#Asialaw issues

Survey: Chinese investment in Australia falls to second lowest level since 2006

Earlier today (8/4/2024), The University of Sydney Business School and KPMG published their ‘Demystifying Chinese Investment in Australia (April 2024) report‘ (Report) into Chinese investment into Australian businesses. If you are a lawyer with a practice focus on inbound Chinese investment, the Report makes for very sobering reading:

Chinese investment in Australia fell 36 percent to AU$1.34 billion in 2023
This represents the second lowest year in investment value since 2006
Only 11 corporate transactions between the two countries were recorded in this period

The Report covers the period January to December 2023, only relates to corporate (not individuals) and excludes Hong Kong and Macau investment in Australia (i.e. Mainland China only).

Nonetheless, the Report reads bleak – particularly given how many law firm practices here in Australia rely on this type of work to survive.

Any positives?

So, are there any positives in the Report to write home about?

Healthcare was a big winner – accounting 42 percent of the total Chinese investment into Australia – although it should also be said, their accounted for two transactions totaling AU$562 million.
Agribusiness had a big bounce – representing a 21 percent increase in value through to A$283 million. Again though, this was through two deals!
Mining was the big loser with a significant decrease from A$1.8 billion in 2022 to A$34 million in 2023!

Anything else?

With a whopping 82 percent of total investment into Australia, NSW is the home of the largest share of Chinese investment – A$1.01 billion. Victoria accounted for 16 percent followed by WA with a mere 2 percent. Have to wonder what that means for Queensland

As I said at the start, all in all not a great read if you are an Australian lawyer looking for new business out of China. One ray of hope is that investment from privately owned enterprise saw a slight uptick in 2023 – up from A$641 million in 2022 to A$878 million. I suspect a large part of this would have been in property related transactions, because if it wasn’t the Australian-based property lawyers out there with Chinese clients seriously need to think about pivoting their practice!

As always, get in touch if you want to talk through any of the above.

rws_01

5 Reasons why your business development team should be working on your business strategy and not just putting out fires!

A recent article in the Global Legal Post by Ben Edwards: ‘Law firm marketing and business development teams spend more time firefighting than on strategy‘ threw up some very interesting – if not predictable – stats:

Two thirds (65%) of marketing and business development teams [in law firms] are spending more time firefighting then developing strategy
80% of that 65% spend at least 2/3rds of their working year extinguishing fires, over providing strategic thinking
Just over half (57%) have a seat at the head table [when it comes to strategy input]
69% of respondents said they spent most of their time on addressing short-term issues rather than focusing on long-term initiatives.

And the number #1 reason given for why law firm marketing and business development teams were running from one fire to another – a lack of investment in resources.

All of which leads me to ask this question:

Do law firm partners value the service they get from their business development and marketing teams?

Another way of putting that question is this:

Do law firm partners understand the strategic value that their business development and marketing teams can provide?

Because the evidence would suggest that they don’t.

By putting – let’s be frank – high paid personnel on firefighting tasks, your firm will not be getting good value for money.

So here are my 5 reasons why your business development team should be working with you on your firm’s strategy and not just putting fires out:

1. Industry focused

Most business development professionals are laser-focused on industry expertise. They understand a particular industry sector – such as energy, resources, financial services, FMCG, property – and by and large stay in their lanes. As such, many have a deeper understanding of what is happening in that industry sector than the partners they work with.

2. Market knowledge

Really good business developers are on top of market trends and competitor intelligence. They should be able to tell you what your competitors are up to, how your competitors are ranked in the market, which clients your competitors are acting for and the relevant lateral movement in your sector.

3. Relationship Building

A critical skill of good business development professionals is building relationships. They should be able to not only tell you who the General Counsel at client and target clients are, but also who the lead procurement team will be on a pursuit or tender opportunity.

4. Data analysts

A good business developer should be able to look at a set of data and provide you insights. For example: should you be worried if the number of instructions you are receiving is on the decrease, but the value per file is significantly increasing?

