Fulfilling eastern promise
German firms find it easier to move across the country's eastern borders than its western ones. Derek Bedlow looks at the reasons
March 24, 1999 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
German firms may face difficulties in raising their international profiles in a westward direction, but across the eastern border they have expanded quickly.
German law firms claim several advantages over English and US firms in the former Eastern Bloc. German is more popular as a second language, the cultures are closer and, more importantly, most have adopted a German-style civil law code. Russia's legal system is in the Austrian tradition – again, similar to Germany's.
"There are so many ties between the German economy and Russia and Poland," says Peter Naegele, joint managing partner of Puender Volhard Weber & Axster. "It is natural that legal business follows commerce and industry. There have always been friendly relations between the Russians and Germans and that relationship is being revived just now."
Although the wave of privatisations that followed the fall of communism is drawing to an end, the opportunities remain attractive, as German banks and investment capital continue to head east. Oil and gas – particularly in Russia – remains a steady source of work and Poland is described as 'booming'.
The latter market is regarded as possessing the greatest potential as Poland prepares to join the European Union.
German industry is the biggest investor in eastern Europe and Russia owes more money to German banks than the rest of the world's banks combined.
But it is not an area without its pitfalls. Running an office can be very expensive, particularly where the client-base is local. Relationships have to be handled with care and getting paid can be difficult in often turbulent economic climates. Firms also have to be careful about where clients' money is coming from.
In some jurisdictions, good local lawyers are in short supply. One managing partner complains that Polish lawyers, even junior ones, are very expensive and lack loyalty. "Some very young lawyers – some of whom wouldn't even qualify for a summer job in Germany – ask for a lot of money and their loyalty is not strong. If somebody offers them $10,000 more, they usually go," he says.
The other problem is persuading senior partners to staff the eastern outposts – and it is no remedy to create local partners instead. Eastern Europe may have potential, but the offices do not earn the money to justify full equity partners in each jurisdiction.
Consequently, there seem to be two approaches to eastern Europe. One is to develop domestic practices in many cities with the intention of remaining there. The other is to cover the region from Berlin or Leipzig (or, in some cases, Brussels), operating on a transaction-by-transaction basis when clients demand it, but not to offer on-going advice in the region. In both cases, the firms prefer to act for western European and US clients rather than local ones.
In the latter camp is Hengeler Mueller Weitzel Wirtz, although it does have offices in Prague and Budapest. "For our business, what is important is M&A and financing expertise," says joint managing partner Dr Hendrik Haag. "I am not convinced it takes 10 local lawyers to be the firm of choice for companies that wish to make investments in eastern Europe."
The other approach is typified by firms such as Puender, which has offices and local lawyers in Moscow, Budapest and Warsaw in addition to Berlin and Leipzig. "If there is one creed in the German national character," Naegele says, "it is long-termism. The Russians regard US investments in Russia as short-term. We get many applications from Russian lawyers who have trained in New York and who say they feel that we might be around longer."
It seems the Germans are in eastern Europe to stay.
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 AllJapanese Boutique Marks First Foray Overseas With Singapore Opening
Clifford Chance Under Fire for Human Rights Assessment of Saudi Arabia World Cup Bid
5 minute readBaker McKenzie Appoints New India Practice Chair and Other Asia Pacific Moves
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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