Posted on

It’s a ‘yes’ from them – A&O and Shearman partners vote through landmark $3.5bn transatlantic deal

Allen & Overy (A&O) and Shearman & Sterling are set to go ahead with their transatlantic merger, after partners at both firms voted overwhelmingly in favour of the union, with support from more than 99% of votes cast at each firm.

The pair is expected to combine as A&O Shearman from May 2024 at the latest – creating ‘the first fully integrated global elite law firm’, with nearly 4,000 lawyers across 48 offices and 29 countries.

With combined revenue of roughly $3.5bn, the merged firm will sit comfortably within the top five of the LB global 100 – behind Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins and DLA Piper.

Partner voting on the combination kicked off on 28 September, and was scheduled to run until 13 October, with the firms needing to secure the approval of 75% of partners to get the deal over the line.

Announcing the move, A&O senior partner Wim Dejonghe (pictured) said: ‘This is a historic moment for both firms and our profession. We are delighted that our partners have voted so resoundingly in favour of this merger, which is a transformational step for the legal industry. We have long admired Shearman & Sterling for its outstanding reputation, talent, and client base, and we are confident that together we will create a truly exceptional global firm that will serve our clients’ needs in an increasingly complex and dynamic world.’

Shearman senior partner Adam Hakki added: ‘Our partners have recognized and welcomed this unparalleled opportunity to combine our individual market leadership and brands to serve clients as an integrated global law firm, preeminent in all our markets. A&O Shearman will be a firm unlike any other in the world, built to achieve exceptional outcomes for our clients through an intentional focus on quality, excellence, and collaboration. We are creating a new industry leader, with truly global capabilities, and we are excited for what is to come.’

The firms announced they were in merger discussions in May this year and the deal had been widely expected to go ahead, with management at both firms embarking on a series of roadshows around the world over the summer to shore up support.

The combination marks the first transatlantic merger involving a Magic Circle firm since Clifford Chance’s ill-fated union with Rogers & Wells in 2000 and comes after A&O held unsuccessful talks with O’Melveny & Myers in 2019.

Shearman, meanwhile, was engaged in talks with Hogan Lovells as recently as this year, with the pair announcing the end of discussions in March. The firm has struggled to keep pace with New York rivals in recent years. With its traditional banking client-base, it has not made the same push into private equity as its rivals, something management at the combined firm is keen to rectify.

Shearman has also been hit by partner exits around the world, including finance partners Philip Stopford and Korey Fevzi, who left in March this year to launch the English-law offering at Cravath, Swaine & Moore in London. The firm named respected litigator Adam Hakki as the senior partner successor to David Beveridge the same month.

Market reaction to the deal has been largely positive. Jomati founder Tony Williams, who was previously managing partner at CC before its US merger, commented: ‘A&O was lucky. The previous discussions with O’Melveny made partners understand how difficult getting a US deal is. The partners were more amenable to compromise on issues that, if not for that experience, might have been sticking points.’

Another commentator noted: ‘It’s been handled extremely well. Both firms have had failed merger attempts recently. Both sides understood the importance of managing communications – even simple things like who gets informed in what order. Communications strategy is crucial and has been really well handled. The whole thing was presented as a proper corporate deal.’

The deal will heap pressure on the remaining magic circle firms to come up with credible offerings of their own in the US. There has not been a significant UK/US merger since 2018, when BCLP was created. This deal came after Eversheds Sutherland was formed in 2017, while Norton Rose Fulbright happened in 2013 and Hogan Lovells in 2010.

As Williams commented: ‘It’s transformative in one key respect: it is a fundamental shift in what the top UK firms have been able to achieve in the United States.’

‘You’ve now got one more 64,000lb gorilla, with a unique capability that doesn’t really exist elsewhere’ adds a former UK firm head. ‘A&O Shearman now has a capability that the other Magic Circle firms don’t have. These things don’t change overnight – no one will be out of business all of a sudden. But over time, over around 10 years, it could be transformative. It’s like a snowball. It gathers momentum. It’s really a challenge for the [rest of the] Magic Circle.’

Maurice Allen, founder of legal consultancy LTN & Partners, argued that in addition to the direct benefits from the merger itself, the merged firm will also be a more attractive proposition for other lawyers, potentially making it easier to further build on the corporate side: ‘It’s a big leg up for clients and for recruitment. There’s no doubt A&O is more attractive now.

‘For people sitting in London, either at a US firm where they’re not enjoying life, or at a UK firm where they feel they aren’t reacting to the challenge of the US firms, A&O Shearman starts to look very attractive.’

This story first appeared on Legal Business.

