
Beaton Capital’s analysis indicates that Herbert Smith has never done a merger of any size to enter a new country. Let alone one with a firm the size of Freehills http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2012/02/herbert-smith-confirms-merger-talks-with-freehills.html. The London silver circle firm has 19 offices in 14 countries, all opened by Herbert Smith and not by merger, as far we are able to analyse.
Our work on the globalisation strategies of the world’s 50 largest law firms shows only 12 have used solely organic means, that is opening greenfield offices, to enter new countries. A combination of greenfield and M&A entries has been used by 29.
On the face of it, why would the hitherto seemingly M&A-averse Herbert Smith engage in such a merger? Look at the facts: Herbert Smith has 267 partners and ~$750m revenue in 2011, where as Freehills has 192 partners and ~$500m income. This would be a first time overseas merger for both firms – and a merger of equals in many respects. Conventional wisdom makes it very risky.
Perhaps it is a portent of things to come? Will we see other top tier Australian law firms take the ‘Herbert Smith’ path to globalisation? Of course, portent can refer to something momentous or something calamitous that is likely to happen. Let’s hope for any firm taking this path it is the former.
Some in the general business media are asking what the acquisition of the UK’s Russell Jones Walker by Slater & Gordon is all about. Surely, these commentators say, this is just another everyday acquisition, the more interesting aspects of which are the valuation and investors’ early responses.
I disagree. My reasons are set out in today’s (3 February 2012) Legal Affairs in The Australian where I have written about the implications for law firms in Australia, the UK and elsewhere.
Firstly, the UK Legal Services Act now allows persons other than lawyers to own and operate law firms resulting in ASX-listed Slater & Gordon, AIM-listed Quindell Portfolio and Irwin Mitchell all being active. And in the USA Jacoby & Myers, another large personal injury firm, is suing to be allowed to raise external capital while the New York state bar has re-opened the question of non-lawyer ownership. These regulatory changes are upending decades of stability in the industry.
Second, Slater & Gordon is a 75 year-old law firm with strong social values, it is listed and has a proven M&A and post-acquisition integration capability. These factors combine to make S&G unique; it is not just another entrepreneurial acquirer using the strong Aussie dollar to advantage.
Third, Slater & Gordon is not the subject of a Harvard Business School case study simply because it is the world’s first listed law firm. It’s no ordinary firm in many ways. It has a tightly defined product-market scope and defensible strategies for mitigating the adverse aspects of competition for talent and clients. And it has access to capital. Very few law firms can claim, let alone deliver, a strategy like this. But many will watch, learn and follow.
The threats are real for traditional law firms in the consumer law space. As the Slater & Gordon success story (judged here in terms of consumer benefits) rolls on, others will follow. We can expect consolidation to gather pace, small firms to sell or be squeezed, much of the time driven by investment markets.
Opportunities? Australian law firms are world leaders in innovation; smart entrepreneurial firms will derive lessons from all this.
On January 28th The Economist speculated it might happen Psst, wanna buy a law firm?. Then the tweeting started within minutes of the ASX announcement late in the afternoon on Monday 30 January. By early evening AEST the UK’s Legal Week had the story: Courtesy of the UK’s Legal Services Act, Slater & Gordon had made its first acquisition of a UK firm, personal injury specialists Russell Jones & Walker. My email inbox was running hot: What’s this mean for other law firms in Australia and the UK? Read my views on some of the answers in The Australian later this week.
For all those interested in the Asian Century this thought-provoking piece is a must-read. The power of ‘the Chinese’ network ‘courtesy of the internet’ – especially insofar as economic, social, and political change is concerned – is hard to predict…. Connectivity adds a new dimension of cohesion to modern China. That can only accelerate the speed of its extraordinary development journey.
It was a Perth band, End of Fashion that adapted the lyrics Don’t Delay, Lock Up Your Daughters from the 18th century London comedy about the naive Hilaret who left the protection of her father’s house to elope with Captain Constant. She charges Ramble, a ladies’ man, with rape and in turn her maid charges Constant with rape. The cases are tried by Justice Squeezum, a corrupt judge. So the story went.
