Has the Magic Circle Lost Its Magic?
It may be time to reconsider the way we define and consider the so-called Magic Circle of elite U.K. firms.
April 09, 2020 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
The Magic Circle. It has a nice ring to it doesn't it? The U.K. legal industry has been largely defined by the existence of the five top firms for decades. But perhaps it is time we reconsidered the term.
Everyone knows what the Magic Circle means. It means Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters and Slaughter and May; it means the dominant firms in the U.K. and Europe and beyond; it means the largest, most profitable, highest-quality institutions outside the United States.
But does it really mean all these things?
For a start, they are not the largest. Slaughter and May's domestic focus makes it much smaller than the rest, and there are other U.K.-heavy firms that bring in more revenue than the remaining four. Nor are they the most profitable. Macfarlanes has the second-highest average partner profits of any firm in the U.K.
Instead, the Magic Circle firms are so called because they operate in a different sphere than the rest of U.K. firms, representing the top blue-chip clients and leading investment banks on their most complex work, or so the mantra goes. That is true, but only to a point. According to the latest rankings, Slaughters, Allen & Overy, Linklaters and Freshfields hold the most relationships with FTSE 100 clients, but Herbert Smith Freehills comes in fifth ahead of Clifford Chance.
Many of the most lucrative clients also aren't listed. Private equity firms have come to dominate corporate dealmaking, comprising about a quarter of the value of all global mergers and acquisitions last year, and those relationships are mostly held by U.S. firms.
The Magic Circle firms may well do the complex, big-ticket work, but do they have a monopoly on it? That is an open question, especially because Kirkland & Ellis advised on the highest total value of European M&A deals in 2019.
Factor in the rest of the world and the picture is even less clear. Globally, Magic Circle firms are not among the top six by revenue, not in the top 12 by head count and not in the top 18 by average partner profits. Many in New York would question whether they are among the world's highest-quality institutions.
Of course, proponents of the moniker admit that it largely relates to the U.K. They argue that the band of five are set apart by something less tangible: brand. Clients using a Magic Circle firm can feel confident they will receive the best advice. And yet this also feels like a self-fulfilling argument, given that the brand rating of these firms is massively enhanced by the Magic Circle tag.
The truth is that the meaning of "Magic Circle" is at best vague. It hearkens back to a bygone era when the U.K. legal industry was more self-contained. Given that firms no longer operate only in the U.K., it seems strange to categorize them in a way that compares them only to U.K. rivals.
Trainees and a few of the leaders in the group still love to use the term. And why not? It signifies that they are in a club that produces excellent lawyers and has something special about it. But most partners at the firms privately admit that they don't really refer to it. Depending on their practice area, many don't even see each other as their main rivals.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to everyone to come up with a grouping of the elite international firms, based on size, geographical spread, partner profits and clients. If it included those with revenues of more than $1.5 billion, average partner profits of $3.5 million or more, and a sizable presence in the U.S., Europe and Asia, that group of five would be Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; and, at a push, Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Since 2007, the combined revenue of these five firms has grown at about twice the rate of the Magic Circle's.
There is something more magical about that group, even though—and I say this sadly as an Englishman—there is not one Magic Circle firm among them.
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 AllSimpson Thacher Partner Moves to Vinson & Elkins as Co-Head of Strategic M&A
3 minute readFreshfields, Paul Hastings, McDermott, Alston Hire in Core Practices, Amid Flurry of Q4 Lateral Moves
5 minute readMorgan Lewis, Mayer Brown Add New Partners in Chicago
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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