Posted on

Latham, Macfarlanes and TLT up for the top prize as shortlists unveiled for Legal Business Awards 2023

Latham & Watkins, Macfarlanes and TLT are among the firms competing to be named Law Firm of the Year at this year’s Legal Business Awards.

Also shortlisted in the flagship category for the awards, which will take place at Grosvenor House Hotel on 19 September, are Bird & Bird, Squire Patton Boggs and Stewarts.

The full shortlists, revealed below, will see high-calibre law firms, in-house teams and individuals competing across 30 categories at the 26th Legal Business Awards.

The finalists for the coveted In-House Team of the Year award are HSBC, Vodafone, SSE, Compass Group and Twitch.

City giants Slaughter and May, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Herbert Smith Freehills are among the firms fighting it out to be named Corporate Team of the Year, while in the Commercial Litigation category, Quinn Emanuel, Simmons & Simmons, and CMS are among those in contention.

Meanwhile, our ESG Programme of the Year award sees a host of major law firms and chambers up against each other, including DLA Piper, Keystone Law, and New Square Chambers.

This year sees a number of new categories introduced, including Barrister of the Year, Energy/Infrastructure Team of the Year, In-House/Law Firm Collaboration of the Year, Life Sciences Team of the Year, and Marketing Initiative of the Year.

The winners, which will be unveiled at the gala ceremony hosted by actor, writer, and producer Sally Phillips, are decided by an independent judging panel of senior in-house counsel.

This year’s panel comprises: Nicola Putland, GC – Data, Digital & Delivery at Lloyds Banking Group; Ruwan De Soyza, group GC and company secretary at Xplor; Alessandro Galtieri, deputy GC at Colt; Dan Guildford, GC, The Financial Times; Matthew Wilson, GC, Fremantle; Terra Potter, GC EMEA/AP, Hexcel; Clare Wardle, GC, Coca-Cola Enterprise Partners; Rosie Teo, GC & chief compliance officer, Salary Finance; Angus McBride, EVP and GC at News UK; Natalie Salunke, GC, Zilch; Lara Oyesanya, Group GC and Company Secretary, Zepz; Joy Van Cooten, Associate GC- EMEA & APAC, ACI Worldwide; Rupa Patel, GC, Awaze; Merley Okine, GC, Ebiquity; Vivienne Inmonger, Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance, McGee; Nigel Paterson, GC at Dixons Carphone; Nayeem Syed, senior legal director technology procurement at London Stock Exchange Group; and Samantha Thompson, consultant and former head of legal global M&A, Anglo American.

Major winners last year included Shoosmiths, which was named Law Firm of the Year and Travers Smith, which won two awards.

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business.

Posted on

‘If Zoom is doing it, everybody probably needs to be’: Growing number of US law firms mandate four-days-in-office week

Lawyers adhering to a minimum of four days in the  office a week policy  is gaining traction among US firms, with Vinson & Elkins now joining the trend, while UK firms appear less inclined to follow suit just yet.

Vinson & Elkins announced on 9 August that it will adopt a four-day in-office schedule from 11 September, allowing the choice of remote work on either Monday or Friday, marking a change from their previous three-day hybrid policy introduced in March last year.

According to an internal memo viewed by Legal Business, the firm said it aimed to strike a balance between in-person interaction and remote work post-pandemic. However, with an increasing number of firms shifting towards a four-day model, Vinson & Elkins is concerned that remote work may hinder connectivity, yet the firm continues to endorse remote work when the need arises.

One partner at a US firm notes: ‘Zoom recently announced they’re going to bring back their people back to the office, so if Zoom is doing it,  everybody probably needs to be if their business model depends on interaction.’

In a similar vein, Ropes & Gray joined the trend a week ago, while Weil announced its four-day office policy in July, following Davis Polk’s announcement a month earlier.

Ropes & Gray will require its lawyers to come into the office from Monday to Thursday with Friday being an optional remote working day, beginning on 6 November.

‘We are making this change because success in this highly competitive marketplace requires us to invest in what makes Ropes & Gray extraordinary—our culture, teamwork in furtherance of excellence for clients and our steadfast commitment to developing the best lawyers in the world,’ according to a firmwide memo sent by chair Julie Jones and managing partner David Djaha.

‘These strengths, which define and differentiate us, can only be realised to their fullest extent through in-person collaboration, learning and mentoring. Simply put, we need more people together, more often, more consistently.’

Mirroring this approach, Weil said it will require all US lawyers to come into the office four days a week, starting on 5 September, and Davis Polk will enforce a mandatory Monday to Thursday schedule for US lawyers following US Labor Day in September.

