New Threads

A little late to the party on September's update!

Donald Trump is losing the trade war with China

The Story

Rather than this being a news story, this is more of a summary of an interesting article I read by Business Insider.

The article says that "despite the imposition of tariffs and counter-tariffs in July, the US trade deficit increased to $50.1 billion, a 9.6% increase from the previous month". In addition "the goods trade deficit with both China and the EU hit record highs in the month of July".

The US trade deficit is one the reasons Trump started imposing tariffs on countries around the world. It means that US imports are exceeding its exports, which Trump believes is causing harm to American companies.

Impact on businesses and law firms

As Trump's tariffs don't seem to be correcting the trade deficit, it could mean Trump will impose more trade measures on countries around the world.

The health of the US economy compared to other countries has caused US imports to grow significantly this year.

The question is whether Trump can ever "win" the trade war. In the meantime, businesses trying to undertake international trade will suffer.

Amazon second company to pass the $2tn mark

The Story

Amazon, one of the world's most feared companies, has now become the second company after Apple to have a market capitalisation of over $2tn.

Unlike Apple, Amazon's growth over the last year has surged, with the big tech company doubling the value of its stock. The company has shown it can also turn a profit, bringing in a net income of over $2bn in July.

Impact on business and law firms

Amazon has entered many markets over the past few years, from artificial intelligence to healthcare, as the company sought to invest in its future. It is the biggest provider of cloud computing to businesses and has billions of valuable customer data - which may lead it to compete with Google and Facebook in advertising.

Many investors see Amazon changing the future, with Amazon devices being used to operate devices around the house and order groceries.

Meanwhile, Apple has seen strong iPhone sales and is undertaking the largest share buyback in history. Microsoft is also growing revenues at its fastest rate in a decade and Google is speeding up its growth to invest in products outside search.

However, regulators are starting to take a look at the big tech companies. The US justice department has recently said it will go after technology companies for free speech and competition issues. Under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, Facebook and Twitter are not liable for most user-generated content. But this has been tested recently, as the social media sites have come under fire fro Russian interference in elections and other privacy issues.

Hello,

I recently applied to a firm for a work-experience opportunity and was quite happy and confident with the application.

Unfortunately, I was not successful in reaching the interview stage.

I would appreciate it if anyone could take a look at my application and provide feedback; if I haven't answered the question or have not been specific enough etc. or any other pointers.

Please let me know.

Thank you very much.

I struggle with on specific question: Why us?

I know that I should consider a number of things: the practice areas and for example a specific deal; the type of training, the retention rate, culture, diversity. However, I noticed that I tend to repeat the words used by the firms on their websites, so I waffle and tell them something that they already know.

What was your approach when you had to answer this question? How do you explain a deal in a TC application?

I look forward to reading your response.

Regards

Leader in M&A, litigation and competition

Corporate

• In 2017, Mergermarket named the firm European M&A Legal Adviser of the Year, with the firm advising on a deal value of $272,510bn from 175 deals. The firm regularly tops Mergermarket's European M&A rankings for deal value and deal volume.
• In the first quarter of 2018, Freshfields topped the European deal value according to Mergermarket. The firm also rose to second place in the global M&A rankings.
• Freshfields works on many of the biggest M&A deals in Europe including the sale of Pret to JAB Holdings and Comcast’s £22bn bid for Sky.
• According to The Lawyer, almost every private equity head in London names Freshfields as the firm with the leading private equity practice. However, Freshfields was recently hit by the loss of its star partner David Higgins. Higgins left to become co-managing partner of Kirkland's London office in "one of the most significant departures ever from an elite London law firm", according to Legal Business.
• US firms lack the established M&A brand Freshfields has built across Europe.
• At the Transatlantic Legal Awards 2017, Freshfields was named "Transatlantic Private Equity Team of the Year".
• In November 2017, Freshfields launched its "Global Transactions Practice", which covers its corporate, finance and real estate practices. The firm has the largest corporate team in the UK according to the number of its fee earners.

Litigation

• Freshfields is unique in the magic circle for its balanced split between corporate and litigation.
• The revenue from Freshfields’ litigation team grew significantly after 2008. It now contributes approximately 33% to the firm's total turnover.
• Freshfields has the largest litigation practice in the City in terms of revenue generation.
• The firm's disputes team has acted on many headlining deals, including representing Volkswagen during its emissions scandal and Tesco following investigations into the false accounts of its profits.
• According to The Lawyer’s Global Litigation 50, for several years, Freshfields has led the magic circle in disputes fee income.
• Freshfields has heavily invested in its US disputes practice – particularly its global investigations team -- which has been its gateway into the US.

