Law firms with global aspirations need a clear strategy to aid financial planning
Global expansion is certainly on the top of the agenda of many firms, whether it is making their first move abroad or increasing their footprint as opportunities in emerging markets beckon. When it comes to taking the plunge, however, there are several factors that need to be considered when it comes to funding expansion and managing associated risks. First, firms must consider their rationale for wanting to expand abroad. Is it because clients expect them to have offices abroad? If so, the firm must expect its existing customers to provide it with a substantial amount of business for the move to be worth it.
August 31, 2011 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Barclays Corporate's Jane Galvin on the steps law firms need to take when planning international expansion
Global expansion is certainly on the top of the agenda of many firms, whether it is making their first move abroad or increasing their footprint as opportunities in emerging markets beckon. When it comes to taking the plunge, however, there are several factors that need to be considered when it comes to funding expansion and managing associated risks.
First, firms must consider their rationale for wanting to expand abroad. Is it because clients expect them to have offices abroad? If so, the firm must expect its existing customers to provide it with a substantial amount of business for the move to be worth it.
Alternatively, is the expansion attributed to the firm's growth strategy to grow the business abroad and achieve higher profitability through new clients? If so, the firm has to carry out sufficient due diligence to establish the market appetite and determine whether opening a new office will provide it with the opportunity to win new clients.
Funding for a new office when expanding internationally will depend on the overall requirement of the firm. The parent firm may use existing cash capability or a capital call on its partners to raise cash. Other options include bank working capital and external finance, post-Legal Services Act.
When it comes to bank finance, decisions need to be made about whether to borrow locally or from the UK. Generally, all funding will be done via the parent firm, which will raise the funds centrally and disseminate to the new firm. It is more difficult for the new firm to raise funds abroad, as the local bank may be unwilling to lend to a new start-up or require a guarantee from the UK bank. In addition, the UK bank will provide more competitive pricing – ie lower borrowing costs – if it knows the parent.
An immediate risk to consider from international expansion is currency exposure, as the new office is likely to be billing and incurring costs in the local currency. Exchange rate risk only occurs to the extent that the office is being subsidised by the parent firm. Therefore, currency risk will lie with the parent firm as it offsets the local costs and converts the remainder to sterling. The parent can implement hedging strategies to minimise its exposure, which will help smooth and remove unexpected currency movements. Forward contracts will set exchange rates and therefore allow the firm to budget for costs that it will incur when setting up abroad.
Barclays Corporate recently carried out a survey among the top 50 UK law firms looking at the importance of risk management for each firm and their attitudes towards hedging against foreign currency (FX) risks. The research shows that 23% of firms surveyed consider FX exposure a 'significant risk' to their firm, with 53% of firms stating they have been actively managing their exposure for more than a year.
When it comes to hedging, law firms are beginning to take a more portfolio-based approach, and we have seen the number of firms that hedge double in the last two years. When compared to corporates that are similar in size, however, this number is still small, with our research showing that 75% of the top UK firms do not currently hedge to mitigate their FX risks.
Further risks to consider when opening abroad include differing legal regulations. For example, employment law in Hong Kong requires firms to employ one local lawyer for every UK-based individual who is brought over. Some countries do not recognise limited liability partnerships and therefore such firms need to take this into consideration when setting up abroad. There also exists the possibility of setting up the local firm as a branch or as a separate entity.
In addition, firms need to decide how they plan to reward local partners – will it be based on local profits only or will it be dependent upon the global profits of the whole firm? These decisions can impact the culture of the firm and the partnership.
Overall, when considering expanding abroad, firms need to make sure they are clear about their strategy and that they carefully evaluate the options available, which will in turn help them to plan and budget accordingly.
Jane Galvin is the managing director and head of professional services at Barclays Corporate.
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
© 2024 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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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