Posted on

‘Absolutely crazy’ or ‘evolution’? GCs and partners react to Labour’s Employment Rights Bill

‘We are committed, like the government is, to growth and to employ more people,’ says Nigel Paterson, general counsel at Currys. ‘But we think that essentially this is an overcorrection in quite a few aspects, where they are penalising everyone for the sins of a few.’

Paterson’s view sums up the concerns of many partners and in-house counsel, who caution that the government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill could have ‘unintended consequences’ for UK business.

Last week, the House of Lords pushed for amendments to the bill, particularly on the changes to unfair dismissal rights, zero-hours contracts, and trade union legislation, pushing the negotiations into parliamentary ‘ping-pong’ between the Lords and the Commons. 

The government touts the bill as ‘the biggest upgrade to employment rights in a generation’, and its own impact assessment costs the impact on businesses out at £5bn.

Its scope is vast. Amendments have exceeded 300 pages, and the reforms address everything from unfair dismissal rights and zero-hour contracts to the the gender pay gap, collective redundancy rights, sick pay, and the enforcement of employment rights.

Unfair dismissal rights

One of the more contentious aspects of the bill is the introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights. Currently, employees need to serve a minimum of two years at their employer before they can claim unfair dismissal. The introduction of an ‘initial period’ of employment, where a light-touch dismissal process applies, is still being pushed by the Lords, who claim that giving employees day-one rights will inhibit hiring. 

Partners Colin Leckey from Lewis Silkin and Andrea Finn from Simmons & Simmons agree that this is one of the most significant changes.  

Finn (pictured right), who is ranked as a leading partner in the Legal 500 Employers rankings, explains: ‘The change in unfair dismissal rights shifts the balance of protection in the workplace in a fundamental way. In practical terms, what that means is employers will need to be much more thoughtful about their recruitment processes, because they will have much less flexibility to say we made a bad decision.’ 

Leckey agrees that the changes will be ‘hugely impactful’, while Paterson comments: ‘The issue is, if you make it more expensive to dismiss people, the decision to take them on board in the first place is a more difficult one to make.’ 

Zero-hours contracts

The Commons has proposed the introduction of the right to guaranteed hours for workers on zero-and low-hours contracts. The changes will mean that any worker who exceeds the minimum hours set out in their contract during a certain reference period will have the right to further hours.  

Currys’ Paterson (pictured right) explains that for a retailer, this aspect of the Bill will cause the most difficulties.  

‘The government hasn’t yet defined what constitutes a low-hours contract,’ he says. ‘But essentially, an employer will be required to offer anyone on a low-hours contract an enhanced hours contract.’

This, he explains, is a particular issue for companies in the retail sector, where seasonal work often means that employees are working much longer hours over certain holiday periods. Paterson comments: ‘This is a real problem; it destroys our flexibility.’

Trade union legislation

Under several reforms to the trade union legislation, the government has proposed to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, strengthen trade unions’ right of access in the workplace, as well as introduce a duty for employers to inform their workers of the right to join a trade union.  

For an employment law head at a large global organisation, who asked to remain anonymous, for a unionised company like his, these changes are set to have the biggest impact. 

‘I understand why the government has implemented the changes, but essentially, all of the controls that allow businesses to protect themselves or at least prepare for industrial action have been taken away. That gives very powerful weapons to the trade unions, in terms of collective bargaining recognition but also wage negotiation.’ 

What’s missing?

Lewis Silkin’s Leckey (pictured right) agrees that while the bill represents a huge change, the biggest issue for employees’ rights is the overwhelmed Employment Tribunal.  

‘The biggest problem we have at the moment is that the Employment Tribunal system is in absolute chaos. Unless you properly fund and reform the Employment Tribunal system, that chaos is going to continue, and that is completely unaddressed by this bill.’

He continues: ‘The changes are a reflection of the agenda of the party that’s in power, rather than necessarily something that goes directly to tackling the most fundamental employment issues of the age.’ 

This sentiment was echoed by the anonymous employment law head, who cut to the point: ‘Without fixing that underlying mechanism for employees to go along and actually get justice, then it doesn’t really matter what rights you give them.’ 

Responses

‘It is becoming much more expensive in the UK to employ people, and for a government with a growth agenda, this bill is somewhat counter to that,’ says Paterson, although he concedes, ‘I think that it is an upgrade if you’re in a job. Whether it will help grow the economy and bring more people into employment, I think the jury will be out on that.’

The employment law head took a much stronger tone, ‘I think it’s absolutely crazy from a government that says they want to do is prioritise growth but have not really come up with any kind of pro-growth policies, despite their own assessments being that this Employment Bill is going to have a 5 billion negative impact on GDP.’ 

However, Simmons & Simmons’ Finn strikes a more optimistic tone. ‘It’s evolution rather than revolution’, she says. ‘Ultimately, the legislation is intended to give employees protection. What one wants to do is change behaviour and change processes, rather than having employees rely on enforcement. The best case is that employers look at this and go ‘we need to change our process’.’ 

However, she questions, ‘Does it, on the one hand, increase protection, but on the other hand, make it more difficult to get a job?’ 

[email protected]

Posted on

‘I’ve never seen anything like it’ – what’s driving Hong Kong’s IPO boom?

‘In my 31 years of practice, I’ve never seen a pipeline this active,’ says Slaughter and May partner John Moore, on the boom in activity in Hong Kong’s capital markets.

As a veteran of the Hong Kong scene, with decades of experience at firms including Morrison Foerster, Herbert Smith and Sullivan & Cromwell, as well as a six-year stint at Goldman Sachs, Moore is as well-placed as any to comment – and he describes current market conditions as ‘exceptional’.

‘While capital markets are inherently cyclical, the current momentum is exceptional, not just in volume but in the unique combination of factors propelling the market forward.’

According to a recent report from KPMG, Hong Kong is set to take the crown as the top global market for initial public offerings by the end of 2025, and as of 30 September, there were just shy of 300 active IPO applications in the pipeline, not including confidential filings.

And activity levels are so high that many firms are operating at full capacity, with partners in the market talking of banks being turned away by as many as 10 firms with no scope to take on more listings.

The factors behind Hong Kong’s rise

This activity has been driven in large part by regulatory reforms aimed at stimulating the market. ‘This rebound, I think, is primarily due to the A-H IPOs,’ says Sherlyn Lau (pictured), the deputy head of Sidley’s China corporate and finance practice, referring to a policy allowing companies listed on the mainland to post a secondary listing in Hong Kong.

Previously, listing on the Hong Kong exchange meant trading at a discount, according to several partners; however, recent floats have seen companies valued at a premium, which has encouraged more firms to look to the territory to access international capital.

Since the pandemic China has seen a decline in companies listing on its exchanges, and the government has introduced new stringent regulation for foreign IPOs. As a result, there is now a queue of companies that are looking to Hong Kong as a more straightforward solution, according to Lau.

‘Hong Kong is perceived as more friendly to Chinese companies, as it avoids the latent risk of potential de-listings that can arise in the US, where regulatory and geopolitical tensions have contributed to a more uncertain environment for Chinese issuers,’ Moore adds.

The last few years have seen many firms, predominantly US-based practices, scale back their presence in China and Hong Kong, citing geopolitical tensions, strict data privacy laws, and other regulatory challenges, and one partner told Legal Business: ‘We’ve had a number of clients who have been quite candid about their preference not to work with US firms.’

‘US firms tinker with their offering in the region more than many of the UK’s firms,’ Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer’s Matt Emsley says. ‘Commitment is important, especially when it comes to capital markets.’

The firms in the driving seat

When it comes to the law firms taking the lion’s share of the work, the biggest IPOs of the year to date have involved a mix of top UK and US firms, including HSFK, Kirkland & Ellis, Linklaters, Slaughters and Latham & Watkins (see details below).

HSFK has been operating in Hong Kong since 1982, and Emsley himself has been operating in the region for over two decades, experience which inevitably offers particular insight into market dynamics. ‘Strong players will look to bring established market knowledge and experience to different situations,’ he says, while also acknowledging that there are ‘very active players in the capital markets on both the US and UK side,’ Emsley adds.

The pace of deal activity in recent months has also meant that some law firms have been able to push up their rates, according to two partners who say clients with ‘deeper pockets’ have become less cost-sensitive due to a desire to go to market quickly. The partners added that some companies have been pressing for ‘aggressive timetables’ to list because of a rumour that was circulating that the Chinese government could introduce a market cap threshold to access a secondary listing.

‘Any active players in the market at present are being selective in terms of deals they’re taking on because there’s a real demand out there,’ Emsley says, ‘and only so much capacity in the market.’ This naturally raises the question of whether firms are looking to expand. Emsley believes that many firms will be looking to recruit, but acknowledges the challenges: ‘Deal flow has ramped up so quickly that inevitably there are only so many people in the market who can do this work – it’s quite specialised,’ he adds.

Partners also say that Hong Kong’s market is becoming more representative of China’s overall economy; while it was formerly dominated by listings of  banks, insurance companies and consumer brands, Sidley capital markets partner Meng Ding (pictured) notes the recent trend of agricultural and AI companies coming to market.

Benita Yu, the senior partner of Slaughters’ Hong Kong office also points to an appetite among international investors for China investment. ‘People are recognising the real value in Chinese companies and the genuine investment opportunities they present,’ she says. ‘This has boosted confidence in the market, and since March, we’ve seen international capital beginning to flow back into the local markets.’

‘The Hong Kong bets are a bet on China,’ Alasdair Steele, an ECM partner at CMS says, echoing Yu’s analysis that the boom is partly driven by international capital eyeing large returns in Chinese companies.

