Page 29 - The Handbook - Legal and Accounting Networks 81
P. 29
Law and Accounting Networks and Associations
in the primary commercial centers. This new competition in local markets had the immediate effect of forcing
local firms to evaluate alternative ways of providing services to their international clients.
Law firms, like the accounting firms, were looking for new markets. The difference was that U.S. law firms
focused internationally on a niche market. In the 1970s, it was financial services. This was followed by
expansion to serve clients in manufacturing.112 The result today is that more than 100 United States law firms
have offices outside of the United States.113 However, the reality is that internationalization is very limited
among U.S. law firms — among the largest 100, the average is five overseas offices.114
The New York and London firms that opened offices at first did not generally practice local law, so the regional
firms were protected and received referrals on local matters. This also changed as the number of branches
increased and the firms indigenized. With the advent of legal advertising, U.S. firms could now market their
services in the U.S., and as a result indirectly began to market themselves in each of the countries in which
they had offices. The local bars had severe restriction on their own firms that were not lifted until very much
later.115 The local partners and associates were required to be citizens and to be admitted to the bar where they
practiced. The local firms became concerned when foreign firms began to meet these criteria. The result was
a need for local firms to band together. Networks became tools to compete against the much larger intruders
to address this expansion.116 The first networking of local firms was primarily the result of the invasion by
London and New York firms.
The first international networks, called “clubs,” generally consisted of 10 firms in different countries.117 The
typical format consisted of holding several meetings a year among managing partners to discuss management
and market-related issues. They were secretive networks118 because the members feared losing business from
other firms if they knew of these clubs. On the other hand, many did not hesitate to advertise to their clients
that they had foreign connections and correspondents. Today the clubs are commonly known as “best friend’s
networks.” Examples are Leading Counsel Network119 and Slaughter and May.120
The clubs evolved into networks in the 1980s.121 The networks were not as secretive and even published
directories, materials, and brochures.122 The members met annually; some focused on specific practices, such
as litigation,123 while others were more generic. Because networks were not thought of as strategic models, the
membership selection process was not particularly rigorous.124 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.
112 Carol Silver, Globalization and the U.S. Legal Market in Legal Services – Shifting Identities, 31 LAW & POL’Y IN INT’L BUS. 1093, 1127-29 (2000).
113 Am Law 100, AMERICAN LAWYER MAGAZINE (May 2011).
114 HARVARD PROGRAM ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION, www.law.harvard.edu/programs/plp/pages/statistics.php#sotflf.
115 Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
116 Christopher Brown, Europe’s Law Firms: the Next 10 Years, INT’L FIN. L. REV. (Sept. 1984), at 23; see also Wayne Green, Law Firms Linked to
Serve Clients Around the Globe, INT’L FIN. L. REV. (July 10, 1990), at Section 2, pg. 1.
117 The Secret World of Clubs, INT’L FIN. L. REV (April 1985), at 20. The first known club was the Club de Abogados, which had members in Latin
America and Spain. There was also a sister club called the Club de Abogados Europeo.
118 There were no directories. Periodically an article might appear on the networks.
119 See James Swift, Nine-Strong CIS Legal Network Gets off the Ground, THE LAWYER (Nov. 16, 2009),
www.armeniandiaspora.com/showthread.php?197623-Nine-Strong-CIS-Legal-Network-Gets-Off-Ground.
120 See SLAUGHTER & MAY, http://www.slaughterandmay.com/where-we-work.aspx.
121 See Jensen Rita Henley, Networking: the Future of Law Firms? NAT. L. J., March 7, 1988, at 9; see also Robert Denney, Law Firm Networks Form
for Varying Purposes, NAT. L. J., Aug. 21, 1989, at 22; Larry Smith, Can Global Networks Help Firms Face International Challenge, OF COUNSEL
LEGAL PRACTICE REPORT, March 6, 1989, at 5; see also Frances Gibb, Think Link, Say the Sharing Firms, THE TIMES (Feb. 21, 1989), at 11.
