Suzanna Ring talks to the founding partners of three breakaway firms about making their vision a reality and the evolution of their roles

Converting the dream of running your own successful law firm into the reality of creating a successful enterprise that can compete against a market steeped in history is a challenging task. And as the firm grows, almost as challenging is maintaining the culture and feel of the partnership you created. Looking back to when they initially started out, the founding partners of three younger firms explain how their vision evolved into the firms we know today.

Media darling

Dubbed the media darling of law firms, Olswang has managed to maintain its air of cool three decades on. Set up in March 1981 by Simon Olswang, Mark Devereux and Liz Matthews as a breakaway from property law firm Brecher & Co, the trio decided to take advantage of the new wave of activity in the UK film industry, with film production company Goldcrest, creator of Chariots of Fire and Gandhi, marking one of the firm's first clients.

The momentum continued and by 1982 the TV and advertising industries were growing rapidly, with the firm discovering it had landed on its feet. "In 1982 Channel 4 came on the scene and, because we had quite a lot of experience in independent films, we got quite a bit of work advising on independent TV production and distribution. Then we got into the advertising world with the M&A activity that went on in that sector in the 80s. Our first decade was really focused on media," says Devereux.

Olswang grew gradually over the next decade, reaching 10 partners in 1990, when it began to develop more of a focus on technology as well as media, in a move that was prophetic of the way the world would change so dramatically by the noughties and beyond. By 2000 there were 44 partners in the firm.

"2000 was a fairly pivotal time for us because it was the end of the dotcom boom and we were the dotcom darling," remarks Devereux.

He adds that, retrospectively, the changes technology has brought to the legal sector often makes one "look back and think, 'how on earth did we manage to get anything done quickly?'"

But somehow they did, and the firm now has a number of high-profile media deals under its belt, including the financing of the highest-grossing film of all time, Mamma Mia!, at the UK box office, which saw Devereux work with stage producer Judy Craymer and ABBA duo Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus.

So after celebrating the firm's 30th birthday this year, how does Devereux feel? "I don't think there's anything I would have done differently in the past 30 years. I think we've created something really special and one of the mantras of the firm is to always try to be different. My ambition for the firm is to be the global leader in media and technology. We haven't got there yet, but we're well on the way."

Shipping king

From satellites to shipping, another trio to take advantage of industry boom in the early 80s was Martin Watson, Alastair Farley and Geoffrey Williams, who set up shipping leader Watson Farley & Williams in 1982.

A breakaway from Norton Rose, Watson, Farley and Williams saw an opportunity to set up a niche shipping practice with a vision for international expansion. "As a group involved in international business, we were very successful within Norton Rose. But we felt somewhat stifled there by the lack of will for international expansion, so we decided to set up a firm of our own.

"We had large market shares within Norton Rose in our sectors and were relatively confident that we would be able to take work with us," says Watson.

With a tax specialist and offshore specialist joining the group as well, some of the firm's first pieces of work included acting for ships in the Falklands War.

The firm grew quickly as it saw that critical mass would be key if it was to realise its international ambitions; however, in the 90s, the firm retracted some of this growth when it recognised that it was becoming distracted from its core shipping business. Watson remarks: "We grew very quickly and had to move offices four times in the 80s and early 90s. We couldn't have planned for the extraordinary growth. We wanted to remain a boutique firm, concentrating on our core sectors, but had to have critical mass in those sectors and to follow our clients internationally.

"The firm did expand too quickly, though, and we picked up some add-on practices areas that were not really core and that we had to contract in the mid and late 90s. However, what we did during the 80s and early 90s set the stage for the growth of the firm generally."

And grow it has. With 12 offices and 103 partners today, the firm continues to increase in both revenue and size. However, success has not come without its lessons, and Watson openly admits that there were things they could have done better. "People management is the important thing in all of this. Keeping good people is essential, and that's the thing I think we could've managed a bit better at the beginning.

"The problem, if it is a problem, was that we were attracting ambitious people and inevitably they had their own ambitions – in some cases conflicting with the firm's," says Watson.

Despite these lessons, the firm has fared well against its older counterparts, managing to maintain its core and internationalise and demonstrating that it can keep up with the market.

Watson adds: "The antecedents and experience of the partners – particularly the name partners – were at the outset what was important to winning business. There was a cross-over point, fairly early on, when Watson Farley, as an institution and brand, became the driver of business growth. The relative youth of the firm has never, to my mind, been seen as a negative factor."

New kid on the block

Despite being in their infancy compared with the century-old institutions that occupy the legal market today, Olswang and Watson Farley are in fact relatively mature when sat next to new kid on the block Kemp Little.

Set up in 1997, Kemp Little could be seen as the younger brother to Olswang, with a shared focus on media and technology. The firm was launched by Richard Kemp, who at 40 decided to leave legacy Hammonds, deciding that "it was now or never" if he was going to go his own way. He says: "With hindsight, the economy was moving into an upswing and there was a lot of technology work around, so it was a good time to be starting out."