Lessons for London

The contrast between Hong Kong and London is stark, with the first half of 2025 seeing the weakest listing figures in three decades, and in recent years the UK Government has been attempting to stimulate the kind of market revival Hong Kong is experiencing with regulatory reform,

Earlier this month the Government announced that Latham capital markets partner Mark Austin has been appointed to set up and lead a taskforce overseeing the digitisation of the UK financial markets. This comes on the back of plans announced by the Treasury in the summer to reform prospectus requirements and introduce a system to allow private companies to take advantage of public markets.

The UK and Europe have a pipeline of companies, but ‘whether the international companies come to market [in London] depends on taking a perspective of where the UK is going in terms of growth,’ Steele says.  ‘If the money and the companies aren’t there, the regulatory changes are irrelevant. It’s too early to say,’ he says. For now, capital market partners in London will be looking on at their busy colleagues in Hong Kong with envy.

The biggest Hong Kong IPOs of 2025 to date: international advisers

Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL): HK$41bn
Kirkland & Ellis for CATL, Linklaters for the joint sponsors and underwriters

Zijin Gold International: HK$25bn
Latham & Watkins for Zijin, Slaughter and May for the joint sponsors and overall coordinators

Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals: HK$11.4bn
Cleary Gottlieb and Pillsbury for Jiangsu, HSFK for the joint sponsors

Zhejiang Sanhau Intelligent Controls: HK$10.7bn
Clifford Chance for Zhejiang, Linklaters for the joint sponsors and overall coordinators

Foshan Haitian Flavouring: HK$10.6bn
Clifford Chance for Foshan, Paul Hastings for the joint sponsors, overall coordinators, joint global coordinators, joint bookrunners and joint lead managers

[email protected]

Posted on

Revolving Doors: Simpson Thacher swipes Kirkland PE partner as MoFo bolsters fintech

Simpson Thacher has built on recent hires in its corporate and finance practices with its hire of M&A private equity parner Nick Appleton into its London office.

In the summer the firm added securitisation partner Richard Hanson from Cadwalader, before hiring two funds partners, Sam Brooks and Joanne Mak, from Macfarlanes and Kirkland & Ellis respectively.

Appleton also joins from Kirkland, where he spent eight years, joining in 2017 and making partner in 2023. With a practice focused on high-profile PE transactions and leveraged buyouts, Appleton brings a ‘wealth of experience advising top-tier financial sponsors on strategically significant M&A deals,’ said James R. Howe, co-head of Simpson Thacher’s European M&A group.

‘We’re confident he’ll be an asset to our European corporate practice,’ Geoff Bailhache, co-head of the firm’s European M&A group, added.

Morrison Foerster has hired financial services and fintech partner Dan Jones from Orrick in London. Jones, who joins from Orrick where he spent three years, brings a broad knowledge base when it comes to financial regulation as well as providing advice to clients ranging from start-ups to established institutions.

‘Dan’s practice aligns well with our global platform, and we expect his arrival, alongside the recent addition of Josh Kaplan, to establish MoFo as a destination practice for UK and EU financial services and fintech regulation,’ said Jeremy Mandell, co-chair of the firm’s financial services group.

Duane Morris has hired Legal 500 international arbitration leading partner Duncan Speller from Willkie Farr & Gallagher, as the firm makes a statement of intent in London.

Speller was co-chair of the international arbitration group at Willkie, and is ‘exactly the type of marquee talent we strive to attract to our firm’, said Duane Morris chairman and CEO Matthew Taylor.

He continued: ‘His experience and reputation will be a significant addition to our cross-border capability.’

Browne Jacobson has hired Colette Withey as partner into its North West corporate team. Withey moves over from EY Law, where she led the UK commercial and digital law team, and has two decades of experience advising on commercial arrangements and projects across a range of sectors.

Ilona Logvinova has joined Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer as the firm’s first chief AI officer to continue its implementation of AI and digital transformation. Logvinova previously led legal innovation and transformation at Cleary Gottlieb.

‘Ilona is already known for her expertise, and her extensive experience in digital transformation and innovation make her an exceptional fit for this newly-created role,’ Justin D’Agostino, the firm’s CEO said.

Also in London Payne Hicks Beach has hired insolvency and restructuring partner Craig Parrett from boutique bankruptcy firm Isadore Goldman, where he was a director since 2023.

Overseas, Jones Day has hired Christine Tran, a class actions defence litigator with over 17 years of experience into its Sydney office. Tran joins from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, and is one of only a handful of lawyers in Australia with trial experience in both shareholder and product liability class actions.

Investigations and disputes partner Jonathan Huth has joined Charles Russell Speechly’s litigation team in Dubai.

He joins from Howard Kennedy, where he led the firm’s Middle East practice. Prior to this, Huth was a senior in-house counsel at HSBC, in London and has also served as a senior trial attorney for the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

[email protected]

Posted on

‘We’ve never seen anything like this in modern times’ – Adobe’s Karen Robinson on AI risk, regulation and opportunities

‘We’ve never seen anything like this in modern times. The pace of AI development over the past few years and what’s coming next is exponential – there’s simply no way the courts can keep up,’ says Karen Robinson, associate GC for litigation and intellectual property at Adobe.

And she is well placed to make an assessment, with a career that includes nine years at Kirkland & Ellis, where she made partner in 2004, and two and a half years as a litigation counsel at Google before joining Adobe in 2012 as director of litigation.

In her current role, which she took up in 2024, Robinson is responsible for overseeing all aspects of the software giant’s IP, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, and marketing and advertising matters, while she also manages the global litigation portfolio.

While the EU has acted decisively in terms of AI regulation, with the EU AI Act coming in to force last year, the UK’s lighter touch approach has divided opinion. In a recent Legal Business and Thomson Reuters survey of more than 150 senior in-house lawyers, just 14% picked out the UK’s regulatory approach to AI as the best, compared to 52% for the EU.

However, Robinson believes the UK’s approach could pay off in the long term: ‘The UK can benefit from seeing how others have responded to AI regulations. It’s a great opportunity to take advantage of what those who have gone ahead have learned.’

While she is based in the US, she has been visiting London for to take part in working groups on AI and copyright led by the UK government’s technology and culture secretaries, including representatives from Adobe, Sony Music, Open AI, Amazon and Meta, and so far, her interactions with ministers have been positive.

‘The way we’ve seen the UK government lean in and really try to get this right has been encouraging,’ she says. ‘There are natural limitations to what the court and legal systems can provide, which is why this partnership with governments is going to be critical.’  

She believes the UK could benefit from bespoke frameworks reflecting the variety of AI technologies, noting that rules for large language models may differ from those for visual, video or audio tools – ‘so you’re not trying to cram the entire AI industry into a single set of rules’.

The government, which expects the UK AI market to grow to over $1trn by 2035, has tended to discuss AI in the context of ‘innovation and growth’ . Robinson is optimistic the government will also balance protecting creators with fostering innovation.

‘The government has suggested that no one’s going to be completely happy, and that’s an important message for all sides to share,’ she says. ‘In my experience with mediations, if everyone comes out vaguely disgruntled, it usually means we’ve landed in the right place.’

Still, Robinson argues that smaller content creators are frequently overlooked by commentators and legislators: ‘The conversation has become too focused on big tech and major rights holders, while overlooking the vast majority of creatives in the US.’

While many creators are resigned to having their work used as AI training data, Robinson highlights Adobe’s approach as more creator-friendly; the company’s Gen AI image generator Firefly is trained exclusively on licensed or copyright-expired material.

Another issue Robinson is passionate about is workplace diversity. At a time when DEI is facing fierce pushback from some quarters, she sees it as more vital than ever. Greater diversity across teams, she argues, is essential not only to reflect the plurality of users but also to anticipate and raise concerns and perspectives that might not be visible to others.

‘I know diversity is sometimes seen as a dirty word’, she says, ‘but you need a diverse body of data; it’s critically important, and things can go really, really bad if you don’t.’

The future of an AI-powered world may be uncertain, but uncertainty often brings opportunity, and Robinson believes enterprising lawyers will be well placed to benefit.

‘AI reminds me a lot of privacy law. When privacy first started emerging, nobody really had expertise in it – if someone said “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” you’d think, really? Because 30 years ago, hardly anyone was even thinking about it. That created a great opportunity for young lawyers to get in at the ground level, build their expertise, and now you have people with 15 years of experience who are true experts.’

‘AI presents the same opportunity from a legal perspective. The law is still being developed, so you can get in early, help shape where it’s going, and build expertise along the way. For a developing lawyer, that’s incredibly exciting.’ 

[email protected]

Posted on

London partner promotions more than double as Latham makes up 40 firmwide

Latham & Watkins has promoted 40 new partners around the world, the firm announced today (30 October), with seven promotions in London – more than double last year’s number.

The total of 40 partners is up 67% on last year’s figure of 24, while the seven London partners mark an increase of more than 130% on last year’s three.

Of the seven, five join the firm’s core corporate and finance practices. Chris Cox and Harriet Stephenson join the M&A and private equity practice, Tamryn Gallagher and Julie Van der Meersche join the banking and private credit practice, and Jonathan Ritson-Candler joins the capital markets practice.

The remaining two London promotions are Brett Carr, joining the emerging companies and growth practice, and Calum Docherty, joining the data and technology transactions practice.

Across the rest of Europe the focus remains fixed on transactions, with Paris, Milan, and Frankfurt each welcoming a new partner in the M&A and private equity practice.

The bulk of the promotions were once again in the US, with eight partners made up in New York, six in Washington DC, four in Boston, eight across the firm’s California offices, and two each in Chicago and Houston.

Across the board, Latham has promoted 30 lawyers into the partnership across the US, up from 17 last year.

This year’s round saw the firm make up no partners outside of the US and Europe, in comparison to last year, when it made up one partner each in Riyadh and Tel Aviv.

‘Today is an important and exciting day for our firm as we recognize and celebrate an amazing group of lawyers,’ said chair and managing partner Rich Trobman (pictured).

‘They have contributed significantly to the growth, success, and culture of Latham, and their promotions highlight the incredible depth of talent we have at our firm.’

The promotions are effective as of 1 January 2026.