Skadden was one of the first adopters, announcing its four-days in the office model back in May, which will also take effect following US Labor Day. Skadden lawyers are expected to be in the office from Monday to Thursday, indicating a shift from their previous policy of three days of in-office attendance from Tuesday to Thursday.

Other US firms have been less clear about potential changes down the line. Legal Business understands that Kirkland & Ellis currently adopts a three-day office attendance policy, requiring lawyers in the office from Tuesday through Thursday, however the firm declined to comment on the matter.

Aymen Mahmood, partner and co-head of finance, restructuring and special situations at McDermott Will & Emery, said: ‘Firms are seeking to encourage their people to be in the office for a host of reasons, including providing the best possible training opportunities for associates, maximising best practices for firm culture and indeed increasing the likelihood that opportunistic business openings can be quickly addressed among partners.’

But interestingly, the Magic Circle firms are taking a different route. Freshfields maintains its policy of lawyers spending three days in the office a week, while Slaughter and May and Allen & Overy grant the flexibility of remote work up to 40% of the time. Similarly, Clifford Chance and Linklaters maintain a hybrid-working approach, requiring lawyers to be in the office at least 50% of the time.

Another partner at a US firm noted: ‘Magic Circle firms have always been more formal in terms of expectations from their associates. Probably what is going on is that UK firms say you need to be in three days a week, but everyone is in much more than that anyway.’

‘It’s just generally dictated by the expectations that the firm has set, the feedback of their people and the type of business it is. Certain businesses lend themselves to more remote working than others. Each business is weighing up the question: “How does attendance at the office assist our business relative to our value set, employees and the client work we have or aspire to have?”,��� said an executive at a UK firm.

Outside of the Magic Circle, other UK firms seem to be standing by a three-day week policy too. Taylor Wessing announced its hybrid remote-working policy in 2020. ‘We have reiterated that approach and it hasn’t been altered,’ says managing partner Shane Gleghorn. Using the word mandate is adopting a slightly declarative tone that doesn’t really match reality because most firms have been expecting attendance at their offices for some time. And to a large degree, they’re reinforcing the message that has pertained for a considerable period of time.’

Other firms, such as LB100 firm Fladgate, maintain a three-day-a-week office policy, albeit with more flexibility.

Managing partner Grant Gordon said: ‘It’s a recommendation though, we’re not hard and fast on it. But we’d like to see our partners and our associates and our other support staff teams in for three days. If someone comes in two days a week, but next week comes in four days, no one going is going to jump up and down and say, “are we taking a register?”. We’re happy with that for the time being.

‘I don’t know what will happen going forward, but we’re showing good growth and good productivity three days a week. If our people are happy and they’re finding ways to achieve a work-life balance and if this provides the architecture for both happier lawyers, and for more fulfilled lawyers because they can attend to everything they need to, then that’s what we’re doing.’

Over the coming months, it will be interesting to see which other firms jump on the bandwagon, and whether UK-centric firms adopt a stricter stance. Nevertheless, one executive at a UK firm said that the distinction between these firms may not be as clear cut. ‘The difficulty is that there’s so many differences between approaches which are driven by the type of culture and business that that you are, so I’m not sure it divides neatly between the US and UK, international or European firms.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business.

Posted on

‘The strategy delivers’: Freshfields sees 8% revenue rise but PEP growth stalls

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has announced its 2022/23 financial results, marking a seventh consecutive year of revenue growth for the firm.

Its revenue has increased by 8% to £1.84bn from £1.7bn in the previous financial year, a similar increase to last year’s 10% rise. Freshfields is the last of the four international magic circle firms to reveal its results. However, unlike Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance, Freshfields is yet to break the £2bn barrier. In its recently released financials, A&O’s revenue increased by 8% from £1.94bn to £2.1bn, while CC achieved a revenue increase of 5% from £1.969bn to £2.062bn.

Freshfields’ profit per equity partner (PEP) has remained flat with a 1% increase to £2.09m from £2.07m last year, in contrast to last year’s solid 8% growth.

The firm has made significant investments in its workforce and operational model, including embedding cloud-based software Salesforce, making 26 new lateral appointments and 30 internal partner promotions, and launching a shared business services centre in Slovakia.

Global managing partner Rick van Aerssen told Legal Business: ‘We are happy with the strategy and the strategy delivers. We will continue on with our global growth strategy.’

‘With the waters being choppier, we think macro trends typically play to a firm like ours, where we have broad offerings and are at the complex end of the market. Where it matters most, we see people increasingly turn to us,’ he added. ‘That is true in terms of products but also where international interconnections are concerned. Take the US – we want to grow our US business, but we can also offer something to our US clients that a lot of US firms can’t offer in Asia and Europe. That is a growth driver for a firm like ours.’

