Page 130 - The Handbook - Legal and Accounting Networks and Associations (2019)
P. 130
Law and Accounting Networks and Associations
Summary of Legal, Ethical, Operations, Management, and Branding Status of
Law Firms and Networks.
Members operate under a Big 4 Network Legal Verein Law Firm Law Firm
common name (network) Network
Share profits Yes Yes, with No Yes
Conflict of interest rules apply exceptions
Members pay management No No Yes
fees or dues Yes No No Yes
Local management has full Yes Yes415 Yes No
authority Yes416
Operations integrated Split No
Command and control Yes417 Yes
management Yes Yes
Global practice groups Yes Yes No Yes
Vicarious liability Semi-local No
Common joint marketing Yes autonomy Yes
Common tax liability No Yes Yes Yes
Business plan Yes No No Yes
Known as network No Yes Some/No Yes
Referred to as network Yes No No Yes
Exclusive Referrals Yes/No Yes Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes Sometimes Yes No
Yes No
Self-Defined – Does a “Network Disclaimer” Always Create a Network?
Networks use a disclaimer to alert clients that the relationship among the firms is an association of
independent firms that are not responsible for the actions of their respective members.
Do the disclaimers of the seven Swiss associations (Dentons, DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells, Norton Rose
Fulbright, Baker & McKenzie, King & Wood Mallesons, and Squire Patton Boggs) make them networks?
Let’s look at some examples of their disclaimers.
DLA Piper: On its website, DLA Piper refers to itself as a law firm but at the same time denies it
is a partnership. “[W]ords or phrases such as ‘firm’, ‘law firm’ or ‘international legal practice’ are
for convenience only and does not imply that all or any of such entities are in partnership together
or accept responsibility for the acts or omissions of each other.” See DLA PIPER,
www.dlapiper.com.
Another example is a Google search for Dentons; it describes itself in the search results as a “global
law firm.” In the legal notice on its website, it is a global legal practice providing client services
415 In a recent case, the chief administrative judge of the U.S. International Trade Commission held that Dentons was a law firm for conflict of
interest purposes. See Mark A. Cohen, Denton’s Disqualification and Legal Advertising: Stir But Don’t Shake, BLOOMBERG BNA (July 21, 2015),
https://bol.bna.com/dentons-disqualification-and-legal- (This was preceded by a case alleging a conflict of interest against Dentons).
416 Julie Triedman, Rift Among Rainmakers Complicates Dentons’ Mexico Deal, THE AMERICAN LAWYER (May 19, 2016),
http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202758141767/Rift-Among-Rainmakers-Complicates-Dentons-Mexico-Deal#ixzz4Bwa1qQra: “Soria
noted that the deal to become part of Dentons …. did not seem onerous. His office in Mexico City would be required to send 2 percent of its annual
income to the firm’s global management as overhead, plus 23 percent of inbound referral fees.”
417 Supra note 2: “Dentons promised complete freedom on compensation, hiring and other decisions, as well as a steady stream of inbound referrals.”
117
Summary of Legal, Ethical, Operations, Management, and Branding Status of
Law Firms and Networks.
Members operate under a Big 4 Network Legal Verein Law Firm Law Firm
common name (network) Network
Share profits Yes Yes, with No Yes
Conflict of interest rules apply exceptions
Members pay management No No Yes
fees or dues Yes No No Yes
Local management has full Yes Yes415 Yes No
authority Yes416
Operations integrated Split No
Command and control Yes417 Yes
management Yes Yes
Global practice groups Yes Yes No Yes
Vicarious liability Semi-local No
Common joint marketing Yes autonomy Yes
Common tax liability No Yes Yes Yes
Business plan Yes No No Yes
Known as network No Yes Some/No Yes
Referred to as network Yes No No Yes
Exclusive Referrals Yes/No Yes Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes Sometimes Yes No
Yes No
Self-Defined – Does a “Network Disclaimer” Always Create a Network?
Networks use a disclaimer to alert clients that the relationship among the firms is an association of
independent firms that are not responsible for the actions of their respective members.
Do the disclaimers of the seven Swiss associations (Dentons, DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells, Norton Rose
Fulbright, Baker & McKenzie, King & Wood Mallesons, and Squire Patton Boggs) make them networks?
Let’s look at some examples of their disclaimers.
DLA Piper: On its website, DLA Piper refers to itself as a law firm but at the same time denies it
is a partnership. “[W]ords or phrases such as ‘firm’, ‘law firm’ or ‘international legal practice’ are
for convenience only and does not imply that all or any of such entities are in partnership together
or accept responsibility for the acts or omissions of each other.” See DLA PIPER,
www.dlapiper.com.
Another example is a Google search for Dentons; it describes itself in the search results as a “global
law firm.” In the legal notice on its website, it is a global legal practice providing client services
415 In a recent case, the chief administrative judge of the U.S. International Trade Commission held that Dentons was a law firm for conflict of
interest purposes. See Mark A. Cohen, Denton’s Disqualification and Legal Advertising: Stir But Don’t Shake, BLOOMBERG BNA (July 21, 2015),
https://bol.bna.com/dentons-disqualification-and-legal- (This was preceded by a case alleging a conflict of interest against Dentons).
416 Julie Triedman, Rift Among Rainmakers Complicates Dentons’ Mexico Deal, THE AMERICAN LAWYER (May 19, 2016),
http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202758141767/Rift-Among-Rainmakers-Complicates-Dentons-Mexico-Deal#ixzz4Bwa1qQra: “Soria
noted that the deal to become part of Dentons …. did not seem onerous. His office in Mexico City would be required to send 2 percent of its annual
income to the firm’s global management as overhead, plus 23 percent of inbound referral fees.”
417 Supra note 2: “Dentons promised complete freedom on compensation, hiring and other decisions, as well as a steady stream of inbound referrals.”
117
