‘Some of the management are dinosaurs. They don’t understand how important this is.’ So speaks one loyalist Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner of a growing unease shared by some regarding the City giant’s direction.
When Legal Business’ last focus on the 276-year-old institution hit desks in late 2015, the question was how newly-elected senior partner Edward Braham and co-managing partner Chris Pugh would secure the firm’s place in the Global Elite as the challenge from profitable US rivals mounted.
For many, Freshfields was the member of the Magic Circle’s international quartet best placed to establish itself at a truly global level. Yet Freshfields has since faced the damaging loss of two senior figures from its leadership team, a string of high-profile departures to US rivals in London, and performance that has fallen consistently short of the confident growth the 374-partner firm sustained during the 1990s and 2000s.
Not that all developments have been ominous. Results for 2017/18 proved something of a rebound after a torrid 2016/17 and the firm has just announced another year of steady performance, with revenue up 5% to £1.47bn and a 6% profit per equity partner hike to £1.84m, making it the most profitable of its direct peers. Its core deal practice, likewise, has in the main held its position in Europe. None of which obscures the consistent struggle to sustain momentum. Over the last ten years, revenue at Freshfields is up just 14%. In that period Kirkland & Ellis’s income has nearly tripled, while even finance-heavy rivals like Latham & Watkins and White & Case are respectively up 76% and 40%. Its closest City rival, Linklaters, increased income by 25% during a period in which it faced more than its fair share of reverses.
‘They said we’re becoming mercenaries, too much like a US firm, and others said: “Tough, everyone has to be profitable.”’
Stephan Eilers, Freshfields’ managing partner, professes to be upbeat about the performance: ‘We think this is better than most of the American firms and definitely better than the European firms. From a financial performance perspective, we are clearly ahead of the leading European-headquartered firms and catching up to the American firms.’
That is not an assessment shared by many neutral observers, but the view defines two camps with increasingly differing views of how the firm is faring and the choices facing it. Freshfields’ Cavaliers, largely drawn of older partners, often in its mainland European offices and partners in supporting practice areas, share Eilers’ view of an elite institution set fair. The firm’s Roundheads, more likely to be rainmakers, younger partners and those in high-margin practices in London and New York, take a far more critical view of Freshfields’ performance and willingness to adapt to a fast-changing market.
The two camps were put in opposition in its 2015 leadership election, without the matter being settled. The debate was most clearly illustrated in controversies about reforming Freshfields’ conservative lockstep partnership. But the critique goes much further to touch on aspects of how the firm addresses high performers, younger lawyers, its US aspirations and the fundamental point of what Freshfields should look like in 2025 and beyond.
As arguably Europe’s top M&A practice, with a top-tier private equity team and muscular practices in disputes, competition and arbitration, Freshfields still brings much to the table. But its position is weaker than five years ago. When the news broke in January that highly-rated private equity head Adrian Maguire was joining a string of colleagues at Kirkland, talk was re-ignited of the need for radical change.
‘We are not going to be the major disruptor of the legal market but it’s finding the direction between business-as-usual and complete disruption,’ says one influential partner. ‘Where do we need to go?’
‘Becoming mercenaries’
Given that Freshfields historically raised adherence to its lockstep partnership to a matter of faith, much of the attention on the firm’s position focuses on the tortuous debate regarding compensation. Partners recall the famous Hartwell House meeting of 2015 in which a group of partners including prominent figures David Trott, David Higgins and Rick van Aerssen jolted the firm with a plan to increase profit per point from hovering around the mid £30,000s to over £40,000. According to one account, this would mean a major step away from a pure lockstep. ‘The old guard said we’re becoming mercenaries, too much like a US firm, and others said: “Tough, everyone has to be profitable,”’ recalls one partner that attended.
The debate was picked up the same year in the leadership election, according to some the first time in recent memory that there was not a clear front-runner. The contest ended up with Braham viewed as the status quo candidate, with rival contender Simon Marchant taking up the reformist Hartwell House agenda. It didn’t help that the two lead candidates were not close.
