Globalism and law firms
We've commented already, based on the principle that only the big can serve the big, about how law firms have grown from local to global. A Financial Times article "Reach versus risk: why big law firms are split on the merits of going global," 12/14/06) discusses this very phenomenon
The author, Michael Peel, declares that profit growth for law firms in the UK has been spectacular. "Average profits per equity partner, the benchmark figure commonly used for measuring law firm financial performance, rose 17 per cent after a year of heavy cross-border merger and acquisitions work. Anecdotal evidence suggests the market has remained just as good since then." The leading British firms, even more than the American ones, are expanding rapidly across the globe. One example he points out ids that "three-quarters of the top 25 British-based firms have at least one wholly-owned office in China, up from one-third in 2004,"
But there are problems. International work is less profitable than domestic work. For that reason, law firms are torn between globalization and simply find "best friend" partners in other countries, a course more often followed by US-based megafirms. On the other hand, it may be necessary to extend the international work, even at a low markup, to retain the home country business.
Bout big law firms in both countries are pulling back from both localism and excessive globalism. As the article points out, "a fair bit of judicious hedging of positions is being done on each side. Some US firms - such as White & Case, which does a lot of cross-border dispute resolution work - have established significant international networks. On the British side, many have become more cautious and selective about where they maintain overseas offices."
9:17:21 PM 
|
|