5. Results driven

Every good business development professional will tell you they are only as good as their last result! By nature, they are very results driven and don’t rest on their laurels.

So there you go, my 5 reasons why you need your business development team working with you on your next strategy day rather than just putting out fires!

Also, get in touch if you need help with any of the above.

rws_01

Gung hei faat choi and San tai gin hong for the year ahead!

Happy New Year to all our clients who celebrate this occasion:

Enjoy the break.

And thanks for your ongoing support.

Some initial thoughts on the Eversheds Sutherland and King Wood Mallesons ‘exclusive alliance’

Woke up this morning – Australia time – to news that had broken overnight that Eversheds Sutherland (ES) and King Wood Mallesons (KWM) had entered into an exclusive alliance, along with a whole lot of DMs (Direct Messages) in my LinkedIn box asked me what my initial thoughts were.

So here I go with some initial, off the cuff, thoughts about this:

With the closure of the 6 KWM offices across the UK, Europe and Middle East, the deal likely brings to a happy end KWM’s sad foray into those markets and puts final closure on the SJ Berwin story.
Both KWM Australia and KWM Hong Kong are not part of the deal. While this is good news for ES’s Hong Kong team – who I hold in very high regard – it seems very odd and shows possible cracks in the Swiss Verin model that is KWM (with KWM China being party to this arrangement). I’ll be very interested to see what this means for KWM Australia in particular.
The arrangement requires – subject to “client preference and conflict clearance” – KWM China to refer all outbound UK, Europe, Middle East, Africa and South America instructions to ES. I understand the “UK, Europe and Middle East”, but why include “Africa and South America” (noting that ES has offices in Africa but not South America that I can tell)? I think this could be particularly telling given both Africa and South America will be geographies in which KWM Australia plays and so there is the potential to see KWM Australia pitching for work against work that ES has been referred from KWM China.
Noting the deal is with “Eversheds International”, there is no mention of whether the consultancy arm of Eversheds is included in the arrangement. If it is, then KWM China has boosted it offering in this space significantly overnight (although there may well be some regulatory restrictions around that [consultancy] in China).

To me though, what will likely make or break this “formal cooperation agreement” however will be:

How are inbound/outbound referrals being tracked?
How are the referring partners being rewarded for the referrals?
And, what will the KWM Australia partners make of all this given access to a network of lawyers in one of their biggest overseas geographic locations, the UK, will be gone? Do they refer work to ES, even though they are not part of the deal? Or do they refer work to lawyers/mates in other law firms who compete with ES in the UK – including, interestingly US firms with news earlier this week that: “Nearly half of the UK’s largest law firms are US-headquartered”.

I guess we will have to wait and watch this space, but my three big observations are:

(1) Not sure what Eversheds is getting out of this deal – do KWM China refer that much work into UK, EMEA and South America?

(2) Looks to be a great deal for KWM China.

(3) Are KWM Australia being left in the wilderness?

rws_01

Musings on the announced closure of Clifford Chance’s Bangkok office

At the end of last week I read with sadness the decision by Clifford Chance (CC) to close its Bangkok office. While I’m always saddened to hear that a law firm will be closing the doors on one of its offices, in the case of CC Bangkok it’s personal.

Let me take you back to 1998

The year was 1998, and what would become known as the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) had just come crashing through the door like an unwanted drunk guest to spoil what as a pretty good party. At the time this was still known as the ‘Tom Yum Goong‘ crisis in the local Thai press and the horrific murder of Australian accountant Michael Wansley (shot 8 times) was still a few months away (10 March 1999).

In short, the full measure of the financial mess, both in Thailand and the region, was only just becoming known.

What was clear however was the fact that a number of international law firms were making serious noises about entering the local market. Allen & Overy, Linklaters, Herbert Smith, Mallesons, White & Case, Freehills, Freshfields, Coudert Brothers, as well as Clifford Chance all had some form of ‘fly-in, fly-out’ operation and were either opening a local offices or expressing an interest in doing so.