While the 2015 leadership election ended up backing the retention of lockstep, support was building to increase profitability via a thinning of the partnership. During 2016, overseen by Pugh as co-managing partner, the firm was to undergo a restructuring of its finance practice, historically a team that struggled for an identity distinct from the larger and dominant M&A practice. This saw a reduction in headcount from around 85 partners to 64 globally.
This period also saw a slimming of the partnership in Germany, a top-tier practice but one with a broad offering that still took on too much work at uncompetitive rates. A paper published in 2016 dubbed ‘Germany 2020’, anticipated the practice would scale down from 103 partners to between 80 and 90 and the firm announced the closure of its Cologne arm. The firm currently has 96 nationally, Germany proving politically harder to reform than Freshfields’ finance team.
The shift of the practice towards deal finance was intended to reinvigorate it and few dispute the logic but the overhaul had repercussions. Star practitioners left in the upheaval amid a sense that Freshfields was not a place for ambitious debt partners. Jonathan Birks quit in December 2016 for Kirkland to be reunited with his former colleague Michael Steele. The departure of financial restructuring partner Sean Lacey in May 2017 for Kirkland was another notable loss.
One symbolic answer to those that said Freshfields lacked the willingness to tackle US deal finance had been the 2015 recruitment of high-yield star Ward McKimm from Kirkland. Not only was it a key hire in a US-dominated practice area, but it was the first time in London that Freshfields had recruited above its once-cherished lockstep.
It also showed the influence in the partnership of private equity head David Higgins, who pushed for the hire to support Freshfields’ potent buyout practice. It proved divisive, with many ‘Cavaliers’ bristling at the prospect of recruiting pushy US-qualified lawyers (albeit Canadian-born in this case) into one of City law’s oldest clubs. The flamboyant McKimm, who had a passion for tweed and country pursuits and little patience for those he perceived as not contributing, was particularly likely to wind up staid City colleagues.
‘McKimm had a target on his back the moment he arrived. He went from a dynamic US firm to one where the most exciting thing to happen was bringing out the Jammy Dodgers on a Monday morning,’ notes one ex-partner. While the move to bring McKimm in was radical by Freshfields’ standards, for the Roundheads the firm remained too timid in attempts to credibly drive its US practice.
‘Edward Braham had a vision, not a strategy. You can’t implement a vision. He is a statesman, a diplomat. The role requires engagement. Do you see Ed around town, at functions and events? Neither do I.’
Such controversies came despite earlier moves to usher in super-point deals for big billers in foreign offices under Will Lawes’ run as senior partner that had been sparingly targeted in New York and Hong Kong. Partners handed such deals included Rob Ashworth and Teresa Ko in Hong Kong and Mitchell Presser and Peter Lyons in New York when the pair were recruited in 2014 to kick-start a nominal US deals business.
But handing McKimm a deal in London was rubbing it in for City partners, some of whom were already agitating for richer rewards (there are varying accounts of how much McKimm’s deal was worth but several cite a 70-point deal, against Freshfields’ then 50-point plateau, while some have put the total package as higher).
With pressure building for further lockstep reform amid further departures, the posting of flat revenues during 2016/17, well behind City peers and coming in a year in which currency movements substantially flattered sterling results, only stoked the pressure.
The overhaul was to finally emerge in November 2017, as the firm unveiled a resetting of its core equity ladder from between 17.5 and 50 points to between 12 and 40, with discretionary gates set at 22, 30 and 40 points. Crucially, the package included stretching the equity ladder to 60 points for a relatively small group of high performers. By widening the scale between entry and top earners and ushering in a series of gates, the aim was to send profit per point soaring above £50,000, gain flexibility to manage compensation in less profitable markets and offer richer rewards for star partners.
