Two weeks ago the London Stock Exchange launched its Techmark index for hi-tech firms. Billed as the UK's answer to the phenomenally successful Nasdaq market in the US, Techmark is supposed to work where the exchange's junior market, the Alternative Investment Market (Aim), has failed. It is hoped Techmark will be the natural home for the large number of UK internet and other technology companies looking to float in the next few years. However, the sound of trumpets was muffled almost immediately when Nasdaq announced it was setting up in Europe at the end of next year, with London at the head of the queue for its base. On the surface both events are good news for firms with a track record of advising in this area. But there are plenty of reasons to doubt whether either Techmark or Nasdaq in Europe will succeed in an area where others have not. Taylor Joynson Garrett partner David Kent, who heads the firm's inward investment practice, is not so sure whether either will be the answer. "I suspect Techmark is too little, too late," he says. Kent argues that differences in investment culture across the pond mean that even Nasdaq will not necessarily succeed in Europe where others like Aim and Easdaq are failing. One reason, he says, is that many Americans play the stock markets on their own account, whereas in the UK and Europe it is primarily institutional investors handling pension funds. Consequently US investors are more inclined to back 'pre-profit' companies – ones yet to show a profit – which many of these companies are. This goes against the grain for UK and European investors. Techmark's structure has also been criticised. It is arguably little more than just a re-badging of companies already listed and not a separate stock market. The proposed amendments to the listing rules are said to be too restrictive. It also does not have access to a pan-European investor base, a problem it shares with other European markets such as Easdaq, Frankfurt's Neuer Markt and Paris' Nouveau Marche. Hopefully, these early reservations will be overcome and both Techmark and Nasdaq Europe will succeed. Either way the developments will add fuel to the debate about law firm strategy, dual capacity and transatlantic mergers and the invasion of US firms in the City. This year, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the leading US adviser on M&A for venture-backed companies, revealed plans to open in London. The number two practice, West Coast firm Brobeck Phleger & Harrison, is already in London through its joint venture office with Boston practice Hale & Dorr. And the third placed firm, the Venture Law Group, looks set to have a UK base if the merger talks between its ally Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe and Bird & Bird come to fruition. Before long, firms UK and US, will start to market themselves on the number of Techmark or Nasdaq Europe clients they have. They may be asked to provide one-stop shop venture capital advice. Clients at fast-growing technology companies are likely to appreciate the benefits of the one-stop shop, where one firm can handle their Techmark listing and/or their Nasdaq listing with equal facility.