Law firms have long been talking about how best to tackle the world's second largest economy. Some have local associations, some have representative offices. Most are waiting patiently for the government to reveal more details on the Shanghai Free Trade Zone.

But for Joe Andrew, the global chair of international firm Dentons, there is nothing left to do but merge with a local outfit. He believes China's economy will not wait, and that experience and local ties are crucial for a strong practice.

"All firms that have global aspirations spend time thinking about China, but we want to be the first global law firm to combine with a large, respected Chinese firm," he says. "Every single law firm needed to do it 10 years ago – none of us did. Every global law firm should be bigger and better in China. Everyone is looking at how quickly they can convince someone to form a new firm with them."

Andrew acknowledges that King & Wood Mallesons has clearly made the most progress, but is still held back by its lack of relative US depth. Evidently its recent decision to focus on a network of relationships in America instead of a formal merger highlights the ongoing challenges firms come across when trying – quite literally – to have the best of both worlds.

Andrew says this is the biggest issue facing the legal industry today.

"There is yet to be a combination between a large Chinese firm and one with a significant presence in the US," he explains. "You can't imagine a world where other industries don't have this."

The good news is that things may be getting easier, at least for those on the US side. China is taking small steps towards internalisation, and the local firms themselves are understood to be thinking more seriously about their international merger prospects as outbound deals increase in number and across sectors.

"The market is changing," Andrew observes. "Firms that used to say they wanted to stay independent are now afraid of losing referrals. Particularly the elite."

But China is not the only Asian market that Dentons is eyeing as a means to becoming truly global. Australia, the world's 12th largest economy, is also a key piece of the pie which the firm is yet to conquer. 

"We remain very interested in Australia and New Zealand, and indeed, the whole Pacific rim," Andrew adds. "If you're interested in Asia you should be interested in Australia."

The fact that the country is over-lawyered makes it even more appealing in view of the talent war in Asia, he notes. Add to this Dentons' strong Canadian, Middle Eastern and African practices, and the country becomes an obvious target for the firm in view of trade flows between Australia and these regions.

The problem is the lack of domestic outfits looking to merge with an outsider – most of the big combinations having already gone ahead between 2009 and 2012. Yet Andrew is optimistic, believing that late is better than never. He also believes his firm may present a more appealing proposition than some others.

"Energy, resources and mining is a strength of our firm, so there is an economic advantage when you already have a strength in those areas. We are also not UK or US – we are polycentric. Every big or small successful firm in Australia has many different options but they tend to be either UK or US. The markets that are good for Australia are not necessarily UK or US. They are interested in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Canada."

An appropriate merger partner is going to be one of size and depth, Andrew concludes, saying this is the best way to offer real domestic expertise. Unlike his rivals he is not fazed by partner numbers or dilution of profits. In fact, he believes these issues should no longer present barriers for the wider industry.

"We always start at the top; we want to go with a firm that is as large and strong as possible in its market.

"We have no concern about dilution of profits. Size is a benefit not a hindrance. Our goal is always the firm with the deepest strength. What will improve the economics of the Australian firm is to follow its clients elsewhere. The partners all benefit.

"It doesn't decrease the profits if you're in a verein structure. [The decision not to have a verein] is to do with peoples' perception of how they want their firms to operate. Decisions are based on traditions not economics. A verein structure is always the first step."