Key mandates from the last financial year include advising UBS Group on its acquisition of Credit Suisse Group and advising Volkswagen and its subsidiaries on its global emissions litigation. The firm was also lead counsel defending Google in the Google digital advertising antitrust litigation and advised the independent directors of Qualtrics on the $12.5bn sale of the company.

The firm also published its second diversity and inclusion annual review. Key highlights include 48% of new partners joining the global partnership being women and doubling the number of black associates at the firm over the last two years. It has also achieved their 5% LGBTQ+ global partnership target three years ahead of schedule.

In its statement, the firm was keen to highlight its US growth ambitions, noting that over the last three years it has delivered advisory services to 70% of the 1,000 largest US corporates in the US and/or globally. It also noted that it has made 14 lateral partner appointments in the US over the last year.

Although unable to give a figure for how much of the global revenue the US offices contributed, Aerssen said: ‘It’s not growth in one area at the cost of one area, we believe in growing the business as such because there are many pockets where we think we can win work.

‘At any given time, we are looking at opportunities to grow the business, we’ve made 14 lateral partner hires in the last year in the US. We’ve always been clear that that is a key pillar of our growth strategy. We want to grow more in the US and internationally, but we don’t have a target number because it’s also a question of opportunity. What this shows is that ultimately the quality of the business is driven by the quality of our lateral hires, we’ve been very fortunate with our lateral hires that we have had such a high quality come into the firm.’

However, the US is not the only Freshfields office looking to grow. ‘London is a key market and still a growth market,’ Aerssen concluded.

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

‘Holding ourselves accountable’: Slaughter and May tackles social mobility challenge with 2033 targets

Slaughter and May has stuck its head above the parapet on the thorny issue of social mobility, outlining ambitious targets for 2033, in what will be seen as a bold move at the elite end of the profession.

Over the next decade the firm aims to increase its representation of individuals from a lower socio-economic background (LSEB) by 25% across its total workforce population from a baseline of 18.8%. Broken down across fee earners and business services professionals, Slaughters intends to increase its lawyer population from such backgrounds to 15% from a baseline of 10% and its business services population to 40% from a baseline of 34.7%. These targets measure a person’s socio-economic background by using parental occupation at the age of 14 as a metric.

Slaughters partnered with the not-for-profit, social equality consultancy the Bridge Group to carry out a workforce analysis on setting its targets. The Bridge Group found that progression, retention and performance of lawyers from a lower social background at the firm was the same as lawyers from other socio-economic backgrounds. It also found that in the firm’s business services roles the LSEB population stood at 34.7%. The national census figure for LSEB individuals is 39%. These findings were used to inform the firm’s action plan, which places a particular emphasis on widening access throughout its early stage recruitment processes.

The action plan has three strands. Firstly, Slaughters aims to increase the number of LSEB individuals it hires through graduate and business services recruitment. Steps will include targeted recruitment activity aimed at engaging students who might not participate in its traditional recruitment processes, as well as providing apprenticeships as an alternative route into the firm.

Secondly, the firm plans to increase its work on widening access to the profession. Over the next five years, Slaughters will extend its scholarship scheme and introduce a new financial bursary scheme for 17–18-year-olds.

Thirdly, the firm will double down on its workforce data relating to social mobility. It will encourage employees to disclose diversity data, with a target of 90% disclosure. The firm will also voluntarily publish social mobility related pay gaps through its annual pay gap reporting.

Commenting on the targets, Andrew Jolly, corporate partner and chair of Slaughters’ social mobility working group, said: ‘Our detailed work with the Bridge Group shows that when LSEB lawyers come to Slaughter and May their progression is strong and they are just as likely as their peers from other socio-economic backgrounds to succeed in the firm. The targets and actions we have announced focus on ensuring this continues to be the case as well as making the firm an attractive place to work for people from a wide range of backgrounds.’

Deborah Finkler (pictured), managing partner at Slaughters, added: ‘Tracking the socio-economic make up of our workforce over a long period of time means that we have confidence in the data we are using to set these public targets and measure our progress. This focus and transparency means we can hold ourselves accountable and sends a clear message about our intentions to enhance and maintain a diverse workforce.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

Linklaters sees 2% profit decline as revenue falls short of the £2bn milestone

With financial reporting season in full swing, Linklaters is the latest Magic Circle firm to drop its financial results, reporting a 7% revenue increase from £1.8bn to £1.9bn, seeing it fall just short of the $2bn turnover barrier passed by both Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance recently.

