‘It’s about the sustainability of the profession’: LawCare and the CLLS push firms to prioritise mental health

‘We’re not putting enough value on prioritising people,’ says LawCare CEO Elizabeth Rimmer as she discusses the state of mental health support in the legal profession.

‘It’s absolutely true that people are the greatest asset in any organisation because it’s the people that do the work. So safeguarding that and nurturing those people is really important,’ she tells Legal Business.

Nearly 60% of legal professionals experienced poor mental health last year, according to LawCare research that also found more than half could see themselves leaving their workplace within the next five years. These findings suggest that, despite law firms’ efforts to improve work life balance and mental health support in recent years, much more needs to be done to address structural pressures within the profession.

Rimmer wants to see firms taking greater responsibility for staff wellbeing.

‘The push for profit is the overriding impetus in the business case in law. And people are the drivers of that profit. So supporting and nurturing them to do their best work is actually in your interest, but we tend to sacrifice people sometimes in the pursuit of increased profitability in law firms,’ she argues.

This need for greater support is why Rimmer is grateful for the help the City of London Law Society (CLLS) and the City of London Solicitors Company (CLSC) are giving her charity, which operates a volunteer-led helpline providing confidential support to anyone in the industry who’s struggling.

The three-year partnership will see the CLLS and CLSC provide £45,000 in additional funding to the charity over the next three years, with the organisations joining LawCare’s 25 Club, which calls on firms and leading individuals to commit funding to the charity.

CLLS chief executive, Patrick McCann, says he hopes the partnership will encourage contributions from law firms.

‘I’m a big believer in collaboration amongst competitive organisations, and this is something we should all be doing together. It is very much in City law firms’ interests to have healthy, engaged, high-performing people, and that doesn’t come without support. So there’s a real bottom line benefit to making sure your people are looked after.’

‘That’s partly why we want to support LawCare, it’s very much that we wanted to support the people who work in our law firms, but also we want this to be a beacon to other organisations to do something similar,’ he concludes.

Peter King, who chairs the CLSC’s charity committee, highlights the personal connections with the new partnership.  ‘Most of our members have some sort of lived experience, either personally, or they’ve got friends who’ve had that lived experience, and that’s why we’re very keen to support it.’

With a reputation for high-pressure environments and long working hours, Rimmer says law firms have a responsibility – as well as a vested interest –  in ensuring all their employees are looked after.

‘We should all be doing our best to mitigate the known risks to people’s mental health in the workplace so that we can try to ensure that people don’t become ill and that they stay in the sector,’ she stresses.

Rimmer continues: ‘It’s about the sustainability of the profession. People work incredibly hard to get in here, we don’t want them leaving. We want people to feel that this is worthwhile. They made big decisions to come into the sector and we want them to stay.’

With long hours and high pressure the norm for many, comparatively large numbers of lawyers have experienced stress, burnout or anxiety at various points in their career. Work-related pressure has also seen the role linked with suicide, in a small number of instances.

A large part of the problem, King notes, is the stigma that remains around mental health: ‘There was a feeling that if you showed a sign of weakness then that was going to affect your career prospects in a material way.’

He continues: ‘The turnaround has come, thanks to people like Elizabeth and others over the past 15 years or so and now it is okay to talk about it. There are high profile role models of people who  talk about their mental health struggles, and who have made significant contributions to their firm.’

McCann agrees that the industry has made progress, but believes there is still a long way to go.

‘I suspect that nearly every senior leader has perspectives on this, and experiences this. I’d love people to talk more about this, to allow all of us to go: okay, this is a normal part of the job and it needs to be dealt with,’ he says.

‘I think some changes have happened and we do seem to be moving in a better direction. But I’m not sure we are there yet. I’m not sure we are in a world where people can properly ask for what they need and that what they need is necessarily being provided for.’

LawCare’s confidential helpline is available for support Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm for anyone in the legal industry.

Broadfield partnership shrinks after ‘reshaping’ of Alvarez & Marsal-backed business

Broadfield, the firm formed last year by Alvarez & Marsal (A&M) and UK mid-market firm BDB Pitmans, has seen around 20% of its UK partners leave, according to Companies House filings.

The firm’s Companies House page shows 14 partner terminations. Of those, two became effective in January, 11 left the partnership in March, and a further departure took effect in April.

The departures, first reported by RollOnFriday, bring the UK partnership to 45, according to the firm’s website.

A significant number of the departing partners have moved to Michelmores and Wedlake Bell. Real estate partner Simon Burson, corporate partner Duncan Walker and residential property partner Tim Middleton joined Michelmores to help launch its Cambridge office this April.

Meanwhile, Wedlake Bell has added five former Broadfield partners over the last 12 months, including Jonathan Brinsden, who joined as head of charities and not-for-profit and private client lawyer Hugo Smith, who joined after more than 20 years at Broadfield.

Wedlake Bell managing partner Martin Arnold said the departures from Broadfield had been ‘a natural consequence’ of the changes taking place at the firm following Alvarez & Marsal’s tie-up with BDB Pitmans.

‘Over the last 12 months we have welcomed five partners from Broadfield together with a number of members of staff: all of whom have proved to be great additions to our corporate, private client and charities practices. These moves were a natural consequence of the changes taking place at Broadfield that led various partners there to examine their options. We are very pleased that these partners opted for us.’

Despite the UK departures, Broadfield has continued to add to its international partnership, recently recruiting two partners in New York – former Sidley corporate partner Michiel Vissier, who has joined as head of private equity at Broadfield US, and Cooley debt finance partner Patrick Flanagan.

A spokesperson for Broadfield said: ‘Since launching less than 18 months ago, Broadfield has been reshaping its business around the practices and markets where we see the strongest client demand. That has involved partner transitions as well as targeted recruitment and internal promotions.’

The spokesperson added that since launch, the firm has recruited 76 lawyers globally, including 32 partners, and that Broadfield’s UK business remains strong and, subject to final year-end close, ‘expects to report higher profit per partner and improved gross margins year-on-year.’

Broadfield UK managing partner John Hutchinson recently confirmed to LB that the firm is continuing with its ambitious plan to open six offices in two years, which would involve the opening of a further three international offices this calendar year.

He said the current focus is on expanding into key jurisdictions including the US, the Middle East, East Asia and mainland Europe.

[email protected]

Photo: Bartholomew Close EC1 London UK” by chas679; CC BY 2.0.

Will Brussels merger overhaul create Europe’s next corporate giants?

‘There’s been a long-running debate since EU merger regulation came into being over 30 years ago about whether greater account should be taken of industrial policy, competitiveness, growth, and European champions,’ says Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Brussels antitrust partner Nick Levy.

With the EU launching new draft merger guidelines intended to make it easier for companies to push through big deals that could allow them to build the scale needed to become European ‘champions’ to rival US corporate giants, the debate has ramped up.

‘We are entering a time when merger control is becoming more political, and the EU competition commissioner is under pressure to take account of broader policy objectives beyond purely competition-related considerations,’ says Levy.

The draft reforms, the first in more than 20 years, are intended to foster growth and make it easier for merging companies to argue the benefits of scale and competitiveness in merger reviews, helping European corporates better compete globally.

The planned overhaul follows the 2024 Draghi Report, which criticised merger control in the EU, arguing that it needed to change and take account of global developments and innovation, to maintain the bloc’s competitive edge.

Proskauer London antitrust partner Mary Wilks says: ‘The draft revised merger guidelines provide a better framework for engaging with the Commission. It is going to give you a more flexible way of arguing your case.’

To create this flexibility, the draft guidelines propose a greater focus on innovation, investment and the resilience of the internal European market.

If the reforms have the desired effect, they could pave the way for more mergers to be approved. However, it needs to be balanced against the Commission’s expanded definitions of theories of harm, which could be used to block a merger.

‘This is not a carte blanche and you still need clear and convincing evidence’

White & Case London antitrust partner Marc Israel says the impact of the reform could be significant but warns that much will depend on how it is applied in practice.

‘The biggest difference is the notion of the theory of benefit. It’s a balancing act, so to see how that is applied will be interesting. The Commission has a margin of discretion in applying the test, like when looking at scale and the points in the Draghi report about building European competitiveness.’

Linklaters Brussels antitrust partner Lodewick Prompers says the greater emphasis on efficiencies should make merger assessments more balanced.

He says: ‘Efficiencies used to be a hail mary argument that you would bring at the end. It was a sign that you were in trouble and it never succeeded. That will now be much more balanced.’

The draft reforms in the EU, which are open to consultation until 25 June, come after the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) overhauled its processes to boost the speed and efficiency of mergers involving UK companies in 2024.

Cleary London M&A partner Nick Rumsby says that this reform has already made an impact on the UK deal markets and suggests the EU is trying to follow a similar path.

‘I think that there has been a shift in tone. Previously, there was a concern that getting deals done in the UK was harder than before, with the risk that potential acquirers would look to invest elsewhere,’ he says.

Rumsby continues: ‘Hopefully, this is no longer the case and, whilst there will be continued scrutiny for some deals and sectors, the perception of the UK now is that it is a good place to do transactions.’

Vinson & Elkins European antitrust head May Lyn Yuen also highlights the importance of the planned reform’s visible commitment to a business-positive environment.

‘From afar, it can seem as if the EU is focused on regulation. At least in terms of framing, if the Commission gives out the message that “we are business-friendly,” and “we are keen on dynamic growth,” then that is a positive.’

However, she warns that a more open competition regime will not automatically lead to an increase in dealmaking. ‘To what extent this is going to lead to an immediate surge of deals coming through, I’m a little bit more sceptical on that side,’ she concludes.

‘It’s about giving you more opportunities to bring in different facts that are relevant to effects on competition in your case’

Wilks adds: ‘I think the recent signals from executive vice-president Ribera have been that the Commission is still going to look very carefully at the effects on competition and consumers. So just because a merger will create a European champion, doesn’t mean you’re going to get it through. But you’re going to have more opportunities to counterbalance the initial concerns of the Commission.’

