Brexit has happened, now law firms need to adjust to survive
UK firms have spread to have offices across Europe in recent decades but that could all be set to change
June 24, 2016 at 05:51 PM
4 minute read
Brexit has triumphed. The Prime Minister has resigned. Markets are in turmoil. As a consequence, a sustained period of uncertainty, volatility and confusion is guaranteed – not least for English law firms, which have benefited so much from the UK's membership of the European Union (EU) since January 1973, when we first became a member of what was then called the European Economic Community (EEC).
After joining the EEC, the development of legal practice by London law firms in Europe grew tentatively as small offices were opened in Paris and Brussels by the magic circle (and their predecessors), and a handful of other firms. Their numbers grew in the 1980s, in part because of financial deregulation that came with Big Bang in 1986, which fuelled the increasing dominance of the City of London. This was supplemented by access to a reunited Germany and eastern European markets that came in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
The Maastricht treaty in 1993 created the EU, led to the single currency and the eurozone in 1999, and helped to deliver access to what became a much enlarged single market. Until now, that has provided British and international companies with direct access to 28 member states comprising more than 500 million consumers.
Many of them, together with the banks that finance their cross-border activities, became clients of UK law firms. Today, London-based firms are preeminent local players in France and Germany, they have significant operations in Spain and Italy, and they are the foremost advisers on EU law in Brussels. Meanwhile, the EU economies accounted for €18.9trn in GDP last year – more than the US.
But all that is set to change. Very dramatically. As conservative businesses, law firms will be looking to minimise risk while cautiously maximising opportunity. How they do that in such a febrile atmosphere of uncertainty remains to be seen.
Short term, law firms will need to adjust, recalibrate and respond to fast-moving events that affect their clients. Medium term, those with a network of European offices will need to carefully evaluate their viability according to changing circumstances as Britain's relationship with Europe is completely redefined. Long term, more UK firms may seek US suitors or vice versa for defensive mergers.
While there may be a short term boom in Brexit-related legal work during the next few years, long-term questions will prevail about the future of the City of London, the continued importance of English law in international contracts and disputes, and the future viability of EU legal advice.
Last year, I wrote a piece for Legal Week on Brexit. It began as follows:
Immortalised by Kipling, 'if' is a very big word. As the UK general election approaches, it is increasingly punctuating the narrative of lawyers' private conversations as they try to anticipate the potential consequences of 'Brexit' – universal shorthand for Britain's possible exit from the European Union (EU).
Three big 'ifs' must be satisfied as preconditions for this ugly word to take effect: if Britain elects a new Conservative government with an outright majority; if the much-heralded in/out referendum occurs; and if a majority of voters then say 'yes' to EU withdrawal, leading to Britain's unilateral exit.
Unlikely as it seemed in March 2015, all three 'ifs' have now been satisfied. The challenge now for many UK law firms is how best to adjust to the consequences of Brexit. Some may pay a heavy price. Others will flourish. At times of crisis, those with the clearest heads can not only make prudent decisions but also prosper, turning adversity to advantage. Who the winners and losers will be remains to be seen. We live in interesting times.
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 AllMcDermott Hits Paul Hastings In London Again As Macfarlanes Also Swoops For Talent
2 minute readRe-Examining Values: Greenberg Traurig's Executive Chairman on the Lessons of the Pandemic
4 minute readDiversity Commitments Feel Hollow When Firms Cosy Up to Oppressive Regimes
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