international law firms

A conversation with Lucy Fato, General Counsel at McGraw Hill Financial

Last week Bloomberg’s new Big Law Business website published a two-part extract [It’s All About Relationships and ‘Gut Checks’ Are Better than AFAs] from a recent interview Bloomberg had with Lucy Fato, General Counsel of McGraw Hill Financial (among others, parent company of Standard & Poor’s).

Transcripts from the interview make for interesting reading. While not agreeing with all Ms Fato has to say, her take on the following issues run close to how a number of in-house counsel feel here in Australia:

On the role of in-house counsel:

But my view is that the role of in house counsel is, in many ways, to be the face of the company in these situations. Outside counsel can never really have perfect information about what a board or a CEO is thinking. They can never really step into the shoes of in-house counsel.

That’s how in-house lawyers really add value. They can connect all the dots. I think, historically, general counsel deferred more to outside counsel than what you see today. It’s a process that has evolved.

On the role secondments can play in developing personal relationships with in-house counsel:

Secondments are a great way for a firm to build a relationships. The associate is actually here, in our building, getting to know our people, getting to learn our business, and when they go back to the firm, they bring all of that knowledge with them. It’s especially effective when a firm is new to the company.

On the developments going on in in-house departments:

“In-house departments have become much smarter about how we manage our departments and how we manage our legal expenses. In-house departments are becoming bigger, more global, and many companies, including ours, spend a lot of money on outside counsel. Getting a handle on that is extremely important.”

On the role data plays on the modern relationship between in-house and external legal:

I’m very big on data and having a lot of information to work with…

E-billing gives you enormous visibility into how law firms make money.

On alternative fee arrangements:

Getting better control over who we’re spending money with, how they are staffing deals, how much time is being spent on matters — taking a hard look at those types of questions is more effective over the longer term than trying to do alternative fee arrangements.

On hourly rates:

But I will say it’s gotten a little out of control. It’s eye popping even for me, and I’ve been doing this a long time, when I see an hourly rate that’s over $1,000 an hour. I look at that and think, “Really?”

Ms Fato makes a number of other good observations and comments, both about the evolving role of in-house counsel and the relationship between in-house departments and their external legal advisers, but I wanted to finish this post with probably my favourite:

Firms have to be mindful that their client is not just the lawyer. It’s also the business person.

Absolutely.

The two types of efficiencies law firm associates need to become familiar with…

Really interesting article [‘What Associates Should Know About In-House Rates and Efficiencies‘] by Gina F. Rubel was published overnight (7 April 2015) on The Legal Intelligencer website – discussing the two types of efficiencies that law firm associates should become familiar with – contains a gem of a quote from an in-house general counsel that I wanted to share/pass on.

First, to put some context around the quote below by Gino Benedetti, as Rubel states:

“There are two types of efficiencies with which lawyers need to be familiar. The first is general efficiency, which is the state or quality of being efficient and the actions designed to achieve optimal results. The second is economic efficiency, which requires optimal production and distribution of a firm’s resources.”

And while both are extremely important to in-house counsel, the following quote in the article by Gino Benedetti, General Counsel of SEPTA, should give some indication to private practice law firm associates which of the two bears more commercial importance to their in-house clients:

“Associates should understand that every case does not require a full-court press,” said Gino Benedetti, general counsel of SEPTA. “Associates add value when they think creatively by identifying the core issue in dispute and focus their case work on things that impact that issue. Often, associates work on an aspect of the case that does not have any meaningful impact on the ultimate outcome. So, associates should appreciate that their time may be less expensive, but that does not justify inefficiency. Associates should communicate often with the partner or the client directly so that the client’s objective is understood and the work is driven by that objective.”

If you haven’t already, I’d like to suggest you go over and read the entire article. It’s full of sage advice from several in-house GCs.

In the meantime, if you are a private practice law firm associate, the next time your supervising partner asks you to undertake a task on behalf of your client why not ask yourself which type of the two types of efficiency you are going to bring to the task…?

Pinsent Masons joins the #Auslaw party!

Some 15 months (December 2013) after Pinsent Masons initially appointed Maddocks ex-chief executive David Rennick to lead the firm’s review of growth opportunities in Australia, and three months after the vote to appoint John Cleland as new global managing partner that appears to have confirmed the firm’s stated international growth strategy , Pinsent Masons has, today, announced that it will launch a 5 partner led local Australian practice in May of this year with offices in Sydney and Melbourne that will initially focus on infrastructure related work.

