Page 20 - The Handbook - Law Firm Networks 2018
P. 20
The Handbook: Law Firm Networks
Referred to as network Big 4 Network Legal Verein Law Firm Law Firm
Exclusive Referrals (network) Network
Yes Sometimes Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
This analysis shows that a law firm network is very similar
to the accounting association. The vereins have common
characteristics of accounting networks such as the Big 4,
BDO, and Grant Thornton. It is at this point the discussion
should focus activity levels. This will further delineate the
differences.
Network and Association Levels
Each network is different in its structure and
sophistication.55 Some networks are informal groups of selected firms that have organized for very limited
reasons. At the other extreme are networks that have dozens of professionals and staff who work for the
network. The Big 4 firms have hundreds of employees who manage the network, and the executives are very
much separated from the members.56 In these networks there is the authority to terminate members, hire staff,
and establish procedures and rules for providing services.57 An analysis of professional services networks
must account for these different models.
There are four network and association levels.
Level 1 networks are informal clubs. One or several individuals who have an interest in organizing the
network usually head them. Some clubs are referred to as “best friends” networks that, as a rule, may not
have a website, do not list their friends, and are generally secretive because the members may also have other
“best friends” who are not part of this club. The group may meet several times a year. Each member pays
his/her own expenses, since a Level 1 network has little or no budget. Based upon a review of websites, it
would appear Level 1 networks would include: (1) Club de Abogados,58 (2) UniLaw,59 (3) Southern Law
Network,60 and (4) Arab Legal Network.61 There are no known networks in accounting that can clearly be
55 Van Alstyne, supra note 9, quoting D. M. Brock: “Networks have develop in a particular pattern. They first start out as individual professional
practice autonomously. The power resides in the professional experts and managers administer the facilities to support the professionals made
collegially. At this level change is slow and strategy is formulated consensually. This model evolves to the managed professional business. Business
values become the norm and professional management takes over. In the case of a true global network this is necessary to reach its objectives”; see
also D.M. Brock, The Changing Professional Organization: A Review of Competing Archetypes, 8 INT’L. J. OF MGMT. REV. 3, 157-174 (2006); see
also D.M. Brock & M.J. Powell, Radical Strategic Change in the Global Professional Network: the Big Five 1999-2001, 18 J. OF ORG. CHANGE
MGMT. 5 (2005); see also Philip Smith, Networks Survey: Global Risk, ACCOUNTANCY AGE, Nov. 6, 2008,
www.accountancyage.com/aa/feature/1748284/networks-survey-global-risk: “(T)he survey found three distinct structural models for trans-national
organizations: an international association of independent firms coordinated by a separate legal entity; an integrated international partnership; and a
national practice with subsidiaries in other jurisdictions. By far the most popular form of organization was the association model. And within this
model three discernible categories of associations whose boundaries are not clear-cut can be identified by their capacity to exercise governance and
control and in relation to operational policies and characteristics.
“The three categories fall within the framework of a broad correlation between relevance, extent of trans-national activity and referrals on the one
hand and size of association budget, shared resources and degree of interaction, coordination and integration between member firms on the other. The
majority of associations were at the lower end or middle range of the correlation.”
56 See infra Chapter 7, Regulations and Other Legal Considerations for Networks.
57 This authority can create vicarious liability issues as to whether network members are independent or whether the network controls them. See infra
Chapter 7, Regulations and Other Legal Considerations for Networks.
58 CLUB DE ABOGADOS, www.clubdeabogadosibero.com (last visited Jan. 28, 2015).
59 UNILAW, www.unilaw.org (last visited Jan. 29, 2016).
60 No website available.
61 ARAB LEGAL NETWORK, www.lasportal.org/en/legalnetwork/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Jan. 29, 2016).
-7-
Referred to as network Big 4 Network Legal Verein Law Firm Law Firm
Exclusive Referrals (network) Network
Yes Sometimes Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
This analysis shows that a law firm network is very similar
to the accounting association. The vereins have common
characteristics of accounting networks such as the Big 4,
BDO, and Grant Thornton. It is at this point the discussion
should focus activity levels. This will further delineate the
differences.
Network and Association Levels
Each network is different in its structure and
sophistication.55 Some networks are informal groups of selected firms that have organized for very limited
reasons. At the other extreme are networks that have dozens of professionals and staff who work for the
network. The Big 4 firms have hundreds of employees who manage the network, and the executives are very
much separated from the members.56 In these networks there is the authority to terminate members, hire staff,
and establish procedures and rules for providing services.57 An analysis of professional services networks
must account for these different models.
There are four network and association levels.
Level 1 networks are informal clubs. One or several individuals who have an interest in organizing the
network usually head them. Some clubs are referred to as “best friends” networks that, as a rule, may not
have a website, do not list their friends, and are generally secretive because the members may also have other
“best friends” who are not part of this club. The group may meet several times a year. Each member pays
his/her own expenses, since a Level 1 network has little or no budget. Based upon a review of websites, it
would appear Level 1 networks would include: (1) Club de Abogados,58 (2) UniLaw,59 (3) Southern Law
Network,60 and (4) Arab Legal Network.61 There are no known networks in accounting that can clearly be
55 Van Alstyne, supra note 9, quoting D. M. Brock: “Networks have develop in a particular pattern. They first start out as individual professional
practice autonomously. The power resides in the professional experts and managers administer the facilities to support the professionals made
collegially. At this level change is slow and strategy is formulated consensually. This model evolves to the managed professional business. Business
values become the norm and professional management takes over. In the case of a true global network this is necessary to reach its objectives”; see
also D.M. Brock, The Changing Professional Organization: A Review of Competing Archetypes, 8 INT’L. J. OF MGMT. REV. 3, 157-174 (2006); see
also D.M. Brock & M.J. Powell, Radical Strategic Change in the Global Professional Network: the Big Five 1999-2001, 18 J. OF ORG. CHANGE
MGMT. 5 (2005); see also Philip Smith, Networks Survey: Global Risk, ACCOUNTANCY AGE, Nov. 6, 2008,
www.accountancyage.com/aa/feature/1748284/networks-survey-global-risk: “(T)he survey found three distinct structural models for trans-national
organizations: an international association of independent firms coordinated by a separate legal entity; an integrated international partnership; and a
national practice with subsidiaries in other jurisdictions. By far the most popular form of organization was the association model. And within this
model three discernible categories of associations whose boundaries are not clear-cut can be identified by their capacity to exercise governance and
control and in relation to operational policies and characteristics.
“The three categories fall within the framework of a broad correlation between relevance, extent of trans-national activity and referrals on the one
hand and size of association budget, shared resources and degree of interaction, coordination and integration between member firms on the other. The
majority of associations were at the lower end or middle range of the correlation.”
56 See infra Chapter 7, Regulations and Other Legal Considerations for Networks.
57 This authority can create vicarious liability issues as to whether network members are independent or whether the network controls them. See infra
Chapter 7, Regulations and Other Legal Considerations for Networks.
58 CLUB DE ABOGADOS, www.clubdeabogadosibero.com (last visited Jan. 28, 2015).
59 UNILAW, www.unilaw.org (last visited Jan. 29, 2016).
60 No website available.
61 ARAB LEGAL NETWORK, www.lasportal.org/en/legalnetwork/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Jan. 29, 2016).
-7-