And so also the saga of the globalisation of the Australian legal profession continues with more internationalising law firms rumoured to be arriving, the latest of which–Freehills and Herbert Smith–seems true.
Of course this is not all recent, Baker & McKenzie the world’s first and arguably leading law firm has been in Australia since 1964, followed in the 1980s by Sullivan & Cromwell and Skaddens, also American firms. But it took UK firms Norton Rose, Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance in short order to really stir the pot, preceded in a more sotto voce way by DLA Piper with their initial alliance with Phillips Fox. Now, by latest count by country of origin there are eight American firms, five UK and one each from Malaysia and Canada. Oh, I nearly forgot the game-changing Mallesons – King&Wood tie-up. When does it plateau or end one may well ask?
The appeal of Australia to globalising firms is several-fold, but mainly based on resources and the associated infrastructure and financing. Harvard Business Review has rated Australia as the most favourable destination for foreign direct investment in the eastern hemisphere and according to The Heritage Foundation Australia is the largest single beneficiary of Chinese investment, $34b a year. No wonder law firms are in hot pursuit of the fees that follow these massive projects and the spin-offs. Further, Australia is now regarded as being the southern part of greater Asia increasingly linked to the fortunes of the great economic powerhouses and many countries to our north and in the same time zone.
Let’s take a look at the reasons for the interest and, most recently, the avid willingness of whole firms, offices and groups of partners to jump ship and join global firms, particularly in Sydney which has 14 offices linked to foreign firms. Melbourne and Perth each have seven such offices, Brisbane has two and Canberra one. The attraction is not hard to find: the promise of more consistent flows of top quality clients and work, being part of a globalising firm, expectations of greater security, global mobility and, in some cases, lure of much larger incomes. The givens of being a partner or solicitor in a law firm remain the same, whether it’s Allens Arthur Robinson or Allen & Overy – pressure to perform and conform, nobody expects otherwise.
These rapidly emerging trends are accelerating the divide between winning and losing local law firms. The very largest firms with turnovers in the $400-500 million range face a novel dilemma. They now are the hunted – by both the globalising firms and the mid-size firms – for clients and talent. These predators are being aided and abetted by the clients. In the post-GFC world clients’ buying behaviour has changed substantially and irreversibly as the studies into client buying behaviour conducted by Beaton Research & Consulting since 2003 show. Clients now enjoy much more of the upper hand. They are exercising their power in a range of ways with a willingness to use mid-size firms more readily (and not just because of price) and to buy ‘brands’ i.e. the globalising firms, rather the expertise of specific partners.
For Australian firms looking to internationalise the opportunities lie mostly in Asia. Or do they? Perhaps this conventional wisdom should be challenged. In the rapidly narrowing window as the much larger USA and UK firms with deep pockets expand, and the emerging Chinese firms, in particular, move to protect their patches speed is of the essence.
Clients are the real winners; both domestic and offshore clients now have a wider range of highly competent firms eager for their business. The combination of clients’ buying sophistication and use of alternative providers such as Advent Lawyers and LPOs like Pangea3, is making life ever tougher for law firms.
And then to add to it all, Australia’s best law firms are running the risk of their ‘daughters’ eloping. The next few years will tell if most firms have delayed their reshaping, repositioning and re-engineering too long.
We’ve been receiving lots of comments on our post about engineering firms consistently performing lower than accounting and law firms. One, from UK-based consultant Derek Hindley of Drake House Management Consultants, was so interesting we thought it worth posting in full (with his permission). For those who don’t know Derek, he is the Chairman of the UK Performance Benchmarking Forum, and has a long experience with financial benchmarking of consulting engineers. Needless to say, his views are worth listening to!