Given the firm’s overall strength in infrastructure related work in Asia – partner-in-charge of Asia Ian Laing has significant PPP and PFI experience – a strategic focus in this area would appear to be sensible.

That said, Pinsent Masons decision to open here (with an as yet undeclared number of lawyers and support staff) does nothing to deter from the fact that the legal market in Australia is a very competitive and crowded one, a trend that is likely only going to increase with the growing interest of international brands – so the very best of luck to this firm going forward and welcome to the Auslaw party!

Are the legal press letting the importance of revenue get in the way of a good story?

An interesting news item appeared on the Global Legal Post website overnight (Australian time). Citing a recently published (January 2015) Legal Services Market Research Report by IBIS World, the Global Legal Post item, which is titled “Australian firms on the hunt for increased revenues” states that:

Pressure on revenues is forcing Australian firms to look overseas in a bid to increase turnover.

First of all, if I’m allowed to say, this is irony in action!

Given the number of international (mostly British) law firms that have entered the Australian legal market in the past five or so years as a result of perceived or real limitations on growth in their own domestic markets, to now be informed that one of the consequence of this action is that Australian firms now need to look overseas to grow their own revenue is, well, ironic.

More importantly – aside from being wrong as the IBIS Report clearly states that the market in Australia is growing (if admittedly at a snail’s pace) – is that it misses a crucial point; namely, increasing turnover for turnover’s sake is nothing short of a wasted effort!

But don’t take my word for it, as the prominent industry strategist and pricing expert Richard Burcher rightly points out in his comment to the link I posted to this on LinkedIn last night:

Surely it is bottom line growth that matters? And the assumption that this can only be achieved through top line growth is profoundly flawed. The application of a more sophisticated firm-wide approach to pricing can yield a demonstrable increase in revenue by on average 5% to 8%. For most firms that produces a profitability increase of 15% to 25% with the same clients and the same work. No wonder more than 50% of post merger firms report that it failed to deliver to the bottom line.

Precisely Richard.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the only example of this type of legal press reporting/thinking.

Only the same day (Monday) The Australasian Lawyer reported – citing (wrongly in my opinion) another UK website – that the Australian arm of DLA had been “fingered for [the] law firm’s drop in revenue” as if huge levels of shame needs to be attached to this [revenue drop] given that it

follow[ed] a transition period where underperforming partners in the region [Asia] departed.

Well I happen to know a number of the partners who left DLA last year and one thing I can say with absolutely certainty is that they were anything but underperforming. More accurately, what they were was in practices that were no longer strategically aligned to where DLA sees the future of its business (something I think is made clearer in the UK version of this news). And, in a partnership sense, there is nothing wrong with having conversations like that. Indeed, they are to be encouraged.

So as with the discussion around revenue and profit, the discussions around revenue and strategy, while related are two different issues.

And all of this before we even get into the very real discussion of whether or not one law firm’s growth has to come at the cost of another law firm.

Indonesia – the next frontier?

To those wondering what the next marketing and business development frontier in the Asia-Pacific will be for law firms now that China and India have started to go off the boil, I can say “the hunt is over” – Indonesia will be the ‘hot’ new buzzword of 2015.

An article published in Singapore’s Straits Times today [26 January 2015] – “Foreign law firms eye Indonesia market – Global players drawn in by opportunities as Jakarta pursues investment deals” by Wahyudi Soeriaatmadja in Jakarta, sets out a number of compelling reasons (as well as limitations) as to why more global law firms are looking to try an get active in this rapidly expanding and increasingly attractive market.

Of note:

Indonesia is South-East Asia’s largest economy
The country has an extremely ambitious 5-year infrastructure (roads and railways) development plan
The government of newly elected President Joko Widodo is looking to boost gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 7 per cent over the term of its government

Add to this list that Indonesia has one of the fastest growing middle classes in the world, and setting aside some of the practical limitations in place on foreigners practising in Indonesia, given the close proximity of Australia to Indonesia it is somewhat surprising that Australian firms don’t appear to be having the same tactical strategic business development approach to this market (as outlined in the article) that firms in places such as Malaysia do.

Of course, this very likely will change during the course of the year as ‘Indonesia‘ becomes the buzzword of 2015.

Acritas’ Sharplegal Survey: Vive La Différence – or you’ll lose work!

The days of the male dominated culture in law firms are numbered if said firms want to have any chance of continuing to win work from the growing number, as well as importance, of female in-house general counsel according to the latest research undertaken by Acritas’ Sharplegal (an annual global legal market survey of over 2,000 general counsel) revealing how differently male and female buyers approach the purchase of legal services.