‘That’s really what it’s about, giving you more opportunities to bring in different facts that are relevant to effects on competition in your case,’ she stresses.

Linklaters’ Prompers agrees, arguing that – even in draft form  –  the change in narrative from the Commission is having some impact. ‘We’re seeing a lot of cases coming through now, where the Commission is applying these efficiencies and signalling to the market that they are willing to engage. This is not a carte blanche and you still need clear and convincing evidence, but the shift in practice is already there.’

He cautions that the reforms do not alter the underlying legal test, but instead give the Commission greater discretion in enforcement.

Israel also stresses that the extent to which the reform makes a difference will depend on how the new guidelines are applied in practice. Under the current timetable, the Commission is not expected to finalise the guidelines until November, with the formal changes not coming into effect until the end of 2027.

He concludes: ‘The draft guidelines are one thing, but – once adopted – how they are going to be applied in practice is another. Maybe there will be some deals that might have been difficult in the past that might be revisited, but we will have to see.’

Ashurst and Perkins referrals surge as firms see benefits of pre-merger ‘dating’ phase

Ashurst‘s London office has seen an influx of work from Perkins Coie since the announcement of their merger last year, as the two firms get to know each other better ahead of their merger going live later this year.

London managing partner Claire Dutch (pictured) said the firm has already been seeing the benefits of pre-merger integration – ‘dating’, as she puts it – with joint events, in-person town halls, and an associate buddy system all helping to connect the two firms.

The two firms began referring matters to one another last November, and have has been tracking collaboration levels. Although Ashurst declined to confirm exact numbers, LB understands that the number of mandates that have been referred between the two firms since November is in the triple digits.

Recent examples of matters the two firms have worked on together have included advising global payments platform Zepz on its acquisition of a credit business from San Francisco-based fintech Pomelo, a deal which was completed in January.

Ashurst advised Zepz with a team led by UK head of financial institutions M&A Gavin Weir, while Perkins acted as US counsel, led by corporate and financial services partners David Martinez and Dax Hansen in Seattle and Sam Boro in Washington DC.

Meanwhile, in April, Weir and fellow corporate partner Hayley Gow advised Centerbridge Partners on its investment in funding rounds of £550m for Ebury, Santander’s global fintech platform, alongside Hansen, Boro and Perkins Washington DC regulatory duo Ted Dowd and Jamie Schafer.

Collaboration between the two partnerships is only set to increase, after both firms voted to approve their merger on 10 April – a ‘pivotal moment’ in Ashurst’s more than 200-year history, Dutch said.

‘London is the biggest office of the Ashurst network,’ she continued. ‘As it stands, London and Sydney are the key engine rooms of growth for the firm – but we’ve been open about getting that missing piece of the puzzle to make us truly global.’

Perkins is also well aware of the potential benefits of the combination. ‘London is the gateway to Europe, and Perkins has been looking to access the European market,’ Dutch explained.

The US firm only very recently dipped its toes into the London market, launching in 2024 with the hire of former White & Case private equity partner Ian Bagshaw, who leads the office as managing partner.

The base at 22 Bishopsgate currently has 22 lawyers, including six partners, most of who focus on M&A and tech transactions, according to the firm’s website. 

Despite the office’s small size, particularly when set against Ashurst’s London headcount of nearly 400, Dutch said there is not yet a fixed timescale for when the two offices will be fully integrated.

‘Culture isn’t just fluff. You can’t grow if the culture is bad’

One of the most important clients for Ashurst’s London office is the UK Government, and last December the firm was reappointed to the Crown Commercial Service panel, which covers major projects, energy, finance, rail legal services and international investment disputes.

Earlier this year the firm advised the government on its Digital Gilt Instrument pilot, a core part of the UK’s drive to modernise its financial system. The project was delivered through HSBC’s Orion platform; the bank is another key client of Ashurst, with the firm holding a spot on HSBC’s global panel.

‘Our corporate and finance practices have surged forward,’ Dutch notes, adding they have been key drivers in terms of revenue.

Despite recent departures, including senior energy M&A partner Michael Burns, who left for Vinson & Elkins earlier this week, the firm has been adding to its corporate bench. A three-partner private equity team joined at the end of March, while Jonathan Parry, an equity capital markets lawyer who was at the firm between 2000 and 2016, rejoined from White & Case last month.

Dutch, who is approaching the halfway point of her two-year term as London managing partner, credits her working-class upbringing in the North of England with helping her build a cohesive and authentic culture during the first year of her leadership term.

She has refused to hand out video links for the aforementioned town hall meetings, insisting instead on in-person attendance – a decision she said wasn’t universally popular. ‘Culture isn’t just fluff,’ she says. ‘There’s a clear business case in it. You can’t grow or achieve high levels of performance if the culture is bad.’

Ashurst’s merger with Perkins was voted through by partners in April this year, with the union set to go live in July this year. Ashurst Perkins Coie will be a fully integrated firm with combined revenues of approximately $2.8bn and 3,000 lawyers worldwide.

[email protected]

Legal Business Awards 2026: the in-house legal teams and GCs in the running

Unilever, Starbucks and Novo Nordisk are among the names in contention for honours at this year’s Legal Business Awards, with the shortlists for the in-house categories revealed yesterday (14 May).

The legal teams and lawyers in the running for the four flagship in-house awards – In-House Team of the Year, GC of the Year, Most Transformative In-House Team and Rising Star In-House Counsel – were announced one week after the other 24 shortlists were unveiled last week.

Nine legal teams are going head to head for the In-House Team of the Year award, which last year went to BT (pictured above with awards host Katherine Ryan).

This year’s shortlist features companies drawn from a broad mix of sectors, from consumer-facing brands such as Starbucks, Unilever and Whitbread, to Novo Nordisk, the healthcare giant behind weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, and industrial companies such as Kier Group and Bosch.

The GC of the Year Award will go to one of eight legal leaders, including Revolut chief legal officer (CLO) Tom Hambrett, Soho House CLO Benedict Nwaeke, and Jessica Winter, CLO at UK fintech Wise, which this week made its trading debut in the US with a Nasdaq listing.

A number of household names are competing to be named the Most Transformative In-House Team of the Year, including British Airways, BP and Sainsbury’s, with private equity powerhouse Carlyle also in the mix.

Meanwhile, the award for Rising Star In-House Counsel of the Year will go to the most deserving lawyer from a shortlist of seven up-and-coming counsel from companies such as Balfour Beatty, Kier Group and Debenhams.

The awards, which will be handed out on 29 September at London’s Grosvenor House, recognise the cream of the legal profession, with a total of 28 honours for the private practice lawyers, law firms, barristers and in-house lawyers operating at the top end of the legal market.

FreshfieldsHerbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Slaughter and May are among the most-nominated law firms, while a line-up of big-name KCs from chambers including Essex Court4 New Square and One Essex Court are in the running for Barrister of the Year.

View the shortlist for the Legal Business Awards 2026

Freshfields private capital co-head takes UK leadership role

Freshfields has appointed a new UK managing partner, the firm announced today (14 May), with incumbent City chief Mark Sansom to step into a new role as global client partner.

The firm has appointed London private capital co-head Victoria Sigeti to the role. Sigeti, who joined the firm 25 years ago before making partner in 2015, is a leading private equity partner, and has played a key role in shaping the firm’s expansion of its private capital offering.

In the Legal 500 Hall of Fame for high-value PE, Sigeti is currently one of the partners acting for Swedish buyout shop EQT on its potential acquisition of FTSE 100 company Intertek.

Both role changes will take effect immediately, and both Sansom and Sigeti will continue their client work.

Sansom, who took over as managing partner in 2023 from Claire Wills, will have responsibility to shape the firm’s client strategy across practices and sectors. The role, which LB understands is not part of the global leadership team, was not occupied, though current global managing partner Alan Mason did previously hold the post.

Commenting on her move, Sigeti said: ‘It is a privilege to be appointed as UK Managing Partner, building on the strong legacy of leadership in this role. London remains central to our global success, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the firm to continue delivering for our clients and investing in the next generation of talent.’

‘Leading Freshfields’ UK and Ireland business has been hugely rewarding. I’m excited to build on that experience in my new role, with a firmwide focus on deepening our client relationships and supporting the firm’s continued growth,’ Sansom said.

Sansom was one of the lead partners that acted for Mastercard when the credit card provider faced a potential class action in which over 46 million customers claimed damanges. Speaking to LB during 2024, when the case was very much still underway, he said, ‘We’ve had some good successes along the way that have reduced the value of the remaining claim hugely. It started at more than £17bn and is now worth well under a billion on our view.’

Reflecting on the litigator’s term, Freshfields senior partner Georgia Dawson added: ‘Mark’s appointment as global Client Partner reflects the importance we place on a strong, integrated client strategy at a global level, and I’m delighted he will be leading this work for the firm.

‘I would also like to thank Mark for the impact he has had as our UK and Ireland regional managing partner. I’m pleased to announce Victoria as his successor; her leadership experience and client focus make her exceptionally well placed to drive forward our UK business as a core part of Freshfields’ global platform.’

When Sansom took over as London managing partner in 2023, he told LB that the firm was particularly focused on nurturing its internal pipeline. Last month, the firm announced its largest ever promotion round with 43 partners, 11 of whom were in London, a slight increase from nine the previous year.

 

[email protected]

Life During Law: Freshfields’ London head Mark Sansom

 

Burness Paull passes £100m in turnover as PEP jumps by a quarter

Leading Scottish firm Burness Paull has reported double-digit growth across all key metrics for the 2025-26 financial year, with revenue crossing the £100m mark for the first time as PEP has jumped by a quarter.

The firm recorded turnover of £105.2m – a 12% increase year-on-year, up from £93.5m. Profit also rose 27%, up to £45.7m from £35.9m the previous year.

