SEA

Do American law firms in Southeast Asia have a brand problem?

If you missed it, Jessica Seah published an article on law.com this past weekend (Letter from Asia: In Singapore, The Americans Have a Brand Issue) that contains lots of thought provoking – and relevant – points for law firms looking to set up in Southeast Asia to consider.

For someone like me, who was at the forefront of the early development of international firms expanding into Southeast Asia from 1996 (remember when Dewey & LeBoeuf had a Bangkok office, or DLA Piper Bangkok was a shipping insurance firm?), some of the top level take-outs – that apply as much today as they did then – were:

🎯 “The problem we have in this part of the world is that our brand isn’t as known,”
🎯 firm brands simply do not supersede interpersonal relationships,
🎯 American law firm brands have not penetrated the Southeast Asian market in the same way that American consumerism has.
🎯 The stark truth is that no homegrown Southeast Asian company is more likely to approach any of the elite American firms over British firms such as Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, and Linklaters, all of which have been entrenched in Southeast Asia for decades [my comment: although CC has closed its Bangkok office]
🎯 While in the U.S. and even in the U.K., it may be obvious which firms are competing for which types of clients, the target clientele in Southeast Asia is ambiguous and unclear.

But the Big 2 take-aways for me were:
🎯 Every jurisdiction within Southeast Asia is different [My comment: So, so true!].
🎯 Clients want firms that can show what they can bring to the table, how they can add value, and can tell them clearly how much their services cost.

It’s a great article and well worth a read if you are looking to expand into Southeast Asia in the near future.

And if you are, feel free to contact the team at GSJ Consulting , we know what many of the pitfalls are…

Demand for legal services in Australia is flat – so what can I do about it?

Business Development image

Yesterday’s [4 July 2014] Australian newspaper Legal Affairs section published an article – “Top-tier firms axe hundreds of jobs” (subscription required if you wish to read the full article) – that opened with the following paragraph:

THE nation’s biggest law firms are in the midst of an employment shake-out with hundreds of jobs disappearing as the firms slash costs in the face of flat demand and intense competition.

The point of this post is not to opine on whether or not demand for legal services in Australia is truly flat, nor whether indeed demand among, so-called, ‘top-tier’ firms is intense, which I’ll leave for another day, but rather to comment on whether or not such flat demand, and indeed intense competition, should lead to the loss of hundred of jobs.

First off, anyone who has a memory even slightly longer than a gold fish, will recall that most (if not all) international firms (of whom most make up this so-called ‘top-tier’ level here in Australia) who entered the Australian market post the GFC cited “flat demand” in their domestic jurisdictions, and the need to grow revenue from other jurisdictions, as a strategic reason for doing such.

(more…)