The firm has also promoted 56 associates to the role of counsel, up from last year’s figure of 27. Earlier in the year, the firm promoted 19 counsel to the partnership, five of which were in London.

The announcement follows recent promotions by McDemott, which made up 74 partners in its first post-merger round, and White & Case, which made up 45.

The new partners are:

Europe

  • Brett Carr, emerging companies and growth, London
  • Chris Cox, M&A and private equity, London
  • Calum Docherty, data and technology transactions, London
  • Tamryn Gallagher, banking and private credit, London
  • Jonathan Ritson-Candler, capital markets, London
  • Harriet Stephenson, M&A and private equity, London
  • Julie Van der Meersche, banking and private credit, London
  • Michael Colle, M&A and private equity, Paris
  • Andrea Stincardini, M&A and private equity, Milan
  • Dominik Waldvogel, M&A and private equity, Frankfurt

United States

  • Shane Alexander, banking and private credit, Los Angeles
  • Savannah Burgoyne, white collar defense and investigations, Washington, D.C.
  • Shannon Cheng, M&A and private equity, Orange County
  • Shanta Chirravuri, M&A and private equity, New York
  • Michael Cromer, real estate, New York
  • Abigail Friedman, transactional tax, Washington, D.C.
  • Daniel Gherardi, securities and M&A litigation, Bay Area
  • Ryan Gold, capital markets, New York
  • Brad Guest, M&A and private equity, Washington, D.C.
  • Robin Gushman, antitrust and competition, Bay Area
  • Alisa Hand, executive compensation, employment and benefits, New York
  • Mike Hart-Slattery, investment funds, Washington, D.C.
  • Clayton Heery, M&A and private equity, Houston
  • Deborah Hinck, data and technology transactions, Boston
  • Christian Hollweg, emerging companies and growth, San Diego
  • David Johnson, antitrust and competition, Washington, D.C.
  • Sandy Kugbei, capital markets, New York
  • Lauren Lefcoe, M&A and private equity, Bay Area
  • Anne Malinee, complex commercial litigation, Washington, D.C.
  • Kaj Nielsen, capital markets, New York
  • Samuel Niles, capital markets, Boston
  • Alice Parker, M&A and private equity, Houston
  • Harris (Hai) Pham, banking and private credit, Los Angeles
  • Nathan Sandals, complex commercial litigation, Boston
  • Will Schildknecht, connectivity, privacy and information, Los Angeles
  • Samuel Steinman, real estate, New York
  • Jennifer Tian, investment funds, Chicago
  • Laki Triantafylidis, M&A and private equity, Boston
  • Aida Vajzovic, real estate, New York
  • Michael Zucker, transactional tax, Chicago

[email protected]

Posted on

Over half of UK GCs rethink ethics policies amid US attacks on ‘woke agenda’

More than half of UK GCs say their organisation has revised its stances on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and environmental sustainability in the face of heavy criticism from the US, according to new research.

Of these, more than a quarter (28%) say that their organisation has made ‘wholesale changes’ to its stances, or abandoned them entirely.

The findings come from a report commissioned by UK firm Freeths, which surveyed 250 GCs and chief legal officers across the technology, retail, hospitality and leisure, energy, and public sectors.

The responses show how businesses’ commitments to DEI and environment, sustainability, and governance (ESG) initiatives have shifted since US President Donald Trump took office and begin targeting those initiatives.

This was a key takeaway from the survey, with 32% of businesses saying criticism from the new administration has led to discussions about potential changes, 26% disclosing that it has led to specific changes, and 28% saying it has led to wholesale changes or abandonment of their current stances.

The report also found that 83% of GCs believe that ‘doing the right thing’ is too often considered secondary to profit in business decision-making.

At the same time, the responses highlights that the approach to DEI and sustainability has not been completely stifled by the shift in the political landscape across the Atlantic, and conversations about these topics continue in the corporate environment.

More than half (58%) of survey respondents said they felt comfortable flagging concerns around ethical best practice, while 32% said they consult with senior leaders about ethical concerns on a weekly basis.

Additionally, 85% of businesses reported declining business due to ethical concerns.

Introducing the Corporate Conscience Index, Freeths senior partner Philippa Dempster said: ‘This report examines how businesses are approaching ethical decision-making today, where conscience meets commercial reality, and where the gaps remain.’

She continued: ‘The lesson is clear: legal tactics, business strategy, and professional influence must always deliver advantage with fairness. That is the standard to which we should all be held.’

There have been numerous examples of businesses aligning with the Trump administration, with nine law firms publicly cutting deals with the administration to roll back their DEI commitments and provide free legal advice to causes the administration supports.

Others, however, remain committed to their stances. NatWest in particular is highlighted in the report for embedding its ESG targets into its executive pay structure. Fifteen percent of the long-term incentives in the company’s performance share plan depend on delivering climate and sustainability outcomes.

[email protected]

Posted on

‘Results validating the strategy’: Goodwin posts double-digit growth as ten-year plan kicks in

Goodwin has pushed revenue to a new record high after a year of double-digit financial growth, with the US firm also electing a new managing partner to take the reins in 2026.

The global firm saw revenue rise 12% to $2.7bn over the 12-month period to 30 September, with profit per equity partner up 20%. (The firm reported PEP of $3.62m for the 2024 calendar year).

Over the past year, the firm has pushed forward with a new ten-year strategic plan dubbed ‘Goodwin 2033’, and according to chair Anthony McCusker, the latest results are evidence that the strategy is already paying dividends.

McCusker, who has chaired the firm since October 2023, told Legal Business that the strategy is ‘more an evolution than a change’ from the firm’s approach over the last decade after the firm made some ‘hard decisions’ in the early 2010s to focus on core industry areas – healthcare, investment funds, life sciences, private equity, real estate and technology.

Though the firm declines to provide breakdowns for individual offices, McCusker said that London is ‘core to our success globally’, emphasising that Goodwin is practising in all six of its core industry areas out of the capital. ‘We felt we could lead in these industries that we thought had the best potential for growth,’ he said.

From next October, McCusker will work alongside a new managing partner, private equity specialist Joshua Klatzkin, who has been voted in after an election process held a year in advance to allow for a 12-month period during which Klatzkin will shadow current postholder Mark Bettencourt.

McCusker paid tribute to Bettencourt’s leadership, noting that revenue and net income have more than doubled and PEP has increased by 175% over his six years as managing partner. ‘When Josh takes over we will be a couple of years into the 2033 strategy and deep in the execution and implementation stage, so he can really hit the ground running,’ he added.

Goodwin recently topped the law firm rankings for M&A deal volume in Q3, with total deal values up by 115% on the corresponding quarter last year. McCusker also drew attention to the firm’s litigation practice, which grew by at least 9% for the fifth year running.

In London, recent partner hires have included Matthew Ayre, who was previously head of the leveraged finance team at Travers Smith, as well as former Kirkland & Ellis private equity partner Tom Roberts.

This May, the firm also took on HSBC’s head of legal market engagement Chris Grant as head of client value, and McCusker believes there is much more than just pricing when it comes to providing client value, with the firm seeking to embed itself deeply within its clients’ industries to become ‘not just vendor but strategic partner’.

Posted on

The best lawyers in Houston, Dallas and more, revealed in latest Legal 500 US elite rankings

More than 200 firms have been recognised in the latest batch of US elite rankings, unveiled by Legal 500 today (29 October), with a record 933 individual rankings across key markets in Texas and the Midwest.

The new rankings recognise lawyers from a total of 227 firms, including 204 that have never before been ranked by the Legal 500.

Distinct from the core Legal 500 US guide, which launched in June, the US elite recognises the top lawyers at firms outside of the global elite in markets across the United States.

The latest rankings following the launch of the project with the inaugural New York, Chicago and Washington DC rankings in February, the Boston, Miami and Charlotte rankings in April, and the Philadelphia, Atlanta and Ohio rankings in June.

The rankings cover a total of 19 practice areas, tailored to the strengths of each individual market and selected to highlight the most important and high-value work in each city.

The latest Legal 500 US elite rankings include:

Top performers

Dallas-headquartered Texas stalwart Jackson Walker was the best performing firm across the entire cohort, with 49 ranked lawyers across the Texas rankings, including ten in real estate transactions in Dallas, six in energy in Dallas, and five each corporate and M&A in Austin, corporate and M&A in Dallas, and energy transactions in Houston.

The firm was also the strongest performer across all of the Texas rankings, with Austin-headquartered McGinnis Lochridge in second place with 16 rankings across Austin and Houston, and third place shared between Dallas firms Bell Nunnally & Martin and Winstead PC, with 12 rankings each.

St Louis-founded UB Greensfelder scored highest in Missouri, with four rankings each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A.  While in Indianapolis, two firms achieved the same feat: Indianapolis-founded Bose McKinney & Evans, and Taft Law, a Cincinnati-headquartered firm also among the top performers in Minneapolis.

Also at the top of the pile in Minneapolis were local firms Antony Ostlund and Ciresi Conlin, as well as San Francisco-headquartered Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani (GRSM). Each of the firms had three rankings apiece in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A.

The rankings also included two new practice areas in Chicago, building on the commercial disputes and corporate and M&A rankings for that city released in February.

In banking and finance, Chapman and Cutler and Goldberg Kohn shared the top spot with four rankings each; specialist patent and IP firm Marshall, Gerstein & Borun was the best performer in intellectual property, also with four rankings.

Legal 500 is continuing to build out its US elite coverage, with rankings covering key markets across the country. Check the US elite page to learn more.

