Davis Polk & Wardwell has refuted a $1.4m (£899,000) lawsuit filed against it by Asian legal recruiter Alan Metz in New York, saying that his claims are "entirely without merit" and "fail as a matter of law".

The US firm, which is being represented by disputes attorney William Gyves from Epstein Becker & Green, said it never accepted Metz's offer of recruiting services for the hire of former Clifford Chance Hong Kong litigators Martin Rogers and James Wadham last year, and is therefore under no legal obligation to pay him.

The claims against Davis Polk were first filed on June 6 this year, when Metz alleged that the firm deliberately excluded him from negotiations with Rogers in 2012 in a bid to avoid paying a recruitment fee.

Rogers, who is a top-ranked litigation partner in Hong Kong, joined Davis Polk in December from Clifford Chance along with his colleague, partner James Wadham, approximately six months after Metz contacted the Wall Street firm to inquire about its interest in hiring a prominent regional litigator.

New York based-Metz, who appointed Paul Wexler from US firm Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard as counsel, specialises in placing lawyers in the Greater China region and has worked as a recruiter for 30 years.

The compensation sought has been calculated based upon written contracts negotiated between him and two of the Wall Street firms who were interested in hiring Rogers and his team at the time.

In a 21 page motion, Davis Polk strongly denies any legal basis for paying a fee to Metz, on the grounds that Rogers was not identified and primarily, because it did not request any external recruitment assistance.

"[Our dismissal] arises out of a legal recruiter's attempt to extract a $1.4m fee from Davis Polk for doing nothing more than placing one cold call to a partner in the firm's Hong Kong office and then, one month later, sending one unsolicited email," it said in the document.

"Both communications from [the plaintiff] inquired into the firm's interest in hiring a Hong Kong-based litigator, whom Metz did not identify." 

"Even if Metz had actually identified Rogers and introduced him to Davis Polk - neither of which is alleged – his claims still would fail as a matter of law.

"Metz at best alleges that he offered to provide legal recruiting services to Davis Polk, and he concedes that the firm declined that offer. His attempt to parlay that unsuccessful overture into a $1.4m windfall is entirely without merit.

The motion added: "There is nothing inequitable about Davis Polk's refusal to pay Metz, when it did not request anything from him, induce any action on his part, accept his offer of recruiting services or indicate any willingness to pay him.

"Offering a benefit is not the same thing as providing that benefit."

Rogers himself has also refuted the claims, stating that he had already been introduced to partners from Davis Polk and asked about moving to the firm.

In a statement, he said: "ln the spring of 2012, I began working in Hong Kong with Davis Polk partner Bonnie Chan as co-counsel on a Hong Kong-based project.

"At a dinner in Hong Kong in the summer of 2012, Ms. Chan and Mr [William] Barron [Davis Polk's Hong Kong managing partner] raised the possibility of my joining Davis Polk's Hong Kong office.

"Subsequent discussions between me, Ms. Chan and Mr. Barron on that subject took place in Hong Kong. I had numerous conversations with thern and others at Davis Polk's Hong Kong office about joining the Hong Kong practice."

Davis Polk declined to comment.