'Will clients trust them?' Partners size up prospects for KWM's European salvage operation
KWM has put together a post-administration plan for Europe – can the firm make a success of it?
January 16, 2017 at 12:35 PM
4 minute read
King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) has not lost its foothold in Europe – yet. As the legacy SJ Berwin business heads towards administration, the firm has carved out a deal to retain 30-40 partners across Europe. However, will the new business – already dubbed KWM 2.0 – be able to regain client trust? And will it get enough support from China to survive in the squeezed mid-tier legal market?
KWM's Europe, UK and Middle East (EUME) arm is expected to file for administration imminently after months of turmoil, including rising debt levels, a failed recapitalisation plan and a stream of high profile partner exits, culminating in the firm's key lender, Barclays, refusing staff salary payments earlier this month.
Against this chaotic backdrop, KWM has managed to finalise a deal with a group of partners to retain a limited operation across Europe. While full details of the new business remain unconfirmed, it appears that the firm's China arm has managed to secure a presence on the ground in a number of Europe's key business centres.
So far, Legal Week has confirmed that KWM will keep a three-partner team in Frankfurt and a larger operation in London, where it has held talks with City banking, litigation and corporate partners. Slimmed-down operations in other European cities where KWM EUME already has a presence are also being considered.
However, many in the market are not optimistic about the prospects for a pared-back European operation, given the damage the brand has sustained in Europe.
"The brand has taken very severe damage. The question is: how can you attract further lawyers and further clients to this firm?" says one former Germany partner. A second ex-partner adds: "I don't understand how anyone could think they could trade under this brand as a lawyer in Europe. Will clients trust them?"
Another former Germany partner suggests that the business could struggle to attract work beyond referrals from the Chinese business. "For me personally, it was always quite clear that the damage that has been done to the brand in Europe was too severe for me to consider an offer from KWM China. For those who are working on relevant matters with China, it does make sense to stay, but it will not work if they only rely on Chinese matters. I wish them all the best, but it will be very difficult."
One former SJ Berwin lawyer adds: "The China deal is for two groups: those who are remaining because their practices have good synergies with Asia or Australia, and those who have not found jobs elsewhere. My worry is it's got to be a short-term solution. The chances are it's not going to grow – it is going to be hard to recruit and partners must have plan Bs and Cs."
Uncertainty remains in some of the firm's continental Europe offices, which operate as legally separate entities, such as Spain, France and Italy.
"We are very concerned about what is going on in London," says one KWM Milan partner. "However, we are less concerned about our personal position in Italy. We are certainly speaking with colleagues in China but we don't need a job – we have a job. We need to agree to keep going together and cooperate together, and we are progressing with them."
While in the short term KWM's Chinese leadership may be optimistic about the benefits of retaining a skeleton business in Europe, the firm will need to think very carefully about the message it takes to the market, as one City legal recruiter explains: "The legacy of the SJ Berwin and KWM brands is not strong from a recruitment perspective – there are huge question marks around the message they take to market."
As the ex-SJ Berwin lawyer warns: "There may still be a brand but it all comes down to leadership, management and messaging. Someone needs to be in London spreading the reasons why people should still join KWM."
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 AllKingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Greenberg Takes 7-Lawyer Project- and Structured-Finance Team From Dentons in Warsaw
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
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