[email protected]

Top performing firms by ranking

Location Practice Firm Rankings
Austin Commercial disputes Reid Collins 6
Corporate and M&A Jackson Walker 5
Energy litigation McGinnis Lochridge 5
Energy litigation McElroy, Sullivan, Miller & Weber 5
Dallas Commercial disputes Bell Nunnally & Martin 6
Commercial disputes Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann 6
Corporate and M&A Jackson Walker 5
Energy (transactions and litigation) Jackson Walker 6
Real estate (transactional) Jackson Walker 10
Houston Commercial disputes Susman Godfrey 5
Corporate and M&A BoyarMiller 3
Corporate and M&A Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 3
Corporate and M&A Jackson Walker 3
Corporate and M&A Porter Hedges 3
Energy litigation Gibbs & Bruns 3
Energy litigation McGinnis Lochridge 3
Energy litigation Yetter Coleman 3
Energy transactions Jackson Walker 5
Indianapolis All Bose McKinney & Evans 8 (four each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
All Taft Law 8 (four each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
Minneapolis All Antony Ostlund 6 (three each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
All Ciresi Conlin 6 (three each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
All Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani 6 (three each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
All Taft Law 6 (three each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
Missouri All UB Greensfelder 8 (four each in commercial disputes and corporate and M&A)
Chicago Banking and finance Chapman and Cutler 4
Banking and finance Goldberg Kohn 4
Intellectual property Marshall, Gerstein & Borun 4

 

The top lawyers in Philadelphia, Ohio, and Atlanta revealed in latest Legal 500 US elite rankings

Posted on

Black History Month: ‘It’s going to take strong law firms to ensure we don’t go backwards’

‘Progress has not been good enough,’ says Bridget Tatham, a Birmingham insurance partner at Browne Jacobson. ‘The fact there’s scrutiny and a spotlight on it can only be a good thing but we can’t hide behind it.’

According to the most recent data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the number of Black partners in the UK did not increase between 2015 and 2023, despite law firms’ efforts to improve DE&I over this period.

As this year’s Black History Month draws to a close, Legal Business spoke to partners about the progress they have seen and experienced throughout their careers, as well as the change that is still needed to drive representation in the legal profession forward, particularly at partner level.

‘If the data isn’t there, there’s no evidence’

The SRA research found that while the overall number of minority lawyers rose steadily between 2015 and 2023 to 19%, only 3% of full equity partners and 1% of salaried partners identified as Black.

The findings are in line with a separate report – The 1% Study – which was published in 2022 and revealed that only 90 out of 13,000 partners at firms with 10 or more partners identified as Black, despite 4% of the UK population falling into this category.

For Tatham, every bit as important as the number of Black lawyers working in law is where they are working. Pointing to the data from the SRA showing that the vast majority of Black, Asian and ethnic minority lawyers work in firms with fewer than 10 partners, she asks: ‘The question is why are we not representative as lawyers in corporate, international firms?’

‘We can’t simply say that [senior Black representation] is just going to take time,’ Tatham adds. ‘The reality is that there have always been talented Black professionals who, for various reasons – including systemic obstacles as well as overt racism – have not been given the opportunity to progress.’

In an industry where progression into the partnership is driven by working the right number of hours for the right clients, fair allocation systems are vital.

‘You have to look at if the allocation of work and access to clients is fair,’ says Karl Brown, a Bristol-based commercial property partner at Clarke Willmott. Brown emphasises the importance of all fee earners ‘having sufficient opportunity for client interaction regardless of background’, a criteria he claims is not always met.

A&O Shearman London pension partner Jessica Kerslake maintains that there have been improvements in the industry since she started her legal career 21 years ago, despite the latest figures indicating a slow down.

‘Things have changed significantly,’ insists Kerslake. ‘When I started out as a trainee in 2004, there were very few Black faces anywhere in the City.’

For Kerslake, the mere existence of DE&I metrics is indicative of improvement over time. ‘When I was a trainee in 2004, I don’t think there were any statistics,’ she says. ‘The data is incredibly helpful because you can have certain feelings [about the presence of discrimination] but if the data isn’t there, there’s no evidence.’ Breaking down the hours associates log therefore becomes an important part of analysing whether work is being allocated fairly, she explains.

‘It’s about challenging why you keep going back to the same person’

‘I think it is valuable to not be too guarded about these conversations. If there is a sense a partner hasn’t been giving opportunities fairly to junior lawyers, we should be able to ask why that is. It’s human nature to want to work with people who have done well in the past or who remind us of ourselves. It’s about challenging why you keep going back to the same person for work and asking, am I giving everyone an equal opportunity to showcase their skills?’

Tracking the numbers can allow firms to spot problems and address them. In 2020, legacy A&O announced that it had been working on improving its ‘stay-gap’ after data revealed that Black lawyers were leaving the firm over two years earlier in their careers than white peers. ‘We reviewed our exit interview process to make sure that people’s experiences were heard and to help identify ways we could improve,’ says Kerslake.

‘If you don’t know what the issue is, how can you correct it?’

Similarly, Browne Jacobson began voluntarily reporting its ethnicity pay gap in 2019, allowing the firm to analyse and challenge remuneration and promotion decisions. In 2019 the pay gap stood at 18.7% but by 2024 it had fallen to 16%. ‘Data drives action,’ Tatham notes, ‘if you don’t know what the issue is, how can you correct it?’

It’s an argument demonstrated by progress at A&O Shearman. In 2019, the firm’s reporting showed that no legacy A&O partners identified as Black. Today that percentage stands at 3%, with the percentage of associates identifying as Black doubling from 3% to 6%.

But it isn’t just about the numbers. As well as data-driven metrics, A&O Shearman is also trying to improve collaboration between associates and partners, as well as with clients, says Kerslake, to help develop the relationships needed for career progression.

One popular softer-skills option for firms is reverse mentoring. Over at Clarke Willmott, Brown says the firm’s scheme means ‘junior staff can share their experience to help shape and inform senior leadership, which is an important element for retention and progression.’

He points to the skills he gained from his own senior consultant mentor as ‘invaluable’ in building his career.

‘It can be taken as a given that, as a person rising up through the law firm, you’re aware of all the dos and don’ts,’ he says. ‘But if you’re from a background where your parents weren’t in the profession, you need someone to point out the parameters which you’re trying to aspire to.’

For Brown, representation won’t be properly improved unless there is an industry-wide solution. He founded the Bristol Property Inclusion Charter for the real estate sector in 2019, to boost collaboration in promoting diversity and opportunity and wants to see the legal industry work together more closely too.

Tatham goes further, referencing inclusion work Browne Jacobson has done with clients which improves experiences for mentees as well as deepening client relations.

However, she is concerned about global pressure on future DE&I initiatives in the legal profession given Trump’s actions in the US. ‘It’s going to take some very strong law firms to stick to their commitments regarding Black retention and the growth of Black talent to ensure that we don’t go backwards,’ she warns.

All three partners stress that the benefits of DE&I go beyond simply a ‘moral objective’.

‘There are strong business benefits to creating a broad range of opinion and expertise within the firm,’ says Brown.

‘The question is why are we not representative as lawyers in corporate, international firms?’

Attracting a more diverse workforce isn’t just about policies, values and culture though. As Kerslake comments: ‘All firms promote inclusive cultures, but if there are no Black people in positions of power, or anywhere that young lawyers can see, they’re going to question why that is.’

But this shouldn’t be about targets or tokenism. Speaking about her own partnership in pensions, Kerslake says their unique perspectives bring different things to the table which strengthens decision-making. ‘It’s about talent and merit rather than ticking a box. If you put someone in a position of responsibility that they’re not yet capable of dealing with, it’s damaging to the person, to the firm and to the inclusion efforts. There’s an abundance of Black talent and potential.’

‘Having high performing, talented Black partners that can inspire the next generation is incredibly important to give junior lawyers the confidence that their firm is a place where they can truly shine and where they will be judged by their performance and not the colour of their skin.’

[email protected]

Posted on

The end of the law firm partnership? How NI reform lays bare structural flaws and opens the door to private equity

The UK government’s proposed National Insurance reform is more than a tax tweak -it’s a reckoning for law firm partnerships. Stripping away the 7% income tax advantage for equity partners, the reform forces firms and partners to confront whether a structure that’s endured since the 19th century can invest, innovate, or compete in the 21st.

This could prove the catalyst for an industry-wide push to incorporation and throw open the doors for private capital’s advance into the legal sector.

The capital constraint problem

While the law firm partnership model breeds exceptional collegiality and aligns effort to reward, its defining feature – the ‘naked-in, naked-out’ approach – tends to foster chronic underinvestment. Annual full distribution of profit and nominal partner capital serve short-termism and starve firms of the resources and incentives to own assets, upgrade technology, or back new ventures outside the core traditional law practice.

Senior partners are understandably reluctant to fund projects whose returns they’ll never enjoy; junior partners tend to prefer cash today over capital tomorrow. As unincorporated businesses, UK partnerships reinvest only after tax, making every pound of investment costlier than for corporates who don’t pay tax until profits are distributed. If partnerships lose their NI tax advantage, investment becomes even less attractive forcing a hard look at alternatives.

The talent retention problem

Instead of building long-term capital, the partnership model unwittingly rewards exit over retention. Partners can walk away with no penalty for leaving and have no compelling financial reason to stay.

Instead of building long-term capital, the partnership model unwittingly rewards exit over retention

In the past, tight-knit partnerships created bonds of loyalty that constrained exits. Today, market forces, rising pay, and competition make firm-hopping rational – and rampant. Even traditional bastions of partnership stability like Cravath, Wachtell, and Slaughter and May are losing partners, as eye-watering rival pay packages test the model’s limits.

The contrast with private equity structures makes the partnership model’s weaknesses even starker.

Comparison with the PE model

The irony is acute: as data from Edwards Gibson found partner moves in London hit a record 548 in 2024, many departing lawyers are the very advisers counselling private equity clients on long-term value creation and capital structures. PE professionals defer gratification through carried interest, vest over years, and face real financial loss if they leave. Law firm partners, by contrast, face few consequences for jumping ship and have little chance to build compounding wealth within their firm.