Pre-tax profit is down by 2% to £854m from last year’s £872m, translating to a 5% decline in PEP from £1.87m to £1.78m.

Linklaters managing partner Paul Lewis said in a statement: ‘We’re pleased to have delivered a strong financial performance, despite a challenging high-inflation environment and ongoing geopolitical instability.’

He added: ‘Entering the new financial year we have seen a strong deal flow, particularly across energy & infrastructure, high-end M&A and from financial sponsors, notwithstanding the wider slowing of the global M&A market. The challenging economic environment has led to an increase in restructuring and insolvency matters and we have also seen an uptick in regulatory and criminal investigations as well as a rise in class actions, particularly in the tech sector.’

Linklaters reports that it has seen ‘significant growth’ in revenue from high-end M&A with top mandates that include advising Carrier Global Corporation on its acquisition of Viessmann Climate Solutions and HSBC on the sale of its Canadian banking business to Royal Bank of Canada.

Similarly, the firm also gives credit to the performance of its energy sector, with a particular focus on energy transition mandates that made up the majority of energy-related work over the last financial year. Whilst it is public knowledge that Links has struggled to make an impression on the US market, the addition of its energy and infrastructure team in the US has resulted in some mid-tier US mandates, including advising Actis on its new $500m Japanese renewables platform.

Beyond financials, the firm also reported that it had elected 41 new partners and 53 counsel in its latest promotion round, while meeting its 40% global gender diversity target for female partner promotions, and its 15% target for under-represented minority ethnic partners in new partner elections annually in the UK and US.

In the legal tech arena, the firm also reported that CreateIQ, its document automation and contract management platform, ‘grew at a rate of nearly 100% during FY2023 with over 100 digitised templates added, attracting over 300 institutions including major banks, asset managers, insurers and governments. ReportiQ, the firm’s next-generation due diligence reporting platform, ‘has now been used by Linklaters lawyers across 17 offices and external counsel in 21 countries to generate reports on €18bn worth of deals’.

Links is the third member of the Magic Circle to publish its financial results so far, with both A&O and Clifford Chance officially breaking the £2bn barrier. A&O’s revenue grew by 8% from £1.94bn to £2.1bn, while CC recorded a revenue increase of 5% from £1.969bn to £2.062bn.

With Freshfields the last of the four UK elite international firms to post its results, the picture so far is clearly one of modest revenue increases matched by a decline in profitability this year, as firms across the globe driven by transactional work struggle with the downturn in deals.

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

‘Outcome still satisfactory’: revenue, profit and PEP drop at Macfarlanes as Mishcon continues growth

Macfarlanes has posted results that show declines in turnover, profit, and PEP for the past financial year. Turnover dropped 2% to £296.6m, while operating profit fell 6% to £151.4m. The decline in PEP was steepest: a fall of 16% took it to £2.1m.

The results mean an end to a  12-year streak of growth that saw its PEP surge past its rivals, with last year’s £2.49m placing it behind just Slaughter and May and Stewarts in the list of firms with the fastest-growing PEP in our 2022 LB100.

‘The 2022/23 financial year proved a more challenging year for our firm due to difficult market conditions although the outcome was still satisfactory,’ said senior partner Sebastian Prichard Jones in a statement.

‘After the exceptional impact of the pandemic, which had a positive effect on our financial performance, in a number of respects this was a year of consolidation. This included an increase in our equity partnership by 10%, which had what we anticipate to be a short-term impact on our PEP figure. This is an investment we were pleased to make. After taking a pause for breath in 2022/23, we remain in a strong position and are confident we will move forward again this year.’

The increase in equity partner numbers offsets the drop in PEP somewhat. And the reference to a difficult 2022 after an exceptional 2021 is well taken: there are few firms who have made similar claims as they announce their latest sets of financial results, with Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, and Ashurst all recording dips in PEP. Macfarlanes is not the only firm to record a dip in turnover over the past financial year, with Hogan Lovells posting a 7% decline in February.

The picture painted by Mishcon de Reya was more positive. The firm posted financial results that saw total revenue increase by 10% to £255m. While slower than last year’s 23% increase, this continues a positive trend that has seen the firm continue to grow despite setbacks including a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) fine and a failed IPO.

Overall profit has increased  22% to £93m, though the firm notes that the increase in profit was a much more modest 6% if IPO costs were excluded from the previous year’s figures.

Mishcon reported overall profit as a lone metric for the first time this year, describing profit per equity partner (PEP) as ‘too narrow, short term and misleading as a metric for a business as diverse as the MDR Group, which now accommodates both a traditional law firm and many start-ups.’

