an internal political crisis. Adding the political tensions in the wider Euro zone, the Romanian market is exposed to a number of challenges, such as the stagnant level of direct foreign investments, delays in implementing much needed infrastructure projects or developing a clear public strategy promoting real and steady growth in the wider Romanian economy.

Against this backdrop, and concerning the Romanian legal market, we believe the effects of economic stagnation, coupled with the difficulty of some of the players in rethinking their business culture, will have a transformational effect, to the disadvantage of some firms that continue in their old ways and to the advantage of those who understand and adapt.

Posted on

I’m a good example of how you can progress

Explain the culture at HJA. How important is that culture to you?

There’s a very collegiate culture at HJA. We are all working for one common purpose – social justice. It is that commonality which binds people in all our departments together.

There’s also a great deal of shared pride about the results we achieve. People believe that at the end of the working week they’ve really made a difference. The fact that we’ve always managed to navigate whatever has come our way, whether that be cuts to legal aid or fixed costs, and still be successful speaks volumes about our culture.

You became managing partner in 2017, but it was far from a traditional route to the firm’s top spot. Can you explain how you became managing partner?

I completed my training at Mayfair firm Portner & Jaskel, and spent seven years at City firm Prolegal, where I led the personal injury team before I was made redundant.

It was while I was on holiday soon after – and considering a career change – that I got a call from Patrick Allen, founding partner of HJA, which changed everything. He’d heard about my successes at Prolegal with implementing a new CMS system and other technological developments and wanted me to do the same at HJA.

I have always had an interest in technology. My previous firms didn’t have a Magic Circle budget so if you wanted anything changed on the CMS, you had to wait for it to be done by someone else. So, I picked up the manual and taught myself basic coding. I began to learn the value of tech and what you can manipulate it to do.

I joined HJA in 2012 to roll out new software. The CMS software company told me it would take 18 months, but I pushed it through in six. A year later I was promoted to associate and after a further 12 months to partner. In 2015, I was promoted a third time to head the firm’s largest department – personal injury – also joining the firm’s board as an equity partner. In January 2017, I took over as managing partner.

What new policies or initiatives have you initiated since becoming managing partner that have helped staff and clients?

Most recently it is the change of structure from a limited liability partnership (LLP) to an employee ownership trust (EOT), we’re the first major law firm to do this.

Prior to this there have been a range of initiatives including the launch of a training programme for the firm’s partners, aimed at instilling commercial awareness. I’ve done this in recognition of the fact that lawyers are trained to practise the law but rarely the commercial realties of running a firm. For our junior solicitors and trainees, we’ve just run a speed networking event. We’re a firm of over 230 people and it’s important, not only so that everyone knows their colleagues and the depth of expertise across the firm for cross-selling purposes, but so that they can rehearse networking in a supportive environment.

Under our continuous innovation programme, which ensures HJA can continue to deliver on its founding aim of ‘using the law to improve people’s lives’, we have made the firm paper-lite, significantly reducing the cost of printed letterhead, postage, and storage. The second phase of this will see the elimination of paper archives and reduction in on-site storage.

To improve cash flow, I have introduced a process to seek interim payments in high-value cases carrying large amounts of WIP, resulting in an 80% reduction in fees tied up externally. Additionally, we’ve always offered agile working, but in recognition of increased London living costs, have now implemented a nationwide recruitment programme, allowing the firm to access a wider pool of talent. The first recruit, based in Bristol, joined in August.

You mentioned HJA becoming an EOT, what is that and how does it work?

We’ve moved from being a LLP to a limited company and will trade and run in the same way as the LLP, the only difference is that 100% of the shares of the new limited company are employee-owned and held in the trust rather than by the members of the LLP.

The EOT is a similar model to that of department store John Lewis in that it enables all employees to become beneficiaries of the firm. I remain managing partner and along with Patrick Allen, our senior partner, and Kingsley Tedder, an independent trustee, I am a trustee of the trust.

How did the move to become an EOT come about, and what, if any, were the challenges?

The move is part of a succession plan to enable Patrick to take a less active role in the business and was very much driven by the need to ensure that the firm’s founding ethos of helping people would continue and that all of our loyal staff at the firm could benefit.

The biggest challenge was simply that no other major law firm had done this before and so there was no rule book; that meant going on quite a journey with the bank and it took a lot of explaining to stakeholders.

Do you think more law firms should look at this model and if so then why?

