Changing games – Norton Rose's rise heralds a changing profession
It looked significant at the time but in retrospect the 2010 tie-up between Lovells and Hogan & Hartson genuinely marked – and itself influenced – the changing shape of the legal industry. Not only because it constituted a transatlantic union between two major firms, but because the pair chose to deploy a multi-profit centre structure that has since been widely used over the last two years. Some deals haven't dazzled but none looks more significant than last week's news that Norton Rose has secured a tie-up with Fulbright & Jaworski. But then arguably it was Norton Rose that created the model for Hogan Lovells with its takeover of Deacons. Rivals scoffed but it kicked off a run of deals in Australia by firms that see themselves as well above Norton Rose's station. The underlying point? The Fulbright deal highlights the extent to which the last five years have seen industry-defining activity occurring outside the magic circle. Of course, claims that London's legal elite would wither in the face of recession were nonsense but, as a group, neither have they displayed quite the dominance we've come to expect, as we address in this week's analysis on Linklaters.
November 22, 2012 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
It looked significant at the time but in retrospect the 2010 tie-up between Lovells and Hogan & Hartson genuinely marked – and itself influenced – the changing shape of the legal industry. Not only because it constituted a transatlantic union between two major firms, but because the pair chose to deploy a multi-profit centre structure that has since been widely used over the last two years.
Some deals haven't dazzled but none looks more significant than last week's news that Norton Rose has secured a tie-up with Fulbright & Jaworski. But then arguably it was Norton Rose that created the model for Hogan Lovells with its takeover of Deacons. Rivals scoffed but it kicked off a run of deals in Australia by firms that see themselves as well above Norton Rose's station.
The underlying point? The Fulbright deal highlights the extent to which the last five years have seen industry-defining activity occurring outside the magic circle. Of course, claims that London's legal elite would wither in the face of recession were nonsense but, as a group, neither have they displayed quite the dominance we've come to expect, as we address in this week's analysis on Linklaters.
There is a certain amount of denial about this but on a neutral reading Norton Rose, Hogan Lovells and DLA Piper all look capable of becoming realistic threats, at least for the more price-sensitive work that still makes up a lot of magic circle business.
Around 2008-09 there was a well-judged shift at the top firms to focus on quality after a period of expansion, but I'd argue Linklaters and Freshfields are now in danger of over-correction. And you've only got to look at the progress made over the last five years by Norton Rose to see how much the market has shifted
Also significant is the dramatic rise of the expansive Allen & Overy, a firm that wasn't that long ago being written off by some as a magic circle player. Just hunkering down doesn't look much of an option.
It's absolutely right to assert that huge pressure is now on firms like Norton Rose to make these deals deliver, but there's no guarantee for more prestigious rivals that they'll fail. Call me old fashioned: I like my market leaders to achieve domination through shock and awe superiority, not quietly hoping potential challengers screw it up.
And even if Norton Rose Fulbright falters in execution, there will be other global pretenders, be they DLA Piper, Latham & Watkins, King & Wood Mallesons or something more disruptive. When you're the best, challenges come on many fronts.
As a breed, the magic circle has been a great advert for British business and they'll likely get back on form, but that's more likely to happen when they accept they are less untouchable than in the boom years. After all, no one ever went out of business by over-estimating the competition.
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 AllLatham, Skadden Among Firms Acting on Mubadala's $3.4 B Acquisition of CI Financial
2 minute readLatham, Jones Day and Wachtell Lead on Anglo American's $3.8B Coal Business Sale
2 minute readBig Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic about M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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