A&O makes double partner hire to beef up its presence in the IP litigation scene

It’s not often you see magic circle firms turn to national players for lateral partner hires, but Allen & Overy (A&O) recently made an exception with the hire of intellectual property (IP) litigators Neville Cordell and Huw Evans from DLA Piper and Wragge & Co respectively.

The most interesting thing about the pairing is not where the hires came from, but that a firm like A&O made them at all. Coming after a prolonged boom that saw many of the larger City firms’ commitment to IP questioned while more lucrative corporate and finance work was on offer, the latest additions take A&O to six IP partners in London, three of whom will primarily focus on disputes.

Size-wise, it is a long way off sector leaders like Bird & Bird, which counts some 14 IP litigation partners in London alone, but it is significantly up on rivals like Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Slaughter and May (though chasing pack firms Lovells and Simmons & Simmons have remained devoted to IP over the years). A&O, of course, has first-hand experience of just how profitable IP can be, after hitting the headlines for billing more than £5m last year when representing Research in Motion (RIM) in its dispute with US technology company Visto.

Considering the firm only recruited Nicola Dagg – the partner responsible for overseeing the RIM case and now leader of the contentious IP group – in 2006 from Lovells, the firm has clearly already made inroads into the market.

Certainly, while A&O concedes that its strategy may be “swimming against the tide”, there seems little doubt that the firm is fully committed, reinforcing hopes to expand its wider IP disputes practice. On top of its London hires, A&O plans to bolster the practice internationally, with the US in particular marked out for growth, as scorched-earth IP disputes regularly generate astronomic legal fees stateside.

Dagg certainly talks a good game, commenting: “Both Neville and Huw are high-quality IP litigators and the hires come at a time of growing appetite for IP litigation. We feel that we’re three of the most tenacious and dynamic IP litigators in London. Our business model is looking after the interests of the firm’s key clients. We are not just going to do the big litigation or licensing cases; we also do day-to-day matters and will continue that approach.”

And why not? After all, IP is traditionally one of the few practice areas that escapes the worst of the recession, and current feedback from upbeat practitioners is that this recession is no exception. At a time when profits are dropping, companies are ever-more willing to head to court to protect their brands, and litigation cases have almost doubled as a result.

Little wonder, then, that US firms such as Covington & Burling and Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge have been investing in their UK IP teams in recent months. The key question, of course, is whether corporate-driven firms will remain committed to IP when their core deal practices once again pick up. Most specialists are yet to be convinced.

A&O makes double partner hire to beef up its presence in the IP litigation scene

It’s not often you see magic circle firms turn to national players for lateral partner hires, but Allen & Overy (A&O) recently made an exception with the hire of intellectual property (IP) litigators Neville Cordell and Huw Evans from DLA Piper and Wragge & Co respectively.

The most interesting thing about the pairing is not where the hires came from, but that a firm like A&O made them at all. Coming after a prolonged boom that saw many of the larger City firms’ commitment to IP questioned while more lucrative corporate and finance work was on offer, the latest additions take A&O to six IP partners in London, three of whom will primarily focus on disputes.

Size-wise, it is a long way off sector leaders like Bird & Bird, which counts some 14 IP litigation partners in London alone, but it is significantly up on rivals like Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Slaughter and May (though chasing pack firms Lovells and Simmons & Simmons have remained devoted to IP over the years). A&O, of course, has first-hand experience of just how profitable IP can be, after hitting the headlines for billing more than £5m last year when representing Research in Motion (RIM) in its dispute with US technology company Visto.

Considering the firm only recruited Nicola Dagg – the partner responsible for overseeing the RIM case and now leader of the contentious IP group – in 2006 from Lovells, the firm has clearly already made inroads into the market.

Certainly, while A&O concedes that its strategy may be “swimming against the tide”, there seems little doubt that the firm is fully committed, reinforcing hopes to expand its wider IP disputes practice. On top of its London hires, A&O plans to bolster the practice internationally, with the US in particular marked out for growth, as scorched-earth IP disputes regularly generate astronomic legal fees stateside.

Dagg certainly talks a good game, commenting: “Both Neville and Huw are high-quality IP litigators and the hires come at a time of growing appetite for IP litigation. We feel that we’re three of the most tenacious and dynamic IP litigators in London. Our business model is looking after the interests of the firm’s key clients. We are not just going to do the big litigation or licensing cases; we also do day-to-day matters and will continue that approach.”

And why not? After all, IP is traditionally one of the few practice areas that escapes the worst of the recession, and current feedback from upbeat practitioners is that this recession is no exception. At a time when profits are dropping, companies are ever-more willing to head to court to protect their brands, and litigation cases have almost doubled as a result.

Little wonder, then, that US firms such as Covington & Burling and Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge have been investing in their UK IP teams in recent months. The key question, of course, is whether corporate-driven firms will remain committed to IP when their core deal practices once again pick up. Most specialists are yet to be convinced.