Taking chances – Gateley and Clifford Chance prove hard choices can be the right choices
Both firms are making bold moves into new territory
May 14, 2015 at 05:01 AM
3 minute read
If further proof were needed of the rather slow pace of change in the legal profession, events over recent weeks at both Clifford Chance (CC) and Gateley provide it.
More than three years after the Solicitors Regulation Authority started handing out the alternative business structure licences ushered in by the Legal Services Act, the UK is finally set to see a law firm flotation. Though there has been much talk in the past from the likes of Irwin Mitchell about a possible float, it is Gateley that looks set to gain the historic first-mover advantage (or potentially disadvantage), assuming institutional investors take up the firm's share offer.
Venturing into such untested waters is a bold statement given everything about the listing is effectively a first. From how you decide on the all-important valuation of a law firm – which, until now, has been paying out most of its profit to equity partners – to how you sell the merits of the float to investors as well as existing and future staff, Gateley is in new territory.
But regardless of whether Gateley's move turns out to be successful in the long term it seems unlikely that it is going to lead to a flurry of similar activity at the upper end of the UK legal market. For these firms, the arguments against such efforts to raise extra capital – the dilution of profit or the risk of losing partner control – largely remain as true today as when the Act was first implemented. As demonstrated by CC's latest lockstep overhaul, the issues preoccupying partners are pretty much the same as those that concerned them five, 10 and probably 15 years ago. How do you reconcile the idea of partnership and the collegiality that once went alongside it with remuneration for hundreds of partners spread across increasingly unwieldy and geographically expansive firms?
Lockstep in its purest form may be traditional, but implemented correctly it also needs to be fairly brutal. Applying it across large partnerships operating in numerous markets – from the most developed to the still emerging – is increasingly difficult.
CC's latest move may be unpopular with some (whether because they are directly affected or they just don't like it) but the firm needs to make changes. The overhaul is far less radical than Gateley's, but in its own way it shows CC's Matthew Layton is genuinely committed to trying to change things that have arguably held the firm back in the past. And this can only be a good thing if CC hopes to compete with more profitable global leaders.
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 AllA&O Shearman Hires Knowledge and Innovation Lead from Pérez-Llorca
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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