Law firm partnership compensation resets annually: value created and consumed each year, with no mechanism to defer gratification or accumulate capital. Private equity structures do the opposite. PE partners build substantial capital accounts with multi-year lockups. Carried interest vests over five to 10 years, tying compensation to long-term fund performance. A PE partner who switches firms forfeits millions in unvested carry. Clawback provisions claw back overpayments if later investments underperform. Law firm partners face no such constraints.

Law firm partners leave because staying costs them the opportunity to earn more elsewhere, with virtually no financial penalty for mobility

PE executives stay because leaving costs them millions. Law firm partners leave because staying costs them the opportunity to earn more elsewhere, with virtually no financial penalty for mobility.

This system institutionalises a free-agent culture in law firms where high earners threaten departure and veto strategic decisions to extract higher rewards – eroding partnership bonds still further and risking management paralysis precisely when long-term collective leadership is essential.

The employee incentive problem

Partnerships also lag on talent incentives. Without true equity, share options, or profit-sharing, they cannot match the career-long upside now common at corporate, ALSP, or PE-backed competitors – who use ‘sweet equity’ and management incentive plans to bind young stars for the long haul.

The NI changes remove a key defence of the status quo

Sophisticated PE investors in law firms understand this instinctively. To exit a law firm investment profitably in three to seven years, they must retain the next generation who’ll replace departing senior partners. Corporate structures offer visible paths to wealth creation and clear exits; partnerships counter with indefinite promotions, opaque process and one-year reward horizons.

The search for solutions

Sceptics say no partnership will accept the short term hit to distributions needed to build capital – why surrender certain income for uncertain gains?

Yet pressure is mounting. The NI changes would remove a key defence of the status quo. Rising partner mobility, technology and AI investment demands that dwarf the capacity of the current model to meet them and relentless PE interest in the legal sector are driving creative solutions.

One model: satellite platforms where firms co-invest with external capital in high-growth practices, offering laterals profit shares, capital growth on exit, and operational independence – without restructuring the core partnership.

Another: minority investments to finance incorporation and reconcile intergenerational equity – particularly attractive for firms with substantial non-legal business lines alongside traditional practice.

And lastly: hybrid models that seek to replicate the capital growth models of PE partnership clients while retaining the partnership structure.

The question is no longer ‘if’ partnerships must evolve, but ‘how’

The partnership model won’t disappear overnight. But its monopoly is ending. Well-capitalised corporate challengers backed by private equity are advancing into the sector with structures designed to retain talent and enable long-term investment. And any move towards more corporate structures will inevitably speed that advance since it makes firms more investible.

The question is no longer ‘if’ partnerships must evolve, but ‘how’ – and whether firms will act proactively or wait for the market to force their hand.

The greatest irony? Lawyers engineering these transformations for clients may finally have to engineer them for themselves.

David Morley is co-founder of Dejonghe & Morley, a consultancy focused on connecting law firms with private capital solutions. He previously served as manging partner and senior partner of legacy Allen & Overy and as managing director and head of Europe for global investment group Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

Posted on

McDermott promotes 74 to partnership in first post-merger round, adding two London partners

McDermott Will & Schulte has made its first round of partner promotions since its $3bn merger went live, with 74 lawyers made up globally and two in London.

The two new London partners are Pilar Arzuaga (pictured left) and James Dobias (pictured right), both from legacy McDermott Will & Emery, and in the firm’s regulatory and litigation departments respectively.

‘A huge congratulations to Pilar and James on their well-earned promotions to the partnership’, said London managing partner Aymen Mahmoud. Both have built exceptional practices, driven by deep expertise and a relentless commitment to client service.’

Partner promotions are up nearly 35% on last year’s combined figures, when legacy McDermott made up 43 new partners, and legacy Schulte Roth & Zabel made up 12.

The London total, meanwhile, is up on last year, when legacy Schulte promoted one partner in London (funds partner Amy MacDonagh), and legacy McDermott promoted none (having promoted three partners in London in its 2023 round).

To put the London numbers into perspective, 34 partners were made up in New York, 6 in Washington DC, and 5 in Miami. London’s figure of two puts it on a par with the firm’s Milan and Los Angeles offices.

The regional split of this year’s promotions was similar to previous years. The US took the overwhelming majority of promotions, with 65 – nearly 88% of the total, compared with just over 87% last year. Seven of this year’s new partners were promoted in the firm’s European offices, compared with six last year.

The breakdown by practice area was also similar to last year’s, with 37 made up in transactions – fully half of the total, compared with 38% last year. Litigation held steady at 20% of the total, with 15 partners this year compared to 11 last year.

The firm’s flagship health and life sciences practice made up four new partners this year, down from nine last year, while promotions in the regulatory practice surged from just one last year to six this year.

‘Celebrating our people is core to who we are, ‘ firm chair Ira Coleman said in a statement. ‘These new partners embody the bold thinking, client focus, and leadership that power our culture.’

Global transactions practice group head Harris Siskind added: ‘Our enhanced resources are second to none, especially in private credit, regulatory, and investment funds. We’re doubling down on the areas where clients need us most, with integrated teams that deliver unmatched value.’

The new partners are:

Europe

  • James Dobias, litigation, London
  • Pilar Arzuaga, regulatory, London
  • Laura Stammwitz, regulatory, Frankfurt
  • Oscar Arcà, transactions, Milan
  • Nicolò Perricone, transactions, Milan
  • Thomas Diekmann, transactions, Munich

United States

  • Morgan Pollard, health and life sciences, Atlanta
  • Rosalyn Broad, health and life sciences, Austin
  • Ashley Brzezinski, intellectual property, Boston
  • Natasha Dobrott, litigation, Boston
  • Asseret Frausto, litigation, Boston
  • Aly Francini, transactions, Boston
  • Emilie O’Toole, litigation, Chicago
  • Soffia Kuehner Gray, private client, Chicago
  • Terrence Brennan, transactions, Chicago
  • Garrett Kurtzweil, transactions, Chicago
  • Katie Yonover, transactions, Chicago
  • James Grossman, litigation, Dallas
  • Raja Chatterjee, transactions, Dallas
  • Jack Haake, transactions, Dallas
  • Ariel Beverly, employment, Los Angeles
  • Cathy Ren, health and life sciences, Los Angeles
  • Jack Beauchamp, transactions, Miami
  • Brad Burcroff, transactions, Miami
  • Nick Dilts, transactions, Miami
  • Brandon Elliot, transactions, Miami
  • Stephen Pedersen, transactions, Miami

[email protected]

Posted on

Kirkland’s new Boston hires lead as Novartis seals $12bn Avidity Biosciences acquisition

Kirkland & Ellis’s  recently hired Boston team has scored a key role advising Avidity Biosciences on its $12bn acquisition by Swiss pharma giant Novartis.

The team, which joined earlier this year from Skadden, is advising San Diego-based RNA therapeutics developerAvidity opposite Covington & Burling for Novartis.

The transaction is due to complete in the first half of 2026, with Novartis taking the group’s Antibody Oligonucleotide Conjugates (AOCs) platform for RNA therapeutics, as well as three late-stage neuroscience programs for neuromuscular diseases.

Meanwhile, as part of the transaction, Avidity will separate its early-stage precision cardiology programmes into a new company, SpinCo.

Covington is advising Novartis, with a team led by corporate practice head and M&A co-chair Catherine Dargan and M&A partner Mike Riella, both in Washington DC, as well as New York-based M&A partner Alicia Zhang.

Meanwhile, the Kirkland team advising Avidity includes Boston corporate partners Graham Robinson, Laura Knoll, Greg Schuster and Merric Kaufman, as well as New York capital markets partners Jennifer Lee and Tamar Donikyan.

Robinson, Knoll, Schuster and Kaufman joined Kirkland in May and June of this year from Skadden, where Robinson headed that firm’s Boston office.

The new team has enjoyed a successful few months since joining Kirkland. In June, Robinson, Knoll and Kaufman advised Sage Therapeutics on its $795m sale to Supernus Pharmaceuticals.

This is not the first time the team has navigated an acquisition by Novartis: while at Skadden, Robinson, Kaufman and Schuster acted for German biotech company MorphoSys AG in its €2.7bn acquisition by Novartis.

The deal is the second biggest pharmaceutical transaction of 2025, following Johnson & Johnson’s acquisition of Intra-Cellular Therapies for $14.6bn, which completed in April of this year.

[email protected]

Posted on

Trio of firms in driving seat on Legal & General’s £4.6bn pension buy-in with Ford

Slaughter and May, Hogan Lovells and Mayer Brown are advising Legal & General (L&G) and Ford as the financial services company assumes control of billions of pounds’ worth of pension liabilities in a deal totalling £4.6bn.

The buy-in is the largest pension risk transfer transaction announced in the UK in 2025 to date, and L&G’s second largest by premium size. It secures the retirement benefits of more than 35,000 members across both Ford’s hourly paid and salaried pension funds.

Slaughter and May is advising L&G, while Mayer Brown is acting as lead legal advisor to the trustees, with Hogan Lovells also providing legal advice to the trustees, as well as advising Ford.

The Slaughters team leading on the buy-ins is led by corporate insurance partner Thomas Peacock and pensions partner Chris Sharpe.

Mayer Brown’s team is being led by insurance partner Tom MacAulay and includes pensions partner Andrew Block.

Meanwhile, Hogan Lovells is acting for both Ford (as corporate sponsor of the pension funds) and the pension fund trustees on benefit aspects of the deal. The team is being led by pensions Edward Brown, with additional support on insurance aspects coming from corporate partners Jonathan Russell and Edward Steward.

The UK pension market has been boosted by recent investments from private capital. In July, Canadian fund Brookfield agreed to buy Just Group for £2.4bn, a deal which Slaughters and A&O Shearman advised on.

A&O Shearman and Slaughters also both advised on Apollo-backed European insurance group Athora’s £5.7bn acquisition of Pension Insurance Corporation Group (PIC) in July.