Bottom-line take out from the covering article – on the Acritas website – announcing the survey result that should get every male law firm partner and their business development team’s thinking caps on is this:

Firms that are able to demonstrate in-depth knowledge of their female client’s business and her needs also stand to gain higher levels of favorability from her – an all-important step on the path to winning work.

This statement is also directly reflective of Lucy Siebert’s (international counsel at Australia’s Telstra) comments at the recent Legal Week Asia regional ‘Corporate Counsel Forum’, held at the end of November 2014, where she stated that:

We [Telstra] specifically look to see that they’re ensuring the best possible talent pool for us – not just white Anglo-Saxon males. We’ve got a very strong diversity policy and so we expect that to be something that is also important to our panel firms.

Crucially, law firms who are looking to win a greater share of work from female in-house counsel should note:

When asked what drove the likelihood to recommend a firm, a much higher proportion of women than men spoke about responsiveness as a deciding factor.

And specifically that:

Not only was it the quality of communication that mattered to female in-house counsel, but also the speed and level of interaction they experienced.

Interestingly, the survey also reports that:

43% of women working in senior in house legal roles said they used LinkedIn on a daily or weekly basis, compared with just a third of men. Furthermore, only a quarter of women said they never used the social network, compared to two fifths of men, suggesting that new business approaches to women may be better made online than ‘on the golf course’.

A final ‘thought for the day’ is the following by Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of Acritas [commenting on the survey findings]:

“A change in thinking and culture is needed if men want to impress an increasingly influential group of female in-house counsel who value business understanding and efficient communication over reputation, personal relationships and trust when choosing their preferred legal partner.”

Does your law firm have a ‘Big Ideas Project’

Last week I read about ‘The Big Ideas Project‘, a product of the Progressive Change Institute. I have to admit to being an admirer of projects like The Big Idea Project; but news today that Clifford Chance had appointed Amsterdam managing partner Bas Boris Visser as its first ‘global head of innovation and business change’ got me to thinking:

I wonder how many law firms have adopted a Big Ideas Project to help them decide what innovation and business change they need to be adopting and implementing if they’re to be more client-facing?

And, more specifically,:

If law firms aren’t adopting something like this internally – why not?

Brief comment on LSG Article – “Australia: extracting value”

The [UK] Law Society Gazette’s published feature this week is an overview of developments in the Australian legal market following the recent entry by ‘northern hemisphere’ firms (Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Norton Rose, Herbert Smith, Bird & Bird, to name a few) by freelance writer Marialuisa Taddia (‘Australia: extracting value’).

While a useful high level overview of the market in Australia, those who live the market day-in, day-out are unlikely to learn anything of significance from the feature.

That said, one comment that did draw my attention, and which I thought was both worthy of sharing with you and commenting on, is by Juan Martinez – Managing Partner of HWL Ebsworth – who is quoted as saying that:

“We [HWL Ebsworth] don’t believe that the overall legal spend within Australia will grow in any material regard in the short to medium term,’

and going on to say:

‘Clients are becoming more cost-oriented, and procurement teams within our clients are becoming much more heavily involved in the selection of law firms. Accordingly, the only way that Australian firms will be able to grow revenues is by increasing their market share.’

What I found particularly interesting about Martinez’s comment was this:

“Accordingly, the only way that Australian firms will be able to grow revenues is by increasing their market share.” [underlined for purposes of my emphasis]

as this succinctly sets out the strategy HWL Ebsworth have had towards the lateral hiring of partners in recent years.

But, crucially, so far as I am concerned, the problem with Martinez’s comment is that:

as evidenced by Corrs Chambers Westgarth recent decision to establish outsourcing provider ‘Orbit’; it – namely increasing market share in Australia – is not the only way that Australian law firms will be able to grow revenue in 2015 if they are willing to look outside the box and consider other ways to monetize their services to clients (another example might be subscription newsletters?); and
although Martinez and HWL Ebsworth may well run a very tight ship on the cost side of the financial equation (and there would be nothing wrong with that as it would be prudent business practice to do so), revenue itself is not an indicator of profit and so growing revenue via increased market share (especially if this is being achieved through the means of lateral hires and new office openings) does not, in and of itself, equate to either a good or sensible approach to growth unless it is underpinning a wider strategic profitable purpose – for example, growth of client wallet from existing clients as opposed to growth of revenue from new clients where there may be an inbuilt acquisition.

Others, of course, are free to disagree with my view.

