Is a Shenzhen Office Key for Global Firms in China?
For firms that can't boast Huawei or ZTE as clients, adding a Shenzhen office isn't an obvious choice.
November 04, 2019 at 03:30 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Shenzhen, China, has recently emerged on the radar of global law firms. I have written about how some firms have opened offices there following clients such as Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and how the city fares against Hong Kong as a legal services hub. But does everyone really need a Shenzhen office?
To answer that, let's first get a sense of the city itself. Most people know the city as a hub for China's technology companies and for sharing a border with Hong Kong. The city is also one of the economic and commercial centers in southern China and has the third-largest economy among all cities in China, behind Shanghai and Beijing. But as a legal market, even a domestic one, Shenzhen lags disproportionately behind Shanghai and Beijing.
In 2017, Shenzhen ranked No. 3 nationwide for total revenue generated by private practice lawyers. Meanwhile, lawyers in Shanghai and Beijing each generated revenues roughly 3.6 times higher. And although lawyers in Shenzhen managed to increase total revenue between 2013 and 2017 by 100%, lawyers in both Beijing (104%) and Shanghai (128%) saw even greater revenue growth. To put things in perspective, Shanghai's 2017 GDP led Shenzhen by 30% and Beijing led Shenzhen by 27%. Shenzhen's overall economy grew the fastest among the three.
Domestic Chinese firms have had offices in Shenzhen for two decades now. In 2016, Haiwen & Partners became the latest of the country's top domestic firms to land in the city. Traditionally, Chinese firms' offices in Shenzhen have focused on patents and other intellectual property work, as well as Shenzhen Stock Exchange-related corporate finance matters.
But those areas don't work quite as well for foreign firms that are mostly in China for cross-border matters and can't practice Chinese law. As I have previously noted in this space, when it comes to inbound work, firms are in Beijing for its proximity to the top government authorities and they are in Shanghai because multinationals' China headquarters are there. For outbound work for Chinese clients, firms can also work out of Hong Kong. Prominent Chinese companies are still located in Beijing and Shanghai, and many are also listed in Hong Kong, with senior executives based there.
Shenzhen has not traditionally been a fit for international law firms in terms of either inbound or outbound work. But things changed with the rise of the city's tech sector, especially Huawei, which continues to be privately held and has resisted taking in foreign capital. ZTE, the patent-heavy Chinese telecom company and close rival of Huawei, eventually attracted two U.S law firms to be the first-ever foreign entrants in the city.
Both of those firms—Brinks Gilson Lione and Fish & Richardson—focus on representing Shenzhen-based clients like Huawei on U.S.-based patent matters, including litigation. In other words, outbound work. Huawei is unique in many ways, and there aren't many Chinese companies like it.
For firms that can't boast Huawei—or ZTE, which is listed in Shenzhen—as clients, adding a Shenzhen office isn't an obvious choice. That is doubly so for firms that already have offices in Beijing, Shanghai or Hong Kong. Both Brinks and Fish are new to China and have no other offices in the region. Perkins Coie, which has offices in Beijing and Shanghai, recently launched a Shenzhen branch for its intellectual property agency, instead of a legal office.
Foreign firms still struggle to succeed with their China practices. It's a challenge to justify having offices in a country where the inability to practice local law, economic slowdowns and low fees all conspire to limit opportunities. Adding a new office in Shenzhen might seem like a temporary fix for some firms that lack a viable China strategy, but without a compatible practice, simply following others into a new market isn't likely to be a long-term solution.
Email: [email protected]
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 AllHSF Locks In Its American Dream. But What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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