The model was largely adopting the approach championed by Marchant in 2015 but the mood of the partnership had shifted in favour of reform. Braham had also changed position to swing behind the shake-up. Yet it wasn’t enough to stop Higgins’ exit for Kirkland in December 2017. The move sent a jolt through the City, in part for its $10m annual package. Internally, it was not a shock given tensions that had been mounting between Higgins and central management. An arch-Roundhead who wanted a stronger executive role, Higgins was frustrated with perceived weaknesses in Freshfields’ finance team and an unwillingness to focus the partnership on core practices.
Nonetheless, the timing was damaging, since Higgins was himself in line for a 60-point deal, raising the question of whether Freshfields had acted too little, too late. In comparison, McKimm’s departure for Shearman & Sterling the following July was priced in, since he would have had to take a pay cut under the shake-up and made little secret of his discontent.
In contrast, the news in January 2019 that Maguire was quitting for Kirkland was far harder to spin. The extent of the damage is yet to be quantified, since Freshfields refused to let him join Kirkland until 8 July. Yet there is no doubt that Maguire, as a universally admired operator that all the top US sponsor firms wanted to hire, was a loss of exactly the kind of polished performer on which Freshfields built its M&A credentials.
Less flamboyant than Higgins and viewed as a loyalist, Maguire initially led the operation to reassure key clients after Higgins’ departure. Yet he had also become progressively disenchanted with Freshfields’ leadership. He joined a firm whose calls he would not have answered five years previously. This time it didn’t take anything like a $10m package. Freshfields has been forced to turn to youthful partners to front its sponsor team and by the spring talk was emerging that further shake-up of the partnership may be needed to stem the losses.
Next gen
‘Older partners do not understand how it works with US firms,’ reflects one current M&A partner. ‘They don’t get that it is the managing partners who ring us up, not recruiters – they don’t understand how powerful that network is. They are oblivious to how determined US firms are and the amounts of cash being bandied around.’
For all the talk of collegiality in Freshfields, much of the concern regarding the firm’s future centres on fears that it is too focused on the interests of older partners and neglecting senior associates and young partners.
‘Chris didn’t play well with other members of the management team. Management was aware of the seriousness of having Pugh stand down mid-term but the view was taken that it was right for the firm.’
Freshfields has been notably parsimonious in recent years in handing out partnership, making up just 46 partners in the three years to 2018. For comparison, Linklaters made up 78, while Clifford Chance promoted 74.
In the wake of Maguire’s resignation, there was discussion of whether Freshfields needed to bring back salaried partners to allow it to make up partners far earlier, though such talk receded over the summer. What has not receded is renewed debate over a need to revisit the current shake-up of partnership to usher in powers to accelerate high performers up the ladder, reflecting fears that the new system is still too geared towards veterans.
‘The core of the dissatisfaction is that the changes to lockstep have done nothing for junior partners. There is some talk about changing it again but how do you implement that? It should have been done all in one go,’ says one partner.
The current compromise appears to be that the firm will wait until the April year end to see how the lockstep shake-up settles down before taking a judgement on further reform but it will not take many more damaging departures in London to revive such calls.
Braham remains bullish in the face of criticism. ‘The lockstep structure looks like it will serve us very well. We reached the conclusion we did for good reasons. People feel that it was delivered very well.’
He adds that any further changes will be ‘fine tuning’ the current system rather than a major overhaul.
Braham notes as well that the lockstep changes translate to profit per equity point that is already well into the £50,000s, exceeding internal targets and suggesting top earners are in line for well over £3m a year.
There are two other factors that have likely gone some way to calming nerves over the need for bolder measures to engage younger lawyers. Firstly, despite concerns that its profitable buyout practice would be impacted by the departures, the team has continued to perform robustly thanks to a wide bench of talented junior partners and a string of major instructions from clients Advent, CVC, Hellman & Friedman and KKR. Likewise, Freshfields’ five-partner haul from Ashurst’s Paris arm in 2017, a private equity-driven move that cemented ties with Charterhouse, has been a clear success.
