legal services

Can a falling A$ make selling Australian legal services easier overseas?

As regular readers will know, I have written a fair amount in the past (see here and here) about how a depreciating Australian Dollar (A$) is likely to be unkind to the Australia-based partners of international law firms operating here. It was, therefore, pleasing to see a post ( ‘Will international ﬁrms still call Australia home?’) on the Australasian Lawyer website yesterday that largely echoed many of the comments I had previously made.

So, with (1) the Australian legal press and a number of eminent managing partners echoing my views, and (2) an A$ hovering around the 87c on the US$ mark, a new question now comes to mind:

Can a falling A$ make selling Australian legal services easier overseas?

The answer here will depend on your law firm, its culture and client base. But, assuming that your firm actively encourages cross-border collaboration (and there is a whole different post there), the short answer should be yes.

If that’s the case, then some of things you need to be considering include:

How recently did I update my website profile/CV? Are all my deals Australian-based? Am I showing regional experience? Indeed, am I using regional keywords in my website profile or only local Australian used ones?
What sectors in Australia are likely to benefit from a falling A$ (tourism?)? Do I have expertise or a story to sell here?
A falling A$ should make assets in Australia more attractive to international purchasers (case in point: pension funds looking at real estate?). What am I and my colleagues doing about this?
What is the Australian Government’s current policy towards a falling A$ and foreign direct investment (FDI)? Is there a story to tell here (and there most likely is if you look closely enough)?
Are there regional developments that I could take advantage of (for example, development of arbitration courts in Singapore and HK?)?
Are there any free trade agreements (FTAs) in pace that make the falling A$ attractive (export markets?)?
When was the last time I talked with my clients to see how they were being affected by market/currency fluctuations and what steps they are putting in place to get the most out of this (manufacturing/FMCG?)?
Is there any way I can help my clients out with the current environment (put them in contact with clients in Asia?)? Maybe I can/should attend a regional trade or industry conference.
How often am I communicating with my colleagues in Asia, US and Europe to discuss work opportunities (including the chance to work in US$s?)? [time differences may have put this off before; but if I can bill in US$s, suddenly 2am conference calls don’t look so bad!]
What local or regional opportunities (tenders, capability statements, etc) are my business development team working on? Is there any way I can get in on this?
What regional panels are my firm on and can I look to develop these? If so, who is the relationship partner?
Should I be considering a secondment to another office in our firm network or to a client outside Australia (Asia, Europe, US) [especially if I can charge US$ for it!]?

Clearly you will need to make sure that you are meeting your clients’ expectations. You will also need to make sure you have in place a fee mechanism that is considerate of the exchange rate, while being beneficial to you and your firm, and also allowing everyone to prosper from the situation.

But, at 87c on the US$, the value proposition of an Australian lawyer active outside of Australia (such as in Asia) should have become a lot easier to communicate today than it was a year ago.

Now for a word of caution:

if you have been billing a client (especially one outside Australia) for several years in A$s, now is not the time to suddenly, and without notice, start billing that same client in US$s.

Strange as it may seem, clients will quickly see through this move. So make sure you give this issue careful consideration (as clients have also been known to talk with each other!).

I know the Burberry brand but that doesn’t mean I buy from them

I know the iconic luxury goods brand ‘Burberry’. Established in 1856, Burberry have been clothing the rich and famous pretty much continuously since. In Sydney they have a flagship store at 343 George Street. Here’s the kicker though: I have never knowingly bought anything from Burberry.

While this may all sound fascinating, you could well be asking yourself about now what this has to do with the selling of legal services? And it wouldn’t be an unreasonable thought too.

So without further ado, let’s move on to the issue at hand.

Last week saw the publication of the Acritas Global Elite Law Firm Brand Index 2014 to much fanfare. As Acritas themselves proclaim, the Index:

“…reveals the firms which are adapting most successfully to the changing market and winning client loyalty and favorability as a result.”

And while this would seem to be a pretty compelling reason to analyse the Index more closely by itself, managingpartner.com goes on to comment, according to the results of the Index, that:

“Multinational clients are more likely to instruct law firms which have a strong multi-jurisdictional presence and capabilities and a collaboratively working style and value focus”.

