Globalisation poses issues
Forming a multi-national partnership in the UK can throw up liability problems, says Clare Murray
March 10, 1999 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Foreign law firms have had offices in London for many years where they practise the law of their home country. The reason for their existence has been to attract work to the head office.
Strategies have changed. Increasingly, such offices are developing English law capability and senior solicitors and partners are being recruited.
An English solicitor is generally not allowed to share profits with somebody who is not a solicitor. But there is an exception for solicitors in a multi-national partnership (MNP) with registered foreign lawyers (RFLs).
Foreign law firms establishing MNPs with solicitors in the UK face a conflict between commercial objectives and regulatory and liability issues. The overwhelming commercial objective of the (usually US) firms is to present the MNP to the outside world as part of a seamless global law firm, without any separate identity. English partnership law and regulatory issues present potential obstacles to that objective.
Cross-exposure to liability
Unless steps are taken to make it clear to clients that the US firm and the MNP are separate entities, there is a risk that the two firms will be exposed to each other's liabilities. Under the Partnership Act 1890, anyone who allows himself to be held out as a partner in a firm is liable to anyone who relies on that perception in instructing the firm. A client is more likely to instruct the London office of an organisation that is presented as a single global law firm than a five-partner MNP associated with a US firm. If a client has, in fact, instructed an MNP and something goes wrong, he may claim he was relying on the holding-out of the lawyers in the US firm as partners in the MNP.
This may be of particular concern where the US firm is a limited liability partnership (LLP). The partners in the MNP are, under English law, exposed to unlimited personal liability. A client with a negligence claim against an MNP presented to him as part of a single global law firm (with no indication of the limited liability status of the LLP), will argue that the partners in the LLP should also face unlimited personal liability for that claim.
US firms have responded to these liability issues in different ways. Some have taken a cautious view and make it clear in letters of engagement, business cards and billing that the MNP and the US firm are distinct.
Other firms see it as a risk management issue. Regarding the appearance of globalisation as more important than limiting risk, they simply extend their professional indemnity policies to cover liabilities arising from the MNP. One major insurer has noted, however, that unless the insurance is carefully tailored there is a significant risk of claims falling between gaps in the cover for the two firms.
Regulatory issues
One major regulatory issue arises from the Solicitors' Separate Business Code. This is relevant where the US firm wants to appoint a solicitor partner in the MNP who will also be a partner in the US firm. The idea may be to recognise the contribution of a solicitor or to ensure greater integration of the two firms.
The business code prohibits solicitors from having a separate business in England that provides legal services, but is not a solicitor's practice or an MNP. Many US firms rely on the fact that the code only applies to firms that practise law in the UK. Consequently, such firms have closed their own offices and operate in the UK only through the MNP.
The code also applies to RFLs common to both firms. For example, where any matters are referred by the MNP to the US firm practising in London, the client must be informed of the RFL's interest in the US firm. The client must also be told that, when becoming a client of that firm, he will not have the same protections available when instructing a solicitor.
The independence of solicitors is a key professional standard. An MNP must not be operated in such a way that the independence of its solicitor members could be jeopardised. Many MNPs are effectively wholly-owned subsidiaries of the US firm, raising major independence questions.
The rules make it possible for solicitors to practise English law in the UK in partnership with foreign lawyers, but it is not easy.
Clare Murray specialises in partnership and employment law at Fox Williams.
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
© 2025 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![X Ordered to Release Data by German Court Amid Election Interference Concerns X Ordered to Release Data by German Court Amid Election Interference Concerns](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/international-edition/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2023/10/AdobeStock_627004176_Editorial_Use_Only-767x633.jpg)
X Ordered to Release Data by German Court Amid Election Interference Concerns
![Compliance With the EU's AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect Compliance With the EU's AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/25/7d/54707a6b409ca288c02206e94940/eu-artificial-intelligence-act-767x633.jpg)
Compliance With the EU's AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect
![Quinn Emanuel's Hamburg Managing Partner and Four-Lawyer Team Jump to Willkie Farr Quinn Emanuel's Hamburg Managing Partner and Four-Lawyer Team Jump to Willkie Farr](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/fa/c2/5b8749a84b7eb919caed3ca3d306/quinn-emanuel-urquhart-sullivan-office-sign-washington-13-767x633.jpg)
Quinn Emanuel's Hamburg Managing Partner and Four-Lawyer Team Jump to Willkie Farr
![Trump ICC Sanctions Condemned as ‘Brazen Attack’ on International Law Trump ICC Sanctions Condemned as ‘Brazen Attack’ on International Law](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/international-edition/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2023/11/Trump-Donald-White-House-2019-029-767x633-1.jpg)
Trump ICC Sanctions Condemned as ‘Brazen Attack’ on International Law
Trending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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