As a result of its strong performance, the firm issued an all-employee bonus, with all lawyers and staff receiving an additional payment worth 10% of their annual salary, on top of iindividual performance-related bonuses.

Profit per equity partner (PEP) also saw nearly 26% increase on the previous year, jumping from £676.5m to £851m.

This marked a significant improvement from the previous year, where PEP fell by 5.6%, according to last year’s LB100 table.

The firm attributed the strong performance to its 2025-2028 strategy, which it said ‘focuses on delivering and enhancing value for clients through the provision of the highest-quality advice and service on complex matters in core commercial service lines.’

Partner headcount also increased slightly, rising from 87 to 92. This number was buoyed by a series of hires and promotions over the year. Last June, the firm hired energy real estate partner Nicola Scott from Davidson Chalmers Stewart, where she had spent her final year as head of real estate.

This February, it added Pinsent Masons direct of knowledge Tim Dale, who joined in the newly created role of knowledge and client services partner.

Additionally, Burness Paull made five internal partner promotions effective at the start of the 2025-26 financial year. These included Rachel MacArthur, Daniela Pallucci and Colin Smith in corporate finance, alongside Nick Warrillow in commercial disputes, and Gemma Young in banking and finance.

It also made notable C-suite hires, appointing Ashurst chief technology office Noel Jordan as its chief operating officer, and Legal 500 EU and competition leading partner Tom Usher as a consultant. Usher joined from Macfarlanes, where he served eight years as partner before transitioning to a senior advisor role.

Notable mandates for the firm over the last financial year include advising Wood Group on the Scottish aspects of its £216m acquisition by Dubai-based Sidara, and EIG Asset Management LLC on the structuring of a £1bn global fundraise for Fidra Energy’s battery energy storage business.

The firm also advised Orsted A/S on the sale of its UK onshore assets as part of the sale of its €1.4bn European portfolio.

Managing partner Mark Ellis (pictured left) said in a statement: ‘Surpassing £100m turnover is a significant milestone. We are grateful to our people and delighted to reward everything that has been achieved with the 10% all-employee bonus.’

He continued: ‘We are ambitious and have outstanding talent across our business. Our position as a leading independent firm in a dynamic market and a fast-changing world provides the platform for further growth and success.’

Firm chair Peter Lawson (pictured right) added: ‘Cautious optimism in the M&A market and appetite from private equity led to our corporate team advising on large-scale, complex, multi-jurisdictional mandates where our expertise and market knowledge enable us to deliver significant value for clients.

‘Market volatility also saw our restructuring and insolvency team in demand, while our market-leading employment team continues to be sought after for advice around reforms introduced by the Employment Rights Act and the complex and evolving area of competing protected beliefs in the workplace.

‘Our strong financial performance is testament to our ambitious new strategy and commitment to clients, which supports our ambition to be the leading law firm operating in and from Scotland.’

Burness Paull currently employs 700 people, and operates from offices in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

For the current financial year, the firm has promoted an additional five partners, in line with last year’s figures. These include one partner apiece across technology and commercial, restructuring, construction and projects, employment, and real estate, and include four women and one man, compared to three women and two men the previous year.

In a statement on the promotions, Lawson said: ‘These promotions reflect our commitment to investing in our people at all levels and maintaining a culture of excellence in which we drive standards and support career progression in a meaningful and supportive way.’

[email protected]

Burness Paull 2026 partner promotions in full:

Jo McLean, technology and commercial
Fiona Carlin, restructuring and insolvency
Kirstin Beattie, construction and projects
Lisa Byars, employment
Stuart Gardiner, real estate

[email protected]

‘Being a GC can be lonely’ – in-house lawyers open up about stress, isolation and burnout

‘Law is self-selecting, with very driven, ambitious people. Because it is so competitive, the whole system drives you to have a fear of failure, which is just not normal,’ says Richard Harris, chief legal officer at recruitment company Robert Walters.

Stress, high workloads and pressure are generally viewed as part and parcel of a career in commercial law. But while there has been increased awareness of how damaging these aspects of the role can be, attention has often focused on private practice, where demanding clients and high-pressure environments gave rise to the industry’s infamous culture of ‘all-nighters’.

But in-house lawyers say these pressures are just as present outside private practice.

For this article, Legal Business spoke to a host of in-house lawyers for Mental Health Awareness Week – and all pointed out the unique challenges that come with the in-house role.

In particular, they point to the difficulty of reconciling the inability to switch off that comes with being close to the business with a simultaneous feeling of isolation from it.

Michaela Berryman (pictured), head of legal for finance and strategic projects at insurer Howden Group Holdings, explains: ‘It’s the weight of being the person who is expected to have the answer, often on things that are just judgement calls, and there isn’t actually a clean answer. It’s a really distinct kind of isolation.’

She continues: ‘The kinds of mental health challenges that I’ve seen come up in in-house roles are your usual stress and burnout, but they’re compounded by that feeling of isolation.’

Matthew Wilson, chief legal officer at media production company Fremantle agrees.

‘Being a general counsel can be lonely. It can mean a tension between your role as a lawyer and a senior member of the business. GCs are increasingly looked at as business leaders in their own right, taking on broader responsibilities outside of legal. That can cause conflict between the different hats that you wear, and that is inherently stressful.’

Sleepless nights

‘I found myself burning out at times, having sleepless nights in terms of worrying about decisions that you’ve advised on, and worrying about what’s going to happen if things go wrong,’ admits Kulpash Patel (pictured), assistant GC for Europe at tobacco company Philip Morris International.

Reflecting on why this is, he suggests: ‘As lawyers, we are trained and conditioned to think about what could go wrong. We’re not trained or conditioned to think about what could go right! Very rarely do you ever hear a lawyer say, “this could be amazing, let’s go for it!” But we should!’

Ocado Group deputy GC Neil Laventure reiterates this point: ‘As lawyers, we tend to be overachievers. We tend to worry about getting things right, getting things done well and being responsive, perhaps more than other professions. So, I think we’re naturally predisposed to having issues.’

On the differences between private practice and in-house, Harris explains that while some historically perceived moving in-house as an easy option, times have changed.

‘It was very much seen as a lifestyle choice,’ he says. ‘I don’t think it was true then, and it’s definitely not true now. The demands on us as in-house lawyers are just slightly different from private practice.’

As evidence, he points to a previous in-house role when he was working on a transaction for the company. After working consistently long hours and coming home at midnight every night, he realised the stress had become too much when he was on holiday and found himself unable to connect to the Wi-Fi to read an important email.

‘I was so worried about it – I started to feel sick that I couldn’t get my work done, even though I was on holiday. I thought: “What the hell am I doing? This isn’t making me happy. This is incredibly stressful”.’

Lisa Ardley-Price, managing legal counsel at NatWest, agrees that it is important to find a role that allows balance. ‘When I was in private practice, there was an ‘always on’ mentality. But that doesn’t mean all the pressures of working as a lawyer go away when you move in-house. In-house is not a magic bullet. It comes with a very different way of working.’

She continues: ‘When I was working in private practice, I might be working on a couple of different transactions and I would be fully immersed in those. In-house is more of a daily juggling act – you have to be very agile in how you respond to different priorities.’

Boiling frogs

‘It’s like a boiling frog. You don’t realise what you’re doing to yourself. I know what it’s like to be that close to burnout, even if you don’t recognise it at the time,’ says Harris.

Like many of those spoken to for this feature, Harris was only able to identify the feeling of burnout in hindsight.

‘Sometimes you don’t realise that you’re on a downward slope until you crash and burn,’ says Patel. ‘At that point, you think: “maybe I should do something about this”. We need to seek help before that happens.’

On why this is an all-too-common experience for in-house counsel, Ardley-Price (pictured) explains: ‘I love being part of the client, rather than a service provider. But that can mean that at times it can be challenging to separate yourself from what’s happening internally, and it can be harder to say no.’

She continues: ‘You have to have a clear understanding of your capacity and priorities and set clear boundaries in that respect. Otherwise, there is a risk that you say yes to too much, and you stretch yourself too thin.’

Building resilience

Laventure agrees that getting the right balance is difficult, particularly when times are busy. ‘I now know how to set my boundaries – I have ways of decompressing and switching off.’

He adds that experience is also a huge factor in being able to protect his wellbeing in times of stress, explaining that it comes with experience. ‘When you think something’s a disaster, it tends not to be.’

Wilson agrees: ‘You build a certain resilience over time. As a result, you’re surprised less often. That sinking feeling in your stomach when something unexpected happens – I have that less often now than I did 10 years ago.’

Others say that asking for help has been transformative for their wellbeing at work.

Berryman explains that asking for help in times of stress has been both a professional and personal decision.

‘I’ve had periods where the demands of the role and life outside that role stacked up all at the same time. Asking for help was one of the most important professional decisions I’ve ever made.’

She continues: ‘We as leaders need to be cognisant that resilience is not infinite, and it isn’t the answer to a role or a culture that might be structurally or culturally harmful. The bravest thing I’ve seen senior lawyers do is leave, when leaving was the right call.’

Recognising the signs

With regards to the relationship between private practice and in-house, Ardley-Price explains: ‘Things are never going to change in terms of the private practice culture of high pressure and work hours unless client expectations and demands also change.’

She continues: ‘We need to ensure we’re being considerate of what we’re asking of our private practice lawyers; that we’re setting realistic deadlines and not putting people under unrealistic timescales or pressures.’

While attitudes and conversations around mental health in the workplace have evolved, all of those spoken to for this article say that there is still work to be done.

‘It’s gone from being small, one-to-one conversations, to being bigger, more open conversations – among teams, organisations and the industry, which I think has led to more supportive environments,’ says Wilson (pictured).

New initiatives, such as the GC Wellbeing Network, are providing alternative avenues for in-house counsel to address the unique issues that they face in their roles.