Meanwhile, a down-payment to address retention of junior lawyers was made in May when Freshfields announced dramatic increases in associate pay, taking its rate for newly-qualified lawyers from £85,000 to the symbolic £100,000 level before bonuses. The move went some way to close the huge pay gap with US rivals and forced its City peers to follow suit with comparable rises. ‘It’s a huge move in the right direction,’ concedes one former partner that quit for a US firm. But as well as being welcomed by the reformist camp, the move will also increase pressure for the firm to tighten its focus on high-margin practice lines.
‘He gets it’
If intergenerational tension and differing visions of Freshfields’ business have been a simmering issue in recent years, doubts over leadership loom every bit as large. Questions here stretch back before the current line-up, with many arguing that Will Lawes’ run as senior partner between 2010 and 2015 marked a period in which too many strategic decisions were avoided, leaving the current team with a backlog of challenges. This was more pronounced after the 2013 departure of managing partner Ted Burke, the highly-regarded US lawyer that had not only provided the kind of operational grip Fleet Street needed but had a strong vision of where Freshfields needed to travel. As important, the former Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy partner was adept at selling Freshfields to potential US recruits and clients.
The 2015 election brought to the fore a debate that was avoided and certainly unresolved. Braham, teamed with Pugh on a joint ticket, was viewed as the status quo candidate against the insurgent Marchant, who was advocating a marked reduction in the size of its European partnership. This dynamic ensured that Braham was largely backed on the continent but had mixed support in London.
Of the four-man leadership team that emerged, two were embarrassingly to depart. First, in June 2016 New York-based Michael Lacovara quit for Latham for a mix of personal and strategic reasons just six months into his role as executive partner. This was a bigger loss than understood at the time, depriving Freshfields of a credible figure on Wall Street at a key moment.
‘Lockstep needs to change to accelerate the star performers and be able to move people up and down. The leadership needs to send a consistent message. Helmut would do it. He’s the only credible candidate.’
Even more jarring was the departure from the c-suite of Pugh, whose relationship with Braham had badly deteriorated. The veteran litigator had also irritated many colleagues with an abrupt and inconsistent communication style. Noted one member of Braham’s team of the move: ‘Chris was not collaborative. He didn’t play well with other members of the management team. Management was aware of the seriousness of [having Pugh stand down from his role mid-term] but the view was taken that it was right for the firm.’
Pugh’s departure from the executive – which Braham surprised some by pushing for – left the firm heavily reliant on Braham, a figure that in many respects looked like a central casting version of a senior partner. Intellectual, thoughtful and with unquestioned integrity, Braham has avoided collecting too many outright enemies over a lengthy career.
But for critics, he is let down by a lack of finesse as a communicator or a politician. Ironically for a partnership famed for minting accessible and clubbable partners that spark with clients and colleagues, he struggled to marshal key partners or deftly build consensus.
‘Ed Braham is clever but he can’t communicate. If you put him in front of more than three people he is not great,’ says one partner. ‘He draws these mind diagrams with his various thoughts, with arrows pointing at different things.’
One former partner now at a US firm agrees. ‘Braham had a vision, not a strategy. You can’t implement a vision. He is a statesman, a diplomat. The role requires engagement. Do you see Ed around town, at functions and events? Neither do I.’
Under this critique, Freshfields had a peace-time leader with the misfortune of leading the City giant through a period that in competitive industry terms looks a lot like war. Braham also attracts criticism for under-estimating the realities of what it would take to secure a breakthrough in the US, a stance that frustrated Lacovara before his departure. Neither was managing partner Eilers adept at bringing big-name City partners onside.
Yet the reputation for avoiding tough decisions belies a track record that saw Braham preside over what was for Freshfields, a great deal of structural change. Partners point to Braham’s spearheading the responsible business programme and a review to improve the culture and behaviour at the firm.
An arch-Roundhead who wanted a stronger executive role, David Higgins was frustrated with weaknesses in Freshfields’ finance team and an unwillingness to focus on core practices.
‘Ed has also implemented a digitalisation programme. They used to run the firm for cash and didn’t invest in the tech infrastructure. We’ve had to spend a lot playing catch up,’ argues one of his supporters.