Finance

• Freshfields finance team has historically lagged behind its corporate and litigation practice. And especially behind the finance heavyweights Clifford Chance and Allen & Overy.
• The team recently shifted to focus on borrower-side work, which has led to the lateral hires of several partners to build its capability in this area.
• Freshfields recently restructured its finance practice to focus on a smaller number of practice areas. The firm has dropped aviation finance.

Competition & Antitrust

• According to the Global Competition Review (GCR) 100, no law firm matches Freshfields’ global competition team, which spans 14 jursidictions.
• Freshfields topped the GCR 100 rankings between 2010 and 2017.
• Freshfields’ is ranked highly for its expertise in merger control, competition litigation and antitrust matters.
• Freshfields acts on many of the biggest competition matters each year. The firm recently advised AB Inbev on the third largest merger in corporate history. Despite pressures to close quickly, Freshfields was able to secure merger clearance in over 30 jurisdictions.
• Freshfields is one of the few non-US firms that has built a strong antitrust practice in the US.

Higher profits

• Freshfields has historically boasted higher profits than the rest of the magic circle (excluding Slaughter and May).
• In 2016-17, Freshfields' drop in profits causing the firm to place fourth in the magic circle. According to Legal Week, this ultimately led to the resignation of managing partner Chris Pugh.
• But all law firms have bad years and now, Freshfields is back on top of the pack. In 2017-18, Freshfields’ average PEP reached record levels after rising by 12%.
• According to The Lawyer, since 2012/13, Freshfields’ PEP has risen by 24%.

A strategic international approach

• Freshfields’ mergers with Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund and Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber in 2000 were game changers for Freshfields. The firm became the largest international law firm in Germany.
• Over the years, Freshfields continued to have the most successful German practice among the magic circle law firms. In 2007, the firm had 420 lawyers in Germany, almost double their domestic Germna competitors.
• But Freshfields recently restructured to focus on higher value deals and disputes work. The firm closed its office in Cologne in 2016, a trio of partners left to start a boutique law firm, and between December 2015 and May 2017, Freshfields saw 20% of its partners exit its German practice. This came as Latham & Watkins declared its plans to take on Freshfields’ leading practice in Germany.
• Elsewhere, the firm has taken a relatively cautious international approach. In 2017, the firm had the smallest number of offices in the magic circle, a big contrast to Allen & Overy’s 44 offices.
• But Freshfields’ international strategy isn’t to be everywhere. Instead, the firm concentrates on building depth in key financial centres.
• The firm has openly said it doesn’t want to be treated as a magic circle firm. Instead, the firm says, it wants to be known as part of the international elite.
• Unlike other law firms trying to break into the US, Freshfields’ began with a finance practice in the US. It then shifted into growing a litigation and antitrust practice. The firm has invested heavily in growing this practice as it aims to build a global regulatory and investigation practice to advise cross-border clients. The global team has 160 partners spanning 13 jurisdictions.
• Freshfields has flexed its lockstep model to offer higher pay packages to star partners in the US.

Unique training system

• Freshfields offers an eight seat rotation for trainee solicitors. Trainees will be exposed to more departments for a shorter amount of time.
• Freshfields has the second smallest headcount in the magic circle
• Freshfields has an all equity partnership unlike Linklaters.
• The firm recently overhauled its lockstep model, allow star partners to earn a far higher salary – a move to attract and retain partners amid the thread of US firms. The decision is more radical than Linklaters' set of reforms, which has been to keep its lockstep in place.

Efficiency and technology drive

• In 2015, Freshfields opened its Legal Services Centre in Manchester.
• The firm has invested heavily in nearshoring to deliver cost effective legal services-- the centre now holds 700 staff. The legal support team conducts process work, with staff carrying out due diligence checks and completing document review tasks.
• The firm is now hiring qualified lawyers to its team.
• Freshfields will be using AI software from Kira Systems in its Legal Services Centre to aid its delivery of legal services.
• Freshfields recently announced plans to launch a new centre in Berlin where it plans to hire 100 staff. The roles will include legal support and legal tech jobs.
• Freshfields has partnered with AI company Neota Logic to provide a course on legal technology at the University of Manchester

Fun Fact

In 2006, Allen & Overy approached Freshfields with a merger proposal. Freshfields rejected the proposal.