All I can say is – “Wow!”. If this is truly the case, then it goes without saying that the Index should be considered one of the most important and compelling benchmarks in the industry and it needs to be in the reading list of every managing partner, business development director and head of finance. Because the simple fact is, if my firm isn’t on and near the top of this list, I need to be very concerned.

But, before the panic starts to set in, how is the Index compiled?

Ahh, well here is where it seems to start falling apart. According to the Acritas website,

“The Sharpelegal Global Elite Brand Index is determined through four open-ended questions from the full survey to find out from general counsel:

the first law firms to come to mind

the firms most considered for multi-jurisdictional deals

the firms they feel most favorable towards

the firms most considered for multi-jurisdictional litigation.”

Did you notice that there was/is not a single open-ended question to the effect:

Did you actually buy legal services from this firm?, or
If you bought legal services from this firm, in how many different jurisdictions did you buy them in?, or
Did you use the same firm of lawyers in multiple jurisdictions in one transaction during the course of the last 12 months?

And therein lies the problem with the Index: while it is certainly really nice for my ego that my firm is one of the most recognised legal brands in the world (and just to be clear, I don’t actually work for the firm that came out top in the Index by some margin -Baker & McKenzie), the simple fact is that this doesn’t pay the bills.

Which brings me back to Burberry, a brand I most certainly know, would consider buying from (if I won the lottery), and feel very favourable to, but from whom I’ve never actually purchased anything…

Foreign exchange woes hurt Australian arm of K&L Gates

Back in March 2013 I wrote a blog post on how foreign currency fluctuations were likely going to hurt international law firms with a presence in Australia, over the following 12-18 months, unless the firms hedged against this exposure.

Not wishing to be one who says “told you so”, but a report in today’s Australian newspaper (‘Exchange movements take their toll on global law firm K & L Gates‘ [subscription required to read whole article]) affords me the luxury of being able to say exactly that.

According to the article,

“[K&L Gates] global revenue increased by 9.3 per cent last year due to the merger with Australia’s Middletons…”

but,

“…things would have been much better had the US dollar not appreciated by 6.8 per cent relative to the Australian dollar…”

As the Australian sets out, it is largely thanks to the extraordinary level of financial transparency on the part of K&L Gates that we are able to ascertain the effect that currency fluctuations have had on the firm, and the firm should be highly commended for this.

That said, it is highly unlikely that K&L Gates will be the only international law firm with a presence in Australia that will be affected by this. Even firms who have to report in British Pounds or Euros, as opposed to US dollars, will likely have felt this effect on their balance sheets. The only real question is the level of effect it has had.

And the warning I put out there to the Australian partners of international firms largely remains in tact:

in order to keep your fellow partners happy in London, New York or Chicago, your Australian-based revenue will need to increase by approximately 10 to 20 per cent over the next 12 months for you just to standstill.

So before you agree to any increased revenue target budget, keep in mind the compound effect foreign currency movement are likely to have on your commitment.

Alternatively, you could get a commitment from your offshore partners that they refer work into you on which you can charge offshore currency rates – say US dollars; in which case, you could get away with working about 10 per cent less over the next 12 months.

And who said being a law firm partner was easy!

RWS_01

A word on the inter-generational issues going on at law firms

When I was growing up, my Grandmother used to tell me that my generation (‘X‘) had never had it so good. Not that we were lazy mind, but that we didn’t have the work ethic of her generation. When I complained one day to my Mother about this treatment she told me that I misunderstood: my Grandmother wasn’t complaining about my slack arse nature, conversely she was pleased that my life was easier than hers had been – she now felt she had succeed in life. I said that I still didn’t understand and my mother told me that she doubted I would until the day I had children of my own. And while I still don’t have children, I do understand this deep need to try and make sure the life of generations to come will be easier than mine and that of my Mother’s (‘Baby Boomers‘).

So it was with interest that I read the recent post on the Australian Lawyer website by NSW Young Lawyers president Thomas Spohr – ‘A dangerous game: How older lawyers diminish their Gen Y colleagues‘ – and the subsequent response by Ken Shepherd, the principal of Shepherd Legal – ‘A dangerous game: A matter of perspective‘.