Although it was originally mooted by Burke and Lawes, Braham is credited with overseeing the surprisingly effective development of a large low-cost services hub in Manchester in spite of initial resistance from many, including some influential partners in London. Implementing the initiative meant cutting hundreds of business service roles in London and relocating them to Manchester. The firm now has 800 staff in the North West.
One Freshfields veteran that has worked with Braham offers a balanced take: ‘Ed’s great strategically. Sometimes he struggles to articulate it, but he gets it.’
Braham, of course, shifted tack on partnership to support the 2017 reforms of the lockstep, which are now feeding through, and has managed to preside over improvements in margin and profitability, even if organic growth has been more subdued.
Braham strikes a bullish note on what has been achieved against a challenging backdrop, citing investment in infrastructure alongside lockstep reform as major achievements: ‘We have grown in revenue in some difficult markets, taking market share. We have significantly strengthened the capabilities of the firm [in the US]. What we have achieved is far more than anyone else has achieved.’
Decisions, decisions
If Freshfields’ c-suite gains mixed notices, it is agreed the next leadership election will be crucial in a period in which the Magic Circle’s ability to stand against US rivals is facing an unprecedented challenge. Certainly, the choice is seen as crucial for defining how Freshfields positions itself for the next ten years.
With the elections not happening until summer 2020, there is already much discussion of potential candidates, amid the occasional joke about no-one wanting to do the job (Freshfields partners never conspicuously aspire to management).
The most commonly cited early candidate is a reformist team led by Helmut Bergmann, the Berlin-based managing partner of continental Europe. Bergmann carries the most clout within Freshfields’ top-tier German practice and is seen as key to winning round the continental partnership for some of the harder choices lying ahead.
A Bergmann run would likely be paired on a joint ticket with a partner with strong City and US visibility, with global client partner Alan Mason sometimes cited. As former co-managing partner of continental Europe with Bergmann, Mason holds appeal to the various constituencies and, spending around 50% of his time in the US, would be a good fit to bolster Freshfields’ place in the States, given his argument that the firm needs a larger US practice. Julian Long would also attract much City support if he ran.
‘Mason is credible. He has a vision. He is seen as a fixer within the firm. He would be fantastic as part of a team but he needs to step away from this perception of being a bag-carrier to Braham,’ notes one influential London M&A partner.
One former partner is less glowing. ‘Mason is good but no cigar. The firm is not going to get out of its current malaise by picking another Home Counties boy with drive. They need someone with balls. Alan is the bag carrier of someone who didn’t lead the firm successfully.’
Mason is inevitably non-committal on his thirst for high office. ‘My experience over the last couple of years is, when we focus on our clients and the business, we are successful. Leadership and elections are not high on the firm’s agenda – growing the top line and building market share with clients are.’ Bergmann declines to comment on whether he plans to stand but he already has the backing of many partners.
‘Bergmann is steely and could oversee a restructure. Lockstep needs to change to accelerate the star performers and be able to move people up and down. The leadership needs to send a consistent message. Helmut would do it. He’s the only credible candidate,’ observes one partner, who sees Bergmann as a progressive leader.
The more hard-nosed are still calling for a full-scale restructuring, geared towards maximising profitability, scaling back in Asia and retrenching in continental Europe.
‘The core of the dissatisfaction is that the changes to lockstep have done nothing for junior partners. There is some talk about changing it again but how do you implement that?’
Given the failure for employment partner Caroline Stroud to make the final line-up in the 2015 election there is also recognition that the firm must not again come up with ‘four white men’. Claire Wills, the popular London managing partner, has also been touted as potential leadership material, as has Jennifer Bethlehem, the head of the consumer and healthcare group, although some question her electability. ‘Jen is very good at what she does but I question how well she understands the business of law,’ notes one partner.
A wider line-up could see London corporate partner David Sonter put forward for a chief financial officer leadership or operations role. Sonter did much to build his reputation last year after having been drafted to iron out problems in implementing an update to Freshfields’ financial reporting system.