The network, which was founded in 2024, hosts a number of closed-door workshops throughout the year for senior in-house counsel to share their experiences and find tools and mechanisms to work through them. Earlier this month, it was recognised with the award for the Mental Health & Wellbeing Initiative of the Year at the Legal 500 UK ESG Awards.

Speaking with Legal Business last month, founder Steven MacGregor explained the need for a dedicated space for senior in-house lawyers to decompress and discuss the stresses of the job among peers.

‘What we try to create when we have the workshops is that we close the door, and there’s no photographs and no recording. You see the shoulders coming down, people can breathe, and it’s that safe space that they can share with their peers and learn about being a more effective leader.’

For Patel, being an advocate for mental health issues within his organisation and breaking the stigma around discussing this openly has been important in creating a safe culture for his team.

‘As I’ve moved into more senior roles, one of the things I’ve tried to do is to talk openly about mental health and try to raise awareness. Talking about it with more junior members of staff creates a safer environment, and reminds everyone that we are all human.’

On his own coping mechanisms, he notes the importance of learning to recognise ‘the signs and triggers’ and then acting on it.

‘Reaching out to someone you feel comfortable with and talking to them in a safe environment can help so much.’

[email protected]

A&O Shearman reshuffles executive board with three newly elected partners

A&O Shearman has reshuffled its leadership board for the first time since its 2024 merger, reducing the total size of the board from 11 partners to nine.

The board now includes six partners in addition to senior partner Khalid Garousha, global managing partner Hervé Ekué, and US chair Adam Hakki, who all retain their positions after they were appointed in 2024.

The total number of legacy Shearman & Sterling partners on the board has dipped from three to two in the reshuffle, while the geographic split remains similar. London representation is steady at three partners, while the US saw its share of board positions decline from four to three, with two partners on the new board based in New York and one in Dallas.

Continental Europe retained two positions on the board, while the current board has no partners from the firm’s Asia-Pacific offices.

Three partners were elected to the board for the first time: global AI group head David Wakeling, based in London, and finance partner Walter Uebelhoer, in Munich, from legacy Allen & Overy, and legacy Shearman & Sterling partner Alain Dermarkar, who serves as co-head of US private equity and co-head of M&A, based in Dallas.

Disputes partner Alice Englehart and capital markets partner Tim Conduit, both in London, and ESG partner Ken Rivlin in New York, were reelected to the board. All three partners were partners at legacy Allen & Overy before the two firms completed their merger in 2024.

Partners not reelected to the board include audit committee chair Parya Badie in London and senior partner for Greater China and financial institutions sector lead Roger Lui in Hong Kong, both from legacy A&O, as well as global co-head of real estate Lisa Brill and global co-head of capital markets Lona Nallengara, both in New York and both from legacy Shearman.

M&A partner Peter Myners in Luxembourg also did not retain his board position, after announcing on LinkedIn last week that he had decided to step back from his role on the leadership team.

[email protected]

A&O Shearman new board in full:

Khalid Garousha, Abu Dhabi
Adam Hakki, New York
Hervé Ekué, Paris
Tim Conduit, London
Alain Demarkar, Dallas
Alice Englehart, London
Ken Rivlin, New York
Walter Uebelhoer, Munich
David Wakeling, London

Law firms targeted by Trump executive orders gear up for court battle

Four US law firms targeted by the Trump administration are set to argue that the executive orders against them endanger the fundamental tenets of the adversarial justice system, as the firms’ fightback against US President Donald Trump continues.

The firms in question – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey – remain engaged in litigation against the administration after President Donald Trump targeted them in executive orders issued last spring.

The cases have been consolidated into a single appeal, to be heard by a three-judge panel in federal court in Washington DC, with former US solicitor general and Legal 500 Hall of Fame litigator Paul Clement representing the firms.

The firms are set to face off against the administration tomorrow (14 May) in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with Clement opposite Department of Justice (DOJ) deputy associate attorney general Abhishek Kambli.

According to a source familiar with the four firms’ argument, they will argue that the administration’s actions violate not just the law firms’ First Amendment rights to represent their clients, but their clients’ rights to representation.

LB understands that they will cite the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Legal Services Corp. v. Velasquez (2001), which held that government restrictions on lawyers’ activities violate the First Amendment, and that: ‘An informed independent judiciary presumes an informed independent bar.’

According to the source, the administration’s defence of the executive orders is likely to rest on the argument that the restrictions on law firms’ interactions with the executive branch are legitimate exercises of discretion over national security clearance.

However, the source said, the four firms will argue that the executive orders are punitive in nature, and that provisions relating to security clearances are not severable from the punitive nature of the orders as a whole.

On the severability point, in addition to a textualist argument based on the terms of the orders as written, the four firms are expected to cite the experience of Paul Weiss, which saw the order against it revoked in its entirety after it cut a deal with the administration to abandon its diversity, equity and inclusion policies in hiring, and to provide the equivalent of $40m in pro bono services to causes the administration supports.

Eight other firms subsequently reached similar deals with the administration, agreeing to provide a total of $940m in pro bono work. With the exception of Paul Weiss, none of the firms that made a deal with the administration was subject to an executive order restricting its activities.

Each of the four law firms that fought the executive orders in court won its initial case against the administration, with four federal judges – two appointed by Democratic presidents and two by Republicans – ruling to invalidate the executive orders.

The administration appealed, and the cases were consolidated, with Clement subsequently instructed by the four law firms. DOJ lawyers filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the administration’s appeals on 2 March, but withdrew the motion the next day.

‘Hours after asking the court to dismiss its appeal, the Department of Justice has abruptly reversed course and moved to continue its defense of the unconstitutional executive orders,’ Perkins Coie said in a statement at the time. ‘It offered no explanation to either the parties or the court for its reversal. We remain committed to defending our firm, our people, and our clients.’

A range of organisations have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the four firms in this case, ranging from The Law Society of England and Wales, which filed a brief alongside 19 other professional bodies across Europe, and Law Firm Partners United, the group established last year to allow partners at top 200 firms to organise in support of the rule of law.

[email protected]

A-list firms call the tune on Sony’s multibillion-dollar music catalogue acquisition

A line-up of elite law firms have advised on a multibillion-dollar music rights deal that has seen Sony Music Publishing acquire a portfolio of songs including hits by Fleetwood Mac, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and Mariah Carey.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Cleary Gottlieb, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins are among the firms advising on the agreement for Sony’s acquisition of the complete music rights portfolio of Recognition Music Group from funds managed by Blackstone, in a deal widely reported to be valued at $4bn.

The deal is being led by an investment partnership between Sony Music Group and Singaporean sovereign wealth fund GIC, which was announced earlier this year.

Simpson Thacher advised Sony on the deal, fielding a New York M&A team led by PE M&A co-head Marni Lerner and corporate partner Keegan Lopez.

Los Angeles-headquartered firm Loeb & Loeb also handled M&A and corporate matters for Sony, including analysis of the music assets included in the purchase, with a team led by music industry group chair John Frankenheimer and corporate partner Allan Duboff, both of whom are based in LA.

Cleary provided antitrust counsel to the publisher, with a cross-border team led by partner Nicholas Levy, based in Brussels and London, New York partner Puja Patel and Washington DC partner Bruce Hoffman.

On the sell-side, Kirkland advised UK-headquartered Recognition Music Group, a portfolio company of alternative asset manager Blackstone, with a cross-border corporate team including New York partners Keri Schick and Peter Martelli, Guirgis Nasief in Los Angeles, and Gregory Scott and David Higgins in London.

Alongside them, Chicago-based partner Seth Traxler advised on technology and IP transaction matters, partners Vivek Ratnam and Mike Beinus in New York and James Seddon in London advised on tax-related aspects, and Washington DC partner Andrea Murino led on antitrust and competition.

Latham also represented Blackstone and Recognition Music Group, advising on the asset-backed financing aspects of the deal. The firm’s team was led by New York structured finance partner Graeme Smith.

The transaction will see Sony Music Publishing acquire music rights to Recognition’s entire catalogue of works, encompassing more than 45,000 songs including Bad Romance by Lady Gaga, Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) by Beyoncé, Go Your Own Way by Fleetwood Mac and All I Want For Christmas Is You by Mariah Carey.

The deal follows Sony’s acquisition last year of a tranche of assets from Recognition Music Group, which was rebranded in March 2025 after Blackstone consolidated its Hipgnosis Songs Fund holdings.

Blackstone acquired the entirety of Hipgnosis Songs Fund from UK public investors for $1.58bn in July 2024, following an earlier $1bn purchase of management company, Hipgnosis Songs Management in 2021.

The asset manager’s longstanding adviser Kirkland led on the 2024 deal, with David Higgins, Seth Traxler and James Seddon all present.

Blackstone senior managing director Qasim Abbas said in a statement: ‘This transaction delivers a strong outcome for Blackstone and our investors and represents a further vote of confidence in music rights as an institutionally established asset class.’

[email protected] 

Ashurst EMEA energy and infrastructure M&A head set to join Vinson’s City base

Ashurst’s EMEA energy and infrastructure M&A head is set to join Vinson & Elkins, with news of the exit coming as the Anglo-Australian firm prepares to merge with Perkins Coie this summer.

Michael Burns, who is described as a ‘rainmaker’ by one former partner, will be departing after around 13 years at Ashurst.

He joined Ashurst as a partner in 2013, and is a Legal 500 leading partner for oil and gas in London, where the firm is ranked in tier 1.

He began his career at legacy Allen & Overy, and has developed specialist expertise advising strategics and private capital sponsors on matters relating to energy transition, digital projects including data centres, and transportation.

Mandates Burns has worked on include advising GIC on its strategic investment alongside Carlyle in Eneus Energy, to support the development of a 14GW+ pipeline of green hydrogen and green ammonia projects, and advising on multiple matters for Brookfield, including its acquisitions of East-West Pipeline, valued at $1.87bn in 2019, and Wireless Infrastructure Group.

