Global Firms Have a New Way to Access Chinese Law Practice
At least a dozen global firms are now operating Chinese associations in various forms.
October 07, 2019 at 03:37 PM
3 minute read
Herbert Smith Freehills recently announced a joint operation with a Chinese law firm in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, becoming the latest international firm to take advantage of a government-sanctioned program that gives foreign firms Chinese law capability.
At least a dozen global firms are now operating Chinese associations in various forms, offering one-stop-shop services that include Chinese legal opinions, court appearances and dealing with regulators. The 5-year-old Shanghai FTZ scheme, which has also benefited Linklaters, Ashurst, HFW, Hogan Lovells and Baker McKenzie, is one of several ways firms can get access to Chinese law practice.
Before launching the FTZ program for foreign law firms, the Chinese government tried a similar joint venture program for mainland Chinese and Hong Kong law firms. U.K. firms Clyde & Co and Stephenson Harwood both registered China branches under their Hong Kong offices and set up their Chinese alliances under that scheme.
The government programs require commitment to the Chinese firm and are generally restrictive in nature. Under the programs, it's more difficult to control the quality of the Chinese partner firm's work. Many global firms prefer the so-called captured firm model in a regulated market such as China. It allows foreign firms to have a local firm of their own so they can control quality and simplify administrative processes. The government programs often require the Chinese partner firm to be in existence for a certain number of years, making it much harder to find a compatible partner.
Over the years, firms have explored approaches to bypass the regulatory hurdles. The Swiss verein structure pioneered by King & Wood Mallesons has been a popular choice used by others, such as Dentons and U.K. firm Fieldfisher.
A couple of U.S. firms opted for a less conventional method: an exclusive referral relationship in China. Most global firms have regular referral partners in China, but very few are willing to settle on exclusive arrangements. In 2007, Chicago's McDermott Will & Emery struck up a strategic alliance with a group of Shanghai-based lawyers breaking away from large local firm AllBright. The lawyers formed a new Chinese law firm known in Chinese as Yuan Da and in English as MWE China Law Offices. While remaining legally independent, MWE China was able to share McDermott's brand, and give the U.S. firm direct access to Chinese law practice.
But the McDermott-MWE deal was as groundbreaking as it was unique. No firm has since replicated that model. In 2015, McGuireWoods entered similar arrangements with a group of Chinese lawyers, but the new firm, FuJae Partners, doesn't share McGuireWoods' branding.
Herbert Smith Freehills' FTZ alliance is similar. Kewei, the Chinese firm, is staffed by at least two former HSF lawyers and new recruits from other top Chinese firms. May Tai, the firm's Greater China managing partner, stresses that Kewei extends HSF's reputation as clients' trusted adviser to Chinese law practice.
One thing that's been driving firms such as Linklaters and Herbert Smith Freehills is the need to appeal to Chinese clients as domestic law firms are on the rise. Despite a turbulent U.S.-China relationship and prolonged trade war, top Chinese law firms have secured meaningful financial growth and continue to plot overseas expansion, as our annual China 45 report shows (see page 60).
Full liberalization doesn't yet seem possible, so for the time being, the search for a Chinese law solution continues.
Email: [email protected]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
10 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250