[email protected]

Posted on

Darrois, BDGS and Macfarlanes in the frame for L’Oréal’s €4bn Kering beauty deal

Macfarlanes has joined a roster of leading French firms including Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier and BDGS Associés securing roles on L’Oréal’s €4bn acquisition of Kering’s beauty division.

French corporate firm Darrois is lead counsel to luxury goods company Kering, a longstanding client of the firm, with Macfarlanes handing English law aspects of the deal for Kering.

L’Oréal, which announced its agreement to acquire well-known fragrance line House of Creed from Kering as well as licences for cosmetics from household names including Gucci and Balenciaga, has turned to BDGS for advice.

The deal, which is due to complete in the first half of 2026, gives L’Oréal two 50-year licences to create, develop and distribute beauty products from Kering’s well-known brands.

Darrois’ team includes M&A partners Bertrand Cardi, Christophe Vinsonneau, Forrest Alogna, Laurent Gautier and Cécile de Narp, as well as tax partner Vincent Agulhon and antitrust partner Guillaume Aubron.

Macfarlanes handled English law and IP aspects of the transaction, with M&A partner Harry Coghill and antitrust partner Malcolm Walton leading a team that also includes senior counsel Martha Campbell.

LB understands that French firms Fromont Briens and Arsène Taxand also have roles for Kering.

BDGS is fielding a team for L’Oréal that includes corporate partners Antoine Bonnasse and Jérôme du Chazaud, competition partners Antoine Gosset-Grainville, Maria Trabucchi and François Gordon and tax partner Guillaume Jolly.

LB understands that CMS Francis Lefebvre and 8Advisory are also advising L’Oréal on tax aspects of the transaction. At CMS the team includes partners Bruno Gibert, Edouard Milhac and Xavier Daluzeau, with 8Advisory’s team including Guillaume Rembry and Hubert Christophe.

Darrois has regularly advised Kering in the past. In 2023, the firm advised the global luxury group on its acquisition of a 30% stake in Valentino for €1.7 m.

L’Oréal has turned to a number of leading international firms for advice on recent deals. The company’s largest recent acquisition before this saw Latham & Watkins advise when L’Oréal acquired Aesop for €2.3bn.

[email protected]

Posted on

‘Unlocking the full power of our offering’ ­­- Pinsents senior partner on sharpening the firm’s competitive edge

‘We celebrate achieving record revenue in a world that remains uncertain, but we know our market competitors continue to drive performance and that we need to perform and grow,’ Pinsent Masons senior partner Andrew Masraf tells Legal Business.

In Pinsent Masons’ latest financial year, the firm’s revenue grew 4.7% to a new high of £680m. But in a year where this came against roughly static PEP of £797,000, Masraf is fully aware of the gap between his firm and some competitors.

Across the LB100 as a whole, PEP grew by an average of 6.5% to £916,000 and, while smaller firms outpaced their larger rivals, Pinsents’ PEP growth lags the 4.6% average growth across the top half of the table and the 6.3% average growth across international firm peers.

‘Some firms have reported significant growth, whether that’s top line or profitability,’ Masraf acknowledges, adding: ‘I see that as a motivator – it’s within our gift to follow a similar trajectory.’

This disparity with some firm rivals has sharpened Masraf’s focus on searching for levers of growth to enhance performance.

‘There are always opportunities to enhance and refine our practices. When you’ve got 500 partners across 29 offices, those small improvements can collectively yield significant results. We see a lot of untapped potential in our business and markets and we’re going after it.’

‘Some firms have reported significant growth, I see that as a motivator’

Earlier this year Pinsents appointed two new external members to its board: Pippa Wicks, co-founder of management consultancy firm AlixPartners and Marcus Bokkerink, the former managing partner of Boston Consulting Group, to help drive growth across the firm. The pair bring complementary and overlapping skills, according to Masraf.

Next month, Pinsents’ partnership will gather in Barcelona where they will discuss the firm’s growth strategy and listen to external speakers, including a presentation from Rothschild on private equity investment in law firms.

‘It’s a unique two-month period when you can shape the narrative,’ says Masraf, who has just entered the final year of his term. ‘[At the conference] I want to talk about the next three years and the levers of growth we can utilise.’

In practice, these levers will likely involve bringing an analytical rigour to ensuring that each cog in the business turns with maximum efficiency.

In line with the ethos of utilising untapped potential, earlier this year Pinsents formally introduced a new sector – retail, sports & hospitality, to its industry focus mix. The move brings together existing expertise under a clear umbrella that works well with the firm’s footprint, which is spread across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific.

There will also be a focus on strengthening ‘the finance heartbeat from London’. Earlier this month the firm made a double hire in the capital, bringing across equity capital markets partner Nicholas Holmes from Ashurst and Dinesh Banani from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer to lead the firm’s US securities practice.

‘What relationship with the US do you need to access that share of wallet?’

However, Masraf says the firm is not planning any significant change in its international offering, pointing to its still relative infancy as reason to focus on building up existing offices rather than opening new ones.

‘We’re proud of the European foundation we’ve built from the ground up, but our oldest offices, Munich and Paris are still only 13 years old. We’ve built a platform but would like to see physical growth in Europe to provide the sustainable network for the client base we want to drive.’

Further from home, Pinsents is thinking creatively about how to maximise engagement with the world’s largest economies despite not having a major foothold in either, although it did open a new office in Shenzhen in China in February.

‘We’ve identified $3-4bn of US legal spend from US outbound trade coming into jurisdictions where we have an office. That narrows the question: what relationship with the US do you need to maximise that trading corridor, to access that share of wallet?’

In March Pinsents opened an office in Riyadh to build on its existing presence in the region and Masraf insists the office will be crucial for accessing both China and the US. ‘Saudi Arabia is like the Switzerland of the Middle East. It’s a neutral spot for China and America to meet, you can access these two huge economies without having much of a footprint in either,’ he reasons.

‘You need foundations in those economies but the bigger opportunity is what they are doing elsewhere,’ he insists. That said, Masraf acknowledges that the US remains a ‘big unanswered question’. ‘A US merger might be the answer, but you’d want to be clear how any merger would allow you to maximise a market opportunity.’

‘The single profit pool is a very precious aspect of our structure’

He acknowledges that Pinsents’ single profit pool could make any potential merger challenging. ‘There are regulatory, tax and profit issues that mean putting together a fully integrated merger might be harder, but the single profit pool is a very precious aspect of our structure,’ Masraf says.

While Masraf says the single profit pool reinforces a collaborative culture, it comes with its own challenges: ‘A single profit pool of course brings a degree of financial pressure – everything is integrated, whether it’s accretive to profit or not.’

He is reluctant to introduce a verein, despite noting the differences in chargeout rates between say Poland and the US, arguing that they don’t incentivise referrals or collaborative working. He adds: ‘Maybe you might need a verein to get [a merger] done, but, in my view, that shouldn’t be the end game.’

When asked if he plans to run for a second term, Masraf smiles, deflects and insists it isn’t on his mind. He is focused on galvanising the firm for the years ahead: ‘We’re doubling down on unlocking the full power of our offering and the good news is, it’s within our reach.’

[email protected]

The £40bn club: LB100 push revenues to new high

Posted on

Trading places: Latham real estate head leaves for Kirkland as A&O Shearman sanctions head joins Sidley

Latham & Watkins global real estate practice head Michelle Kelban has left the firm for Kirkland & Ellis, where she will join as a partner in the New York office.

A Legal 500 leading partner for real estate, Kelban has spent more than 25 years at Latham, with expertise spanning the range of transactions, from private capital raising and financing to acquisitions and joint ventures and through to restructurings and workouts.

Her recent experience includes advising Ares Management Corporation on its acquisition of real estate advisory firm GCP International in March, valued at $3.7bn. Kelban co-led on the transaction alongside global M&A and private equity practice group co-chair Alex Kelly and asset management M&A partners Owen Alexander and Daniel Breslin.

Kirkland executive committee chair Jon Ballis said: ‘Michelle is widely recognized as one of the preeminent lawyers in the real estate sector, representing leading private equity sponsors in the full range of transactions involving real assets.

‘We’re very excited to welcome her to Kirkland as we continue to grow in strategically important practice areas like real assets.’

Kelban added: ‘I am thrilled to join Kirkland and its outstanding real assets team. The firm has an incredibly diverse platform for the type of transactions I handle and the clients with whom I work. I look forward to contributing my experience and working collaboratively with the team to help further grow and strengthen the real assets capabilities at Kirkland.’

For its part, Latham too has been active on the hiring front, bringing over restructuring partners, Ryan Dahl, Benjamin Rhode, and Natasha Hwangpo from Ropes & Gray to the firm’s offices in New York and Chicago.

The three bring deep experience advising on complex restructurings, liability management transactions, and distressed M&A.

The hires see Latham continue to build up its restructuring capabilities following the addition of John Sobolewski from Wachtell in January, as well as Ray Schrock, Candace Arthur, and Alexander Welch from Weil and Andrew Parlen from Paul Weiss last November.

A&O Shearman’s US head of sanctions Maura Rezendes has left the firm to join Sidley Austin‘s global arbitration, trade and advocacy practice. Rezendes joined legacy Allen & Overy in 2014 after three and a half years as chief of the enforcement division at the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Two A&O Shearman associates from her team also left to join Sidley.

Commenting on Rezendes’ arrival, the managing partner of Sidley’s Washington DC office, Kristin Graham Koehler, said: ‘Maura’s deep experience and impressive market profile in economic sanctions will help us serve some of the most urgent needs of our clients.’

Rezendes’ departure is the latest in a string of exits from A&O Shearman, which has seen more than 130 partners leave since the merger between legacy Allen & Overy and legacy Shearman & Sterling went live on 1 May 2024.

Of these, 55 were in the United States, with Rezendes the 18th partner to leave the firm’s Washington DC office. Last month, global antitrust head David Higbee left the office for Paul Weiss, along with partners Ben Gris and Djordje Petkoski.