At Ashurst, Burns is part of the firm’s specialist oil and gas team, which advises across all stages of the oil and gas life cycle, from financing and M&A to disputes and regulatory matters.

Energy and infrastructure is one of the three core pillars that Ashurst Perkins Coie will focus on when the merger goes live later this year after the deal was successfully voted through last month.

News of the hire comes after V&E’s head of London transactions, Ben Higson, told Legal Business last month that the firm wanted to expand further in the City.

The firm recently hired tax partner Ed Moberly to its transactions practice from Kirkland & Ellis in London as part of these plans, with Higson stating that the firm wanted to capitalise on its investment with additional hires.

‘In London, we’re in growth mode,’ he said. ‘There are two aspects to that. One is identifying where the growth areas are and the second is finding the right people to populate these areas.’

The Texas firm has also been expanding elsewhere, adding Melissa Raciti-Knapp from Freshfields in February as a project finance partner and launching a Brussels office with the hire of competition partner May Lyn Yuen from Hogan Lovells in March.

Since Ashurst’s intention to merge with Perkins Coie was announced in November there have been a number of departures from the firm. Capital markets partners Simon Bullock and Stuart Rubin moved to Baker McKenzie, while structured finance partner Tom Picton moved to Paul Hastings, and PE partner Markjan van Schaardenburgh left for DLA Piper earlier this month.

However, the firm has also added to its corporate and private capital team, hiring a three-partner team from Goodwin in March.

[email protected]

Euro Elite 2026: why continental independents are holding firm

In a market being reshaped by private capital, aggressive expansion by US firms and shifting strategies across the largest UK players, Europe’s top independents are holding firm.

Brushing aside years of economic and geopolitical instability and predictions of decline, leaders at some of Legal Business’s 2026 Euro Elite firms paint a picture of resilience and growth.

Here, they tell LB about the trends in their markets and why they won’t compromise on their independence.

Competition intensified

‘It’s changed a lot. It used to be a non-dynamic market, but Milan has become a “Little London” in many respects,’ says BonelliErede managing partner Eliana Catalano (pictured).

While US and UK firms have long been accustomed to a lateral market moving at breakneck pace, their continental rivals have been more insulated from such high levels of churn.

Now, however, Euro Elite leaders say the era of conservatism is over.

Hogan Lovells has added more than 50 lawyers in Italy over the past two years, while Ropes & Gray’s Milan launch last September is another example of international firms fuelling the city’s lateral market. And, in Italy at least, this movement is not purely between international firms; Ropes most recently added private equity partner Fabrizio Scaparro from Giovannelli & Associati, taking its total partner count in Milan to four, according to the firm’s website.

Gitti & Partners in Milan is the latest to feel the effects of US muscle in the market, with McDermott tapping the Italian independent for a five-partner, twelve-lawyer team led by the firm’s former co-managing partner Vincenzo Giannantonio earlier this month.

The same pattern is happening elsewhere in Europe. Last month Gibson Dunn launched an investment funds practice in Paris with the hire of a seven-lawyer team from Clifford Chance. Meanwhile, Ropes launched in the city in March 2025 with a three-partner hire, also from CC.

Gide Loyrette Nouel managing partner Jean François Levraud says ‘lateral hiring [in France] has become more targeted and strategic’, with firms focusing on strengthening key practices in high-value areas. He highlights his firm’s recent hire of a private equity team from Paul Hastings as evidence of the growth in key strategic areas.

Fellow French leader Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier has also been ramping up on the transactional side, luring a four-partner M&A team in Paris from Gide, led by Legal 500 Hall of Fame partner for M&A in France, Olivier Diaz.

Over in Germany, Alexander Ritvay, managing partner of Noerr, confirms ‘competition for top partners has also intensified’ in his market.

One recent standout move saw Latham & Watkins hire a four-partner private equity and M&A team from Freshfields, including the firm’s former global co-head of M&A, Markus Paul, in December.

Weil and Willkie Farr & Gallagher have also been making moves in Germany, with Weil raiding Latham for highly rated private equity duo Sebastian Pauls and Susanne Decker in October last year.

Meanwhile, Willkie’s 2024 launch in Munich was the prelude to a spate of hiring, with the firm bringing in an 11-lawyer restructuring team from Latham, led by heavyweight partners Jörn Kowalewski and Ulrich Klockenbrink in spring that year and, more recently, adding corporate partner Sebastian Häfele from Kirkland in December.

As in Italy, the country’s independent firms have not been spared as key US players ramp up their offerings. Milbank hired highly rated Frankfurt partner Jan Häller from Hengeler Mueller, while banking & finance partner Burkhard Jäkel left Gleiss Lutz to join Mayer Brown in Frankfurt in January this year.

In Iberia too, Fernando Vives, executive chairman of Garrigues (pictured), characterises the market as ‘very active and dynamic’, with ‘movement across a wide range of practice areas’.

Among high-profile moves in Spain are Gibson Dunn’s recruitment of Armando Albarrán from Freshfields, ahead of its Madrid launch, alongside Gómez-Acebo & Pombo’s addition of Madrid-based litigation partner Rafael Murillo, formerly Freshfields’ head of litigation and arbitration in Spain. Meanwhile, Cuatrecasas’ March hire of DLA Piper’s co-head of Latin America tax, Amory Heine, in Santiago, Chile, underlines the reach of Iberian firms beyond Europe.

The private equity impact

Many of the most high profile moves across the continent have been driven by firms’ efforts to ramp up in lucrative areas like private capital, where relationships with buyout houses are seen as more portable than other clients.

In Italy, Catalano points out that ‘because private equity lawyers are traditionally attached to the PE operators they advise, they tend to feel more independent and are more willing to move.’

This dynamic is replicated across the market as international and independent firms alike try to make their play or grow market share, triggering significant movement in talent.

In Paris, Gide’s Frédéric Levraud describes private equity as ‘one of the main drivers of activity in the legal market… whether through growth investments, sector consolidation or business transformation’.

Recent developments underline the scale of its influence. Last summer, Blackstone announced plans to invest $500bn in Europe over the next decade, KKR has said it is mulling an office in Milan, while PitchBook forecasts that the ratio of PE-backed companies to public companies in Europe will reach a record 2.3x by the end of 2026.

‘There has been a huge change in the market over the last eight years because of the private equity impact,’ says Uría Menéndez managing partner Antonio Herrera (pictured). ‘The flows in the market, in terms of M&A deals, and the pricing of services have been very much influenced by the activity of private equity funds.’

Despite this interest, in the short-term the picture is more subdued. According to data from Dealogic, PE-backed acquisitions in Europe totalled $84bn in Q1 2026; a 44% fall from the previous quarter.

Filippo Troisi, co-managing partner at Legance in Italy, concedes that ‘it’s not the best time for private equity’. Despite this, though, he remains optimistic. ‘Private equity firms are sitting on a huge amount of dry powder, and the gap between asking and bid prices has narrowed compared with last year – both reasons for optimism,’ he maintains.

Holtrop also points to a shift in market dynamics: ‘There’s a little more realism among sellers. It also helps that private equity acquired a huge number of companies during Covid. We are four or five years down the road now, and I think there is some pressure on them to sell these companies.’

The US question

As evidenced by the moves referenced above, private capital and US firms are never too far apart. Kirkland & Ellis’ 2024 Frankfurt debut, Ropes & Gray’s 2025 office openings in Paris and Milan, and Gibson Dunn’s 2025 Zurich launch and planned 2026 Madrid opening underscore the continued expansion of US firms on the continent’s most profitable markets, with private equity linked to many of the moves.

Ritvay though stresses the positives of their growing interest. ‘US law firms are further intensifying what is already strong competition. However, this also creates opportunities for the leading independent European firms, particularly with regard to advising large corporate groups.’

Antonio Baena, who leads the international practice at Cuatrecasas, also sees the bright side: ‘US firms have raised the bar in terms of relationships with investment firms, transactional expertise, fees and attracting top talent among partners and associates alike,’ he says. ‘And they have also created new opportunities within the Spanish market.’

Levraud echoes this, arguing that independent firms are well-placed to capitalise on these new opportunities owing to their ‘strong European footprint’.

The magic circle – here to stay?

While the US firms’ continental love affair may be comparatively new, many UK rivals are going the opposite direction.

Linklaters recently announced the closure of its ten-lawyer Hamburg office having already withdrawn from Poland in 2025, demonstrating why less profitable markets can be challenging for firms with larger offices.

One former magic circle partner says that some of the firms’ ‘big legacy offices’ on the continent ‘no longer make much sense but are costly to exit.’ While another warns that high levels of investment in the US for UK firms could impact firmwide profitability, leading to ‘constant departures.’

Troisi (pictured) notes: ‘The UK firms that invested heavily in our market many years ago have now, in most cases, significantly downsized their presence in Italy.’

These firms have also borne the brunt of US raids, as evidenced by Ropes’ recruitment of Clifford Chance’s PE and finance team led by Fabrice Cohen, Thierry Arachtingi and Emmanuel Mimin for its Paris office.

Yet marquee hirings like Linklaters’ eight-lawyer restructuring and insolvency team from Darrois in Paris, led by François Kopf, show they can still assert themselves when the target is right.

Recent partner promotions also underline the UK firm’s continued commitment to Europe: Freshfields promoted 16 new partners in Europe in its biggest ever promotion round, up from 11 last year, Clifford Chance promoted nine partners this year out of 28, compared with seven in 2025, with Linklaters also making up more new partners this year than last, with 12 new European partners.

As Dennis Horeman, co-managing partner of De Brauw, puts it, the magic circle firms are ‘still on the continent and here to stay.’

‘Steady as it goes – in a very good way’

In general, law firm leaders described themselves as optimistic heading into 2026 and beyond. Ritvay points to a clear reason why, noting that last year ‘both the number and the size of transactions increased significantly. This trend continued in the first months of this year, and there remains considerable pent-up demand.’