Group chief financial officer Matt Hotson explained further: ‘Our goal is create long term value – for our clients, our people and the society in which we operate. PEP is not a metric which is helpful in this context nor is it useful for a business like ours with a diversified offering of legal and non-legal services.’

The completion of Mishcon’s merger with Taylor Vinters in January 2023 brought it to a total of more than 220 partners. The firm reported around 80 equity partners, which would place  PEP at £1.16m – up almost 11% on last year’s £1.05m, and above its previous high-water mark of £1.1m, set in 2017.

Mishcon showed another year of impressive growth in its consultancy and advisory work, reporting an 81% growth in non-legal revenue. The firm was keen to stress, though, that the overwhelming majority of its revenue still came from its core legal services. Performance across practice areas was ‘pretty even across the firm’, said managing partner James Libson. ‘Even though one may have expected real estate to slow down, it kept its momentum all the way through to year-end. Corporate suffered a little in Q4, but the rest were solid.

‘One sees dispute resolution do better, or at least act as a hedge, in recessionary times. But there’s been a real lag in that this time around, as so much protection has been put into the system. Still, we’re seeing an increase coming through, and we expect that to accelerate over the next year.’

The firm’s strategic focus will be on bedding in its merger. ‘The innovation and early-stage market in Oxford and Cambridge is very important to us’, said Libson. The firm will also continue to extend its Asian offering, including building out its Singapore office and continuing its association with Karas So  in Hong Kong. ‘At the moment it’s a litigation offering,’ said Libson. We’ve brought in three private client partners, one in family and two in tax. Our aim is for that office to reflect the balance of our overall Asia offering, which will focus on litigation, private client, and corporate restructuring for family-owned businesses.’

More broadly, Mishcon also intends to explore options to raise capital. ‘The IPO market remains pretty closed’, explained Hotson. ‘It’s not something we’re actively looking at right now. But we have a strategic view to increasing our access to capital. We would potentially do more deals like we did with Taylor Vinters, which sometimes need more capital to make work. And we need to invest in other things like tech as well.’

Hotson also pointed to the increased availability of litigation funding as an area of opportunity for the firm: ‘We have a medium-term need for increased capital. How we resolve that need is something we debate from time to time, though there’s not  a huge amount of urgency. It’s not constraining our ability to grow now.

‘We explored the IPO as an enabling strategy to allow us to deliver growth. The listed law firm market is a very limited market. Even the private equity law firm market is not very mature. But we think we’ll see more firms take capital in, because there are things they can do with that capital. We may well be one of those.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

‘Improving growth has not been an easy task’: HSF posts record financials amid challenging conditions

Herbert Smith Freehills has marked a decade of consecutive annual growth with its latest financial results, posting the highest revenue, profit and PEP in the firm’s history.

Revenue has increased by 8% from £1.103bn to £1.186bn, while net profit and PEP are up by a more modest 2% and 1% respectively. PEP moved from £1,163,000 to £1,173,000 for 2022/23.

Speaking with Legal Business, CEO Justin D’Agostino (pictured), said: ‘We are particularly proud of the results this year, especially because there were some significant challenges in all of our markets, including rising costs and tougher trading conditions.’

D’Agostino explained why the firm has fared so well despite the less-than-ideal market conditions: ‘Our clients come from  strong sectors, such as energy, infrastructure, technology and banking. We are also focused on the twin engines of our contentious and transactional practices. That mix results in a very well-hedged global business.’

On the firm’s strategy, D’Agostino elaborated: ‘We launched our new strategy in November 2021, which has been having a positive impact. When we set out our strategy, we set out our choices on the areas we were going to focus on winning market share and grow: private capital, energy transition and ESG. We are seeing significant growth in these areas, and we will see sustainable growth for the next few years.’

Asked which were the firm’s best-performing  jurisdictions, D’Agostino responded: ‘London had an outstanding year, as well as strong, double-digit growth coming from New York. EMEA saw good growth too, with double digits from Milan, Dubai, Germany and Johannesburg.’

He added: ‘The market was tougher than previous years in Asia and Australia. Despite this we still saw double digit growth in Japan and South-East Asia too.

‘On the practice side, our contentious practice did particularly well. We saw increased client demand in class actions, competition and disputes deals. The largest class actions we are seeing are with our biggest clients, such as Google and Meta.’

Probed further on the firm’s US strategy, D’Agostino commented: ‘We have been growing our New York office and we will continue to grow organically there. We are very focused on the US market and real attention will be placed on it by us over the next period.’