As soon as we made the announcement, I had many firms contact me asking for advice, saying that they’d tried to do something similar or were thinking of switching to this model. There is certainly appetite out there for employee ownership and I would recommend it as a perfect way to secure the future of a firm while at the same time allowing staff to benefit from the firm’s success.
We know from independent research commissioned by the Employee Ownership Association that an EOT model delivers great benefits, including high productivity levels, good staff retention, and happier staff.

As mentioned earlier, you originally joined HJA due to the firm’s need for better internal tech. How is technology changing the way your lawyers practise law?

I have a big interest in what technology can bring to a firm. We’re a firm that has always tried to be early adopters of technology if we think it will benefit our clients and the firm. That said, the quality in a business still comes from its people, supported by the technology and I don’t see that changing in our business.

What have you found are the best ways of attracting and retaining talent, both at partner and associate levels? Also, what is HJA doing to attract and retain a diverse group of practitioners?

Culture and ethos play a huge part. One of my most important roles at HJA is to facilitate individuals’ goals and ambitions and I am big believer in that. I’m a good example of how you can progress.

We are also implementing blind recruitment for our trainee intake which will start from the next round of applications. This will ensure that we are looking at all the candidates are on an equal footing and will provide a fairer process as this will also exclude educational institutions.

We are constantly looking at ways in which we can provide more benefits to our staff to help us attract new talent.

What are the biggest market challenges facing HJA and firms of a similar size and specialism?

How fantastically supportive the partners and all of our staff have been. I am very lucky to work with such great people.

Since becoming managing partner what’s surprised you most, either internally or externally?

Funding. We had a period of swingeing legal aid cuts and the drive towards fixed costs with very little time to consider either. Yet, with tight financial controls and continuous innovation we’ve been able to navigate the challenges and come out stronger.

How would you describe your management style? Whom have you taken inspiration from?

Democratic. It’s very important to me to get people’s views and to bring them along with me in any decision making. At the same time, I am the decision maker and I will always hold myself accountable. I think colleagues appreciate that accountability.

How do you find the time to manage a firm and still head a busy practice?

It’s certainly a challenge, but I have been very fortunate in the partners and associates stepping up to take on more responsibility which has removed some of the burden from me. We also meet regularly too; good and regular communication helps a great deal towards running a successful team.

Can you describe your best and worst days in law?

The best: Becoming managing partner and knowing that the senior partner, Patrick, and the then equity partners recognised my work and had the confidence in me to take the firm forward.

The worst: Making the decision to stop doing family legal aid work earlier this year. We’d been doing it since we started out 41 years ago, but it was just no longer feasible. That was a tough decision and was taken with a heavy heart.

If you have one prediction for the UK legal market, what is it?

Given the complexity of the legal market it’s quite difficult to answer as what will apply for a firm like ours will be different to a Magic Circle firm, for example.

As an industry I think we have started to look at things differently and consider innovative approaches to our service provision for our clients moving from the more traditional approach.

We are also more aware that people have choices in where they work so we need to also ensure we are taking care of our staff. I’d also like to think we’d see more firms recognising the benefits of employee-owned models and switching to more equitable models to secure their futures.

Posted on

When growing, it’s essential your partners are on board

When Richard Crump took up his current role of senior partner role in 2007, Holman Fenwick & Willan, as it then was, had roughly 240 lawyers working across eight offices and revenue of just over £67m.

Today, newly reappointed for a fifth three-year term, the rebranded HFW has more than doubled its office and head counts, with more than 600 lawyers helping to bring in record revenues of £179m for the last financial year. And it has managed to do this without taking on debt or significantly impacting on PEP.

Key to the firm’s growth has been expanding internationally, with overseas offices now generating some 60% of revenues, as well as building out its practice base far beyond its maritime
roots.

In a tactic that differentiates it from its peers, the firm has often chosen to launch new practices overseas, building positions of strength internationally before looking
again at London.

These international expansion efforts are far from complete. Working alongside newly elected managing partner Jeremy Shebson, Crump says further expansion in the US is going to form a key plank of HFW’s strategy. Not content with merging with Houston energy and marine firm Legge, Farrow, Kimmitt, McGrath & Brown in 2017, Crump says Miami, Chicago, and New York are all of interest to the firm.

