Becoming a lawyer was suggested to me by other people. I was about 15, and doing a lot of debating and public speaking in school. People started saying to me: ‘You should think about becoming a lawyer.’ The school was supportive, and sent me to conferences and such.
It was also because of watching TV. A lot of people say Crown Court, but I liked the American ones. The media attraction got me thinking about the advocacy side.
You must be logged in to view full premium content.
In light of the human impact of Covid-19, the immediate concern for businesses is the health and safety of their people and clients.
In addition, the pandemic has caused unprecedented turmoil for the global economy and many businesses are struggling to cope with the huge challenges. Most are feeling the strain financially. Some are fighting for economic survival.
Against that background, many firms need urgent legal advice to help them deal with the current crisis, including guidance on where they stand contractually. This will continue in the short to medium term but, if the global financial crisis is a reliable template, it may be several years before this leads to a surge in marquee commercial litigation. At the same time all businesses, including law firms, are having to dramatically change their ways of working, not least a move almost entirely to remote working.
The justice system, too, is adapting to this new reality. Despite the lockdown in most areas of public life, the Lord Chancellor has made clear from the outset the Government’s determination to keep the courts running. Indeed, many have been surprised by what a robust approach has been taken given the stark challenges virtual hearings will face. However, not only does the rule of law require a functioning judicial system but, as a matter of practicality, a pause in all proceedings would mean the system will be burdened with severe backlog and delay once this crisis is behind us. And, after all, justice delayed is (often) justice denied.
That is why the courts have committed to using technology at a level that only a short time ago would have been unthinkable. As the Lord Chief Justice announced on Monday (23 March), hearings requiring the physical presence of parties and their representatives should only take place if a remote hearing is not possible and if suitable arrangements can be made to ensure safety. For the time being, the default position is that hearings will be conducted remotely, using either telephone or video conferencing.
Guidance issued over the weekend on remote hearings in the civil courts states that it will normally be possible for all short, interlocutory, or non-witness, applications to be heard remotely, and that some witness cases will also be suitable for remote hearings. Where a remote hearing is not possible, and it is undesirable to proceed with a hearing in court, an adjournment will be necessary. Moreover, hearings may need to be adjourned for other reasons if, for example, people are unavailable due to illness.
As the guidance emphasises, remote hearings should, so far as possible, still be public hearings and the principles of open justice remain paramount – though it also says that in current exceptional circumstances, the impossibility of public access should not normally prevent a remote hearing taking place. Possible means of allowing public access include broadcasting the hearing to an open court and/or allowing journalists to log in to the remote hearing. The Civil Procedure Rules Committee has introduced a new practice direction that provides that, if such measures are not practicable, the court can direct the remote hearing to be held in private ‘where it is necessary to do so to secure the proper administration of justice’.
For documents that need to be filed at court, the court’s online ‘CE-file’ system is used for most pre-trial filings in any event. Bundles for hearings and trials have until now been largely a hard-copy affair, but electronic bundles will obviously be needed for remote hearings.
So are these provisions being implemented in practice? In my firm’s experience, yes, in some cases and a glance at the daily case list shows that our experience is not unique. Some hearings are going ahead, via Skype and other technologies, though it seems others are being adjourned (for example, bankruptcy petitions). The latest update from HMCTS this morning (26 March) states that the High Court and Court of Appeal are only covering urgent work – though I assume that is a temporary situation given indications from the senior judiciary that business should continue where possible.
In the longer term, is this likely to revolutionise the conduct of litigation in English courts? That may be going too far, but the current crisis looks to be a catalyst for the dramatically increased use and acceptance of technology in the courts as in many other areas of life, as we all adapt to the changes thrust upon us.
Damien Byrne Hill is UK and US head of dispute resolution at Herbert Smith Freehills
Click here for all our latest coverage on the on-going coronavirus crisis
Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) has increased profit and turnover, its latest LLP accounts reveal, while also bolstering its borrowing capacity and significantly reducing debt.