I have come across many potential interview questions relating to the financial crisis that occurred in 2008. What role did bankers, lawyers etc have. What has the world learnt etc

I was wondering what is the best place to get an understanding of this event, it seems so vast that one can go in a tangent if not careful.

Any opinions?

The firms I am looking to apply are those with a strong practice in private equity (so Weil for example).

I understand that you were a trainee at Weil, I was wondering perhaps if I can perhaps get an insight into your answer Why Weil? (

In relation to how did you use Weil's strength in the private equity practice to answer Why Weil?
How did you use your interest in PE/Emerging markets into answering Why Weil?

I understand that Why WEIL is a combination of your interest + specific reasoning, I was wondering to get your specific insights that made you interested in PE and Weil.

Hi Jaysen,

I have never been to an open day for any law firm. However, thanks to Selma, I was able to secure my place at an event being held by Norton Rose (on Artificial Intelligence and meet/greet with grad rec team and trainees)


I dont know how are such events, what do I do there because I won't know anyone there.

I am extremely shy, I have trouble introducing myself to new people, that's perhaps the reason why I avoided any events where I had to go alone. I also know that standing out in the corner of the room won't be making good use of this opportunity.

My question is what did you do at such events, (or rather what would you advise me to do on such events), I am petrified of such interactions.

Hi everyone,

How best do I answer the following questions, are there any keywords I should include?


1. What key skills do you believe are necessary to become a successful lawyer at Kennedys? (250 words max)*
2. Please give an example of a situation where you were required to work in a team to accomplish an important objective and describe your role in achieving this objective. (250 words max)*
3. Please explain why you want to pursue a career in law? (200 words max)*
4. How does Kennedys differ from other firms you have applied to? (200 words max)*

Thank you!

My main questions are:
1. Could you give me some inspiration for an answer on why I want a career in law as I understand this needs to be personal but am really stuck.
2. When asked to tell someone about yourself how should you structure such an answer and what should you include
3. What types of questions should I ask at the end of the interview?

Thank you so much for all your help!

Hi all,

A few people have messaged me about writing an insight for a particular law firm. I have put these insights on hold for the time being to focus on other aspects of TCLA. However, if I receive enough requests for a particular law firm, I will write an insight for that firm.

If you would like me to write about a particular law firm, please post in this thread.

Thanks,

Jaysen

Hey Jaysen, Il be joining LSE for the first time in this coming September for my Masters.

Any advice on how should one sell his Masters in the interview because I believe you also undertook your Masters in Corporate Law (which I also intend to)

If I can ask, how exactly did you sell your experience of post-grad?


P.S - Any tips that you wish somebody had given you before you started your Masters?

Hi

I was just wondering when talking of interesting deals carried out by a firm on an application, whether we should stick to work carried out primarily by the London office or whether we could mention particularly interesting or groundbreaking deals even if the London office had little to no involvement.

I'm just wary of mentioning a firm's involvement in a specific deal as something that attracts me to it when they could turn around and say London was not involved.

I really appreciate any help with this.

What is a good answer to why you want a career in law? I understand that the answer has to be personal but I was hoping for some inspiration. My three reasons that I've come up with in their simplest form are to help people, always learning since the law is always changing and because of the diversity a career in law offers. Do you think these reasons are unique enough? And how do I make them sound better?

Full financial integration
Law firm combinations are on a spectrum. On one side, you’ve got alliances (Linklaters and Allens) and best friend networks (Slaughters) where firms refer work, clients and maybe marketing initiatives. In the middle, you’ve got Swiss vereins, where firms operate under one united brand but they keep their businesses financially separate. Finally, you’ve got full financial integration. So that’s what BLP are doing and what Hogan Lovells did in 2010. It's a full integration because the firms share one profit pool and also have a single system to divide up the profits.

Full financial integration doesn’t happen very often. It’s not easy for firms to work out profit sharing and partner remuneration. That’s especially true when trying to merge with a US firm because they often pay partners using a different system (performance-based rather than a lockstep). That was one of the reasons BLP’s last merger attempt failed; the US firm Greenberg Taurig had a black box compensation system (Jones Day has it too), which means partners don’t know how much others get paid, and that’s a hard thing to integrate into your firm culture. You also need a firm with similar levels of profitability – often that’s a problem for top UK firms because the NY elite tend to be much more profitable. BLP ‘s profits per equity partner (“PEP”) is not far from Bryan Cave so that’s not much of an issue. That was not the case with Greenberg Taurig who had higher PEP. If they went for the full financial merger then BLP would have had to restructure – probably remove equity partners or put more of them on a fixed salary.