The data supports that outlook. Figures from LSEG show global M&A reaching $1.2trn in Q1 2026 – the third consecutive quarter in which deal value has surpassed $1trn. Deals involving European targets totalled $347bn, up 23% from $281bn in the same period in 2021.

As a result, Troisi is optimistic about the Italian market, saying it is performing ‘very well’. He adds: ‘Italy and Spain were once part of the so-called PIGS countries. Now they have become almost the prince of the fairytale, as our economies are outperforming other European countries.’

Horeman strikes a similarly upbeat note: ‘The business is growing particularly well. We did not even see the kind of blip you sometimes get in January. It has been steady as it goes – in a very good way.’

Global uncertainty – a concern for all

No market exists in a vacuum though, and partners are quick to highlight the potential for continued geopolitical disruption to dampen activity, as well as the human cost that accompanies conflict.

‘The current global uncertainty remains a concern for all of us, first as human beings and also from a professional point of view,’ stresses Troisi.

Stephen Keogh, managing partner of Irish firm William Fry (pictured), suggests the ongoing situation in the Middle East may lead to parties ‘slowing the pace of active deals’. He adds that ‘oil price volatility, wider market impacts and ongoing supply chain disruption are making it unusually difficult to value companies across many sectors’.

Still, Baena notes that ‘the market’s fragility and unpredictability have allowed savvy decision-makers to seize opportunities and act strategically.’ However, he adds that if uncertainty persists in the coming months, ‘the new scenario will test investor resilience, delay a consolidated recovery and make future predictions difficult’.

Best friends?

But where does all of this leave the independents? The formal dissolution earlier this year of the ‘best friends’ network linking Gleiss Lutz in Germany, Chiomenti in Italy, Cuatrecasas in Spain and Gide in France has reignited debate over the durability of the model.

Attention has inevitably turned to another longstanding alliance between the UK’s Slaughter and May, BonelliErede, Bredin Prat, De Brauw and Uría, and whether such arrangements remain fit for purpose.

One European partner suggests the absence of a London firm was a key weakness in the former grouping. Even so, some remain sceptical that the best friends structure retains its relevance.

Members of the latter alliance, however, insist the model continues to deliver. ‘We have been doing cases with these firms for decades,’ says Horeman. ‘We work together on real transactions for real clients and when we do those deals we operate as one team – whether it’s M&A, litigation or anything else.’

Horeman (pictured) cites the firm’s work alongside Hengeler on mandates for European grid operator TenneT, including securing €9.5bn in equity funding last September and advising on the €3.3bn sale of a 25.1% stake in its German business to KfW, acting for the German state.

Herrera cites the non-exclusive nature of the agreement: ‘A best friends arrangement is, by nature, extremely flexible. But that also means each firm has to be very strong in terms of quality, market presence and leadership in its core areas.’

He points to the firm’s work alongside Macfarlanes advising Banco Sabadell on the proposed £2.65bn sale of TSB Banking Group last July as evidence of that flexibility.

Others favour a looser approach. Troisi says: ‘Our view has always been that, as an independent firm, we should fully embrace what that independence means… we have always preferred to maintain very good relationships with two or three top firms in every key jurisdiction. This allows us to serve our clients in the best possible way.’

Independent thought

Predictions of the demise of the independent firm have circulated for years, yet many continue to thrive.

The latest LSEG Q1 M&A rankings offer a useful snapshot. Uría tops the table for announced deals involving Spain, while in Germany, Gleiss Lutz and Hengeler rank second and third respectively, behind Freshfields. In deals involving Italy, Gianni & Origoni leads the pack, while De Brauw claims the top spot in Benelux.

As BonelliErede chairman Massimiliano Danusso (pictured) puts it, local knowledge remains a valuable commodity: ‘There is a strong belief that we understand the Italian market, inevitably, much better than any foreign firm coming into Italy.’

For Horeman it is also partly a question of pride: ‘Independence allows us to make our own decisions, which is motivating for the partner group.’ Vives says independence gives the firm ‘agility, cohesion and control’ and adds that it is important for the market that large firms have their key decisions taken in their domestic markets.

Herrera, meanwhile, argues that ‘homegrown’ independent firms continue to dominate the biggest mandates in Iberia: ‘They are generally the ones taking lead roles in the big-ticket deals, particularly for strategics. If you review the big transactions involving large Spanish and Portuguese multinationals predominantly, now and for the last 30 years, clients go to the likes of Garrigues, Gomez-Acebo, Cuatrecasas, and ourselves.’

In short, it’s fair to say that Europe’s legal leaders don’t see themselves losing their foothold anytime soon.

[email protected]

Euro Elite methodology

The Legal Business Euro Elite showcases 80 leading firms across Continental Europe, focusing on the most accomplished, consistent and highly regarded firms in key markets, as opposed to branches of international firms, UK/US firms or Swiss Vereins.

Inclusion in the Euro Elite is determined by aggregation, analysis and weighting of Legal 500’s existing jurisdictional rankings and research data, complemented by insight from the Legal Business team and Legal 500’s senior editors.

Photo by Fer Troulik on Unsplash

Simpson Thacher, CMS lead as sports promoter Matchroom rings the bell on US investment

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and CMS are advising as New York investment firm Bruin Capital takes a minority stake in global sports promoter Matchroom, in a deal that values the business at over £1bn.

For Bruin Capital, Simpson Thacher fielded a primarily London-based team, led by veteran dealmaker and co-head of European M&A James Howe and M&A partner Chris Vallance, with Caleb McConnell advising on tax aspects, and London and Brussels-based Étienne Renaudeau advising on antitrust and FDI.

CMS advised Matchroom Sport, also with a City-based team, led by corporate partner and co-head of media Paul Guite and corporate partner Ben McParland. Stephen Hignett advised on tax, Andrew Quayle on share incentives, and Russell Hoare on competition.

Matchroom, founded in 1982 by sports promoter Barry Hearn, is a global, multi-sport live events and sports rights platform. It owns, promotes and broadcasts events across darts, boxing, snooker, and online gaming, and includes stars boxer Anthony Joshua, darts prodigy Luke Littler and rugby player Henry Pollock within its talent agency.

In 2024, CMS advised the company on a minority investment from sports marketing agency Pitch International, with a team also led by Guite and McParland, and also including Hignett, Quayle, and Hoare.

On the buy side, Bruin Capital, a sports and entertainment focused investment and operating platform, is a long-standing client of Simpson Thacher, which has advised the investor on its portfolio transactions since 2020.

These include a flurry of investments in 2024, spanning Box to Box Films, the producer of Netflix’s Formula 1 documentary series Drive to Survive, virtual advertisement specialist Supponor, and sports talent agency AS1. Howe, Vallance, and Renaudeau advised on each of these transactions, with McConnell absent only on the Supponor acquisition.

In January this year, Howe, Vallance, and Renaudeau advised Bruin Capital in connection with the establishment of an investment vehicle that raised $1bn from investors led by 26North, founded by Apollo co-founder Josh Harris, and PE firm The Jordan Company.

Matchroom chairman Eddie Hearn said of the deal: ‘The opportunity for Matchroom in the United States and globally continues to grow. This partnership with Bruin gives us the ability to accelerate that expansion and build on the platform we have created.’

According to a statement from Matchroom, the Hearn family will retain majority ownership and continue to oversee the business, with Eddie Hearn serving as group chairman and Barry Hearn as founder and president. Bruin will join Matchroom’s board of directors.

[email protected]

Latham and Davis Polk gear up for $2bn Lime IPO

Latham & Watkins and Davis Polk are steering electric bike company Lime on its initial public offering on the NASDAQ, with the Uber-backed company hoping to list with a reported valuation of $2bn.

Latham is advising Neutron Holdings, Lime’s parent company, with a team led by Bay Area partnersTad Freese and Sarah Axtell.

Davis Polk is acting as counsel to the eight underwriters, including Jeffries and Goldman, with a team led by Northern California corporate partners Alan Denenberg and Beth LeBow.

Neutron Holdings filed its intention to list late last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with the Financial Times subsequently reporting the value of the listing.

Freese was previously vice chair of Latham’s corporate department and managing partner of the Bay Area office, and is a Legal 500 leading partner for large M&A deals. In 2020 he led the Latham team that advised Airbnb on its IPO, valued at $3.4bn at the time. More recently, the firm advised home security company Verisure on its €13.7bn listing on NASDAQ Stockholm – the largest European private equity-backed IPO.

Denenberg, who has been at Davis Polk for 25 years, has worked on over 75 IPOs over the past decade, and has advised underwriters across industries such as life sciences, industrials and technology. He is a Legal 500 leading partner for capital markets: equity offerings.

Lime was founded in San Francisco in 2017 and has been growing in popularity across urban centres. The company currently operates in around 230 cities, launching in 19 new metropolitan hubs in 2025. In the most recent financial year, Lime’s revenue grew 29% to $886.7m.

In May 2020 the company completed a $170m investment round with a significant stake contributed by Uber, as well as support from Alphabet and Bain. Goodwin advised Lime with Anthony McCusker, now the firm’s chair, acting as one of the lead partners on the matter. Lime is currently led by CEO Wayne Ting, a former executive at Uber.

Sarah Axtell, second lead partner for Latham on the IPO, was a partner at Goodwin at the time of the deal, moving to Latham in November 2020, though she is not listed among the partners who worked on the deal.

[email protected]

Quinn Emanuel founder John Quinn steps down

John Quinn, executive chairman and founding partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, is stepping down after four decades leading the litigation firm he established in 1986.

The firm said in a statement: ‘John will remain a partner and retain a non-executive chair title, allowing him to focus on promoting the firm and client development activities.

‘Bill Burck and Mike Carlinsky will continue as co-managing partners, a position they have shared with John since 2022, running the firm day to day; they expect a seamless transition.’