HSF increased revenue 6% to £447m in 2018/19 as operating profit at the Anglo-Australian giant increased 23% to £127.5m. The firm has also bolstered its borrowing capacity following the implementation of a new Revolving Credit Facility put in place in April 2019.
The new facility – which is funded by a syndicate of eight banks – allows HSF to borrow a maximum of £300m, an increase of £25m on the previous facility. Its implementation coincided with debt falling 55% at the firm from £146m to £65m.
The accounts also revealed partners were required to provide extra capital, with overall partner capital increasing by £13.4m over the last financial year. The LLPs state the firm has ‘historically operated with lower levels of direct partner capital than our competitors’ with the increase intending to place HSF more in line with its peers.
In a change to it LLP structure, in January HSF finalised its plans to bring its German offices into the UK LLP as a means of mitigating Brexit concerns. The move was implemented last December as City firms in Germany faced a complex regulatory environment in light of the UK’s imminent departure from the European Union.
Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) has finalised a move to absorb its German partnership into its UK LLP, as firms enter the final stages of preparations ahead of a 31 January Brexit.
The move was implemented in December last year as the firm faced a complex regulatory environment in Germany due to the UK’s imminent departure from the European Union. Without the change, HSF would have been incapable of existing as an English company domiciled in Germany.
Legal Business reported in September last year that HSF was considering the move, having obtained tax clearance on the matter.
Previously, HSF had operated as locally-managed, profit-sharing German LLPs for tax reasons. However, German corporate law only allows for the use of a UK LLP following Brexit under the condition it operates as a branch of a firm managed out of London.
UK firms in Germany are left with two options in light of Brexit: absorbing the German LLP as HSF has done or switching to a German partnership with a different liability provision. However, UK firms have historically preferred the UK LLP, with the model particularly attractive due to limiting members’ liability.
The firm has also made other preparatory moves due to Brexit, such as re-registering its Seoul office to become a branch of the Australian partnership, under the Australia-Korea free trade agreement (FTA). Previously the firm’s licence to operate in South Korea had relied upon the EU-Korea FTA. Meanwhile, lawyers in HSF’s EU jurisdictions have taken steps to obtain EU qualification if they have not already acquired it.
Last year HSF took the decision to close its Berlin office, with the firm’s associates, trainees and business services staff all being given the option to transfer to its other German offices in Frankfurt and Düsseldorf. Since launching in the country in 2013, HSF’s German headcount has grown to 140 employees.
Regarding the decision to absorb its German offices into the UK LLP, a spokesperson said the move was: ‘purely operational, and is to ensure the seamless operation of our business when the UK leaves the EU.’
For more on how firms have prepared for Brexit, read ‘Dealing with no deal – Can top law firms cope with a chaotic Brexit?’
The number of new Queen’s Counsel (QC) has rebounded after a 2018 dip, including a record 22 appointments from ethnic minority backgrounds.
The proportion of female appointments fell, however, two percentage points to 28% of successful candidates, making up 30 of the 114 to take up silk in total. A total of 108 QCs were appointed last year.
Five solicitors from outside the UK and with practices focused on international arbitration were also appointed to QC. They include Singapore-based Sapna Jhangiani from Clyde & Co, who was one of the QCs of ethnic minority backgrounds appointed, Magic Circle partners Nigel Blackaby from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Washington and Simon Chapman from Herbert Smith Freehills in Hong Kong were appointed.
Andrew de Lotbiniere McDougall from White & Case and Jason Fry from Clifford Chance, both based in Paris, were also named as QCs.
McDougall told Legal Business: ‘I’m honoured to receive such a prestigious award. It’s particularly meaningful to me and a true honour. I just looked at the list quickly and I see some friends and people I know. It’s encouraging and a real privilege to be recognised alongside people who practice in court on a day to day basis and that our practice of international arbitration is considered at the same level.’