HSF’s chief financial officer, Steve Bowers, contextualised the discrepancy between the acceleration in the rate of revenue increase and the reduction of the rate of PEP and profit growth since this time last year: ‘Compensation costs are high because of the intense demand for talent, which remains an issue. We continue to invest and ensure that our employees are rewarded and that we have the right standing in the market for talent compensation.

‘Macro factors such as high interest rates, as well as our investment into digital technology, our core systems, and further investment in our people is the right thing to do with long-term benefits. That means that sometimes there will be a disconnect between profit and revenue growth. You won’t see many firms of our size and scale this year having their best-ever results on those three key metrics.’

He added: ‘The context is important here. If we look at the performance for FY23, you do see client demand soften in a few places, but we are still doing really well. Improving growth has not been an easy task.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

A&O managing partner Price departs pre-merger as revenue passes £2bn

Allen & Overy has announced the shock resignation of managing partner Gareth Price amid a set of financial results that saw the Magic Circle firm break £2bn in revenue for the first time.

The firm said Price’s resignation was due to ‘personal reasons’ and came as revenue jumped nearly 8% from £1.94bn last year to £2.1bn in 2022/23. While eye-catching, the level of turnover growth fell slightly short of the 10% uptick achieved last year, of which more than half was attributed to A&O’s US business.

Profit per equity partner (PEP) dropped 6.6% from £1.95m to £1.82m, while profit before tax dipped slightly to £892m after a 9% hike to £900m last year.

Price was elected A&O’s managing partner in February 2020. News of his departure has been met by surprise, not least because he had been hotly tipped internally to stand again for managing partner in the firm’s 2024 leadership elections, a move that could be seen as a vote for continuity as A&O faces inevitable challenges posed by its proposed merger with Shearman & Sterling.

‘The board has asked me to step in to cover the [managing partner] role’, senior partner Wim Dejonghe told Legal Business. ‘They will make a decision on a more permanent solution in the autumn. Leadership elections were scheduled for early next year, after the merger vote. The board also has to decide whether they stick to that schedule or not.’

On the financials, A&O reported strong growth in private capital revenue of more than 60% for the last two years. In the US, ‘growth and expansion has remained a high priority’ – unsurprising given the firm’s pursuit of the Shearman merger. A&O pointed to the region as one of its strong performers, alongside Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, which saw its ‘strongest financial performance ever’, driven by what it describes as ‘a hot IPO market’, as well as by opportunities in Saudi Arabia.

A&O’s Advanced Delivery & Solutions (AD&S) business also grew by 13%.

While the US accounted for over 50% of the firm’s revenue growth last year, this year Dejonghe said it accounted for less than half. ‘It’s up in absolute figures, but it’s not 50% of the growth,’ he said.

A&O also reported strong performance in energy transition, technology, and private capital: ‘With the energy transition, there’s a lot of financing needed in the energy and infrastructure space. That’s definitely a strong growth point for us. Technology, both on the litigation and the transactional side, has also seen massive growth, as has private capital on the debt side,’ Dejonghe added.

Dejonghe explained the drop in PEP with reference to macroeconomic conditions and a competitive legal market. ‘We’re in an inflationary environment. Costs generally have gone up. And of course there’s been a salary war in the industry around the world. We’ve defended our position, and we’ve had to spend quite a bit more on salaries to keep and recruit the best talent.’

A&O has no plans to slow its investment. ‘In terms of sectors, we’re focusing on technology, energy transition, and private money. We’re investing quite heavily in those practices around the world.’

But, unsurprisingly, the lion’s share of attention will go to the proposed combination with Shearman. ‘Obviously, the merger will be a priority going forward’, said Dejonghe. ‘There’s no doubt about that.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

The Law Surrounding Domestic Abuse in England and Wales

Elizabeth Barlow, student at The University of Winchester, analyses the changes brought about by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

Until recently the term ‘domestic violence’ has been used to describe abuse in the family home. However, the very word ‘violence’ indicates a physical assault and therefore disregards the many other forms of abuse that both men, women and children can experience.

The move to the term ‘domestic abuse’ has been enshrined in statute with the new Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Section 1(3) of the act establishes the different forms of abuse, including but not limited to violent or threatening behaviour, economic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour.

Unfortunately coronavirus and the cost-of-living crisis have added pressure to many households, which in turn has seen a large increase in domestic abuse cases.

The need for reform came from the substantial lack of guidance and assistance for victims. The lack of duty on local and national authorities to offer help and support, and the outdated outlook on what domestic abuse consisted of.

Following 2021, authorities now have a duty to provide appropriate and safe accommodation for a person or family fleeing abuse. It also ensures that fleeing abuse does not result in the loss of right to lifetime or assured tenancies when these were in place.

