strategy

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.”

Ambitious or just blind hopeful? – Clifford Chance look to grow Asia revenue by £50 million

On the train ride to work today I read a briefing update on the Australasian Lawyer website that the newly elected Managing Partner of Clifford Chance, Matthew Layton, had announced that the firm aims to raise revenue in Asia by 25 per cent.

Now the first thing I should say about this is that I haven’t been able to verify the source for this briefing update. The second thing I should say is that I know a number of key people – both on the management and fee earning sides – at Clifford Chance in Asia.

Putting that aside however, and on the back of the news that Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson is to effectively close its Hong Kong and Shanghai offices and pull out of Asia (there remains some debate whether the firm will retain a representative office in Hong Kong and there is also a suggestion that the firm will not relinquish its Shanghai licence), and bearing in mind that Clifford Chance LLP’s announced earnings for its Asia Pacific operations in 2014 were £195 million (significantly up from 2013 announced earnings of £179 million but only marginally up from announced 2012 earnings of £181 million), I’m left wondering:

where do Clifford Chance see themselves earning an additional circa £50 million in Asia in 2015-16?

Because, while I wish Matthew Layton, Caroline Firstbrook, Bas Borris Visser and everyone else at Clifford Chance the very best of luck, I’m not sure that:

“embrac[ing] technology and flexible working and service models as key elements for [the] expansion”

will cut it. And I somehow think the management teams of a number of other firms in the region (including those at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson) would agree.

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.

Singapore takes another step closer to being the regional centre for arbitration and mediation resolution work

Last Monday, 5 January 2015 marked the start of the legal year in Singapore and with it the opening of its latest court – the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).

With an initial make-up of 11 current and former judges, hailing from a combination of seven common and civil law jurisdictions (Australia, Austria, France, Hong Kong, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the SICC aims to become the World court for international commercial disputes and is the latest development in an ongoing concerted effort by the Singaporean government to make this island state the centre for arbitration and mediation in the region that first began way back in July 1991 with the establishment of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and has, more recently, included the opening of the Singapore International Arbitration Academy in 2012 to help develop practitioners´ arbitration knowledge and skills and the Singapore International Mediation Court (SIMC) in March 2014.

As the epicentre of international trade increasingly moves from the more court litigious West to a more negotiated dispute resolution culture in the East, there is little doubt that this strong initiative by Singapore will pay dividends in the near term. Indeed, with already near to US$2 billion in annual revenue for Singapore-based legal services practitioners, it could be said that it already is.

While it can also undoubtedly be said that Singapore’s aggressive marketing of itself as a centre for mediation and arbitration work – which includes a very generous tax treatment on revenues generated locally for this type of work – is aimed at the slightly older, and previously more successful, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), it’s hard to see how these developments cannot have anything but a negtative impact on the ambitions of the Federal and NSW State governments to promote the Australian Centre for International Arbitration (ACIA) as the regional centre for arbitration and mediation resolution work. Indeed it will be interesting to see what, if any, response the Federal government, NSW government and ACIA have to these latest regional developments.

In the meantime, Singapore’s proximity to India, its long tradition of being a proponent of the rule of law, as well as the ongoing preparations for ASEAN integration later this year are all likely going to go a long way to helping ensure that the SICC achieve its ambition of becoming “Asia’s First Choice” for commercial dispute settlements.

In 2015 the challenge we face is ourselves

Happy New Year to you all.

At this time of year you’ll likely read your fair share of articles predicting what the year ahead will bring. You may even read the odd article or two on the trends that are likely to impact on our business during the course of this year.

I should state for the record that I enjoy reading these articles and in many cases the predictions are not too far off the mark.

Indeed, in previous years I would have been one of the first to gaze into my crystal ball and give you my prediction on the 10 or so issues that we are most likely going to face in 2015.

But not so this year.

To my mind the biggest challenge we, as business developers, face in 2015 is the fact that our business development efforts have been missing their mark in recent years.

To be clear, this is not a message I’m sending out there as a business developer.

I wish.

No, this is something our clients are telling us loud and clear.

In short, we, as business developers, have not been listening to what our pay masters are telling us.

Crucially, in 2015 we are also likely to see our marketing and business development messages lost in the noise surrounding chatter around AEC, ASEAN (as the region decides whether 2015 really is the year) and other such regional and global initiatives (Free Trade Zones being one).

While each of these will undoubtably be important factors for our business over the next 12 months, it is my belief that none is likely to lead to our down fall.

For the answer to that question, again we only need look at the resounding message being sent to us by our clients (yes, our clients), over a prolonged period now:

business development activities by law firm [in Asia] in 2014 missed their mark.

In 2015 then, we business developers need to be lifting our game and constantly asking:

what can we, as a law firm, be doing differently that will help our clients win more work, generate more revenue, and earn them higher rates of profitable return?

Alternatively, carry on as normal in 2015 and don’t be surprised if, at year-end, this is the result:

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

-Henry Ford

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

Does my law firm need an Asian strategy?

I go to a lot of meetings at which the state of the Asian* legal market is discussed during the course of a year. At a lot of these meetings, it is taken as a given that the relevant/respective law firm “needs” to either be in Asia, have an Asian strategy, or both. But, as is the case with a lot of prospect mining in this industry, short consideration seems to be given to the pitfalls of getting involved, and the most important strategic question of the lot:

“Why?”

as in:

“Why do we (as a firm) even want to be involved in the cutthroat market of Asia?”

is all but glossed over.

Keep in mind that most law firms won’t make money in their first few years of involvement in the region (and I should know, I have first-hand experience helping with the success of a start-up law firm that later became part of Clifford Chance). Indeed, some firms have been active in Asia for over a decade and still haven’t made any real money (and now exist on the principal that they have “a lot invested in the region”). And with a number of firms saying they want to grow revenue by 30 or so per cent year-on-year, if you do decide to get involved in the region then your firm’s commitment can easily and quickly translate into millions of dollars.