Fountain Court had a record year following the appointment of six new QCs, including Giles Wheeler, Edward Levey, Robin Barclay, Chloe Carpenter, Ben Lynch and Tamara Oppenheimer. Other notable chambers such as Essex Court, 4 Pump Court and 1 Crown Office Row did not appear on this year’s list.
The 30 women appointed was said to be ‘comparatively low’ by the chair of the selection panel, Sir Alex Allan: ‘I am pleased that of those women who did apply, almost 60% were successful.’
The overall number of QCs appointed this year increased by five per cent. All appointed QCs will formally become silks at a ceremony on 16 March 2020.
The full list of appointments (in alphabetical order):
Dominic James Adamson, Temple Garden Chambers
William Andrew Allen, Outer Temple Chambers
William Siward Atkins, Maitland Chambers
Robin Nicholas John Barclay, Fountain Court Chambers
Jonathan James Barnard, Cloth Fair Chambers
Zoë Maria Marsden Barton, Wilberforce Chambers
Nigel Alexander Blackaby, Freshfields
David Anthony Blundell, Landmark Chambers
Christopher Leigh Wilson Boardman, Radcliffe Chambers
Samantha Jane Bowcock, 15 Winckley Square
Michael Antony Brady, 18 St John Street Chambers
Cameron Kennedy Duncan Brown, Red Lion Chambers
Stewart John Buckingham, Quadrant Chambers
Matthew Paul Butt, Three Raymond Building
Henry James Byam-Cook, Twenty Essex
Rebecca Jane Carew Pole, 1 Hare Court
Chloe Carpenter, Fountain Court Chambers
James Frederick Horatio Carpenter, Hailsham Chambers
Jennifer Anne Carter-Manning, 7BR
Simon James Chapman, Herbert Smith Freehills
Allison Jean Clare, Red Lion Chambers
Timothy Donald Collingwood, Serle Court
Ben Lion Cooper, Doughty Street Chambers
Gary Adam Cowen, Falcon Chambers
Nicholas John de la Poer, New Park Court
Marcus Benedict Dignum, 12 King’s Bench Walk
Louis George Doyle, Kings Chambers
Delroy Benell Duncan, Cloisters
Richard Mark Fisher, South Square
Mark Steven Ford, Lincoln House Chambers
Jason Alva Fry, Clifford Chance
Gurdeep Singh Garcha, Citadel Chambers
Peter Seamus Patrick Goatley, No5 Chambers
James Daniel Goldsmith, One Essex Court
Mark Narayan Graffius, 2 Hare Court
Andrew Timothy Grantham, Kings Chambers
Alexander Edward Hall Taylor, 4 New Square
Justin Beresford Higgo, Serle Court
Samantha Hillas, St Johns Buildings
John Leslie Hipkin, Iscoed Chambers
Jamas Rusi Hodivala, Matrix Chambers
Syed Ahmed Izharul Hossain, Temple Court
Frida Hussain, Furnival Chambers
Sapna Jhangiani, Clyde & Co
Leon Samuel Kazakos, 2 Hare Court
Martin Goddard Kingerley, 36 Family
Jennifer Claudia Knight, Two Harcourt Buildings
Adrian Mark Langdale, 7BR
Blair Patricia Leahy, Twenty Essex
Krista Lee, Keating Chambers
Edward Michael Levey, Fountain Court Chambers
Richard Ian Liddell, 4 New Square
Benjamin John Patrick Lynch, Fountain Court Chambers
Scott Edward Lyness, Landmark Chambers
Shantanu Joseph Majumdar, Radcliffe
Roger Mallalieu, 4 New Square
Aileen McColgan, 11KBW
Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall, White & Case
Gerard Patrick McMeel, Quadrant Chambers
John Mehrzad, Littleton Chambers
Julian Robert Milford, 11 KBW
Barbara Mills, 4 Paper Buildings
Peter Mitchell, 29 Bedford Row
Eleni Mitrophanous, Matrix Chambers
Anurag Mohindru, Foundry Chambers
Andrew Matthew Stephen Mold, Wilberforce Chambers
