King & Wood Mallesons emerges as post-merger name as partners vote on union
Australia's Mallesons Stephen Jaques and Chinese giant King & Wood could rebrand as King & Wood Mallesons early next year if partners this week approve a ground-breaking tie-up between the two firms. Partners at Mallesons are voting on the deal today (23 November), with King & Wood understood to be making a decision tomorrow (24 November).
November 23, 2011 at 08:21 AM
3 minute read
Australia's Mallesons Stephen Jaques and Chinese giant King & Wood could rebrand as King & Wood Mallesons early next year if partners this week approve a ground-breaking tie-up between the two firms.
Partners at Mallesons are voting on the deal today (23 November), with King & Wood understood to be making a decision tomorrow (24 November).
Partners within the Australian firm have suggested that, if approved, the combination is likely to go live in the first quarter of 2012, with the firm to be known as King & Wood Mallesons.
Chinese regulatory constraints mean the firms cannot combine financially in a full merger, with the firms therefore set to unite under a Swiss verein structure. This would allow the pair to maintain separate profit pools while operating under a single brand name, with centralised back office functions.
The planned tie-up comes as part of a wider strategic plan at Mallesons to combine with both a US and UK firm at some stage in the future to create a global law firm leader.
King & Wood wants to become the first Chinese law firm to go global. By tying up with an Australian firm it gains access to a wider international market without the risk of losing significant amounts of referral work from firms in the UK and US.
Mallesons said in a statement: "Mallesons confirms that it is in discussions with leading PRC law firm, King & Wood. Our discussions are ongoing and part of an ongoing process. Until that process concludes, we have nothing further to add."
Several UK firms have entered the Australian legal market in recent years including Clifford Chance (CC), Allen & Overy (A&O) and Ashurst, however the proposed combination between King & Wood and Mallesons marks both the first union of a Chinese and Australian firm and the first international merger for a Chinese firm.
Commenting on the proposed union SNR Denton's Hong Kong head Keith Brandt said: "It is an absolute game changer, the birth of the first global Chinese firm. If they are not planning to add a third party now, then they most likely will in future. This is just a step along the way. King & Wood are way ahead of the rest of the pack in China. I've been here 26 years and seen at close quarter from the large state-owned companies what the Chinese can do. I don't see why not in the legal sector."
Talks between the pair first emerged in July this year, with broad support for the tie-up given by Mallesons' partners at a meeting in September 2011.Profits per equity partner (PEP) at Mallesons are understood to be higher than that of King & Wood. In 2009-10 Mallesons' average PEP stood at A$1.2m (£750,000), while according to The Australian Financial Review, the firm's best-paid partners received as much as A$1.9m (£1.2m) for 2010-11.
Mallesons currently has around 1,000 legal staff working across nine offices, including four outside Australia in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and London. King & Wood, which until recently had an existing strategic alliance with Australia's Gilbert + Tobin, has around 950 legal staff across 13 offices in China, New York, Tokyo and Palo Alto.
- Click here for Legal Week's in-depth feature on the emergence of Chinese law firms.
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 AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
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