Two Moves in Hong Kong Show U.S. Firms' Challenges and Opportunities
At almost the same time, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Steptoe & Johnson LLP recently made decisions that showcased polar opposite views about the market in Hong Kong.
May 14, 2020 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
Two U.S. firms recently made opposing moves in Hong Kong: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe decided to close its office there after 15 years, whereas Steptoe & Johnson LLP launched a new office in the city.
Hong Kong is the most popular office location in Asia for global law firms. The city's legal market is fully liberalized and firms have a menu of options to practice local law, U.S. law or U.K. law; corporate or finance; litigation or arbitration—you name it. That has made Hong Kong an incredibly competitive market. Even without additional challenges that include recent protests and the coronavirus, Hong Kong's legal market requires carefully implemented strategies—and some luck—to succeed.
At almost the same time, Orrick and Steptoe ended up having polar opposite views about the market in Hong Kong. Orrick CEO Mitch Zuklie doesn't hide his pessimism. He doesn't think the firm can achieve in Hong Kong the success it has elsewhere in Asia. Meanwhile, Steptoe is betting on Hong Kong's role as a regional center for clients' legal needs, not only in China but in Asia more broadly.
Although Orrick and Steptoe have different focuses, in Hong Kong they have something in common—neither is engaged in listings work, the most popular and competitive game in town. But finding the right people makes all the difference. Every firm stresses the importance of the right team when talking about recruitment; rarely does anyone talk about hiring partners as experiments. In reality, though, the right people comprise a small group, and it takes time, luck and investment to get them.
I was surprised to learn that Steptoe decided to open in Hong Kong, but it all made sense when I saw the firm hired Wendy Wysong for its new office. Wysong previously led a U.S. law government enforcement practice in Asia for Clifford Chance, and she doesn't just do Foreign Corrupt Practices Act work. Instead, she specializes in U.S. trade control matters and handled Chinese telecommunications company ZTE Corp.'s high-profile U.S. sanctions case.
Wysong's move to Steptoe came at a time when Chinese technology companies such as Huawei are facing multifront trade controls and economic sanctions in the U.S. Though it will be a while before we know whether Steptoe's Hong Kong office pans out, the addition of Wysong's team appears to be fitting and timely.
Orrick's difficulties in Hong Kong are not recent. By 2016, after being in the city for just over a decade, the firm thought its Hong Kong practice, which centered on advising Chinese companies on listings and other corporate finance deals, was too price-sensitive and overlapped too little with the rest of the firm's clients. The disagreement resulted in the majority of the office, led by partner Edwin Luk, splitting off from the firm in 2017. After that, Zuklie wanted to pivot the Hong Kong office to focus on work in the technology, energy and infrastructure and finance sectors, which he identified as keys for the whole firm.
Until then, it all made sense. But Orrick didn't quite get the right team for that strategy. Just before the transactions team left, Orrick recruited Sidley Austin litigation partner Charles Allen. But when the local law transactions group pulled out, the litigation side lost a source of cases. Orrick did also make lateral hires in Hong Kong after the exodus—M&A partner Mark Lehmkuhler and funds partner Scott Peterman, both of whom focus on private equity work. If that was the office's connection to the technology sector, the firm didn't quite get to energy, infrastructure and finance in Hong Kong.
Perhaps Orrick made the right call to exit Hong Kong. After all, the days when firms could get away with putting Hong Kong on their letterhead without thinking through their plans in the city are long gone.
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 All'Ready to Respond': Wilmer's Robert Kimmitt and Covington's Stephen Rademaker Worked to Free U.S. Journalists
3 minute readNewly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 2The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
- 3Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 4Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 5Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
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