The decision to opt for a merger rather than a Swiss verein (NRF/DLA) or a company limited by guarantee (Eversheds/Wragge) is also a big move. A lot of firms go for the latter two because you get to tell clients you’re a united firm but you don’t have to worry about sharing revenue or liabilities. It’s easier to gloss over issues of integration because you’re not sharing the same profit pool. And you're not as vulnerable to currency fluctuations or big tax fees.

But BLP went for the full merger. I'm not sure what compensation system Bryan Cave has but they probably need to spend some time resolving any disparities in partner remuneration. Hogan Lovells got rid of Lovells' lockstep system so they might do the same here. If it works you can really say you have a united firm. You share the same clients, culture and values. Fee earners are encouraged to share work because if the whole firm does well then everyone benefits. The compensation system is the same so that limits tension about partner remuneration. And clients get to see a seamless service on both sides of the Atlantic (and everywhere else). Swiss vereins don’t have that level of integration; you’ve got to work hard to incentivise partners to refer work and clients because they’re not sharing all the rewards.

The international shortcut
Bryan Cave is huge in the US but hasn’t made much progress in the UK or the rest of Europe. It only has a small presence in Asia with offices in Shanghai and Hong Kong. By comparison BLP is pretty big in the UK and has a few offices in Europe. The firm has a decent size in Asia – after 2007, the firm invested a lot to make its real estate practice international. BLP hasn’t made much headway in the US.

The merger is a shortcut to global expansion. It’s quicker and significantly cheaper than opening up offices, and much more integrated than an alliance. After the combination, Bryan Cave gets a strong European base and some extra Asian offices to complement its US presence. BLP gets to tap into Bryan Cave’s 19 domestic offices in the US. The firms will share valuable knowledge about the markets they operate in and the clients they work with. Trainees are likely to get more international secondments and lawyers will work on more cross-border deals. There will be more management, which means fancy titles for partners who have to manage different parts of the business.

BLP's selling point
Bryan Cave’s revenue is almost double BLP’s, so you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s an odd combination. But BLP’s main selling point is its real estate practice. It has the 14th largest real estate practice in the world and more real estate partners than any other firm in the UK. The firm realised it could win big mandates for real estate and then cross-sell to other departments. It also invested heavily in private equity, finance and tax back when it was trying to become a full service firm, but now they mostly support real estate. Now, thanks to the merger, BLP gets access to a huge US real estate market. That’s great for the real estate team and keeps valuable partners from leaving – because they know the firm is going places. It’s exciting for lawyers because they’ll get access to top tier work and a new market. They’ll be opposite many of the big firms in the practice areas and there will be plenty of opportunities for career development. The combined practice will also mean there’s a big support network and knowledge base.

Bryan Cave does a fair amount of real estate work too. So combined, they’ll have the fourth largest practice in the world. The firm can offer clients a global real estate capability and also cross-sell work to other departments. Bryan Cave does a lot of high volume M&A work, which will complement BLP’s corporate team. Its biggest practice is litigation and again that’s an area BLP has invested a lot in – litigation and corporate risk. Lawyers will get to work in new departments and sectors, and get to meet new clients.

Catching up to competitors
Post-merger the combined revenue of the two firms will be close to $1 billion – most of that will be from Bryan Cave. It means BLP will catch up to competitors like Eversheds Sutherland, CMS and Dentons who’ve all pulled off Swiss vereins to expand globally. It looks like more mid-market to upper-mid-market firms will have to follow suit or they may be left behind (I’m looking at you Simmons). Bigger revenues means more money to spend on training and development, open up new offices, and invest in technologies.

Technology
Speaking of technology, BLP can share its successful Lawyers on Demand business with Bryan Cave and they can open it up to the US. Meanwhile, Bryan Cave has its own tech incubator and a business advisory unit called BCXponent. Both firms seem innovative and lawyers will have the opportunity to both share and work on new technologies.

The challenges of a merger
Can they integrate their cultures? Can they keep partners? Can they combine client relationships? Can they integrate branding and systems? Only time will tell.

Clyde & Co recently got the international bug and have been aggressively opening up offices and forming alliances around the world. In a short space of time, they’ve transformed themselves into a global firm.

