Go abroad to stay local - why a London office is essential for ambitious European firms
"A UK-based insurer and an Italian insurer may underwrite exactly the same big Italian risk, but the way they would handle the matter when a big loss arises is likely to be quite different..."
June 14, 2012 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
NCTM's Anthony Perotto argues that a London presence is essential for ambitious European law firms
NCTM opened up in London in 2008, right at the start of the downturn. It was not an easy decision to take at the time, but we decided against a mere representative office, choosing instead to relocate senior lawyers in order to offer high-end Italian legal advice to international clients in corporate, M&A , insurance, finance and litigation areas. Time has proven that this was the right choice for the firm and we have gone on to add more senior lawyers and cover more practice areas such as shipping, tax, competition and financial regulatory.
The reason for opening up in London was in itself a simple one: we wanted to better serve our international clients. This is, however, frequently more easily said than done. We were convinced at the time, and remain convinced now, that independent continental firms such as NCTM, looking to service international clients with high quality, local (Italian in our case) legal advice, need to take the bull by the horns, be proactive and get close to the clients. Only then can you deliver solid know-how in your own jurisdiction with a deep local knowledge matched with a crucial understanding of your clients' environment and culture. Setting up the London office was the logical move for us.
By being physically close to clients, firms like ours are exposed on a daily basis to the international business community and the industries where our clients operate. Working practices and business cultures often vary dramatically between different countries and this is particularly true when we compare Italy and the UK.
Take, for example, the insurance industry: a UK-based insurer and an Italian insurer may underwrite exactly the same big Italian risk, but the way they would handle the matter when a big loss arises is likely to be quite different, exactly because of the differences in the practices and approaches to similar problems. If you advise them, you not only need to know how best to handle the matter from an Italian legal point of view, you also need to know your client's approach and practice, otherwise your services may be technically excellent but ineffective.
By having a presence in a global city like London, we can live and breathe the different cultures and also see how clients approach issues in other legal systems. We get to see how clients prefer to handle similar matters in many jurisdictions around the world and, as a result, find we are better able to tailor our advice on issues affecting our international clients in our home jurisdiction. And this remains the driving force behind our London presence: improving our Italian legal services to our international clients.
The simple fact is that we cannot forget our day jobs. Our bread and butter work comes from practising Italian law; it comes from understanding our local markets, legal frameworks and representing clients in Italian deals, Italian matters and Italian courts.
We cannot afford to lose touch with our local markets and our real battlegrounds especially when it comes to our clients' interests there. At the same time, we provide a bridge to the UK to our increasingly international Italian client base. I am, of course, a qualified Italian avvocato and, although I do not practise English law, I am also a qualified solicitor and I find this really helps me with regards to practising Italian law on behalf of international clients.
I am sometimes asked about the differences between practising in London and in Italy. Of course, there are many, but at the end of the day I believe that these last challenging years have brought many changes to the legal profession throughout Europe and have in some way reduced the differences.
Nowadays, to succeed in a more challenging market, law firms – wherever they are from – need to apply very clear and very simple recipes: excellent technical quality, efficiency, specialisation, dedication to the client and flexibility (including on fees): this has very much reduced local differences in the high-end sector of the profession in most European countries.
So with modern thinking and new technologies, the way you handle your work does not depend on where you are sitting as much as it once did. While we will continue to have a presence in London, we do this simply so we can be more effective in Italy.
Anthony Perotto is a partner at NCTM and heads up the firm's London office.
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
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