122 See INTERLAW, www.interlaw.org.
123 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.
124 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.
17
in the primary commercial centers. This new competition in local markets had the immediate effect of forcing
local firms to evaluate alternative ways of providing services to their international clients.
Law firms, like the accounting firms, were looking for new markets. The difference was that U.S. law firms
focused internationally on a niche market. In the 1970s, it was financial services. This was followed by
expansion to serve clients in manufacturing.112 The result today is that more than 100 United States law firms
have offices outside of the United States.113 However, the reality is that internationalization is very limited
among U.S. law firms — among the largest 100, the average is five overseas offices.114
The New York and London firms that opened offices at first did not generally practice local law, so the regional
firms were protected and received referrals on local matters. This also changed as the number of branches
increased and the firms indigenized. With the advent of legal advertising, U.S. firms could now market their
services in the U.S., and as a result indirectly began to market themselves in each of the countries in which
they had offices. The local bars had severe restriction on their own firms that were not lifted until very much
later.115 The local partners and associates were required to be citizens and to be admitted to the bar where they
practiced. The local firms became concerned when foreign firms began to meet these criteria. The result was
a need for local firms to band together. Networks became tools to compete against the much larger intruders
to address this expansion.116 The first networking of local firms was primarily the result of the invasion by
London and New York firms.
The first international networks, called “clubs,” generally consisted of 10 firms in different countries.117 The
typical format consisted of holding several meetings a year among managing partners to discuss management
and market-related issues. They were secretive networks118 because the members feared losing business from
other firms if they knew of these clubs. On the other hand, many did not hesitate to advertise to their clients
that they had foreign connections and correspondents. Today the clubs are commonly known as “best friend’s
networks.” Examples are Leading Counsel Network119 and Slaughter and May.120
The clubs evolved into networks in the 1980s.121 The networks were not as secretive and even published
directories, materials, and brochures.122 The members met annually; some focused on specific practices, such
as litigation,123 while others were more generic. Because networks were not thought of as strategic models, the
membership selection process was not particularly rigorous.124 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.
112 Carol Silver, Globalization and the U.S. Legal Market in Legal Services – Shifting Identities, 31 LAW & POL’Y IN INT’L BUS. 1093, 1127-29 (2000).
113 Am Law 100, AMERICAN LAWYER MAGAZINE (May 2011).
114 HARVARD PROGRAM ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION, www.law.harvard.edu/programs/plp/pages/statistics.php#sotflf.
115 Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
116 Christopher Brown, Europe’s Law Firms: the Next 10 Years, INT’L FIN. L. REV. (Sept. 1984), at 23; see also Wayne Green, Law Firms Linked to
Serve Clients Around the Globe, INT’L FIN. L. REV. (July 10, 1990), at Section 2, pg. 1.
117 The Secret World of Clubs, INT’L FIN. L. REV (April 1985), at 20. The first known club was the Club de Abogados, which had members in Latin
America and Spain. There was also a sister club called the Club de Abogados Europeo.
118 There were no directories. Periodically an article might appear on the networks.
119 See James Swift, Nine-Strong CIS Legal Network Gets off the Ground, THE LAWYER (Nov. 16, 2009),
www.armeniandiaspora.com/showthread.php?197623-Nine-Strong-CIS-Legal-Network-Gets-Off-Ground.
120 See SLAUGHTER & MAY, http://www.slaughterandmay.com/where-we-work.aspx.
121 See Jensen Rita Henley, Networking: the Future of Law Firms? NAT. L. J., March 7, 1988, at 9; see also Robert Denney, Law Firm Networks Form
for Varying Purposes, NAT. L. J., Aug. 21, 1989, at 22; Larry Smith, Can Global Networks Help Firms Face International Challenge, OF COUNSEL
LEGAL PRACTICE REPORT, March 6, 1989, at 5; see also Frances Gibb, Think Link, Say the Sharing Firms, THE TIMES (Feb. 21, 1989), at 11.
122 See INTERLAW, www.interlaw.org.
123 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.
124 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.
17