Something a bit different
Clyde & Co's core is insurance and shipping. Insurance makes up about 70% of their revenue and we'd say they’re one of the best insurance firms in the world. They like to go around snapping up insurance teams at firms which aren’t as insurance-focused, which they did that in Australia and South Africa (raiding both of Linklaters’ alliance firms). They’ve also made huge waves in the US (the biggest legal insurance market); now they’re up to nine offices with a particular strength in insurance and litigation.

They've also bulked up their shipping practice recently with a big team from Eversheds in Newcastle and a shipping team from Ince & Co.

And then some more...
Clyde & Co has been trying to expand beyond their core insurance and shipping sectors for a while now. They're investing in construction and infrastructure (the traditional domain of Pinsent Masons). They also lead the market in a few other areas like aviation and international arbitration.

They’re very big in litigation, which often goes hand in hand with their insurance work, and were recently ranked the most active firm in the English courts and across the Asia Pacific by The Lawyer. Its presence in the Asia Pacific region is one of the fastest-growing by headcount (along with Pinsents) where they've grown to 10 offices.

What happened to their competitors?
In a lot of ways Clyde, Eversheds and Pinsent Masons are comparable - or at least were until recently. Over the past few years, they were all a similar size with Clyde taking the lead in revenue followed by Pinsents and Eversheds. Although now it looks like Eversheds will top the group after their merger with Sutherland.

When it comes to profits, they were also pretty similar. Eversheds typically boasted a slightly higher PEP followed by Clyde and Pinsents, again that’ll change after the Eversheds’ merger.

Best friends
It's no secret that Slaughter and May is an anomaly. In the early 2000s, when the rest of the magic circle were busy opening offices and merging with foreign firms, Slaughter and May was pulling out of New York, Singapore and Paris. Over the years, many spectators have criticised the firm's lack of international expansion and warned that Slaughter and May will fall behind the pack because of its limited overseas presence. If the critics were right, by now we'd expect to see signs that Slaughter and May has fallen from its throne. But we haven't. In fact, it remains the most profitable firm in the City.

You might be wondering how Slaughter and May wins many of the biggest international mandates when it lacks a substantial international presence. That comes down to Slaughter and May's best friend network. It goes beyond your standard set of law firm alliances as the firm has cultivated some of the best foreign relationships around the world. For decades, these firms have referred work, shared knowledge and secondments, and operated joint events for lawyers and clients. By partnering with the best firms in each jurisdiction, Slaughter and May doesn't have to spend millions to win market share from local firms nor worry about the quality of its service after a series of mergers. When there's a billion-dollar-acquisition, clients just care the best expertise in the market and that's what you're getting with Slaughter and May.

Across the Atlantic, Slaughter and May has developed many enviable relationships with elite New York firms including Cravath Swaine & Moore, Paul Weiss and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. In 2016, the firm was shortlisted for the title of Transatlantic Law Firm of the Year by Legal Week - not bad for a firm without its own US presence. In Europe, Slaughter and May works closely with best friend, Hengeller Mueller. The two firms advised Deutsche Bank after its $2.5bn fine from US and UK regulators for manipulating interest rates.

But some of the criticism laid against Slaughter and May is fair. The firm's international capability depends on the strength of its best friend relationships. Take Davis Polk for example. Data from The Lawyer and Thomson Reuters show that Slaughter and May and Davis Polk were co-counsel on 19 M&A deals between 2008 and 2013. But in 2012, Davis Polk began to develop its own English law capability in London with the hire of a Freshfields capital markets lawyer. Now Davis Polk can do some of its finance work from this side of the pond. And that's the risk. If the other firms decide to develop their English law capability, Slaughter and May may need to find new friends.

The Slaughter and May brand
Slaughter and May doesn't report its financial figures because, well, it doesn't have to. It's one of the few firms structured as a general partnership and not a limited liability partnership. We think that's a good thing. It can worry less about the media's view of a one year drop in PEP and focus on what matters - clients, not competition.

Slaughter and May is often seen as an old-fashioned or traditional firm. That may be influenced by the fact that most partners are homegrown. The firm has only ever made two lateral hires. The first was to develop a US law capability in Hong Kong after a number of US firms moved into the region. The second was to boost its pensions capability in London.

Lawyers don't really leave for other firms either. Unlike the rest of the magic circle, US firms haven't had much luck poaching Slaughter and May partners. According to The Lawyer, of the new partners that started between 2005 and 2015, 95% remain at the firm. Maybe it's because Slaughter and May has a relatively small and close-knit partnership. According to research from The Lawyer, between 2000 and 2015, Slaughter and May's partner headcount increased by just 7. Compare that to 282 at Allen & Overy or 269 at Clifford Chance.

