Page 31 - The Handbook - Law Firm Networks 2018
P. 31
The Handbook: Law Firm Networks
as litigation,144 while others were more generic. Because networks were not thought of as strategic models,
the membership selection process was not particularly rigorous.145 Many of the networks that were
innovators in the 1980s reached Level 2 and had no intent to develop beyond this level. This is evident by the
fact that their membership over several decades has not increased, their websites contain no information,
their governance depends on the same individuals, and their operations are limited.
In 1989 when Lex Mundi was formed, it represented a new development of networks as a business.146 It
established objective criteria for membership. It was the first network in which each member had to be
among the largest and most established firms in a state or country. It was a business that provided members
with many alternatives to expand their resources. It was a network organized around a home office with staff
rather than a staff being assembled after the network was established. While different from the accounting
network, the concept was that of an entity that provided services to members and should also have an
established brand. Unlike earlier networks in which all activities are internal, 50 percent of the activities were
external.147 The staff, board, councils, and members collaborated to achieve the objectives. The list of
internal and external activities reflected approximately 30 different items.148
Other networks like TerraLex149 and Meritas150 soon followed with a similar business-based model. These
networks were not secret and operated also as businesses. Their stated objective was to create a branded
alternative to the large United States and English law firms that had expanded into their countries. All of
them have many of the features of Level 3 networks.
U.S. national networks also developed in the 1980s. The first was American Law Firm Association,151 which
was a network that focused primarily on insurance litigation. The second was State Capital Group,152 which
began as a national network of firms that had government affairs practices. To qualify for membership, the
firms needed to have a former governor at the firms. Both of these networks became international, changing
their names to SCG Legal and ALFA, respectively.
The same national expansion exists in other regions. For example, there are 80 European-centric networks.
Some cover most of Europe, while others focus on a specific region like the Nordic or the CIS. In Canada
national firms have gradually opened offices in most of the provinces. Canadian firms that did not agree with
this strategy have joined the better-known networks. In Canada there is a clear demarcation between the two
approaches.153
Dentons,154 DLA,155 Hogan Lovells,156 Norton Rose Fulbright,157 Baker & McKenzie,158 King & Wood
Mallesons,159 and Squire Patton Boggs160 — the Swiss association verein
144 ALFA was one of the first networks in the legal profession. As such, finding information about the network and members was very difficult. Today
this is not the case. See ALFA INTERNATIONAL, www.alfainternational.com (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
145 This selection process is reflected today in the networks that have firms with a wide range of sizes, i.e. small firms in locations where there are
firms that are three and four times the size. See TERRALEX, www.terralex.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
146 Maireed Keohane, Virtual Advocate, Steve McGarry, the Brains Behind Lex Mundi, EUR. LEGAL BUS., Nov. 1999, at 14; see also Stephen
McGarry, Practicing Law in the 21st Century Will Require Affiliations, LEG. MGMT., May-June 1994, at 34; see also Stratton, Captive Law Firms v.
Global Legal Networks: The MDP Inquiry Continues,, 82 TAX NOTES 26-40 (Jan. 4 1999); see also WIKIPEDIA: LAW FIRM NETWORKS &
ASSOCIATIONS, en.wikipedida.org/international_law_firm-networks_and_association (last visited Feb. 2, 2016); see also Nick Jarrett-Kerr,
International Alliances: How They Work, What They Deliver, and Whether to Join, JARRETT-KERR.COM, Dec. 5, 2012, www.jarrett-
kerr.com/blog/International-alliances; see also Liz Wiehl, How Small Firms Compete Amid the Giants, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 10, 1989.
147 Lex Mundi is the network that has spent the most to become “The Leading Association of Independent Law Firm.”
148 See infra Chapter 5, Governance of Networks and Operations.
149 TERRALEX, supra note 125.
150 MERITAS, www.meritas.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
151 ALFA International, supra note 124.
152 C. E. Yandle, New Law Firm to be Based in Raleigh, RALEIGH POST, July 18, 1989, at 1; see also STATE CAPITAL LAW REVIEW GROUP,
www.statecapitallaw.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
153 See infra Appendix 3.
154 See DENTONS, www.dentons.com (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
- 18 -
as litigation,144 while others were more generic. Because networks were not thought of as strategic models,
the membership selection process was not particularly rigorous.145 Many of the networks that were
innovators in the 1980s reached Level 2 and had no intent to develop beyond this level. This is evident by the
fact that their membership over several decades has not increased, their websites contain no information,
their governance depends on the same individuals, and their operations are limited.