How HFW achieves this is yet to be decided, but it’s fair to say that merger – potentially with a bigger firm either in the UK or US – is a possibility. Here, Crump sets out how HFW has achieved its transformation from London shipping firm to international player and how bringing the partnership with him has been key to the redefined strategy.

How did HFW go about repositioning its business beyond what it was best known for?

A core part of our strategy has been to grow our aerospace, commodities, construction, energy, insurance, and shipping capability in the key international markets that are important to these clients. This has involved strengthening our existing offices and launching in new markets. We’ve opened in eight new markets in the past three years and added 24 new partners in 2018, including five in
London.

Sixty percent of our revenue is now international and that will increase.

How have you shifted your practice?

We’ve focused on growing the transactional side of our business, as well as boosting our litigation, international arbitration, and regulatory practices – particularly internationally. We’ve made several hires in London recently, but it is a very competitive market and it can be harder to build in certain areas, such as corporate and finance.

Our position is that once we start to acquire a certain size in a region, it gives us a credibility that perhaps we wouldn’t have for that practice in London. For example, when we targeted aviation finance to add to our strong aerospace practice on the contentious and regulatory side, we started that process in Asia Pacific and now we have one of the biggest aviation finance teams in the region. That has given us a strong base on which to develop the practice globally.

How have you managed to achieve this international growth without affecting profitability or taking on debt?

We’ve achieved it by being more efficient – billing more quickly, for example – and by being very selective about our investments. It becomes more of a challenge as we continue to expand and the partners have said they would support borrowing to fund a worthwhile project if we had to.It’s essential to have your partners on board when you’re growing like we are.

What are your plans internationally now?

We now have a large international network across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia.

We would like to have a bigger presence in the US and we’re open minded as to how we achieve that. Miami is interesting as a gateway to Latin America and an important shipping hub; Chicago is interesting because of the commodities market; and of course there’s New York.

It’s more about finding the right opportunity than saying we want to be in a specific city. If a firm is focused on one of our sectors and is in a market that is important to that sector, we’d potentially be interested but we would also be open to something bigger.

What about London?

We’re particularly keen to expand in certain areas in London, such as construction and project finance, but we’ll seek to continue to grow across our sectors and also in corporate, finance, and litigation.

What are your other priorities?

Talent management is a real strategic priority. The career ambitions and expectations of young lawyers have changed beyond all recognition. It’s no longer about staying at the same firm for your entire career and hopefully making partner. When you consider that firms essentially invest in a young lawyer at the start of their careers and only begin to make a profit after
they’ve been qualified for a couple of years, that presents a real challenge. But it’s also an opportunity – the successful firms will be those
that adapt.

We’re also constantly reviewing the services we deliver to clients and the way in which we deliver them. We’re looking at how we
can use technology to be more effective and more efficient, and how we can reduce costs by being more agile and working smarter. We’re also looking at other services that we could offer that would be of value to clients. We recently launched a standalone consulting business, HFW Consulting, which has been very well received by clients.

What advice would you have for other firms looking to expand beyond what they are traditionally known for?

It’s about focus and bringing your partners with you. Be very clear about what your strategy is, stick to your knitting and don’t get distracted. You need to be clear about what you are going to do and what you aren’t. There are opportunities, because sophisticated clients are very discerning about who they use for particular matters.

What impact will Brexit have on you and the UK legal market?

We’d be foolish to say Brexit won’t impact on us, but I do think people will continue to use English law for disputes and contracts – it’s been around for ages, everyone understands it and it’s a great product.

These are challenging times, though. I remain genuinely optimistic but we can’t all keep growing at this rate. There will be some consolidation, in part because of the benefits scale can bring for big investments. If you need to spend £10m on an IT project, for example, the cost per partner in smaller firms is going to be much higher and the investment cost wouldn’t be proportionally that much smaller.

Talking about consolidation, would you consider merging with a firm in the UK or elsewhere?

I think all firms will be looking more openly at merging now. We’re not actively seeking a large merger partner, but we would be open to a combination of significant scale – in the UK or elsewhere – if it aligned with our strategy and if the cultural fit was right. Partners will always prefer to combine with a smaller firm, but good partners will do well in any environment.

How do you go about shifting partner mindsets on matters like this?

Lawyers tend to be cautious and conservative by nature, but they are increasingly focused on the business side of legal practice. Our partners know that the market is changing and that we need to adapt to these changes – preferably ahead of the curve. You just have to make sure you bring the partners with you on the journey.