Texas-founded national firm Jackson Walker has hired Phil Kim into its healthcare and life sciences group in Dallas. Kim joins from Sheppard Mullin, where he spent more than four years as a partner, and brings experience advising on a range of transactional and regulatory matters in the sector.

Meanwhile, Blank Rome has strengthened its international trade and national security capabilities with the addition of Kenneth Nunnenkamp as a partner in Washington DC.

Nunnenkamp joins from Morgan Lewis, where he led the firm’s CFIUS working group, and brings expertise in national security, export controls, economic sanctions, trade enforcement investigations, and anti-money laundering matters.

Blank Rome chair and managing partner Grant Palmer said: ‘Ken’s experience in national security and international trade, particularly his nationally recognized leadership in CFIUS reviews and trade enforcement matters, will be invaluable to our clients as they navigate the complexities of foreign investment in today’s global marketplace.’

International trade practice group co-chair Anthony Rapa added: ‘Ken brings invaluable experience across the full range of national security disciplines, including two areas at the heart of shifting geopolitics and trade policy: CFIUS review and trade enforcement.’

[email protected]

Posted on

Partners at top Philadelphia firms on the state of play in a burgeoning lateral recruitment market

When Kirkland & Ellis made its debut in Philadelphia this January through the hire of a five-partner mass tort team from Skadden led by prominent litigator Allison Brown, it became the latest international firm to open in a market once dominated by homegrown players.

That move followed similar launches, such as Polsinelli’s opening last summer with 35 lawyers, including 20 partners, from the local arm of Holland & Knight. The upshot is a lateral recruitment market that has rarely been more active.

‘Philadelphia never used to have lateral moves,’ says Barbara Shander (pictured below), private equity partner and co-chair of Goodwin‘s Philadelphia office. ‘It used to be a city where people stayed where they were. That’s changed over the last five years. We’re not where London or New York are, but it started from a very different place. It’s a combination of compensation being more competitive and more firms opening here.’

‘We’re seeing more consolidation of local firms to compete with the larger national and global firms’

Shander’s own career reflects that shift. After leaving Philadelphia stalwart Morgan Lewis in 2021 and spending a brief period at clinical research company WCG, she joined Goodwin in early 2022 – becoming co-chair of its Philadelphia office when it opened in January 2023.

Alongside Shander, Goodwin launched with a 14-partner team from Troutman Pepper, which brought expertise in life sciences, healthcare transactions, and white-collar defence. Among them was Rachael Bushey, a life sciences specialist who now co-chairs the office alongside Shander.

Bushey says the recruitment trend extends beyond newcomers. ‘We’re seeing more consolidation of traditional local firms to compete with the larger national and global firms that are coming into the market,’ she explains.

Lateral hiring heats up

Data from SurePoint shows Philadelphia recorded 45 lateral hires into top 100 firms in 2024 – up from 33 in 2023 and 39 in 2022. While the numbers are modest compared to larger markets, the trend mirrors patterns in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, which each also saw a 2023 slowdown followed by a 2024 resurgence.

New York led the pack with 449 hires last year, followed by 142 in Chicago and 123 in Los Angeles. Philadelphia’s lateral market, according to SurePoint data, is closer in size to Boston, which saw 49 hires in 2022 and 56 in 2023, before numbers nearly doubled in 2024 to 97.

‘The business community is thriving in Philadelphia’

Industry foundations

For Aaron Suh, Philadelphia managing partner at Morgan Lewis, the stability of the city’s key industries helps explain its steady growth.

‘Philadelphia has been a remarkably stable market,’ he says. ‘It doesn’t have the big boom and bust cycles that you see in other markets. One of the shorthand phrases you’ll hear about Philadelphia is “eds and meds.” It’s a big part of what’s put Philadelphia on the map. The market thrives on life sciences, healthcare, and education.’

‘Philadelphia is increasingly recognised as a destination for funding’

Long established local players such as Morgan Lewis and Dechert continue to anchor these industries in Philadelphia by maintaining close ties to these healthcare and educational institutions, as well as to key businesses across the city. But new entrants are keen for the action, with the sectors fueling lateral moves.

At Kirkland, not only Brown but three of the litigators hired since, have a focus on healthcare and life sciences. Similarly, many of Polsinelli’s new partners are sector experts.

Bushey (pictured right) agrees that the strength of Philadelphia’s universities, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies continues to draw talent – but she notes a gap compared with markets like Boston.

‘While we have top universities and pharmaceutical companies, we’re lacking in life sciences venture funds in Philadelphia,’ she says. ‘While we have a few in Philadelphia, it’s not on the level of Boston or San Francisco. That used to be more of an impediment than it is now, because Philadelphia, and Pennsylvania more widely, are increasingly recognised as a destination for funding.’

Shander adds that while the city has both local capital and investment opportunities, they don’t always overlap.

‘Philadelphia has some private equity firms that are large and sophisticated, and a lot of my private equity relationships are in Philadelphia. At the same time, most of the funds that are in Philadelphia are here because their founders are Philadelphia-based. Many of the transactions they invest in are outside of Philadelphia, and the LPs are generally not concentrated in Philadelphia either.’

A growing talent hub

But Philadelphia’s appeal lies as much in the city itself and its talent pool as in its business opportunities.

‘Philadelphia is a vital source of talent for our firm,’ says Dechert co-chair Dave Forti.

H. Marc Tepper, Philadelphia office head at Pittsburgh-founded US firm and lobbying group Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, expands: ‘We have some of the best law schools in the country, which means we have some of the best talent in the country. A wonderful trend that we’re seeing is some of our best graduates choosing to stay here in Philadelphia, either with Philadelphia law firms or in the Philadelphia offices of firms that are headquartered elsewhere.

‘The business community is thriving in Philadelphia,’ he continues. ‘That business growth isn’t just in healthcare, but also in higher education. There’s a lot of work that flows from our universities.’

Suh (pictured right) echoes the optimism about the city’s appeal. ‘We’re seeing more firms that historically did not have a presence here open in Philadelphia. Our competition is finding that it can be useful to have a place for talent to reside in Philadelphia, to be a part of their global organisation without being in a permanent remote work situation.’

For more on Philadelphia, see our coverage of the Legal 500 US elite rankings. For more on the US, see our coverage of the Legal 500 US guide.

[email protected]

Big law firms are betting on Boston – but does the market have room for more?

Firms that opened in Philadelphia 2024-25

Firm Office launched Total lawyers (partners)* Lateral hires
Kirkland & Ellis January 2025 7 (4) Allison Brown, Skadden, litigation, January 2025
Caroline Power, Dechert, litigation, April 2025
Burt Snell, litigation, Butler Snow, August 2025**
Kyle Victor, Hangley Aronchick, litigation, September 2025**
Polsinelli August 2024 26 (18) Sara Begley, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
Kelly Bley, Holland & Knight, ESOP, August 2024
Valerie Brown, Holland & Knight, litigation
Craig Circosta, Holland & Knight, M&A
Megan Cribbs, Holland & Knight, M&A, August 2024**
James DelBello, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
Dana Feinstein, Holland & Knight, employment, August 2024**
Kerry Halpern-Skoglund, Holland & Knight, employee benefits and executive compensation, August 2024
Marcy Hart, Holland & Knight, real estate, August 2024
Paul Jaskot, Holland & Knight, M&A, August 2024
Adria Lamba, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024**
John Martini, Holland & Knight, employee benefits and executive compensation, August 2024
Patrick McCabe, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
Amy McVeigh, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
Ryan Meadows, Holland & Knight, employee benefits and executive compensation, August 2024
Travis Nelson, Holland & Knight, M&A, August 2024
David Pardys, Holland & Knight, employee stock ownership plans (ESOP), August 2024
Nipun Patel, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
Michael Peacock, Holland & Knight, M&A, August 2024
Rachel Shim, Holland & Knight, ESOP, August 2024
Andrew Soven, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
David Surbeck, Holland & Knight, ESOP, August 2024
Cory Thomas, Holland & Knight, employee benefits and executive compensation, August 2024
Eric Yoon, Holland & Knight, litigation, August 2024
Gary Clarke, ShopCore Properties, real estate, October 2024**
Christine Soares, Merck, energy, October 2024**

*Lawyer and partner numbers from firm website. Accurate at time of publication. 

**Lawyer joined as a partner from a non-partner role.

Posted on

Revolving Doors: Cleary launches London real estate arm as Simmons bulks up pensions team

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton has made a decisive move into the UK real estate market, launching a London practice with the hire of Paul Hastings transactions partner Stephen Nicholas.

Nicholas joins Cleary as the firm’s first London real estate partner, alongside a team of lawyers from Paul Hastings, and will establish Cleary’s European real estate practice as part of a broader expansion of its private capital offering.

‘We’re thrilled to welcome Stephen to Cleary,’ said global managing partner Michael Gerstenzang. ‘As the firm’s first London-based partner in our Global Real Estate Practice, Stephen and his team represent an important broadening of our private capital offering across the firm.’

Meanwhile, Simmons & Simmons has made a splash in the pensions space, recruiting a five-strong de-risking team from DLA Piper. Legal 500 non-contentious pensions leading partner Amrit Mclean comes on board as global head of pensions de-risking, alongside four senior colleagues.

The team, set to start on 3 November, will significantly bolster Simmons’ pensions risk transfer expertise and deepen its bench for insurer clients.

Also in London, King & Spalding has welcomed former Travers Smith tax head Russell Warren into its corporate practice, with Hannah Manning stepping up internally to replace him at Travers.

Burges Salmon has strengthened its commercial and technology bench with the addition of privacy and data specialist Hamish Corner, who joins from Shoosmiths, where he led the firm’s privacy and data practice.

Elsewhere, Taylor Wessing has boosted its banking and finance team with its hire of leveraged finance partner Max Millington, who moves from Pinsent Masons.