Veronica Allison Munroe, Garden Court Chambers
Charlotte Anne Newell, 5 Kings Bench Walk
Katharine Julia Newton, Old Square Chambers
Andrew James Steedsman Norris, Hogarth Chambers
Harry John William Oliver, 1 Kings Bench Walk
Ijeoma Chinyelu Omambala, Old Square Chambers
Tamara Helen Pasternak Oppenheimer, Fountain Court Chambers
Jane Elizabeth Osborne, 2 Harcourt Buildings
Deshpal Panesar, Old Square Chambers
Conall Patton, One Essex Court
Cleo Perry, 4 Paper Buildings
James Patrick Pickering, Enterprise Chambers
David Richard Pievsky, Blackstone Chambers
Marcus James Pilgerstorfer, 11 KBW
Rajesh Pillai, 3VB
Henry William Stodart Pitchers, No5 Chambers
Sarah Selena Rixar Plowden, Guildhall Chambers
Paul Nikolai Raudnitz, Hollis Whiteman
Stanley Reiz, 2 Bedford Row
Philip Geoffrey Hurry Riches, Twenty Essex
Jeremy John Richmond, Quadrant Chambers
Brendan Roche, 7 Bedford Row Chambers
Adam Julius Rosenthal, Falcon Chambers
Noah Daniel Rubins, Freshfields
Harish Salve, Blackstone Chambers
Jonathan Robert Sampson, Harcourt Chambers
Jonathan Sandiford, St Pauls Chambers
Amanda Claire Savage, 4 New Square
David Luke Scannell, Brick Court Chambers
James Jeffrey Segan, Blackstone Chambers
Katherine Emma Selway, Radcliffe Chambers
Sharif Asim Shivji, 4 Stone Buildings
Stephen John Simblet, Garden Court Chambers
Melanie Denise Simpson, 25 Bedford Row
Adam Speker, 5RB
Heidi Lorraine Stonecliffe, UK Government
Timothy James Storrie, Lincoln House Chambers
Allison Summers, Drystone Chambers
Jacqueline Louise Thomas, Spire Barristers
Andrew James Thornton, Erskine Chambers
Rebecca Louise Tuck, Old Square Chambers
Richard Daniel Wald, 39 Essex Chambers
Henry Warwick, Henderson Chambers
Simon Mark Webster, 1 Hare Court
Colin West, Brick Court
Giles Neil Laurence Wheeler, Fountain Court Chambers
Robert Brychan James Williams, Monckton Chambers
Stephen Wood, Broadway House
Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) has appointed senior litigation hand and managing partner for Asia Justin D’Agostino (pictured) as its new chief executive officer (CEO), following Mark Rigotti’s decision to stand down from the role in spring of next year.
D’Agostino, 47, also spearheads the firm’s global disputes practice and US regions. Unlike the London-based Rigotti, D’Agostino will retain his home base in Asia during his tenure where he manages some of the firm’s largest clients.
‘It’s not accidental, but we picked him not for his location but as part of the globalisation of the firm,’ HSF senior partner James Palmer told Legal Business. ‘We don’t regard ourselves as having a head office. But Justin’s been accelerated into leadership early in his career, and anyone who meets him knows he is a charismatic people’s person but also a strategic person.’
The appointment by the firm’s council has been confirmed by a partnership vote, with D’Agostino now set to serve a four-year term effective from 1 May 2020. The Scottish-born lawyer first joined legacy Herbert Smith in 1998, before becoming a partner in 2007. His appointment comes as Rigotti announced in October he would stand down as CEO, citing ‘personal and professional’ reasons. Leaders at HSF typically do not exceed two terms, and Rigotti’s second stint is due to end in April 2020.
