Commentary: Sector 'specialists' struggle to find unique selling point
Everyone wants to be an industry expert these days rather than just a dreary old lawyer. Speak to any sizeable firm outside the magic circle and the odds are they will rave about how their new industry focus is helping them take on the big boys in their chosen areas. Whether it is Lovells trying to revive its corporate practice with industry groups or Eversheds revamping its leadership so that it is managed by practice and sector group rather than by office, everyone wants to prove they understand as much about their clients' industry as the clients themselves.
September 12, 2007 at 09:48 PM
3 minute read
Everyone wants to be an industry expert these days rather than just a dreary old lawyer. Speak to any sizeable firm outside the magic circle and the odds are they will rave about how their new industry focus is helping them take on the big boys in their chosen areas. Whether it is Lovells trying to revive its corporate practice with industry groups or Eversheds revamping its leadership so that it is managed by practice and sector group rather than by office, everyone wants to prove they understand as much about their clients' industry as the clients themselves.
But while partners wax lyrical about how the exciting strategy 'aligns them with clients', often cruelly mangling a PowerPoint presentation that could have productively been used for sales figures, there is one tiny problem – this strategy for differentiation is just a little bit hampered by the fact that, er, everyone does it.
While Simmons & Simmons and CMS Cameron McKenna can argue they were the innovators in organising their business by industry sector as well as practice area, virtually everyone has since followed suit. And, frankly, sector teams have been common in the UK for more than five years.
The problem has only been exacerbated by the fact that the magic circle has taken exactly the same approach – making it harder still for smaller firms to argue that their sector specialism is giving them an edge. Linklaters and Clifford Chance, for example, both boast understanding of industries well into double-digits with Linklaters this year jumping on the bandwagon by renaming its European projects practice as energy and infrastructure to highlight its focus.
A similar rebranding of Freshfields' projects practice and a tightening-up of its industry sectors, which saw the number of industry groups covered reduced from 15 to 12, coincided neatly with the exodus of projects partners the firm has been enjoying ever since.
What don't you specialise in?
In fact the sheer volume of industries firms claim to 'specialise' in is a problem in itself. Lovells is far from the worst offender, but its recent shake-up saw it target industries including – but not limited to – financial institutions, energy, consumer, real estate and life sciences. This is entirely reasonable, but given that the sectors cover virtually the entire corporate spectrum, it is unlikely to differentiate it too much from its rivals – bad news for a firm which has made a point of saying it is staking its future on taking on the magic circle for particular aspects of work.
As soon as law firms start launching pornography and black-market industry sector groups (and arguably they already have a fair bit of that covered in leisure and gambling teams) they will surely have covered the lot.
Even those firms that have narrowed their focus have run into problems. Take Denton Wilde Sapte. It focuses on an entirely reasonable four industry sectors. Then again, one of the four is real estate and retail, which is clearly not to be confused with its real estate practice.
And Dentons is by no means the only firm classifying real estate as both a practice and an industry sector – although perhaps its clients understand the subtle difference between the two groupings…
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 AllKMPG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The FTC’s Noncompete Rule Is Likely Dead
- 2COVID-19 Vaccine Suit Against United Airlines Hangs on Right-to-Sue Letter Date
- 3People in the News—Jan. 10, 2025—Lamb McErlane, Saxton & Stump
- 4How I Made Partner: 'Be Open With Partners About Your Strengths,' Says Ha Jin Lee of Sullivan & Cromwell
- 5Essential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
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