A&O in Oz – on the cards, sort of
February is already shaping up to be an eventful month with the news today that Allen & Overy (A&O) is making its debut in Australia with a 17-partner team coming just days after Latham & Watkins reinforced its international network with a 13-partner haul from White & Case. The primary casualty of this latest move, Clayton Utz, which is losing 13 partners to the London firm, was so understandably so eager to get the news out first that A&O was caught scrabbling to catch up with its statement.
February 08, 2010 at 10:55 AM
3 minute read
February is already shaping up to be an eventful month with the news today that Allen & Overy (A&O) is making its debut in Australia with a 17-partner team coming just days after Latham & Watkins reinforced its international network with a 13-partner haul from White & Case. The primary casualty of this latest move, Clayton Utz, which is losing 14 partners to the London firm, was understandably so eager to get the news out first that A&O was caught scrabbling to catch up with its statement.
But in many ways this kind of move has been a long time coming. Initial reports of major City firms targeting the Oz market now stretch back more than a decade, when Clifford Chance (CC) first entertained non-committal merger talks with Mallesons Stephen Jaques. And both CC and Linklaters have scouted out the market in recent years, attracted by Australia's strategically useful position in Asia and the country's reputation for churning out technically accomplished and versatile lawyers with a commercial mindset.
Expectations that the City's finest would return to Oz were renewed when Norton Rose finalised its surprise tie-up with Deacons last June. With the Deacons deal explicitly sold on the basis of the increasingly key Asian market – a factor that looks even more compelling now given the region's strong performance in pulling out of the global recession – it was surely only a matter of time.
However, there may be surprise that the first magic circle firm to enter the market did not put together a deal with an unambiguously Asia-centric focus. The firms that A&O is hiring from – Clayton Utz and Freehills – are highly-regarded national practices but, unlike Australian rivals Mallesons and Minter Ellison, they have not clearly bet their future on securing pan-Asian reach.
Still, with investment from China and Japan into the resource-rich Australia and A&O already having well over 300 lawyers in Asia, the City firm is convinced this will be a compelling addition to its global network.
The deal, which includes highly-regarded corporate partner Michael Parshall, will also bolster A&O's credentials in the mining, energy and project sectors, areas in which Clayton Utz enjoys a commanding position. Critics will still argue that it is hard to make enough money in the national market to make it worth the hassle for a magic circle firm, but A&O, having spent three months researching the launch in earnest, is convinced there is a profitable market space awaiting the firm. The real proof of that conviction is that all 17 partners are entering A&O's equity.
The question on many lawyers' minds is: who will be next? Mallesons and Blake Dawson have both been cited as likely targets for a credible international partner. But Australia's top law firms, having gone through a series of national mergers in recent years, are far too large for most potential suitors' appetites. They remain an awkward size – too big to slot into a global network but not large or profitable enough to go convincingly cross-border on their own. The smart money is on targeted team raids over mega-mergers.
For more, see A&O set for Australia launch with Clayton Utz hires.
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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1On The Move: Energy Infrastructure Pro Joins Moore & Van Allen, Adams & Reese Changes Atlanta Leadership
- 2Miami Attorneys Secure $4M Settlement Despite Insurance Limits
- 3NY Judge Admonished Over Contributions to Progressive Political Causes
- 4Legaltech Rundown: Alexi Launches an AI Litigation Tool, Hotshot Announces Private Equity Practice Courses, and More
- 56-48. It’s Comp Time Again: How To Crush Your Comp Memo
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