Meanwhile, an appointment from the firm’s disputes practice provides balance with corporate heavyweight Palmer acting as senior partner from London. Palmer saw off a challenge from disputes partner Mark Shillito in 2018 to be re-elected as senior partner and chair, with a vying for influence between the firm’s contentious and transactional practices considered a long-standing dynamic at the Anglo-Australian giant.
Palmer, however, stressed the tensions between the two practices are overstated: ‘the corporate and disputes thing is massively exaggerated, but of course his appointment reflects the importance of disputes to this firm. What we do is look at the strategic needs of the firm; the characteristics of what can help that; and then we look at the individuals.’
In 2016 the firm phased out its dual-CEO model, with Rigotti being elevated to the position of sole leader at the expense of former partner and head of disputes Sonya Leydecker. Rigotti has since been widely credited for winning over a sceptical City partnership following the firm’s 2012 merger and successfully integrating the two legacy firms. However, the firm’s latest financial performance proved sluggish, with revenue growing only 4% to £966m. Profits saw healthier growth, hiking 11% to £307m while profit per equity partner also grew 11% to £949,000.
While no dramatic strategic pivots are expected, Palmer stressed D’Agostino’s appointment would inevitably bring change. ‘He’s not a mini-James or a mini-Mark, he’s his own person and he’ll bring fresh thinking and you can’t change leaders without some change.’
Anna Cole-Bailey rounds up the latest management reshuffles at home and abroad
The autumn saw significant c-suite changes announced at Global 100 and Legal Business 100 (LB100) players, with Baker McKenzie voting in Milton Cheng as its new chair in a victory for the Asia partnership, while the figureheads of Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), TLT and Clyde & Co will step down to pave the way for successors.
You must be logged in to view full premium content.
Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) CEO Mark Rigotti is to stand down from his role next year, with the firm now priming itself to select a new leader once his term ends on 30 April.
The firm’s council will be the body appointing the new CEO, and is at the early stages of launching a selection process for Rigotti’s successor. The new incumbent will occupy the sole CEO position after the firm switched from a dual model in 2017.
Rigotti (pictured) first took the leadership mantle at HSF alongside Sonya Leydecker in 2014. The decision to appoint Rigotti as sole leader followed a consultation with the firm’s partnership following the merger between Herbert Smith and Freehills in 2012, with Leydecker apparently surprised by Rigotti’s appointment.
The leadership role at HSF typically does not exceed two terms, while Rigotti told Legal Business his decision was due to a desire to return to his native Australia for ‘personal and professional reasons’ after ‘six years and a solid run.’
In 2018, HSF senior partner James Palmer saw off a challenge from disputes partner Mark Shillito to be re-elected as senior partner and chair of the firm, receiving approval from over 50% of the partnership. Palmer’s victory against former head of disputes Shillito exacerbated a long-running rift between HSF’s transactional and contentious factions, with the upcoming CEO selection process likely to produce similar challenges.
Most recently HSF produced a sluggish financial performance despite a strong year for the corporate practice, with revenue rising a pedestrian 4% to £966m, while profits rose 11% to £307m. PEP, meanwhile, matched overall profit growth, rising to £949,000.
thomas.alan@legalbusiness.co.uk
For more background on Rigotti’s leadership of HSF, read ‘Taking over – one leader at HSF but is the culture clash over?’ (£)
Sir John Major (pictured) has instructed litigation heavyweight Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) as the former Prime Minister looks to join investment manager Gina Miller in a legal challenge against the suspension of Parliament.
HSF disputes partner Andrew Lidbetter has been enlisted to instruct The Rt Hon Lord Edward Garnier QC and Tom Cleaver of Blackstone Chambers, with the pair representing Major as he looks to get behind the existing claim brought by Miller, rather than initiating separate proceedings.
Meanwhile, Mishcon de Reya partners James Libson and Rob Murray have been instructed by Miller.
