Commentary: Northern Rock payout shows City the value of public service
Before M&A fell off a cliff, it is fair to say acting for the Government was not seen by most City law firms as particularly glamorous or lucrative. Many top London firms, until recently, went as far as to actively avoid Whitehall, citing low rates and conflict problems. This is in stark contrast to the US, where elite law firms routinely seek cutting-edge public work with scant regard for fee levels.
April 01, 2009 at 11:13 PM
3 minute read
Slaughters' role as Treasury bailout counsel marks growing appeal of trophy public work
Before M&A fell off a cliff, it is fair to say acting for the Government was not seen by most City law firms as particularly glamorous or lucrative. Many top London firms, until recently, went as far as to actively avoid Whitehall, citing low rates and conflict problems. This is in stark contrast to the US, where elite law firms routinely seek cutting-edge public work with scant regard for fee levels.
But with the recession taking hold of deal activity, details of Slaughter and May's £9.4m fee for work on the nationalisation of Northern Rock looks set to mark something of a tipping point in adviser attitudes. Figures detailed in last month's report from the National Audit Office (NAO) show Slaughters made £6.1m in the first six months of instruction by the Treasury on the bank's nationalisation, with a further £3.3m coming since March 2008.
Add in the other advice Slaughters has provided the Government on subsequent bank bailouts, recapitalisations and related litigation – already in excess of £20m in fees – and it is not a relationship to be sniffed at in any point of the market cycle – let alone in the depths of a downturn.
It is also one of only a handful of public examples of a deal where legal fees have outstripped those of the banks, with the magic circle firm picking up nearly twice as much as the hardly-inexpensive Goldman Sachs, the Treasury's financial adviser.
In part, this reflects the novelty and complexity of the deal, but perhaps more so it shows the advantage, in this instance, of law firms' hourly rates over banks' looser charging model.
In contrast, Slaughters settled on an hourly rate with the Treasury. This was offered on a preferential rate at a discount to its typical rates, though there was a 15% uplift agreed on the basis of the complexity and round-the-clock availability required.
Yet the level of Slaughters' fees was by no means excessive – at least against the yardstick of its City peers. Slaughters was billing about £1m per month at its height on Northern Rock for a team of partners and lawyers led by Charles Randell. Partners across the City suggest that figure is paltry compared to what could be earned from a public company on a comparable mandate; but it's not always about money. Slaughters has clearly gained positioning and experience with its tradition of handling flagship work for the Government, a role it played most famously during the privatisations of the 1980s. It is a role the firm has largely had to itself, but it appears set to face a little more competition with Allen & Overy, Linklaters and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer winning places in 2007 on the Government's Catalist panel. With headline-grabbing work now having a public dimension, the lure of the public sector will likely grow.
Still, one thing is clear: with intense public interest in how the Government is spending money to bail out banks, law firms will have to get used to being thrust into the spotlight, as Slaughters has been on Northern Rock. It is a position that attention-shy City firms are culturally ill-equipped to handle, but it goes with the package – so Whitehall hopefuls had better toughen up and get accustomed to a little democracy.
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 AllKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Combative Arguments at EU's Highest Court Over Google's €4.13B Antitrust Fine Emphasize High Stakes and Invoke Trump
4 minute readLaw Firms 'Struggling' With Partner Pay Segmentation, as Top Rainmakers Bring In More Revenue
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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