Meanwhile, Baker & McKenzie had been around for so long that almost anyone who was anyone in the local Thai legal world had ‘graduated’ from that firm.

Working with one of Thailand’s leading local firms at the time – Wirot International – I was privileged to have had a front seat to much of this activity.

If you had asked me early in that year (1998) who Wirot Poonsuwan – Founder, Managing Partner and Owner of Wirot International – would have merged with (and yes, he was fortunate enough to have several dance partners), my answer would likely have been Herbert Smith.

In the end Clifford Chance offered him a sweater that he simply couldn’t refuse and we all moved over to what would become known in Thailand as Clifford Chance Wirot (CCW) on 1 January 1999.

I often wonder what would have happened if Wirot had gone with Herbert Smith? Local legal history would have been very different, that’s for sure.

As it is, over the course of the next two years core members of what was Wirot International would leave CCW for Linklaters, Freshfields, Courdert Brothers (anyone remember them? They took on Freshfield’s operations when they departed Thailand) and, eventually, Norton Rose (which itself was a sort of offshoot of Linklaters).

1999 would be a big year for CC. Not only was it the year the firm ‘merged’ with Wirot International, but they would also merge with Rogers & Wells in the US that year (we would joke that it was a three way merger and some may argue with the same level of success!). It would also be the year that CC’s Managing Partner at the time, Tony Williams, would step down and go on to found the highly successful Jomati Consulting (probably a wise move in hindsight).

And yet, from the start I was never quiet sure what CC’s strategic aims were in having a Bangkok office.

Were they looking to pick-up a large amount of debt recovery/restructuring work that was going on around town? Possibly, Wirot Poonsuwan had been at the forefront of discussions to changes to Thailand’s insolvency law to allow for US-style Chapter 11 restructurings to occur (Wirot wrote a weekly article in the Bangkok Post at that time [1998]).

Were they looking for the growing amount of divestment work going on? Possibly. Wirot did some of this work, but Simon Makinson and his team did more of it and they would go and join A&O (with whom Simon had a relationship as a trainee lawyer).

Were they looking for the NGO / Infrastructure work? Not really, Linklaters picked up Wilailuk Okanurak – who would go on to succeed Chris King as Managing Partner of the Bangkok office – to run a very successful infrastructure practice (although she does lots of other things).

What they did do was bring in the wonderful Andrew Matthews from Italy (along with his Ferrari if I recall correctly). But his practice at the time was aircraft financing, not the sort of thing you’d have expected to see done from Bangkok: but hey, why not…

My own view at that time then was that CCW’s strategic reasoning for being in Thailand was muddled. In part that was one reason I would leave CCW to join my good friend (and previous colleague at Wirot International) Pichitphon Eammongkolchai at Linklaters (where I would go on to enjoy 7 more years of fantastic times and memories).

Fast forward to 2017

Despite this, and despite the fact that there was some real hitters on the local scene at the time (late 1990s) in Siam Premier (to have a JV with Australia’s Allens – must be something with Allens and JVs!) and Chandler & Thonk-Ek (now part of the Japanese firm Mori Hamada & Matsumoto) to name two, the firm that was CCW would go on to to survive almost two decades.

That’s quiet and achievement in this marketplace.

And while much has changed – Wirot is no loner there, nor is Tim Jefferies; much remains the same – Andrew was there the last time I checked and current Managing partner Fergus Evans was a very junior lawyer back in the day.

So clearly something worked.

And so I will be very sad when I hear the firm has closed its doors for the last time. Particularly so given I believe the strategic decision for doing so is [probably once more] completely wrong.

Moving their ASEAN focus to Singapore is something CC should have done in 1998, not 2018. Having persevered to 2017, it seems short-sighted to close the office so shortly after the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) gives it access to a market of US$2.6 trillion and over 620 million people.

