Scots partners brand Ashurst launch as 'unfair' and 'anti-competitive'
Ashurst's launch of a low-cost base in Glasgow has provoked strong feelings in the Scottish legal market, with senior lawyers voicing concerns over the potential impact of the move. The UK top 20 firm this Wednesday (12 June) declared its intention to build a 150-strong 'near-shoring' base in Glasgow, marking the first launch by an international law firm in Scotland with the financial backing of regional development agency Scottish Enterprise.
June 13, 2013 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Ashurst's launch of a low-cost base in Glasgow has provoked strong feelings in the Scottish legal market, with senior lawyers voicing concerns over the potential impact of the move.
The UK top 20 firm this Wednesday (12 June) declared its intention to build a 150-strong 'near-shoring' base in Glasgow, marking the first launch by an international law firm in Scotland with the financial backing of regional development agency Scottish Enterprise.
Ashurst could receive as much as £2.4m in funds from the agency, based on the firm employing 300 staff in Scotland within five years.
However, senior partners at Scots law firms believe the country's government has handed non-Scottish firms an advantage which could cause long-term damage to the local legal market.
One senior partner at a Scots law firm said: "We are not supportive of this initiative for several reasons. We can understand why at first blush the Scottish Government would think it is an attractive proposition to attract jobs into the country; however, we have a strong indigenous workforce in Scotland and to favour law firms from London that operate with profits far higher than those in Scotland, and to pay them for the privilege, seems manifestly unfair.
"We have a strong labour pool here – well respected – and with financial incentives offered it only works as a mechanism to provide outsourcing at a discount. The Scottish legal profession contributes a huge amount to the economy but incoming firms from London will now be in the position to offer higher salaries, although lower than in London, which Scottish firms will be unable to match – and all subsidised by the taxpayer.
"This scheme will be counter-productive for the Scottish legal community and to Scotland and we think this is the wrong thing to be doing. We are also puzzled and disappointed with the Law Society of Scotland's backing of this initiative."
Another senior partner at a Scots firm concurred: "In an industry which is over-lawyered, for the government to support firms from another country to set up here is quite astonishing. I 100% welcome competition, but it has to be on a level playing field. To offer the 11th largest firm in the UK, which generates partner profits of £750,000, a subsidy of £8,000 per employee is not a level playing field and is anti-competitive."
The news comes after Allen & Overy and legacy Herbert Smith both secured financial support from Invest Northern Ireland to launch bases in Belfast in 2011, with the top 10 UK law firms receiving £2.5m and £734,000 respectively.
Scottish Enterprise confirmed that a number of other law firms are now considering following the path set by Ashurst by opening bases in Scotland.
Burness Paull & Willamson chairman Philip Rodney commented: "In terms of weighing Scotland against the other low cost base of Northern Ireland, we have the advantages of a great talent pool and being on the mainland with better connectivity to London."
Ashurst expects the new base, which will open later this year, to house 150 staff within the next 12 months, including 30 legal analysts and 120 business support staff, with the firm set to recruit heavily in the Scottish market. The legal analysts – a new role similar to that of a paralegal – will support Ashurst's disputes and finance practices in London.
The office will be led by former Dundas & Wilson partner Michael Polson, who left the Scots firm last year.
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 AllSpanish Firm Continues Geographical Diversification With Latest Partner Appointments
MoFo Replenishes Singapore Corporate Partner Loss as Lawyer Returns From Gibson Dunn
Trending 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