Both posts are entertaining and raise serious issues and are well worth the reading time. Underlying them both though is a feeling that I’ve had this discussion somewhere before.

Now if you want to read an excellent post on how disenfranchised Millennials (or Gen Y) lawyers must be feeling as they enter the workforce, then you don’t need to go past a post written by Michelle Silverthorn on 17 July 2014 entitled – “My Generation” – which I now consider to be the final word on this issue.

In her post, under the paragraph titled ‘Reframe The Discussion’, Michelle writes:

“I’m often told that Millennial lawyers lack commitment to their employer, that we start looking for another job five minutes after starting a new one. That’s a fair criticism, but look at it from a different angle. Assume that, on average, the youngest Millennial lawyer completed law school at 26. That means that, on average, the youngest Millennial lawyer started practicing in 2007. The majority will be starting their practice in 2014 and later. This entire generation of attorneys will therefore have started working in an utter paradigm shift in the legal market [post 2007]…”

Wow! – given that Australia has a 5 year undergraduate Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) program, that equates to an entire generation (Millennials/Y) of new lawyers in #Auslaw for whom the #NewNormal has been nothing but ‘normal’.

Further, in Australia that’s an entire generation of lawyers who have never experienced a recession but who have operated – in a professional capacity – under circumstances never experienced in living memory.

Quite simply – that’s powerful. And to my shame, I had never even looked at it like this before.

So when Michelle then goes to say:

This entire generation of attorneys will therefore have started working in an utter paradigm shift in the legal market, where traditions have been upended, expectations have proven false, debt seems overwhelming, and jobs simply aren’t there. Not to mention the whirlwind of layoffs, stalled promotions and hiring freezes that started in 2009 and continue today. In other words, when you ask why Millennial lawyers won’t stay committed to an organization, ask yourself what in the past seven years has demonstrated that an organization will stay committed to them?

it makes me realise two things:

First, Michelle is wise beyond her years.

Second, my generation has failed in our duty to the next generation. We haven’t made life any easier for them – desite our bitching and moaning to the contrary – and the only question that now remains is whether or not there is enough time left to fix the problem and restore the equilibrium?

RWS_01

Which ‘top’ Australian law firms are struggling to enter Asia?

The headline of the lead-off item in Friday’s (8/8/2014) Global Legal Post was:

“Top Australian firms struggle to enter Asia”

Pretty strong stuff, made all the more so by the first line of the post, which reads:

“BigLaw Australia has been ‘bitterly disappointed’ at its limited success in entering Asian markets, according to business consultant Dr George Beaton.”

The post left me wondering:

which ‘top’ Australian law firms are they referring to?, and
is it fair to say that “BigLaw Australia” has been ‘bitterly disappointed’ at its limited success in entering the Asian markets?

So, over the weekend I decided to take a look at this more closely. And, for the purposes of the remainder of this post I have limited my research to:

independent ‘Australian’ law firms (i.e., not international firms with an Australian presence),
with a presence on the ground in Asia (i.e., not looking at firms’ informal or formal referral arrangements – such as Advoc Asia, Lex Mundi or PRAC, which will likely be the subject of a future post).

Also, in undertaking this I have used the most recent ‘Top 10 Independent Australian Law Firms by Revenue’ list I could find – in this case, complied by the excellent Yun Kriegler (aka @TheLawyerAsia) in her 30 June 2014 analysts post for The Lawyer ‘Australia: medium pace’.

So, here goes:

Top 10 Independent Australian Law Firm by revenue	Offices in Asia
1. Clayton Utz*	None
2. Allens**	Beijing, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Port Moresby, Singapore, Ulaanbaatar
3. Minter Ellison***	Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Ulaanbaatar
4. Corrs Chambers Westgarth	None
5. Gadens	Singapore, Port Moresby
6. Gilbert & Tobin	None
7. HWL Ebsworth	None
8. Maddocks	None
9. Sparke Helmore	None
10. McCullough Robertson	None

* Clayton Utz hit the headlines earlier this year for scratching it’s HK association with Haley & Co. but I’m not sure this one incident is enough to warrant a headline like that above.