In 1989 when Lex Mundi was formed, it represented a new development of networks as a business.146 It
established objective criteria for membership. It was the first network in which each member had to be
among the largest and most established firms in a state or country. It was a business that provided members
with many alternatives to expand their resources. It was a network organized around a home office with staff
rather than a staff being assembled after the network was established. While different from the accounting
network, the concept was that of an entity that provided services to members and should also have an
established brand. Unlike earlier networks in which all activities are internal, 50 percent of the activities were
external.147 The staff, board, councils, and members collaborated to achieve the objectives. The list of
internal and external activities reflected approximately 30 different items.148
Other networks like TerraLex149 and Meritas150 soon followed with a similar business-based model. These
networks were not secret and operated also as businesses. Their stated objective was to create a branded
alternative to the large United States and English law firms that had expanded into their countries. All of
them have many of the features of Level 3 networks.
U.S. national networks also developed in the 1980s. The first was American Law Firm Association,151 which
was a network that focused primarily on insurance litigation. The second was State Capital Group,152 which
began as a national network of firms that had government affairs practices. To qualify for membership, the
firms needed to have a former governor at the firms. Both of these networks became international, changing
their names to SCG Legal and ALFA, respectively.
The same national expansion exists in other regions. For example, there are 80 European-centric networks.
Some cover most of Europe, while others focus on a specific region like the Nordic or the CIS. In Canada
national firms have gradually opened offices in most of the provinces. Canadian firms that did not agree with
this strategy have joined the better-known networks. In Canada there is a clear demarcation between the two
approaches.153
Dentons,154 DLA,155 Hogan Lovells,156 Norton Rose Fulbright,157 Baker & McKenzie,158 King & Wood
Mallesons,159 and Squire Patton Boggs160 — the Swiss association verein
144 ALFA was one of the first networks in the legal profession. As such, finding information about the network and members was very difficult. Today
this is not the case. See ALFA INTERNATIONAL, www.alfainternational.com (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
145 This selection process is reflected today in the networks that have firms with a wide range of sizes, i.e. small firms in locations where there are
firms that are three and four times the size. See TERRALEX, www.terralex.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
146 Maireed Keohane, Virtual Advocate, Steve McGarry, the Brains Behind Lex Mundi, EUR. LEGAL BUS., Nov. 1999, at 14; see also Stephen
McGarry, Practicing Law in the 21st Century Will Require Affiliations, LEG. MGMT., May-June 1994, at 34; see also Stratton, Captive Law Firms v.
Global Legal Networks: The MDP Inquiry Continues,, 82 TAX NOTES 26-40 (Jan. 4 1999); see also WIKIPEDIA: LAW FIRM NETWORKS &
ASSOCIATIONS, en.wikipedida.org/international_law_firm-networks_and_association (last visited Feb. 2, 2016); see also Nick Jarrett-Kerr,
International Alliances: How They Work, What They Deliver, and Whether to Join, JARRETT-KERR.COM, Dec. 5, 2012, www.jarrett-
kerr.com/blog/International-alliances; see also Liz Wiehl, How Small Firms Compete Amid the Giants, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 10, 1989.
147 Lex Mundi is the network that has spent the most to become “The Leading Association of Independent Law Firm.”
148 See infra Chapter 5, Governance of Networks and Operations.
149 TERRALEX, supra note 125.
150 MERITAS, www.meritas.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
151 ALFA International, supra note 124.
152 C. E. Yandle, New Law Firm to be Based in Raleigh, RALEIGH POST, July 18, 1989, at 1; see also STATE CAPITAL LAW REVIEW GROUP,
www.statecapitallaw.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
153 See infra Appendix 3.
154 See DENTONS, www.dentons.com (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
- 18 -
