Despite lack of growth so far, Addleshaw Goddard is keeping faith with its Singapore office
When Addleshaw Goddard opened in Singapore in 2012, it marked the start of a belated international push by the firm. But two years on the firm still has just one partner based permanently on the ground in the city-state.
December 02, 2014 at 07:33 PM
5 minute read
When Addleshaw Goddard opened in Singapore in 2012, it marked the start of a belated international push by the firm. Citing a need to take its arbitration practice to the next level and move closer to its clients in Asia, the firm appointed litigation partner and ex-Winston & Strawn lawyer Jamie Harrison to lead the office. At the same time, senior partners were plotting Addleshaws' expansion into the Middle East to complement the practice.
Two years on the firm still has just one partner based permanently on the ground in the city-state. With the conclusion of a firmwide strategic review due to be unveiled at next week's partner conference when the firm's plans for the next five years will be outlined, questions could be raised over what will happen to Addleshaws' first non-UK office.
Though partners were careful never to give a precise headcount target at the time of opening, there was certainly talk of future expansion.
Harrison, who continues to oversee the office, maintains that it was always meant to be a small offering in Singapore, focused on international rather than local work. Nigel Francis, who now heads the Asia region, admits that the base may have taken a backseat as the firm shifted its focus to Hong Kong, where it launched in May 2013.
But he remains confident of future investment. "It was really the need to establish Hong Kong, get it bedded in, which essentially took attention away from Singapore for a period," he tells Legal Week. "The approach is to build that practice out – and it's only really a question of timing."
Francis also stresses the need to look at Singapore as part of a wider Asia offering, rather than a standalone entity. In Hong Kong the office has grown from two to 24 lawyers since its launch, including three partners. The aim is to have up to 45 people in Hong Kong, and potentially a team of five or six partners. In Dubai there are three partners on the ground and one consultant.
One problem with seeing an Asian offering in a holistic way is that Singapore and Hong Kong now have rather different roles to play for Asian and global investors, with the city-state serving as a hub for ASEAN activity and Hong Kong functioning
as a springboard for Chinese deals. There are also questions over how Addleshaws can compete in Singapore given that even established international firms continue to grapple with practice restrictions on overseas firms, fee pressure and competition from a highly sophisticated band of local outfits. Firms on the ground have found it particularly difficult to build offices around a disputes practice, as opposed to a corporate-first strategy.
"It is a challenge," Francis acknowledges. "[The competition] is one reason why one wouldn't want to rush any investment plan; you've got to know why you're there and what you're trying to do.
"In terms of being able to demonstrate that we have a credible presence on the ground we know that ideally that would be enlarged to include a full-time corporate partner, but we do genuinely intend to support it from here [Hong Kong]. Others I can't speak for – does anyone make substantial sums of money in Singapore?"
He adds that the firm remains focused on international work and has no intention of forming either a joint law venture or formal law alliance because of the amount of investment required.
For now at least, there seem to be no plans to close the office. According to fellow partner and head of the construction practice Jonathan Tattersall, it remains crucial for Addleshaws to have bases in all of the major arbitration centres, excluding Paris and New York.
As for Francis, an important justification for Singapore has been the flow of work back to the UK, as well as its ability to complement a potential construction practice in Hong Kong. "Outbound referral work is significant," he says. "You can't measure the success of the office simply on the basis of its domestic billings.
"At the moment the investment justifies itself and we're happy with where we are… We've had substantial instructions in the UK that we wouldn't have had but for the fact that we're in Singapore."
————————————————————————————————
So what about the rest of Asia?
Away from Hong Kong and Singapore, Addleshaws also has a formal alliance with Japanese best friend Hashidate Law Office. In February the firm mooted plans to apply for a licence in Beijing in order to support Hong Kong and to further tap the PRC market for outbound and disputes work.
Francis says there are now no plans for an office in the capital, and denies that having a base there is crucial for outbound work.
"We did look at whether Beijing is something we should consider and the answer to that is currently 'no'," he says, "It has to be a question of priorities and you haven't got infinite amounts to invest in every different direction. You've got to work out what comes first."
In South East Asia, there was talk of allying with a regional firm, but this is also now on the backburner.
"As Hong Kong was developing there was a suggestion for a tie up; I think we decided it was too early in the day to go forward with it," Francis says. "One doesn't rule out a tie up but there isn't anyone who has currently got a regional network which is bedded in, in any meaningful sense."
|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 AllInternational Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Litigate Before the EU’s Top Court, the European Court of Justice
- 2After Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
- 3Attorneys Allege Contract Broken for Sharing $13M in Fees From MDL
- 4ZwillGen Acquires Lawyers, Scientists and Technology from Luminos.Law, Developer of Luminos.AI Platform
- 5Clifford Chance Strengthens Private Credit Offering With Mayer Brown Partners
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