Quinn stepped down as managing partner in 2022 to become executive chairman, handing operational leadership to Washington DC white-collar partner Burck and New York litigator Carlinsky.

LB understands that the Los Angeles-founded firm will not immediately replace Quinn as executive chair, and will evaluate in the near future whether to add a third member to its leadership team or to adopt a different leadership structure.

Read LB‘s exclusive interview with John Quinn from last month

‘We thank John for his tireless efforts over the last 40 years in building the world’s leading disputes firm,’ Burck and Carlinsky said in a statement. ‘John has been a great firm leader and lawyer, and it continues to be a privilege to be a part of this great firm.’

Under Quinn’s leadership, Quinn Emanuel has become the world’s largest litigation-only law firm, expanding to 33 offices globally and building a reputation for handling high-profile disputes and arbitration matters.

Most recently, it oversaw a victory in a trademark dispute for OpenAI against Open Artificial Intelligence and its founder, Guy Ravine.

It also drew national attention last year for representing Harvard University in its dispute with the Trump administration after the government moved to cut billions of dollars in funding tied to diversity initiatives.

The leadership transition comes after another strong financial year for Quinn Emanuel. The firm recently posted a 12.6% increase in revenue to nearly $2.8bn, marking its third consecutive year of double-digit growth. PEP increased 10.6% year-on-year to $9.5m.

[email protected]

‘Speed is essential in today’s environment’ – leading in-house teams through times of such uncertainty

Karina Aliz Lanfranco, head of Legal at Peru-based drinks company CBC Peruana, discusses how in-house counsel can navigate risk and uncertainty during the current geopolitical climate, balancing the needs of their teams with knowing when to turn to external counsel

As a head of legal, what are you preparing for in 2026?

In-house counsel must prepare for a combination of regulatory complexity, geopolitical volatility and accelerated business transformation. The food and beverage industry, in particular, is facing increased scrutiny in areas such as consumer protection, competition, digital engagement and evolving regulatory frameworks. At the same time, companies are expanding across jurisdictions and adopting new business models, which requires legal teams to move from a reactive approach to a proactive and risk-based mindset.

What challenges are in-house counsel facing in such a volatile geopolitical climate?

One of the most important challenges will be managing uncertainty. In-house counsel must become more integrated into strategic decision-making, helping organisations anticipate change rather than simply responding to it. This includes monitoring regulatory developments across the region, understanding political and economic dynamics and strengthening enterprise risk management frameworks. The ability to translate legal risk into business language will be critical in ensuring that leadership teams can make informed and agile decisions.

How can GCs lead their organisations through times of such uncertainty?

Managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis is becoming a core responsibility for modern general counsel. My approach is based on three principles: alignment, speed and resilience.

Alignment means ensuring that the legal strategy is fully integrated with the business and that the legal team participates early in key decisions. This reduces the risk of fragmentation and enables more consistent responses across markets.

Speed is essential in today’s environment. During crises, legal teams must provide clear and practical guidance, prioritising what truly matters and empowering business leaders to act with confidence.

Finally, resilience requires strong governance, scenario planning and cross-functional collaboration, particularly with risk, compliance, communications and operations teams.

What factors influence your decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house?

Unlike traditional models in the consumer goods sector, where external counsel is often used reactively, I prioritise a co-creation and partnership approach. The in-house legal function is designed to be deeply embedded in the business, enabling us to lead on strategic, operational and culturally sensitive matters. This includes commercial innovation, regulatory strategy, and digital transformation, where proximity to the business creates significant competitive advantage.

External counsel is therefore engaged in a more targeted and strategic way. The key factors influencing this decision include regional complexity and scalability. Given CBC’s footprint in Latin America, we prioritise firms that can deliver consistent and coordinated advice across jurisdictions, rather than fragmented local support. This is critical for managing regulatory change, sustainability requirements and cross-border initiatives.

Second, innovation and transformation capability. We look for firms that go beyond technical expertise and actively contribute to business transformation, particularly in areas such as digitalisation, data governance, and emerging regulatory frameworks. This reflects our belief that the legal function must evolve at the same pace as the business.

Third, strategic risk and reputation management. We involve external advisors in high-impact scenarios such as competition, and complex stakeholder environments, where diverse perspectives strengthen decision-making and resilience.

Artificial intelligence (AI) can increase speed within legal teams. How can GCs successfully integrate AI, balancing efficiency and integrity?

AI has the potential to transform legal operations, improve efficiency and generate insights that support better decision-making. However, the challenge is not technological but cultural. General counsel must ensure that AI enhances human judgement rather than replacing it. This requires clear governance, ethical guidelines and continuous training.

In my view, the most successful legal teams will be those that combine technology with strong business acumen, critical thinking and emotional intelligence. While automation can improve efficiency, trust, credibility and leadership remain uniquely human. General counsel must therefore focus on developing teams that are adaptable, curious and comfortable navigating complexity.

Ultimately, the role of the in-house lawyer is evolving from legal advisor to strategic partner, risk leader and driver of organisational resilience. Those who embrace this transformation will not only protect their organisations, but also create sustainable competitive advantage in an increasingly uncertain world.

‘The first priority is always people’s safety’ – leading a legal team in times of conflict

Paola Kattar, head of legal and general counsel at KEO International Consultants in Qatar, discusses the impact of conflict on companies in the Middle East and how in-house counsel can effectively lead their organisations through periods of instability

The conflict in the Middle East has caused widespread disruption for businesses across the globe. How can general counsel guide their organisations through situations of such high levels of risk and uncertainty? 

General counsel must become both legal adviser and strategic risk navigator during periods of conflict. In the GCC construction sector where I am professionally active, this conflict can have more than just political and safety implications; it can affect contractual obligations such as insurance, supply chains, payment flows, programmes and deliverables. It can also increase international sanctions exposure.

The role of the general counsel is therefore not limited to interpreting existing contracts and laws; it is to strengthen and negotiate new agreements and settlements in a manner that addresses emerging risks while preserving commercial relationships. More importantly, it is to support leadership in making commercially sustainable decisions amid uncertainty and evolving sanctions regimes. 

Basically, a general counsel must maintain a practical, rather than purely technical, legal approach, while managing and addressing force majeure clauses or termination rights. The greatest challenge and perhaps the most important role is preserving relationships and contractual continuity while safeguarding the company’s interests and rights. To navigate periods of regional instability with minimal damage, it is essential to remain commercially reasonable and pragmatic. 

What are immediate priorities during times of conflict? What contingency steps should companies have in place? 

The first priority is always people’s safety. Companies operating across the Middle East frequently have multinational teams, mobile workforces and employees with families spread across several jurisdictions. Immediate contingency planning should therefore include evacuation protocols, remote working capability, immigration support, emergency communication systems and medical and insurance coordination. 

The second priority is operational continuity. Businesses should maintain updated project risk maps, identifying projects exposed to border closures, shipping disruption, regulatory restrictions or political instability. Key contracts should already contain reviewed provisions on suspension, force majeure, payment protection, sanctions compliance and governing law. 

Financial resilience is equally critical. Organisations should evaluate liquidity exposure, delayed receivables, dependency on specific suppliers and the ability to continue payroll and operations during disruption. 

The best contingency plans are prepared before conflict arises. Businesses that wait for a crisis to create protocols usually discover gaps too late. 

This can be done through new policies, escalation and communication channels, decision-making processes, contract risk trainings and logs for recording events and impacts. 

As a practical example, in the first week of the war, my team and I collected all force majeure provisions from the company’s major existing contracts in the most affected countries. We also collated the statutory provisions from those different jurisdictions, and a presentation was given to leadership and operations heads explaining the concept of force majeure in the different contracts and laws where the business operates with live examples as to how it applies and its potential impact. A sample notice of force majeure related events and a log of events’ details were prepared as a heads-up. 

Which risks are often overlooked in conflict situations? 

Emotional and mental health risks are also overlooked, despite their direct impact on productivity, decision-making and employee retention. Cybersecurity risks are frequently underestimated. Regional instability often coincides with increased cyberattacks, phishing attempts and data vulnerability. 

Another overlooked issue is informal communication. During crises, employees sometimes make public statements, share sensitive information online, or engage in political commentary that may expose the company to reputational or legal risk. 

In times of heightened risk, how can legal teams prioritise different compliance obligations across jurisdictions? 

Legal teams must prioritise compliance based on the severity of exposure and regulatory consequence. During conflict situations, immediate focus is typically required on sanctions, anti-bribery compliance, export controls, cybersecurity and employee safety obligations, as breaches in these areas may result in criminal, regulatory, financial, or reputational consequences. 

Coordination also becomes critical where organisations operate across multiple jurisdictions with differing legal requirements. A centralised legal oversight structure helps maintain consistency in risk management and compliance strategy, while allowing local teams to address jurisdiction-specific requirements. 

‘Efficiency should not come at the expense of human interaction’ – balancing AI with the human element

Stanisław Sopel, chief legal officer at global digital marketplace G2A.com, discusses how to integrate AI into legal teams without compromising the human element

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into legal teams to maximise efficiency. What role do in-house counsel play in the incorporation of these tools?

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) across legal and business functions is one of the most significant trends in 2026. While AI can deliver efficiency gains in areas such as research, document review and contract management, it also raises issues around data protection, confidentiality, accountability and transparency. In-house counsel will play a central role in defining appropriate governance frameworks, ensuring human oversight and managing regulatory expectations.

How can in-house counsel ensure the successful incorporation of AI without compromising the human element?

AI can be a useful tool for legal teams, but only if it is applied with clear limits. It works best for repetitive, structured tasks such as document review, legal research or contract analysis. It should support lawyers in their work, not replace judgement or responsibility.

A critical part of successful implementation is the security environment in which these tools operate. In-house counsel need to ensure that AI systems are used within properly controlled settings, with clear safeguards around data protection, confidentiality, and access rights. Sensitive information should never be processed through tools that are not fully vetted or aligned with the organisation’s security standards.