Rick van Aerssen, the Frankfurt-based M&A lawyer who is currently head of global transactions until Julian Pritchard takes over in November 2020 for four years, is another influential continental partner seen as a possible executive role. Van Aerssen can call on a strong profile in London and his work supporting the expansion of Freshfields’ US practice.
Opinion remains divided on what the next leadership will have to do to secure Freshfields’ place on the global stage. ‘Freshfields faces a choice. It needs to decide how it can be successful over the next 20 years. It could become smaller and more focused or it could muddle through, doing what it is doing now,’ says one former partner.
Ultimately, all these issues boil down to choices. The first choice is the status quo, that will see it carry on with its current practice mix and broad partnership and accept that its ambitions to be a serious player in the world’s largest legal market are not realistic. It would remain a successful firm, with substantial cachet and range in Europe, albeit with further steady erosion in some of its marquee deal and disputes practices as US rivals encroach.
The second path involves a resetting of its practice towards core areas, a 10% to 15% offloading of its current business and a decisive step away from lockstep partnership in favour of a thoroughly meritocratic model. This path requires an Americanisation of its model, marrying more aggressive targets for growth and recruitment, reforming governance and the appointment of talented US lawyers to senior roles.
Either are valid choices. What is not valid is trying to split the difference between the two paths. Such compromises have already made one of the most influential law firms of the last 25 years look flat-footed and reactive. Freshfields is gearing up to change its City HQ and select new leadership next year, if it can’t make hard choices now, the proud institution never will. And it would certainly be too late.
nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk
marco.cillario@legalease.co.uk
Partner perspectives on change – Does Freshfields need a revolution?
Bruce Embley, co-head of global M&A client group
Julian Pritchard, head of London transactional practice group
Jennifer Bethlehem (pictured), global head of consumer and healthcare practice
Alan Mason, global client partner, corporate and M&A
Piers Prichard Jones, co-head of M&A, London
Charles Hayes, co-head of financial sponsors group
The American question – Freshfields in the US
At the start of 2016 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer fielded 200 lawyers in the US with aspirations to double headcount and generate 15-20% of revenue out of the US as a ‘reasonable and achievable target,’ over three to four years.
While the US strategy remains the single most important challenge facing the firm, progress has fallen considerably short of those aspirations. Freshfields in the US is currently home to around 220 lawyers, including 41 partners. The practice accounts for a little more than 10% of firm-wide revenue.
Freshfields had notable early successes in US law, moving into contentious areas like global investigations, arbitration and competition. Key moves in this regard included the 2009 hire of three respected partners from US rivals to establish a litigation practice – including Adam Siegel and Aaron Marcu from Covington & Burling.
But more recent attempts to move into transactional law starting in 2014 have been more fitful, while the departure of respected US-qualified leaders Ted Burke (in 2013) and Michael Lacovara (in 2016) did not help the pitch stateside. Detractors question the rationale of building a New York practice with veteran deal partners that are arguably past their prime rather than up and comers. There has also been controversy over the occasional breaking of lockstep to award some super-points, as was the case with the 2014 hires of Mitchell Presser and Peter Lyons, now head of global transactions in the US and US regional managing partner respectively. The 2017 partnership overhaul, which creates a formal structure to award up to 60 points to top performers, is touted as being better geared towards the US market, especially given successes in driving up profitability, without the lightning rod of super-point deals.
High compensation for US partners coupled with a favourable exchange rate for internal profits distributions, which was set at $1.5/£1 following the post-Brexit fall in sterling, has also heavily impacted the profitability of its US operation.
There is more praise for its Washington DC branch, which accounts for 30% of US headcount, and has given the firm more heft in regulation, trade and antitrust. One standout hire was the appointment in February of Aimen Mir, a senior Treasury official who served on the influential Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). ‘This type of brilliant partner hire shows that there is real imagination in terms of the people we are bringing into the business,’ says London head Claire Wills (pictured). ‘We have absolutely nailed it in white collar with the hire of Aimen. Clients are ringing the phone off the hook,’ agrees one London M&A partner.