** Given Allens tie-up with Linklaters, it’s questionable how ‘independent’ the firm remains.

*** as far as I can see, Minter Ellison’s Asian offices are not financial integrated with the Australian operations.

——-

So,

7 out of the Top 10 Independent Australian Law Firms by revenue have no on the ground presence in Asia at all,
for 2 out of the 3 that do have on the ground presence in Asia, it is questionable how financially linked their Asian offices are to the Australian operations, and
out of the 7 that currently have no on the ground presence, only Clayton Utz looks like it has attempted to create any on the ground presence in the past few years.

Which essentially leaves Gadens, listed at #5 on the list, as the only independent Australian law firm with any on the ground representation in mainland Asia itself (Singapore, where it doesn’t appear to have a local Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licence).

Overall then I think it is fair to say that that top Australian laws firms have not struggled to enter Asia – because they are simply not there in the first place and many of them have not even made an attempt to be there!

Is it also fair to say then that:

“BigLaw Australia has been ‘bitterly disappointed’ at its limited success in entering Asian markets”?

I’m not sure, because when you look at the published strategy of leading independent Australian law firms there appears to be three different approaches being adopted:

First, firms who are aligning with referral groups, such as Lex Mundi mentioned above,
Second, firms who are working off informal referral arrangements with firms operating in the Region, and
Third, firms who have decided to stay 100% Australian and are not looking at Asia in any great way for future development.

And so the honest answer is that this will take further analysis.

Now, if we were looking at how happy global firms with an Australian presence were with their Asian operations, then this would be a completely different post!

RWS_01

Let’s talk about your law firm’s “collegiate culture”

“Collegiate“:

‘consisting of several colleges or parts’

very formal: ‘sharing ideas and responsibilities with the people you work with, in a friendly way’

– Source: Macmillan Dictionary

Business development professionals, like myself, often talk about the need for businesses to have a “collegiate” culture if the business is to have any real chance of turning a profit. Obviously when we talk about “collegiate” here what we mean is:

“the sharing of ideas and responsibilities with the people you work with in a friendly way”

rather than:

“consisting of several colleges or parts”.

But for business development professionals who operate in the professional services space, the thought of a firm actually having or implementing a “collegiate culture” is more along the lines of a ‘nice to have’, than a reality.

There are lots of reasons why this is so, and to be fair most of them have more to do with the benefits and rewards system that breeds behaviour in law firms than a lack of willingness on the part of any firm to implement this type of culture.

And so it was with great delight that I read earlier this week the CEO of Shoosmiths (Claire Rowe) saying that a collegiate culture was how to keep staff happy and turn a profit.

Imagine, the nirvana of happy staff and making a profit.

Actually, where:

“We have a transparent and open environment, there are no secrets. We have very honest conversations with our people to set our plans. Our staff enjoy a set-up which means they can achieve their personal objectives in a supportive way”

it really isn’t that hard to imagine.

It also shouldn’t be that difficult to implement such an environment.

So it was with equal disappointment that I read the following day, on the same website, how DWF were to “take account of non-billable work in [their] new appraisal model” (my bold for emphasis).

I’m not sure if the management/HR team at DWF are aware quite how polar opposite their publicly stated approach is to that of Shoosmiths. And to be fair to the management of DWF, they may not have been aware when talking to the publisher of the website that the Shoosmiths story was going to be published the day before.

Regardless, the message to young lawyers is clear: At Shoosmiths we believe in transparent and open environment with personal respect; whereas at DWF if you are not billing, we will give you credit for whatever it is you have done, but we are not overly happy about the whole situation!

And it is worth noting that, from an #Auslaw perspective, it is not only the young lawyers who get this message. As far back as September 2010, Bob Santamaria – ANZ Bank General Counsel – stated in the Australian newspaper that:

“Law firms now are being run more as businesses and for profit, and that is affecting lawyers, good and bad”

going on to say:

“There will be very, very good lawyers who are jaundiced by some of that approach that is applying in the big firms.”

In other words, if you can get the foundations of your culture right – and preferably making this a collegiate culture – you are some way to attracting some of the best talent around and, hopefully by extension, some of the best clients.

I happen to agree with Bob Santamaria. Indeed, I will go one step further:

If you can get a collegiate culture going in your firm that has values aligned with those of your client, you will almost certainly be as happy and profitable as Shoosmiths.