International trade of Australian legal and related services is now a billion-dollar industry

Last Monday (15 December 2014) saw the publication of the Law Council of Australia‘s ‘Fourth Legal and Related Services Export Survey‘.

Key findings from the Report – which relate to the FY2010-11 period – are fascinating, not least of which is that total income from exports and international activity of Australian legal services was $932.8 million.

Other stand-out findings include:

‘Asia’ remains Australia’s largest “regional” export market.
‘Asia’, as a region, contributed $320.5 million in total exports.
‘Asia’, as a region, is the only global region to have experienced continuous growth since FY2004-05.
Interestingly, the export of legal services to China and Hong Kong grew slower than the average growth rate (at 31.6%) – which is probably reflective of how mature this market is.
Export of legal services to China/HK amounted to $124.1 million – dropping from second largest export market to fourth. It is worth noting, however, that the China and Hong Kong market – in dollar ($) terms – still represented the largest by country in the Asia region.
Indonesia saw the biggest per cent increase in exports, up a whopping 115.2% (although the dollar sum is still fairly low at $8.1 million – and it remains to be seen in future reports if this was a transactional glitch or part of a growing trend).
Singapore saw 80% grow from $32.5 million to $73.1 million.
South East Asia (excluding Indonesia and Singapore – termed “Other South East Asia” in the Report) contributed $35.5 million to exports. Given what I blogged on Friday, SE Asia would now have to be considered one of the real growth prospects for Australian legal services going forward and this is indeed reflected in the Report which states that “South-East Asia has grown much more strongly than North Asia since FY2008-09 as a destination for exports of Australian legal and related services“.
Somewhat surprisingly to me; at $272.9 million, North America and Canada are the largest “single” export market for Australian legal and related services.

Another interesting number in the Report, given that FY2010-11 still represented a fairly youthful period for international firms in Australia (and its worth noting that K&L Gates didn’t open its doors in Australia till 2013) is that $150.3 million of the overall $932.8 million is represented by “billings from overseas offices of Australian practices“. Moreover, the value of fly-in/fly-out legal services actually fell during this period (from $52.9 million to $39 million).

One surprise in the Report was the relatively low dollar value of “Arbitration” related work (at $3.6 million); but this could be accounted for by the fact that this period (FY2010-11) pre-dates [2011] the Australian Government confirming the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) as the sole default appointing authority competent to perform the arbitrator appointment functions under the amended International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) and concerted efforts by both the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments to make Sydney a leading arbitration centre globally.

And for those of you who have ever wondered why so many international law firms have entered the Australian market in recent years I will end this post with a crunching number to mull over:

“The 10 largest national law firms exported $609m (65.3% of total market) of legal and related services in FY2010-11”

Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia – really?

Yesterday I read an article on the lawyersweekly.com.au website by Felicity Nelson titled ‘Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia‘. This article cites recent research done by Acitas, including:

45 per cent of multinationals require legal advice in South East Asia;
34 per cent of Australian multinationals’ legal spend now goes outside their home jurisdiction; and
60 per cent of Australian in-house counsel surveyed said they needed legal advice in South East Asia

There is no doubt in my mind that Acitas research is both good and thorough. I have high regard for them.

But there is one niggling issue I have with the title of this article and that is this: while it would be fair to ‘Australian’ law firms (such as Minter Ellison or Clayton Utz) are not particularly active on the ground in South East Asia – and we can debate the merits of that strategy till the sun comes up – it’s a far cry to then extend that argument to say:

Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia.

And why do I say this?

Well, some firms with a presence is South East Asia and Australia – and who therefore must have a strategic plan around meeting their multinational clients needs in both jurisdictions – include:

Allen & Overy
Baker & McKenzie
Clifford Chance
DLA Piper
Linklates – Allens
Norton Rose Fulbright

Keep in mind that these are international law firms with an actual presence in South East Asia and Australia with a declared strategy of having multiple offices in order to meet the needs of their multinational clients. They’re not ‘fly-in, fly-out‘ operators; so they don’t have to worry about some of the very real strategic and cost issues that Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of Acritas, points out in the article and which I made only yesterday around organic growth and local knowledge acquisition!

My only question having read Nelson’s article is this then:

What the Hell are these firms doing if, as is alluded to in the article title, a large proportion of Australian and multinationals in-house counsels’ needs in South East Asia are going unmet?

and having read the results of Acritas’ survey in the article,

What do these firms plan to do to meet these very real needs now?

* I would recommend you read the Lawyers Weekly article, it raises w hole host of additional issues not covered in this post