'We're already taking work away from the magic circle' – what lawyers really think about Brexit
While law firms are publicly putting on a brave face over Brexit, the private views of many lawyers paint a very different picture
September 05, 2018 at 04:40 AM
6 minute read
With just over 200 days to go until Brexit, Legal Week recently gauged the mood among City partners on the likely impact of the UK's impending withdrawal from the EU, as the prospect of a no-deal outcome begins to look like more of a reality.
While in public, law firms have been keen to trumpet the 'business as usual' line and play down fears that Brexit could lead to job cuts and reduced revenues, our Big Question survey found that in private, many lawyers are feeling much less confident.
As well as finding 75% of respondents in favour of a second referendum, more than 70% said Brexit would hamstring UK law firms in the war for talent, making them even more vulnerable to the competitive threat presented by US firms courting their top rainmakers.
The survey also generated a large of number of anonymous responses from lawyers keen to have their say – here are a selection of the comments we received.
'The UK is now seen as a a joke by Europe' – the impact on London's status
- "We're already taking work away from magic circle firms, and a lot of work is already dominated by US firms and banks – there's much less use of UK firms. The lack of clarity on how Brexit is going to unravel is putting a hold on a number of investments. Why would you bother taking your chance in the UK?"
- "As part of the EU, London has become the New York of Europe. Outside the EU, it will simply no longer be able to retain that status."
- "The worst aspect of Brexit is that the UK is now seen as a bit of a joke by the rest of Europe. It would have been acceptable if the government had had a clear and workable plan from the beginning, but it is now clear that there was – and still is – no workable plan. Sadly, this is what other Europeans now expect from the British. We have become a laughing stock, and it is very sad."
'Brexit is a huge mistake' – the argument for a reversal
- "Brexit is a huge mistake and self-inflicted economic damage. It should be reversed and the leaders who misled the public about what it would involve should be put on trial."
- "I back a second referendum so that people have the opportunity to vote in the context of the consequences, as we now know them to a greater extent."
- "A decision to choose English law and English courts for a cross-border transaction is the result of multiple factors which have over the past many years favoured that choice. Brexit just puts a spanner in the works and tarnishes the image of our law and legal system's relevance and openness to international affairs."
- "Brexit is a big mistake and a distraction from the UK's real needs and problems."
- "This is a disastrous situation and the government appears to be doing nothing to prevent the enormous amount of damage this will cause."
- "Advice from the UK to EU-based clients in matters within the EU courts' competence will not benefit from legal professional privilege, meaning that EU-based clients will be disinclined to seek UK-sourced advice."
- "Brexit is a bad decision for the country, the economy and law firms. It will make the UK poorer and more isolated."
'A chaotic Brexit will bring opportunities for law firms' – the balanced view
- "Law firms will be differently affected depending upon whether their business is purely UK domestic or pan-European. Brexit may drive activity in the short term in both UK and Europe as businesses adjust their structures and models, but the longer-term negative impact on the UK economy will reduce UK activity, perhaps compensated by greater European activity as investment is redirected to EU countries."
- "Where would companies go? Dublin? It doesn't have the infrastructure. Paris? I can't see that happening. Americans are unlikely to go to Germany or France because they tend not to speak those languages. In the UK, we have amazing regulators and the infrastructure. There's a tiny proportion of City businesses that won't have factored in Brexit and made the necessary investments. Many companies would rather be in the UK than the EU. So what is EU agriculture and manufacturing going to do? There's more for the EU to lose."
- "A chaotic Brexit will bring opportunities for law firms – chaos normally favours lawyers. However, it is likely to reduce cross-border dealflow in the key transactional sectors that are the mainstay of big law firm practices. I don't know which will have the greater impact, but that is exactly the point."
- "As a business, we're international – the majority of our business is in the UK, but we are as a firm trading in South Africa, the Middle East, China and Australia, and within those other markets there are political actors that may have most impact within those regional centres. It can be quite easy for us to think that the most important global economic issue is Brexit, but for a huge number of international businesses there are other political factors having an impact."
'Brexit is key to the long-term preservation of English law' – the positive view
- "The great British legal system will to continue to be the main choice for international contracts and disputes. Brexit will have no impact on this."
- "Brexit is key to the long-term preservation of the robustness and reliability of the English common law, which delivers genuine freedom to people in Britain and commands the respect of lawyers the world over for its underlying fairness. This is ultimately incompatible with the approach of mainland Europe's civil code systems."
For more, see 75% of City partners back second Brexit vote as 'no deal' concerns grow.
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 AllWhat About the Old Partners Who Have No Interest in AI?
Freshfields' Rebrand: Firm Still Committed to Germany, Senior Partner Says
4 minute readWhich Law Firms Have the Most Followers on Social Media?
Trending Stories
- 1Don’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
- 2Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
- 3Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here
- 4AI Poisoning: A Novel Cybersecurity Option
- 5The Expanding Universe of Attorney Cyber Liability
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