So how collegiate is the culture in your law firm?

RWS_01

ps – if you are interested in what a firm’s values might look if they were selected by their client, Cordell Parvin’s “If Your Clients Could Choose Your Law Firm’s Vision and Core Values” is a good starting point

‘Mark Brandon: UK law is focusing too much on the wrong things’ – A response from Australasia

Over the last weekend I (@RWS_01) got into a tweet exchange with the author of a recent good analysis post on the thelawyer.com – ‘UK law is focusing too much on the wrong things‘ – Mark Brandon (@MotiveLegal). As part of the exchange, I promised Mark a response to his article.

First off, as it has been some time since I worked directly in UK law, my reply to Mark’s post should be read from an Australasian perspective.

Second, in my reply I have used the same numbering and headings as Mark used in his original post.

So, here goes.

1. The mega-consolidators will struggle

I partially agree with Mark on this one.

If, as I think Mark suggests, law firms are merging simply to ‘purchase’ market share, then I generally agree with him. Likewise, if by ‘conglomerate’, Mark means ‘full service’, then I would also agree.

However, as someone who lives and works in an environment (#Auslaw) where there are roughly:

30 law firms,
who earn in excess of A$50 million per year in revenue,
with a population of approximately 23 million people,

then I have to say that the trend of consolidation seen in the sector over the past two to three years here will, and needs to, continue.

Will some of these mergers/consolidations result in regional (Asia-wide) mega-firms? Yes, I believe they will [and indeed, with the likes of King & Wood Mallesons, have].

Will these firms struggle? Some yes (most likely those who, as Mark suggests, have consolidated solely to purchase market share), but those who have the right strategy and culture in place, ie where the consolidation is done in consultation with clients, resulting in a more efficient and better service to the client – rather than solely for the financial benefit of the partners of the firms involved, will likely thrive.

Finally, I have to say that I disagree with Mark’s comment that:

“When it comes to law firms, there is such a thing as ‘too big’.”

2. Vereins are over (more…)

5 steps to take when your client becomes your biggest competitor

One of the more interesting take-outs from an article (‘The Rise of in-house counsel: What does this mean for law firms?‘) published on the Australasian Lawyer website today – on the rise of in-house counsel numbers in #Auslaw – is the following comment by Katherine Sampson – managing director of Mahlab Recruitment:

“It’s not necessarily that they’re [in-house] going to a competitor firm, but they are going in house…”

To me this statement rings alarm bells and reads:

“your client has just become your biggest competitor!”

So, what steps should you be taking when your client has also just become your biggest competitor for that work?

Here are 5 things you should be putting in place immediately:

(more…)

Celebrate “Values Day” – now isn’t that a great idea!

Anyone who knows me can tell you that I’m an avid follower of all things to do with business development, especially as it relates to Asia / Australasia. It’s with this hat on that I recently decided to follow Gordon Orr, Chairman, Asia at McKinsey & Company, as an Influencer on LinkedIn.

One of Gordon’s more recent posts was titled “Team Building In China”. While I found Gordon’s post interesting, what stopped me in my tracks was the reason behind Gordon’s post – his attendance at the Shanghai office “Values Day”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve obviously heard of law firms having values – after all, nearly every law firm includes these on their website these days. But what I have never heard of before is of a law firm who holds its values so close to its core business strategy that it is willing to celebrate this in such a way (and if you are a law firm that does have a Values Day, please forgive me).

According to Gordon, McKinsey & Co.’s Values Day is:

“an annual event for everyone in the office (and in McKinsey offices worldwide) at which we celebrate and discuss our core values.”

(more…)

The hidden dangers of discounting your fees

Today’s post is a short rant about the practice and dangers of discounting your legal fees, followed by a useful collection of 20 questions I found earlier that you should be asking yourself if you are discounting your fees.

I’ll start off by disclosing that I hate it when lawyers discount their fees. I especially hate it when this is done without any request by the client – a far more prevalent practice than is perhaps admitted – or consultation with others in the firm (including the practice of discounting on other lawyers’ rates in your firm without even asking them if this is OK!).

(more…)