The flow of work has seen the firm grow from one partner to 12 in its 14 years and its practice has evolved, with an emphasis now on being "comprehensive around technology" in a bid to meet the needs of its technology clients, with corporate, employment and intellectual property litigation practices now bolted on.

That is not to say that setting up the firm has not been hard, and Kemp cites the fact that "if you leave your previous firm as a partner, the 'just and faithful' duties mean you can't go around touting your clients before you leave – so if you do it right, it's bit of a leap in the dark," as one of the issues.

When asked about the next 10 years, Kemp says: "We're relatively confident and optimistic about the market position and outlook for our firm compared with the firms we compete with for a number of reasons, including the fact that technology is a great differentiator for our firm in a crowded market and, as a new entrant, we're less 'changeophobic', we believe, than many of the much larger firms we compete with."

As the firm gears up for the era of the Legal Services Act, Kemp Little is well positioned to take advantage of the market and to hold its own against its competitors.

Recent management changes saw the dissolution of the managing partner role and the introduction of a chief operating officer, as Kemp Little looks to ensure it is seen as a business, not just a law firm.

Here to stay

With enough history to validate them, Olswang, Watson Farley and Kemp Little are all examples of thriving practices, with founding partners who have managed to stay involved with the firm and open up the management to the hands of others.

With all seven founding partners breaking away from larger firms, which they ditched in favour of doing it their own way, they have defied the critics and shown that lawyers can be entrepreneurial and not always adhere to the risk-averse stereotype.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Old School – Two descendants of founding partners keep it in the family

As well as a firm to manage, senior partners Harold Paisner and Patrick Russell also have a legacy to uphold. Descendants of Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) and Charles Russell, Paisner and Russell have had quite a different experience than most. Not harbouring the responsibility of founding a firm, but not just partners, these two are in the rare position of having a sentimental attachment to their work that goes beyond the job.

The Paisners

Set up by Harold Paisner's (pictured) father Leslie in 1932, legacy Paisner & Co started off small, but by the time it merged with Berwin Leighton in 2001, the firm had changed beyond recognition.

"I think my father was very pleased to have someone carrying the name on, although in retrospect the firm was very different compared to what it is now," says Paisner.

Not wanting to go into the law initially, Paisner studied politics and economics at university and decided to join an investment bank. It was only when he had spent a few years there and become interested in corporate finance that he realised it would be useful to have a legal qualification, "so it came about that I might as well do my training at my father's firm," he says.

Accompanied by his brother, Martin Paisner, who is also still at the firm, the two stepped into their father's shoes when he retired in 1976. Paisner comments: "I fell on my feet, so I never thought of leaving the firm and going back into investment banking. It wasn't that long after I became a partner (in 1972) that my father retired and I took over effectively as managing partner and Martin took over as head of my father's trusts practice. I had a bit of a baptism of fire, as I was still young and rather inexperienced."

Maintaining a pragmatic view of the firm, Paisner acknowledges the difficulties that come with bearing the firm's name; however, he has not let it get in the way of business.

Speaking of when he joined, Paisner comments: "I tried to play down the fact that I bore the name of the firm, because we were by then not really a family firm anymore, and the equity had been opened up to outsiders and we were reasonably democratic. Family firms that do not give away equity to deserving outsiders inevitably run themselves into the ground."

This business attitude has remained, and although Paisner says his father "would be very proud of the firm," he is not concerned about the future of the name. "I'd like to think there's goodwill in the name, but leaving that aside I'm not sentimental in that respect. Whether there's a name partner or not in the firm, it really doesn't matter. If the firm was to merge again, the name could well change again."

The Russells

Like Paisner, Patrick Russell also did not expect to join his father's firm. "I was going to be a barrister and I changed my mind, fundamentally because I wanted to get married and needed some money. I earned £1,800 pounds when I was a trainee in 1976," he says.

Founded in 1891 by his great, great uncle Charles Russell, the firm has maintained its leading reputation in the private client field, originating back to its first major case that brought the firm to public notice, when Charles Russell acted for the Marquess of Queensberry over the libel actions brought against him by Oscar Wilde.

Quite an act to follow, although Russell does not feel his name has affected his time at the firm. "I don't think my name had a material impact on my peers at the firm. It wasn't as if I was a dunce who had been parachuted in – I believe I would have got my place through merit," he says.

As the 12th partner at the firm, Russell recalls how things were very different when he joined, with the partners all meeting to open the post together in the morning. However, unlike many others, he has also held management positions in the firm. "I never had ambitions to be managing partner or senior partner, but when the opportunities arose and people wanted me to take them, I felt happy to accept the challenge," he comments.

Perhaps indicative of how law firms have changed, Russell, like Paisner, also does not have any children who are lawyers in the firm; however, two of his four offspring have taken up non-legal roles at Charles Russell. "None of my four children have yet shown an interest in practising law, but two of them are working at the firm in a different capacity. It's a testament to how much law firms have changed that it is probably more acceptable now to have family members in the firm if they aren't lawyers," he says.

• Click here for the latest reader comments as they come in