For the first time local authorities will be held accountable following the creation of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. They will also report back annual statistics to consider best how to tackle the problem as well as establishing a chain of command and processes to improving the support services

One significant change sees the recognition of children in the abuse cycle. Prior to 2021 children could witness horrors within the family home and were simply considered witnesses. Now, however, a child who witnesses abuse will be treated as a victim in their own right.

With emotional abuse being recognised within statute it would be contradictory to leave children as witnesses when the sheer emotional effects of witnessing abuse are, in fact, a form of abuse all of its own. This welcome change affords them further protection and support.

As well as children, both men and women suffer domestic abuse. However, it is significantly disproportionate and is still very much a gendered offence. A lot of abuse comes following what is known as a ‘trigger point’.

The most common trigger points are pregnancy, post-separation, drug and alcohol use and chronic illness. This can be when most abuse starts or gets worse during a relationship.

Practice Direction 12J guides the judiciary in child arrangements proceedings where there is alleged domestic abuse, and it clarifies that domestic abuse can be a single incident or a series of incidences.

It also goes into more detail on ‘Coercive and Controlling’ behaviour, a form of abuse that is by no means new, but newly recognised in law.

It includes acts of assault, intimidation, and humiliation, where the perpetrator desires to make the victim feel subordinate or dependant by isolating them. If you are a victim or know of a victim of domestic abuse you can make an application to obtain disclosure from the alleged perpetrator.

The introduction of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS), first implemented in 2014 and known more widely as Clare’s Law, allows the police to disclose any relevant information regarding a partner or ex-partner.

This is managed in two ways, by establishing a ‘right to ask’ and a ‘right to know’. This enables the victim to make informed choices on whether they should leave a relationship for their own protection or refrain from going back.

Sadly, on average, a victim of domestic abuse returns to the abuser seven times before they leave for good. Either the victim or a family member can make an application for disclosure.

Anyone suffering abuse can reach out to a number of organisations for initial help, including a solicitor for legal advice. Whilst some people will be eligible for legal aid, the service is stretched far beyond its means and many people cannot access it.

With that in mind, domestic abuse is not discriminatory, and anyone can be a victim regardless of wealth. With increasing use of social media, victims are open to newer forms of abuse such as ‘revenge porn’.

Revenge porn is the disclosure of any sexual photographs or videos with intent to cause distress. The most recent case involved celebrity Stephen Bear, who was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for voyeurism and two counts of “revenge porn”.

This case highlighted that even those in the public eye still have a right to privacy and that the law would not enable perpetrators to abuse this right. However, whilst the Act supports some groups of people, it’s support tis lacking for others.

The new Domestic Abuse Act is far from perfect, there have been criticisms over its lack of protection for migrant women and for not making judicial training mandatory in order to ensure judges have a deeper understanding of domestic abuse and its many forms.

Yet it has been praised for its forward thinking with regards to the inclusion of a new offence, Non-Fatal Strangulation (NFS). NFS has been a tool in which perpetrators hold over their victims, the act itself is a way of them showing the victim they quite literally hold their life in their hands.

Considering the long-term medical effects of partial asphyxiation, making NFS a criminal offence of its own is a welcome change.

Another positive addition relates to the court process, a process that can be incredibly intimidating to a survivor of domestic abuse. Being in the same room as the abuser is sometimes terrifying, and up until 2021 if the abuser was a litigant in person, they were entitled to cross-examine the victim themselves.

This was clearly not effective in ensuring a witness gave their best evidence.

Now, if an abuser is a litigant in person, they will ensure a separate third party is available to cross-examine where appropriate. The introduction of special measures has also made the court process a little easier for survivors, and are suitable in criminal, civil and family court.

A survivor can be kept separate from their abuser at all times, this may mean using a separate entrance at the courthouse, having a curtain drawn whilst in the witness box, giving evidence via video link or ensuring they have a special room to wait in whilst court is adjourned.

Ultimately, there are safeguarding measures in place to protect survivors of abuse all whilst allowing them to have their say. It is important to recognise the difficulties victims face and that the justice system provides an environment that allows them to speak up, whilst feeling safe and secure.

The law is by no means perfect but is certainly a step in the right direction to ensuring victims are supported.

The difficulty remains where the Act predominantly supports those pursuing criminal charges, which leaves a large gap for those pursing civil remedies following domestic abuse.

Where so many cases will fall short of the CPS threshold, there should be the ability and support for those who fall through the gap to utilise civil law whether it is to provide an injunction, by way of a non-molestation order, or to assist in a fact-finding hearing during children proceedings.

Either way, more must be done to offer protection, especially to those most vulnerable.

 

Helpful Contacts

National Assistance