Meanwhile, CMS has hired Daniel Kaufman, formerly lead counsel at BP Pulse, as a partner in its energy and infrastructure group. Debevoise & Plimpton has also been on the recruitment trail, adding corporate partners Hugo Laing and Rosamund Wood from Eversheds Sutherland to expand its insurance bench.

Private client-focused Wedlake Bell has also been active, hiring Sophie St John from Broadfield to advise international families and trustees on estate and succession planning.

Gateley Legal has brought in experienced disputes lawyer Ulrich Payne from offshore firm Appleby’s Cayman Islands office to its London team, while Brabners has recruited long-time DWF litigator Chris King into its Liverpool office.

In other moves, Kingsley Napley has appointed Mishcon de Reya partner Claire Green as its new chief legal officer, as former Mishcon duo Tom Murray and Simon Leaf depart to launch boutique Three Points Law.

White & Case has also made a noteworthy hire, bringing in Competition Appeal Tribunal judge Pinar Akman as a senior advisor in London.

In Europe, Eversheds Sutherland continues to expand in Luxembourg, hiring Sara Gerling from NautaDutilh and Codrina Constantinescu from Goodwin as partners in its banking and finance and funds teams respectively.

Pinsent Masons has also been busy on the continent, adding litigator and arbitrator Fernando Tallón Martínez from Ramón y Cajal Abogados to its Madrid office.

And finally, further overseas, Orrick has strengthened its energy and infrastructure platform with the arrival of Akira Takahashi from RWE Renewables in Tokyo, marking the firm’s fifteenth partner hire into its global practice this year.

Other partners who have joined the firm’s global energy and infrastructure practice in 2025 include projects advisor Adam Moncrieff, who joined from A&O Shearman in Singapore in May, and Anna Howell, a Legal 500 oil and gas leading partner who joined the firm’s London office from Gibson Dunn as global head of oil and gas last month.

[email protected]

Posted on

‘Comparing apples and pears’ – partners push back on mooted £2bn LLP tax raid

‘Harsh’, ‘comparing apples and pears’, or ‘the sensible thing to do’?

Partners and experts have given their views on reports that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to introduce a new tax on limited liability partnerships (LLPs) – and opinions are mixed, to say the least.

Partners in LLPs are not currently eligible to pay employers’ national insurance contributions (NICs), currently levied at 15%, as they are self-employed.

Under proposals reportedly mooted as part of the upcoming budget, however, partners would be required to pay NICs, with rates set slightly lower than 15%, according to reporting in The Times.

The policy could amount to a roughly 7% effective increase in tax for partners, and is forecasted by the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax) think tank to affect 190,000 UK partners, and raise a total of £1.9bn.

Liesl Fichardt (pictured right), head of Quinn Emmanuel’s London international tax and regulatory disputes practice, told LB that the proposal overlooks fundamental differences between partners and employees: ‘They’re comparing apples with pears. Being a partner in an LLP structure is not the same as simply being employed by a company. There are other responsibilities that partners have. It’s a very different animal.’

Another tax partner at an international firm pointed to remuneration differences between LLPs and other structures that he believes justify different tax treatments.

‘It would seem harsh to have all the downsides of being self-employed and to have to pay the equivalent of employer’s NICs’

He highlighted that partnership profits are taxed on accounting profits, which are usually higher than actual distributions, meaning partners may pay tax on money they haven’t received. Additionally, he stated that required capital contributions, which might be around 10%, are taxed immediately, even though the partner only accesses the funds upon leaving the firm.

He added that, as partners are self-employed and receive distributions from profits rather than a fixed salary, their income is precarious: ‘You don’t know if you will receive a profit or a loss.’

Elizabeth Small, a tax partner at Forsters, noted disadvantages of self-employment such as withdrawing payments through the year on account of profits which may not materialise, and so being at risk of paying back in year distributions, or having given bank guarantees, potentially putting the family home on the line, and being liable for amounts that are not covered by insurance.

‘It would seem harsh to have all the downsides of being self-employed,’ she said, ‘and for the partnership to have to pay the equivalent of employer’s NICs.’

The sensible thing to do

On the other hand, former Clifford Chance partner and founder of tax think tank Tax Policy Associates Dan Neidle (pictured right) told LB that the equalisation of treatment is ‘the sensible thing to do.’

He gave short shrift to the argument that, as self-employed workers, law firm partners’ earnings are insecure: ‘If you’re an employee in a small startup, your position is inherently more precarious than a partner at A&O Shearman. It’s ridiculous, and frankly insulting, to compare the two. So why should the employee pay more tax? Let’s cut the special pleading. Total bollocks.’

Neidle acknowledged that concerns about the impact on the legal profession carry more weight with him, pointing to a September report by CenTax which, while supportive, estimates that behavioural responses to the policy would trim around 20% off the expected tax take.

‘Let’s cut the special pleading. Total bollocks’

He suggested that some older partners might retire and return as consultants, while others could consider relocating overseas — ‘and not just to Dubai’. Countries such as Belgium, he said, could offer a more favourable tax environment: ‘It’s been said to me that a partner working in London gets taxed more than just about anywhere else.’

Another tax partner also believes the change could drive away highly paid financial services workers: ‘When you look at asset managers, hedge funds, and the like, a 7% increase is so significant that it could make people reconsider whether the UK is right for them.’

Meanwhile, Small points to other possible effects that might stem from the tax change: ‘It might slow down partnership promotions and would also be an additional cost, which would either need to be passed on to clients, absorbed by the partners, or offset through savings else: including employing fewer staff.’

Corinne Staves, a partner at CM Murray specialising in partnership law, is one of many to suggest that the move could lead to partnerships incorporating, a move which she said may ‘supercharge’ private equity investment in professional services, as it is much easier for PE firms to invest in firms with a corporate structure.

‘The devil will be in the detail, and it could be a nasty devil or a good one’

Fichardt stressed, however, that any rush to judgement should be put on ice until such details are made available: ‘We have yet to see the details. The government would need to introduce legislation, and we will need to see how that would work in practice. The devil will be in the detail, and it could be a nasty devil or a good one. We don’t know yet.’

She cautions, however, that the targeted tax could make the UK’s famously byzantine tax system even more unwieldy: ‘There is huge room to simplify,’ she said. ‘We already have one of the most complex and burdensome tax systems in the UK.

‘Targeting certain groups will never fix that problem and my concern is that this will make it even worse.’

[email protected]

Posted on

Clifford Chance bets on Europe’s class actions boom with White & Case team raid

Clifford Chance has hired a 14-lawyer team (pictured) from White & Case led by prominent partner Alexandra Diehl, in one of the largest team moves in the German market in recent years.

The team will be based out of the firm’s Frankfurt office, and includes two W&C local partners: Priscilla Tatschner and Lisa Becker. Tatschner will join as a local partner, while Becker will join as a counsel.

The move comes amid what CC’s Michael Kremer, head of litigation and dispute resolution in Germany, describes as a ‘hugely growing market’ for collective redress and class actions across Europe, a development that he says has evolved far beyond the 2015 Dieselgate scandal, when Volkswagen was found to have installed software that manipulated emissions tests in its diesel cars, triggering global outrage, billions in fines and a flood of follow-on claims against other manufacturers accused of similar practices.

‘Initially everybody thought Dieselgate might be a one-off and nothing like that would come again,’ Kremer told Legal Business. ‘But now you see different types of data-privacy-related mass litigation, a lot of consumer protection claims, and product-liability actions, especially in pharma, financial services and insurance.’

Diehl, who was previously a senior associate at CC for eight years before moving to W&C in 2018, has experience advising on collective redress and mass tort claims in a range of industries, in particular in regulated sectors such as healthcare, life sciences, automotive and technology.

Clifford Chance said in a statement that the team will add to the firm’s expertise in these regulated industries.

Matthew Newick, the firm’s global head of litigation and dispute resolution, called the arrival ‘an important development for our global disputes practice, positioning us to deliver seamless, high-quality advice across jurisdictions.’

Stefan Sax, managing partner for Germany, added that the country is ‘rapidly becoming Europe’s epicentre for collective redress,’ describing the team move as one that ‘deepens our bench and enhances our ability to support clients facing high-stakes, cross-border disputes.’

The team will bring across several mass litigation matters, including the ongoing product liability mass claim for BioNTech relating to its Covid-19 vaccine, Comirnaty.

Diehl also has particular expertise in arbitration, where she is recognised by the Legal 500 as a next generation partner. Her hire complements CC’s established international arbitration strength in Germany, notably the ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) practice led by Moritz Keller, former head of Freshfields’ Vienna arbitration practice.

‘Alexandra has arbitration experience that can strengthen collaboration with our exemplary arbitration team,’ Kremer said. ‘We can quickly mix teams and avoid silos, using our mass-litigation expertise alongside arbitration capability to offer clients a broader disputes solution.’

He added that Diehl’s group is bringing technical and AI-driven case-management tools, enhancing the efficiency of handling large-scale claims.

The Frankfurt expansion reflects CC’s ongoing investment in high-growth disputes areas, including collective redress, arbitration, restructuring and patent litigation. In recent years, the firm has made notable hires across Europe, the US and Asia, including Brad Woodhouse, who joined the firm’s Sydney office from national firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth as head of class actions for Australia this July.

‘We continue to invest where our clients need us to be and where we see potential for sustainable growth,’ said Kremer. ‘Mass litigation and arbitration are natural interface areas that allow us to leverage the firm’s platform globally.’

For Diehl, the move marks a return to familiar territory. ‘It’s a great pleasure to be returning to Clifford Chance,’ she said in a statement. ‘The collaborative culture and global platform provide the ideal environment to create advantage for our clients.’

Kremer concluded: ‘Mass litigation is here to stay, and we have the right team and platform to lead in that space.’

White & Case declined to comment.

[email protected]