While some argue Freshfields’ leadership has failed to push for the sustained investment needed to make progress in the US transactional market, Braham maintains the firm is well positioned: ‘The regulatory focus in Washington is deliberate. CFIUS, sanctions, export control are very important for the way clients run their day-to-day business and transactions.’
‘Yes, we’d like to have ten more partners on the ground doing more transactional work, but we are not unhappy with the situation,’ says managing partner Stephan Eilers. He points to deals including CVC buying US assets from Linde and BASF-Bayer. ‘We would not have been able to do this kind of work without a reputable US corporate practice. The US corporate practice has achieved what we need for international clients.’ Braham, likewise, says Freshfields would not have won key mandates advising Pepsi, Starbucks, Marriott and KLX without its US offices, with the firm increasingly targeting sponsor-driven US deals.
Rick van Aerssen, co-head of the global transactions practice and a key driver of the US strategy, says that Freshfields can reach its US goal in the next five to six years. ‘When we started we had two M&A partners in New York, now we have eight [the firm this year made up New York M&A specialists Sebastian Fain and Paul Humphreys].
He adds: ‘This is something we would not have been able to do five years ago. I can see the US being 400 lawyers and we have always said that we can grow the group to at least 20 transactional partners in New York. It does not need a step change, but then again, we would look very carefully if an opportunity were to arise. The strategy that we have is to combine careful organic growth with careful lateral hiring. It is still the right strategy.’
But despite all the attempts to frame Freshfields’ US efforts as on course, those closer to its American strategy privately concede the need to move up a gear. Or two.
Faces old and new – Freshfields’ most influential City partners
With high-profile Freshfields deal hands like Barry O’Brien, Mark Rawlinson and Simon Marchant retiring or departing in recent years, the influential names at Fleet Street are now a mix of new and established faces. Of the seasoned operators, Julian Long and London managing partner Claire Wills are frequently cited, as is Julian Pritchard, head of London transactions. All three are viewed as potential future c-suite figures. Comments one London M&A partner: ‘I don’t think we can afford to lose [Long] to leadership but others might say we can’t afford not to have him in leadership.’ Wills is also currently overseeing Freshfields’ 2020 move to its new City HQ in Bishopsgate.
In its much-vaunted corporate practice, Piers Prichard Jones is often cited as the best all-round technician and deal strategist at the key mid-season vintage, even if he is yet to achieve quite the fluency and polish associated with Freshfields’ deal legends of old. ‘He is a terrific lawyer, very clever and driven. He is perhaps not a natural leader, but that’s the generation to take control of the place,’ enthuses one ex-partner. Global M&A client group co-head Bruce Embley is rated for being more ‘roll-up-your-sleeves’ and another strong all-rounder.
Jennifer Bethlehem, head of Freshfields’ consumer and healthcare group is a well-admired operator, who unusually achieved City success after a career in nursing. Of the young M&A partners hitting their early prime, Sam Newhouse is both popular and much tipped for his work with energy clients like Total and Essar.
Given well-published departures in private equity, the firm has been forced to turn to a younger generation, where even buyout rivals concede the firm is not short of talent. Charles Hayes, co-head of the global financial sponsors group, has been cited as a rising star for years and has become an increasingly key figure. Also well regarded is London head of private equity Victoria Sigeti.
In restructuring, partners Adam Gallagher and Richard Tett are influential. Given its consistent record as a productive team, veteran restructuring head Ken Baird retains much pull. On the contentious side of the business, much responsibility rests on youthful arbitration head Sylvia Noury, given the departures in 2014 that affected the practice with the launch of Three Crowns. Alongside Noury is the veteran Nigel Rawding QC. With some of the Freshfields big names in disputes stepping back in recent years, figures like antitrust litigator Mark Sansom, James Kennedy, investigations specialist Geoff Nicholas, finance litigator Simon Orton and City disputes head Sarah Parkes are charged with driving the practice. Investigations specialist Ali Sallaway carries a lot of sway, as does her fellow co-head Matthew Bruce.