But that’s just my view.

rws_01

High level overview of the business of law in Asia from 1996

Anyone who may be interested in my high level overview thoughts on what the business of law looked like in Asia in the late 1990s, and how I perceive the business to have developed in the Region since, may like to see my comment to a post by Dr. Stephen Moss on LinkedIn yesterday.

rws_01

Launched today – The Asian Business Law Institute

Today, 21 January 2016, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) was formerly launched in Singapore.

According to the ABLI’s website, the:

“…Institute based in Singapore that initiates, conducts and facilitates research and produces authoritative texts with a view to providing practical guidance in the field of Asian legal development and promoting the convergence of Asian business laws.

Among ABLI’s core tasks are:

to evaluate and stimulate the development of Asian law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further convergence of business law among Asian Countries;

to study Asian approaches regarding business laws and practice in drafting legal instruments, restatements of law or model rules;

to conduct and facilitate pan-Asian research, in particular to draft, evaluate or improve principles and rules which are common to the Asian legal systems; and

to provide a forum, for discussion and cooperation, between the business community and the legal fraternity including, inter alia judges, lawyers, academics and other legal professionals, who take an active interest in Asian business law development.”

With the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in December 2015 and the formal launch of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) this month, there can be little doubt that it’s exciting times with plenty of potential for the legal industry in Asia at the moment so an initiative like ABLI should be warmly applauded.

If you’re on Twitter, the ABLI handle is @ABLIasia. Should be worth a follow.

Report: ‘HSF bets growth on Asia’

The Australian‘s weekly Legal Affairs section is reporting (subscription required) today that global law firm “Herbert Smith Freehills will seek to more closely integrate its Australia and Asia practices.”

Sorry to be blunt, but what!?!

According to the Lawyers Weekly website, HSF officially merged on 1 October 2012 to open as the “largest fully integrated law firm in Asia Pacific based on number of lawyers“.

That was 3 years ago.

This begs the question: are all of the recent global law firm entrants to Australia going through the same issues?

My guess here is “yes”. Even though nearly all of them (arguable K&L Gates used US-Australia as its strategic reason for opening in Australia) made specific mention of using Australia as a springboard into Asia, pretty much none of them – to my knowledge – has a specific liaison Business Development Manger person (or higher) located in Australia who assists with joint business development activities.

As I understand it, there may be cost related issues involved in this (who pays for the resourcing – Australia or Asia). There may also be personnel issues involved.

Who knows; but the short answer is that for the life me I cannot understand how 3 years or more (in some cases) on from when the global firms arrived in Australia they still don’t seem to:

have dedicated Asia-wide practice and support teams
be able to tell you the number of referrals across jurisdictions (inbound and outbound)
be able to tell you which partners are referring work [championing] across jurisdictions
be able to tell you how many referrals are going to other firms within the jurisdiction where they have an office – particularly where there may have been a relationship prior to the merger (in Australia’s case, would you like to take a punt that Gilbert & Tobin gets referrals from international firms with an on the ground presence in Australia?)
know which of their clients are referring work to them across multiple jurisdictions.

To me, this says that both the back-end and front-end operations of the merged firm are still working in geographic and practice group silos (which they most certainly would appear to be from today’s article).

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that HSFs is seeking to more closely integrate its Australia and Asia practices. I hope other firms follow suit. I’m just frustrated that this initiative is probably about 2 and half years late!

3 more surveys on the state of the legal market were published this week

Hot on the heels of a post I posted two weeks ago summarising three reports on the state of the legal market, the last week of August has seen the publication of a further three survey reports.

1. The US Survey Report

The first survey report (Surveys Find Mixed Demand, Moderate Pay for Corporate Counsel) is out of the USA and summarises the findings from a questionnaire sent to 1,300 chief legal officers (CLOs) of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) – who now have a Chapter in Australia.

This ACC survey covered wide ground, including pay rises (3%) and areas of in-house recruiting growth (compliance, contracts and corporate generalists), but probably my favourite take-out was the following two paragraphs:

“Organizations are looking for corporate counsel who can facilitate the business process, according to Peters. Counsel should become familiar with what the company does, take an interest and act as a support, instead of simply focusing on the legalities of whatever is presented to them, she said.