It is also important to be clear about accountability. AI can assist with analysis, but decisions must always remain with people. A qualified lawyer must review, interpret and take responsibility for any AI-generated output, particularly in areas involving legal risk or strategic decisions.

Efficiency should not come at the expense of human interaction. Face-to-face discussions with management, business teams, and external advisers remain essential for understanding context, building trust, and resolving complex or sensitive issues. The time saved through AI should be used to strengthen these interactions, not reduce them. Used thoughtfully, AI can make legal teams more effective. Used without proper safeguards or human involvement, it can quickly undermine both trust and judgment.

Special attention should also be given to junior and early-career lawyers. Many tasks that are most easily automated by AI are traditionally part of how young lawyers learn the profession. Legal teams need to be mindful of this and ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of training, mentorship, and the development of judgement. Face-to-face work, shadowing senior colleagues and direct involvement in matters remain essential for building legal skills and professional confidence.

Are there any other key trends that in-house counsel should be monitoring in 2026?

There is heightened scrutiny of transactions and corporate structures, particularly regarding transparency, beneficial ownership, and regulatory approvals. Legal teams are increasingly required to anticipate regulatory concerns earlier in the transaction lifecycle.

An important key trend is the continued convergence of regulatory regimes. For organisations operating digital or cross-border business models (like G2A.COM), areas such as data protection, consumer law, competition and sector-specific regulation are increasingly interdependent. In-house counsel must therefore assess regulatory exposure holistically rather than through isolated legal workstreams.

How can the modern in-house counsel prepare to face these challenges?

The most important attribute of a modern in-house counsel is sound judgement exercised in a commercial context. In-house lawyers are rarely asked to provide purely technical legal opinions: they are expected to advise when information is incomplete, timelines are compressed and business considerations are closely intertwined with legal risk. The ability to assess proportionality and to distinguish between theoretical and material risk is therefore essential.

Modern in-house counsel must be comfortable operating across disciplines and jurisdictions. As regulatory, transactional and operational risks increasingly overlap, legal leaders need a working understanding of finance, governance, technology and regulatory policy, and must be able to coordinate effectively with both internal stakeholders and external advisers.

Senior management and boards do not require exhaustive legal analysis, they require an understanding of options, consequences and risk trade-offs. The in-house counsel’s role is to frame those issues to support informed decision-making.

An effective in-house counsel must be sufficiently embedded in the business to understand its objectives, goals or business strategy, while remaining independent enough to provide clear, sometimes unwelcome, advice. Trust is built and value is delivered when stakeholders recognise that it aligns with the organisation’s long-term interests rather than short-term convenience.

‘The centre of gravity for Southeast Asia’ – why PE investment is making Singapore increasingly attractive

Last month, Simpson Thacher became the latest firm to open an office in Singapore, relaunching in the city-state after closing there over two decades ago.

The firm’s re-entry into the market reflects a resurging interest, driven in large part by high levels of private equity investment.

‘Our clients have gone from having a small number of people on the ground in the mid-2000s (when we established a dedicated PE M&A team in Asia) to now having hundreds,’ says Ian Ho (pictured right), co-head of Simpson Thacher’s Asia offices and its Asia private equity group, who is relocating from Hong Kong to Singapore to launch the office.

‘Private equity in Asia Pacific has transformed into a thriving sector, from a nascent market into what it is today,’ Ho continues.

Since 2020, at least ten other international firms have opened an office in Singapore, including Ropes & Gray and Quinn Emanuel in 2024, Baker Botts and Goodwin in 2022, and Orrick and Cooley in 2021.

The market has also seen a spate of notable lateral hires. Greenberg, which launched in Singapore in 2023, brought on a six-lawyer team last October, including Legal 500 investment funds leading partner Jek-Aun Long from Simmons & Simmons, as well as energy and natural resources partner Stella Bae from Ashurst, and M&A partner Kyle Oh from White & Case. The firm continued to expand with its hires of Goodwin M&A partner Chi Pan and Baker McKenzie APAC capital markets head, Ashok Lalwani.

Also making additions to its Singapore corporate teams last year was Sidley Austin, which hired M&A partner Alun Evans from A&O last May, and Baker McKenzie, which hired equity capital markets partner Alexander Stathopoulos.

Other notable moves include Hogan Lovells‘ hire of a three partner private equity team from Dechert in December 2024, which included Siew Kam Boon, who joined as head of private equity for the firm’s APAC offices, Thomas Kim, who now heads the firm’s investment funds practice in Singapore, and Timothy Goh.

‘Some international firms have found operating in Asia difficult. Firms would bring international lawyers over, but that model was discredited.’

Singapore’s political and economic stability have made it an attractive hub for investors, and since its launch in 1991 the Singapore International Arbitration Centre has been a strong centre for global dispute resolution.

Milbank finance and M&A partner Jacqueline Chan (pictured below) notes that Singapore’s geography makes it well placed for international firms working with clients across the APAC region:

‘Millbank uses Singapore as an international base to conduct its international role for transactions that cover all of APAC. From Singapore we see transactions that cover Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand. A lot of those will not have a base in Singapore itself, but they are all largely executed from Singapore.’

‘So you see Singapore operating as a financial services hub,’ she concludes.

Many international firms have had offices in Singapore for decades now, including Milbank, which opened there in 1985. UK-headquartered firms have a long history in the city-state as well: Clifford Chance opened there in 1982, legacy Allen & Overy and Linklaters both opened there in the early 1990s, and Freshfields reopened in 2012 after closing its office five years prior. In 1980, Freshfields had become the first global law firm to open there.

Now, of the top ten largest firms in the world by revenue, nine have an office in Singapore, with Kirkland & Ellis the only outlier.

However, one senior partner at an international firm in Singapore says that, though it’s a popular choice for firms with Asian business, it can be hard for global firms to find their footing there:

‘Singapore is one of those jurisdictions that was very attractive to law firms, as it is seen as a dynamic financial market, so firms were trying to bring their brand names in and pick up work.’

They continue: ‘But some international firms have found operating in Asia difficult. It tended to be a situation where firms would bring international lawyers over, but that model was discredited.’

This is evident in recent closures. Last year, legacy McDermott Will & Emery closed its physical office there, which originally opened in 2021. Akin too, which opened in Singapore in 2012, is also winding down its Singapore office this year. Private funds partner Olivia Chung, who relocated to Singapore to lead Akin’s office in 2020, is understood to be returning to New York following the office closure.

This pressure is something that Ho, in relaunching Simpson Thacher’s newest office, is acutely aware of.

‘When we opened in the market in the late ’90s, it was for client-specific reasons and not a private equity play; private equity in Asia was not as prominent,’ he says.

Now, Ho says, by working with Simpson Thacher’s other offices in Asia, including Hong Kong, Beijing, and Tokyo, the firm can provide a strong APAC service to its clients.

‘The goal is to go as deep and as broad as we can with our top clients in the region and apply that approach to new clients. And to do that, you can’t operate in silos. We draw from our experiences and the expertise of our colleagues from across our Asia-Pacific offices and beyond,’ Ho says.

He adds: ‘Singapore plays a highly complementary role in how we execute our broader strategy. It’s not intended to stand alone – and it wouldn’t succeed if it did. Instead, we see Singapore as a synergistic hub that allows us to deepen our talent bench and scale the business. That scale is essential as our largest clients continue to grow and as we pursue new opportunities and relationships across the region.’

Simpson Thacher has historically relied on its Asian offices as connections the Southeast of the continent, where Singapore lies. However, as more private capital has moved into Southeast Asia, Ho says the firm is increasingly needed where its clients are:

‘We’ve always been successful at supporting our clients and Southeast Asia deals from outside Singapore. We know the work, who the key players are and, we understand the trends that are driving investment for our clients. Being on the ground enables us to even more rapidly tune into trends and shifts in risks and new opportunities.’

‘Being close to our clients is valuable and aligning our presence with where so much of the action is happening will be beneficial,’ Ho concludes.

‘There’s still a huge amount of dry powder in the region, that’s committed in the region’

The only comparable location to Singapore in the APAC region is Hong Kong – currently the only city outside of London and New York that houses all ten of the world’s largest firms by revenue.

However, partners in Singapore suggest that the two cities’ different locations means they service clients differently.

Milbank corporate partner Maurice Conway (pictured right), who recently relocated from Hong Kong to Singapore, says: ‘The centre of gravity for Southeast Asia, the gateway for Southeast Asia, in a way, is Singapore now, and for India as well. Hong Kong is more seen as the gateway to the China-mainland work.’

‘There’s always a role for both markets, and to a certain extent they do kind of complement each other,’ Conway adds.

Despite broader geopolitical uncertainty, partners in Singapore remain optimistic. Looking at the year ahead, Chan notes: ‘The market here is growing and the pie is just getting much larger with the growth in private equity, in investment firms which are moving into Singapore, and of economies, both in the region of Southeast Asia and beyond, which Singapore services.’

‘There’s still a huge amount of dry powder in the region, that’s committed in the region,’ she adds.

Ho agrees, noting how the Singapore office demonstrates his firm’s decision to prioritise clients across APAC: ‘We hope this sends a strong signal to the market about our long-term commitment to Asia. Expanding our presence reflects our conviction in our clients and the region’s potential. We recognise we can’t do that alone, which is why we’re investing in building out the team to support sustained growth.’

For other partners in the region, Simpson Thacher’s return to the Singapore market is further evidence of a vibrant legal scene.

One senior partner at an international firm says: ‘There are a lot of business opportunities in Singapore, and firms are fairly bullish.

‘Singapore is a small place, but it’s growing the pie for everyone in Southeast Asia. International firms believe the pie will grow bigger, as more clients are setting up business there.’

They conclude: ‘If a firm has Asian business, why wouldn’t they consider it?’

[email protected]