With all of this in mind then, it is important that your strategic reasons for being involved are more than simply a partner’s desire to live somewhere a little more exotic than cold, windy [insert name of city] or because you heard on your train ride to work this morning that XYZ company may give you a job in Rangoon at some unspecified time in the future.

More specific questions your firm needs to be asking include:

does the firm have short-term, medium-term and long-term strategic goals in place that will help measure whether your foray into the market has been a success?
has the firm identified which of your existing client base is active in the region?
do any of your firm’s clients have strategic growth plans for the Asian market?
are your firm’s potential clients in the region growth prospects, or are they mature players whose account you need to keep?
is your firm pursuing an aggressive acquisition policy or more conservative rear-guard protectionist policy?
how are looking to grow in Asia – lateral hires in the markets we want to be in (preferred method for South East Asia)? Or are we relocating partners from elsewhere into the jurisdiction (favoured method in Korea for example)?
what performance related metrics has the firm put in place to encourage its partners to be actively involved in the strategy (for example, is there cross-referral profit points?)?
what local issues will the firm need to include? – For example, how many law firms send lawyers to Asia without sending them on a cultural awareness or language program (in the same way as government departments do)? Why is that I wonder?
what are your competition currently doing/likely to do in the near future in the region? Importantly, do they have a chequebook that is likely to cause me considerable pain?

These are just some of the issues your firm should be thinking through if it wants to get involved in the potentially lucrative Asian market.

And the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

The Asia-Pacific legal services market had total revenues of $80.4bn in 2013
The Asia-Pacific legal services market enjoyed compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.9% between 2009 and 2013
The Asia-Pacific legal services market is forecast to enjoy an compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% for the five-year period 2013 – 2018
The monetary value of the Asia-Pacific legal services market is forecast to be $112.9bn by the end of 2018

Unsurprisingly then, you won’t be alone. There were approximately half a million active lawyers in the Asia-Pacific legal services market 2013.

—–

* It is critical, when looking at your “Asian” strategy, that you think of the whole of Asia – Indonesia; Korea; Myanmar; Malaysia; Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; Taiwan; Vietnam; as well as China. In other words, Asia is more than just China. If China is your market strategy, that’s fine but don’t call it an “Asian” strategy, call it a “China” strategy. Likewise, if ASEAN is your target market, call it an ASEAN strategy, not Asian.

Is The Tail Wagging The Dog In The Modern Law Firm?

Everyone thinks it, so let’s just come out and say it:

“Fee earners in Australian law firms are over-managed by ‘non-lawyers’ these days!”

Last week (10 December), Justin Whealing – editor of http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au – wrote an article headed [Australian] ‘Partners unhappy and over-managed’.

The article provides a fascinating insight from “one of Australia’s leading legal recruiters” [Whealing’s words] into several aspects of current thinking (or whinging) among dissatisfied law firm partners, including that the partnership of some of Australia’s larger and global law firms are unhappy that:

“They are losing their sense of proprietorship and sense of being a partner and feel more like an employee… Senior management aren’t listening enough to partners in making decisions.”

Sorry, but my levels of sympathy are low.

Do I believe that partners in today’s Australian law firms feel disenfranchised?

Yes; without a doubt.

Do I believe that this feeling is more pronounced when the partner in question is a member of a firm that has been involved in a merger – either domestic or international – as the article indicates?

Again; yes, I do.

But…

“…Senior management aren’t listening enough to partners in making decisions.”

Seriously?

I have very little sympathy for this argument – and the reason I say this is two-fold.

First, today’s business environment necessitates that major law firms move away from a partnership structure and towards a corporate one. Simply put, a global law firm with over 300 partners would be impossible to manage if each partner had an equal vote on all decisions relating to the day-to-day operational issues of the firm. Nothing would get done. So, in order to achieve the objectives of the partnership as a whole, a central committee of expert professionals needs to be formed to manage and run the day-to-day operational business of the firm.

Second, by definition a partnership is the sum of all of its parts. So, even if we were to say that the partnership should rule the roost on partnership issues – including both strategic and operational issues (and no corporate structure is needed), then said partnership needs to act in the interests of the collective and not the sole interests of one partner. If a partner doesn’t agree with this approach, then the partner in question should set up as a sole practitioner and avoid the complex issues of being involved in a partnership.

In other words, the power in a partnership structured law firm vests with the partners.

However, does a better balance than currently exists need to be drawn?

Undoubtedly, the answer here is ‘yes’.

Having a central committee (board) who carries out the wishes and instructions of the partnership, as decided at the annual partners meeting, is one thing. Having an executive committee who dictates to the partnership how the partnership needs to be managed and the strategic direction that partnership should take is quite another.

And there is little doubt that following the global expansion of a number of law firms this balance has misaligned (funnily enough, in many cases, at the suggestion of outside ‘management consultants’ the partnership itself has hired).

Overall though, while I would agree that a case can be made by the partners that the pendulum has probably swung too far towards management telling the partnership what they must do – aka, the tail is wagging the dog – if the partners of these firms truly wish to wrestle control back from these ‘non-lawyer’ managers, then they need to move away from the an attitude where they talk in corridors about…

“No one appreciates a micro-managed performance-based system”

…and start to take the bull by the horns and spell out what the joint strategic vision and goals of the partnership are at the next partnership meeting and then dictate that strategy to the management committee running the operational aspects of implementing said partners’ agreed strategy.

Alternatively, in Australia at least, there is the option to list your firm and become a shareholder of the business.