For example, corporate counsel might tour the company’s plant and observe the manufacturing process to better understand how the company works, according to Peters. This might allow the lawyer to help get the product to market quicker. “It behooves the lawyer to be involved and become an integral part of the company. Partnering with the business, you add and keep value,” she said.”

Private practice lawyers could move a lot further along the trusted advisor paradigm just by following that piece of advice.

2. The UK Survey Report

The second survey report (Mind the Gap: GCs, Firms Wide Apart in Perception) is actually a one-page infographic [downloadable here] done by the team at Briefing Magazine in the UK and provides further evidence, if ever we needed it, that there is a growing ‘value gap’ in the perception of the relationship between in-house counsel and their outside law firms & law firm managers.

This survey polled 125 GCs, 67% from companies with more than £1.1 Billion in revenue a year and more than 1000 employees, along with 86 managers (NB: Briefing Magazine‘s target readership is law firm leaders and managers) from the top 120 law firms in the UK.

Two take-outs from this survey of note are:

on whether the process of buying legal services had moved to the in-house legal team’s procurement department, 80% of in-house GCs said they – and not the procurement department – had the say on who to send legal work to, whereas almost three quarters (74%) of law firms said exactly the opposite (ie, procurement had the say here).
on the issue of AFAs (alternative fee arrangements), 76% of law firms believe that in-house GCs want to move away from the billable hour, whereas only 58% of GCs said they do.

Interesting as they are, both of these responses really highlight to me that most law firms out there are not having proper conversations with their clients around how legal services are being procured and, importantly, paid for.

3. The Australian Survey Report

The third survey report of the week was the most comprehensive.

Authored by Joel Barolsky and published by The Melbourne Law School and Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor, the 2015 Australia: State of the Legal Market report sets out the dominant trends impacting the Australian legal market in 2015 and the key issues likely to influence the market in 2016 and beyond [a copy of which is downloadable here].

As you would imagine, a survey report of this nature (15 pages) packs a punch and there are way too many take-outs to summarises them all here so if you are interested in the finding of this report, but don’t have the time to read the whole thing, I would like to suggest you take a look at Joel’s post on LinkedIn – Key takeouts from major new legal market report – summarising the findings.

For me, it was interesting to see the survey confirm a trend I identified last year in the market, namely that the biggest competition private practising lawyers have these days is actually in-house counsel. I think this is further evidence that private practice lawyers are not doing enough to explain to their in-house counsel the benefits of using outside counsel.

In short, to my mind the conversation should not simply be: “I’m spending $150,000 on external legal each year, I can hire a lawyer and bring this work in-house“. Although I very much fear that is exactly the conversation that is taking place. And when you keep in mind that the two principal areas of concern for in-house counsel are compliance and risk, you’d think this provides external legal with exactly the right platform to have the conversation around why taking work in-house should not be a growing trend.

China, #Auslaw firms, and the $400 billion lost opportunity

Last week I blogged that Australian law firms were missing out on a massive opportunity by not being better at selling Australian law, and Australia more broadly, as an alternative venue to London and New York. One of the things that I commented on in the post was how Australian law firms were falling short on their ability to sell venues such as the National Stock Exchange (NSX) and Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) as alternative venues on which Asian, and Chinese in particular, companies could look to to raise capital.

It could not have been more timely then that later in the same week Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Governor Glenn Stevens added a monetary value to the opportunity being missed here – $400 billion.

Yeap, Stevens is quoted in this article as saying:

“…capital markets should prepare for a world where China invests $400 billion a year offshore.”

So, the question I asked in my blog last week remains:

“What is your law firm doing to capitalize on this opportunity?”

Because there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that while we ponder this question others in the region are touting the benefits of Singapore, Hong Kong or a whole raft of other suitable offshore venues.