“Although I have no direct evidence of the difference in performance between engineers, accountancy and law firms the assumption that engineers are less profitable and their staff less well paid is accepted wisdom. [ Read more ]
It’s clear that the pace of globalisation by US law firms will accelerate. Data from the US Department of Commerce reveals several compelling insights (see http://bea.gov/ for the many easy-to-use data sets). The legal sector’s real value added (a proxy for revenue) is in secular decline and is lower now than it was in 2000. More striking, the legal sector’s share of professional and business services has declined from over 25% in the 1970s to just more than 10% in 2010. And the private legal sector continues to shed jobs, 1,800 in December alone. Accountancy, architecture and consulting engineering all growing, albeit in an anaemic fashion (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm), pointing to an industry-specific trend in law.
While these statistics do not segment the legal industry by size or type of law firm, all reports point to the US largest firms being deeply affected by these trends. [ Read more ]
When I began this essay during the Christmas 2009 holidays it felt like a somewhat self-indulgent exercise in reflection tinged with nostalgia. Publication of Why_Professionalism_is_Still_Relevant_Beaton on sites such as Professions Australia and the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association and in online journals like the Social Science Research Network led to a range of speaking engagements and requests to reprint and cite the work in many places. The comments received and audience responses confirmed the essay’s central proposition.
Two years on professionalism remains relevant but pressures on the professional practitioner, particularly those working in firms in the private sector, continue to increase inexorably. The imperatives for the firm more often than not are at odds (or at least feel as though they are at odds) with the needs of the professional. Consider these polarities between the firm and the individual: business diversity–cultural compatibility; long-term investment–short-term return; corporatisation–professional freedom; growth and scale–feeling like a proprietor. Wise leaders of firms know that clients value professionalism and they strive to ensure their firm’s governance mechanisms accommodate these inherent conflicts. But all too often, even in these well-led, firms’ business motives subtlety over-ride professional decisions.
Professional services are delivered by individual practitioners. If individuals compromise their professionalism as they endeavour also to serve the interest of their firms, the relevance of professionalism may be lost.
Food for thought in 2012; and another essay on the status of the individual professional?
Beaton’s recent ‘Bigger. Better. Or Both?’ First Movers seminar analysed the merits of size and growth (Bigger) versus focusing on clients’ needs (Better) and being rewarded for success. In this context it’s interesting to note that of the 10 firms recognised by ALB only half are conventional (ABL, H&W, MO, WH, WK). The others are incorporated consolidators (M+K), listed (ILH, S&G) or so-called non-firm firms (AL, BL).
Industry watchers will no doubt latch on to this as yet another harbinger of change. Nimbleness in the market, access to capital and innovation are, on average, more likely in new structures. So, well done the conventional five. And let’s all take note of the five playing by new rules. They are the game-changers and disruptors – dismiss or ignore them at your peril.
“Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted” Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Sun Tzu’s quote best captures the advantages of being the first mover. The Asian Century is seeing a shift by globalising law firms to Asia. Hong Kong best captures this, with as many as 86 foreign law firms from Australia (5), Bermuda (2), British Virgin Islands (1), Cayman Islands (3), China (2), France (2), Italy (1), Luxembourg (1), Sweden (2), UK (20), USA (42) and USA/UK (4) establishing presences of varying sizes (Legal500, 2011).
Asia’s powerhouse economies are enjoying double digit GDP growth. Specifically, China has grown at 17% CAGR since 2000 and the IMF estimates the GDP to close the year at a whopping $6.9 trillion (IMF, 2011). China’s economic expansion is driven by its comparative advantage on labour cost derived from the size of its population, 1.3 billion to be exact (IMF, 2011). The global manufacturing hub’s continuous industrialisation and urbanisation are contributing to the demand for mineral resources (Australian Government Department of Treasury, 2010). Australia’s strategic location in the eastern hemisphere and resource-rich lands have seen its ascendancy as the single largest FDI recipient from China (The Heritage Foundation, 2011).
Since 2008, major domestic and globalising law firms have entered Perth to ride the resource super-cycle. Here are but a few examples:
The Asian legal industry is at a tipping point driven by the continuous growth of developed and developing Asian economies. Recent cross-border Asia-Pacific law firm mergers signify the continuously expanding role of Australia in the Asian Century:
With more firms setting up in Australia, how many assets remain? Speed-to-market is critical in seizing the opportunities still available. Sun Tzu’s quote still rings true in an uncertain 2012.