Page 29 - Professional Services Networks
P. 29
The Handbook: Law Firm Networks
as many countries as commercially feasible. The objective was the same as in accounting: to establish a
brand and attract clients to it. The downside was that the legal profession looked down at the Baker &
McKenzie model. Baker & McKenzie was pejoratively characterized as a franchise by its competition.132 The
forces of the international community converged in the late 1980s. U.S. and English firms began establishing
branches 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.133 The result today is that more than 100 United States law firms
have offices outside of the United States.134 However, the reality is that internationalization is very limited
among U.S. law firms — among the largest 100, the average is five overseas offices.135
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.136 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.137 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.138 The
typical format consisted of holding several meetings a year among managing partners to discuss management
and market-related issues. They were secretive networks139 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 Network140 and Slaughter and May.141
The clubs evolved into networks in the 1980s.142 The networks were not as secretive and even published
directories, materials, and brochures.143 The members met annually; some focused on specific practices, such
132 A review of major legal publications shows virtually no articles or discussion of networks or developments in networks. Unlike in accounting,
there is no reporting of new members of networks, loss of members, marketing activities, etc. When a large firm loses a single partner, this is reported.
133 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).
134 Am Law 100, AMERICAN LAWYER MAGAZINE (May 2011).
135 HARVARD PROGRAM ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION, www.law.harvard.edu/programs/plp/pages/statistics.php#sotflf (last visited Feb,
2, 2016).
136 Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
137 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.
138 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.
139 There were no directories. Periodically an article might appear on the networks.
140 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.
141 See SLAUGHTER & MAY, http://www.slaughterandmay.com/where-we-work.aspx (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
142 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.
143 See INTERLAW, www.interlaw.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
- 17 -
as many countries as commercially feasible. The objective was the same as in accounting: to establish a
brand and attract clients to it. The downside was that the legal profession looked down at the Baker &
McKenzie model. Baker & McKenzie was pejoratively characterized as a franchise by its competition.132 The
forces of the international community converged in the late 1980s. U.S. and English firms began establishing
branches 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.133 The result today is that more than 100 United States law firms
have offices outside of the United States.134 However, the reality is that internationalization is very limited
among U.S. law firms — among the largest 100, the average is five overseas offices.135
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.136 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.137 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.138 The
typical format consisted of holding several meetings a year among managing partners to discuss management
and market-related issues. They were secretive networks139 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 Network140 and Slaughter and May.141
The clubs evolved into networks in the 1980s.142 The networks were not as secretive and even published
directories, materials, and brochures.143 The members met annually; some focused on specific practices, such
132 A review of major legal publications shows virtually no articles or discussion of networks or developments in networks. Unlike in accounting,
there is no reporting of new members of networks, loss of members, marketing activities, etc. When a large firm loses a single partner, this is reported.
133 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).
134 Am Law 100, AMERICAN LAWYER MAGAZINE (May 2011).
135 HARVARD PROGRAM ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION, www.law.harvard.edu/programs/plp/pages/statistics.php#sotflf (last visited Feb,
2, 2016).
136 Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
137 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.
138 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.
139 There were no directories. Periodically an article might appear on the networks.
140 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.
141 See SLAUGHTER & MAY, http://www.slaughterandmay.com/where-we-work.aspx (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
142 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.
143 See INTERLAW, www.interlaw.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
- 17 -
