Switzerland: Structual success
Wilhelm Haarmann explains how Haarmann Hemmelrath's use of the Swiss societe co-operative business structure has allowed the firm to grow and prosper through a tough regulatory period
January 19, 2004 at 07:03 PM
5 minute read
Back in 1977, one of the world's biggest international accounting, auditing and management consultancy firms created Arthur Andersen & Co Worldwide Societe Co-operative as an umbrella organisation for all their member firms throughout the world.
The Swiss societe co-operative structure made it possible for the firm to create an international corporate structure, comprising legal entities in different countries, that provided a common roof for single member firms doing their own business at their own responsibility, while continuing to uphold the 'one firm-one vision' concept.
Haarmann Hemmelrath has always operated as a multi-disciplinary firm, comprising lawyers, tax advisers and accountants. The firm expanded quickly throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, but this growth had its downside: while the legal structure set up by the firm in Germany worked on a national level, international growth demanded, in some cases, the implementation of completely new structures.
In some locations, employees were prevented from achieving formal partner status, as local bar regulations only admitted members of the legal, tax or auditing profession.
Our management realised that our original structure no longer met the requirements of the ethical rules, tax law, liability and insurance law in all the countries the firm had opened in.
Furthermore, the Enron case, which eventually caused Andersens' demise, also triggered off a discussion about independence of auditors and accountants.
Legal bar associations, traditionally sceptical of multi-disciplinary firms in numerous countries, put more and more pressure on multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs). The bars in some countries started to reject the MDP approach; the Vienna bar association even threatened to cancel our Austrian lawyers' admission if they continued to work together with non-lawyers in the same firm. It was time for a change.
The new structural model we were looking for had to fulfil certain criteria. It had to support our international positioning, foster our integrated approach, protect our member firms from liability risks and provide a suitable framework for tax and insurance matters, while maintaining the one firm concept.
The societe co-operative (SC), codified under Swiss law, seemed to be the best possible solution for numerous reasons. One argument for the SC is its worldwide acceptance, which allows the inclusion of member firms from all countries in the world. Another is its flexibility: there is a wide scope for setting up contracts and shares. Once the framework has been agreed on, there is plenty of entrepreneurial freedom for member firms and the firm has the option of growing steadily by involving further member firms.
Each individual foreign firm can be fully structured according to the regulations in the named country, be it tax or bar regulations. At the same time, the different needs of all the professions combined in the multi-disciplinary practice can be met. There are no restrictions in professional law on the admittance of partners. In terms of tax and insurance regulations, these can be adapted to the special requirements defined by national law or conditions of the different professions.
How does the umbrella organisation work in practice? At first, the original core firm and its member firms restructure themselves as a group of independent firms located in several countries. Each firm enters into a contractual agreement with the Swiss SC. The SC is a separate legal entity which co-ordinates the group's operations on an international level. All international offices of the former partnership become separate member firms of the SC that are ruled by national legal and professional regulations of the respective country.
The SC does not offer any consulting services itself. On an organisational level it operates through various bodies comprised of partners of the group, such as the general meeting or the board of directors.
All member firms operate under a common brand and share the same values and vision. They agree to common standards of quality management and use the same technical tools. The national firms have their own partners and employees as well as fields of business and clients. Although they independently decide on their own business opportunities, they commit to keeping each other informed about matters of common interest, such as economic and legal developments in their countries or further business perspectives.
The rights and duties of the member firms are codified in the agreements the firms sign with the SC. They include regulations ranging from the right to use the group's name to the financing of the SC itself.
The main practical challenge in the transformation process from a German partnership with 23 offices worldwide to an international group was the involvement of around 100 'owners' – equity partners – in the decision-making process. In the end the vast majority were convinced that the restructuring would benefit the firm. The partnership agreement and most local contracts had to be revised and new local corporations were founded to which employment contracts had to be transferred. All these changes took several months.
It can be expected that, under the various influences of the changing economic environment, more firms will follow this example.
Wilhelm Haarmann is the founding partner of Haarmann Hemmelrath.
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 AllBig Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Dominated by Small Cap Listings
X-odus: Why Germany’s Federal Court of Justice and Others Are Leaving X
Mexican Lawyers On Speed-Dial as Trump Floats ‘Day One’ Tariffs
Threat of Trump Tariffs Is Sign Canada Needs to Wean Off Reliance on Trade with U.S., Trade Lawyers Say
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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