In a statement, Major said: ‘I promised that, if the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in order to prevent members from opposing his Brexit plans, I would seek judicial review of his action. If granted permission to intervene, I intend to seek to assist the Court from the perspective of having served in government as a minister and Prime Minister, and also in Parliament for many years as a member of the House of Commons.’
Murray acted for Miller when Mishcon successfully pursued a claim in the Supreme Court that an Act of Parliament was required to trigger Brexit. However, a separate legal challenge against the proroguing of Parliament supported by 75 MPs failed today (30 August) after a Scottish judge temporarily refused to make an emergency order preventing the suspension.
While Miller’s 2017 claim proved successful, she is expected to face an uphill battle in convincing the courts a proroguing of Parliament is unconstitutional. Miller’s case also faces greater time constraints than in 2017, with judicial review a slow process which will have to be expedited. The time pressure will be all the greater as the side that loses the first review will likely appeal.
For more on the potential constitutional ramifications of Brexit read Legal Business’ analysis Brexit vs Dicey.
Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) has made what its senior partner James Palmer described as a ‘game changer’ for its Chinese practice by signing a joint operation agreement with 20-lawyer Shanghai firm Kewei.
The move announced today (7 August) makes HSF the sixth Western firm to acquire PRC law capability in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone (FTZ), as part of the scheme launched by the Chinese government in 2013 in a bid to boost foreign investment.
While HSF’s 35-strong China operation remains barred from practising local law, the deal will allow its Shanghai practice to team up with Kewei’s PRC-qualified lawyers on client matters through a contractual arrangement known as HSF Kewei.
Palmer told Legal Business: ‘This may look just like another decision but it’s strategically key: clients are looking for integrated capability and if you can deliver it, as we now can, that’s a game changer for us in terms of offering advice in China.’
The deal took over a year of negotiations and planning before receiving the approval of Shanghai’s Bureau of Justice. Palmer said HSF picked Kewei because the firm, launched in 1995, had been growing with a view to tying up with an international player in recent years.
He said: ‘It was not a firm we would have worked with five years ago, but it developed a strategy to meet international quality standards with a view to entering an international partnership like this. It wants to be the Shanghai end of global quality work.’
As part of the deal, Kewei has also absorbed HSF’s alternative legal services hub, set up in Shanghai in summer 2016, into its own managed services business.
The initial focus of the joint operation will be on cross-border M&A, finance, disputes, competition, capital markets and financial services regulatory. Palmer noted the firm had not set any targets for headcount growth but its development would be influenced by ‘client response and the quality of people we can find’.
Despite being the only way around the ban on local law for foreign counsel in mainland China, just five firms have preceded HSF in signing similar partnerships in the six years since the launch of the FTZ.
The first was Baker McKenzie, which in April 2015 signed an association with FenXun Partners, followed by HFW’s deal with Wintell & Co in April 2016; Hogan Lovells’ alliance with Fujian Fidelity Law Firm in October 2016; and Ashurst’s tie-up with Guantao in January 2018.
Completing the group is Linklaters which, after holding talks with several firms for years, resolved to spin off some of its team to launch 30-lawyer practice Zhao Sheng and then set up a joint operation with it, which received the green light in May last year.
Palmer mentioned the current challenging economic climate in China amid trade wars with the US and the difficulties in finding a partner firm of the right quality as some of the challenges in the route to such partnerships for Western firms.
He added: ‘We take a long-term view: we are looking at the next 10 to 20 years, and international trade with China is going to increase massively. So we were not worried to enter [this association] in this period.’
The Shanghai launch comes after HSF posted the second consecutive year of sharp uptick in partner profits amid slower revenue growth. The firm’s top line rose 4% to £966m while profit per equity partner surged 11% to £949,000.
Marco.cillario@legalbusiness.co.uk
For more details on the fate of Shanghai joint operation agreements, see ‘Letter from Shanghai: Despite high hopes, it turns out there is no such thing as a free trade lunch’ (£)
