Betting the bank - the influence of banks on law firms pervades all
This week's analysis asks whether the close relationship between law firms and banks will be damaged by a string of tougher panel reviews since the crunch. But in many respects, it's an academic debate. Law firms in the UK have over the last 20 years so wholeheartedly structured their businesses around the needs of such clients that they have very little realistic option to break from the finance houses which helped fuel the profession's growth.
March 23, 2011 at 08:31 PM
3 minute read
This week's analysis asks whether the close relationship between law firms and banks will be damaged by a string of tougher panel reviews since the crunch. But in many respects, it's an academic debate. Law firms in the UK have over the last 20 years so wholeheartedly structured their businesses around the needs of such clients that they have very little realistic option to break from the finance houses which helped fuel the profession's growth.
The UK is something of an outlier in this regard. Sure, banks are important clients in most halfway developed markets, but I would argue that there is no comparable jurisdiction where they have anything like as much legal clout as in the UK. The 'IBM factor' when discussed with regard to legal services in this country has always been misleading – it's really code for the select band of law firms that find favour with banks come the important deal.
Until very recently, there hasn't been much reason for law firms to question the role they have accorded banks – at least not for the firms on the banks' approved lists. A series of increasingly bruising panel reviews over the last two years has dampened the mood a little. But, being realistic, banks could squeeze a lot more out of most law firms before the vast majority would question their commitments.
And the truth is, while plenty of large law firms that struggle to get far with finance houses would happily give up and focus on other kinds of clients, the role of banks as gatekeepers for corporate work means few sizeable firms feel they can avoid paying the necessary tributes.
In many ways, of course, this is fair enough. Banks have put large amounts of business the way of their lawyers and are perfectly entitled to ask a lot in return. That's business.
If there's one questionable impact, it is that banks have monopolised the premium legal advisers at the expense of other large clients. If we are to believe that clients in general will become more demanding in future, there could come a time when some bluechips are no longer content to come second among equals on their advisers' premium client list.
A further issue for law firms will be the perennial question of commoditisation. In legal services, when the big 'c' strikes, there has been a broad but pretty effective response: get out of that business pronto. But investment banking is the one area in which that trick can't be easily repeated, as the practice combines plenty of bespoke work with relatively standardised, document-churning areas in capital markets, and banks like advisers to handle both ends of the spectrum.
City firms have been wrestling with that tension for years without coming up with many solutions. After all, there's no easy alternative.
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 AllGCs Responsible for Gender Balanced Boardrooms Under New EU Rules
A Dark Future of Deepfakes and Disobedient AI: What GCs Foresee For 2050
3 minute readShein GC's Responses to Supply Chain Questions 'Bordered on Contempt', Say Lawmakers
Trending Stories
- 1Appellate Division Rejects Third Circuit Interpretation of NJ Law, Says No Arbitration for Insurance Fraud
- 2'Merciless' Filing Deadline Dooms Cuban Americans' Property-Trafficking Suit Against BNP Paribas, SocGen
- 3In 2-1 Ruling, Court Clears Way for Decade-Old Wrongful Imprisonment Suit
- 4Trump Sentencing, TikTok Ban Welcome Justices Back to Work
- 5U.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
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