Corporate heavyweight
If there's an acquisition on the front page of the FT, chances are that Slaughter and May was involved. The firm is widely regarded as one of the best for high-end UK corporate work and it advises on many of the biggest deals in the market.

Slaughter and May has kicked off 2018 with a bang. In the first quarter, Slaughter and May topped the table for UK M&A deals by value, according to research by Mergermarket. That included advising on the largest deal of the first quarter, acting for GlaxoSmithKline in buying out Novartis from its consumer healthcare joint venture. It has also been advising GKN, first defending engineering giant from Melrose, and now handling the sale in the UK's biggest hostile takeover in almost a decade.

Over the next few months, Slaughter and May should finish up advising Vodafone India on its $23bn merger with Idea Cellular. The firm's work advising its longstanding client Vodafone helped it top the Mergermarket's 2017 league tables in India for M&A deals by value. Back in 2013, Slaughter and May replaced regular Vodafone adviser Linklaters in the world's third-largest corporate deal. The firm advised Vodafone on the sale of its stake in Verizon for $130bn.

Finally, Slaughter and May advises more UK stock market clients than any other law firm. According to research undertaken by Adviser Rankings, the firm had 115 listed clients in November 2017. That's 34 more than its nearest magic circle rival Linklaters.

Big and profitable
Kirkland is now the largest law firm in the world thanks to a 19% growth in revenue for 2017. The firm has expanded aggressively in recent years growing its revenue by an estimated 89% between 2009 and 2016.

But Kirkland isn’t just big; it’s also very profitable. That makes it stand out from its rival Latham & Watkins and other large law firms. The firm doesn’t set up shop everywhere but targets a number of highly profitable geographies and practices. That's helped Kirkland to consistently grow its PEP over the last two decades. Kirkland even weathered 2008 and 2009 - a time when profits fell for many law firms- because the firm invested in countercyclical practice areas like restructuring and litigation.

Partnership & Culture
Kirkland’s associates make partner a lot quicker than other law firms, often after just 6PQE. In 2017, 97 lawyers became salaried partners with 13 in London. Most of these are in corporate followed by debt finance.

Kirkland is known for paying huge amounts of money for targeted lateral hires and in many ways that has changed lateral law firm recruitment altogether. The magic circle and other US law firms have been forced to modify their lockstep model – where partners are paid according to seniority – to compete. That’s helped Kirkland to recruit star corporate partners from magic circle firms like the 2017 hire of David Higgins.

Kirkland’s remuneration system is even more flexible than other elite US firms. Kirkland’s top partners can earn 8 times more than its junior partners compared to 3 or 4 times more at rival firms. A few years ago Kirkland’s hire of star leveraged finance partner Stephen Lucas from Weil at a reported $8m shocked the market.

Kirkland makes up more partners each year than almost any other law firm. That’s because the firm makes use of non-equity partners i.e. salaried partners who don’t have a stake in the business or join partner meetings. That’s useful for a number of reasons: it makes junior partners work hard to bring in business but they’re only paid a little more than they were as associates; it lets the firm heavily assess partner potential and if they’re not equity partner material, they can be told to leave; it keeps equity partner compensation high to attract lateral hires.

The firm is one of the most active lateral hirers in London. It recently took a team from Debevoise in New York and a 5 partner investigations and corruption team from Ropes & Gray. But Kirkland also has one of the highest attrition rates of any US law firm in London. According to The Lawyer, out of 40 associates that made partner in London between 2010 and 2015, only 25 remained by March 2016.

That leads to the issue of culture. Kirkland is often described as competitive and ‘sharp elbowed’. Some point to the firm’s alleged ‘up or out’ policy and the heavy management of partner performance. Others have noted the clash between existing partners and newly hired laterals on large pay packets – allegedly a factor in the recent six-partner exit for Sidley Austin. But it’s difficult to say whether this is still the case. Kirkland recently introduced a number of measures to encourage group working and collaboration between partners.

London heavyweight
Kirkland originally launched in London to serve its key US clients, including private equity firm Bain Capital. But Kirkland quickly integrated and began promoting from within - in contrast to other US law firms that relied on lateral hires.

The firm did hire aggressively, picking up a number of partners for magic circle firms Linklaters and Freshfields. That combination of organic growth and lateral hires has helped to make Kirkland the second largest US law firm in London. The firm grew its London revenue by almost 50% in 2017 and it’s also taking another floor in the Gherkin to compensate for a sharp rise in lawyer headcount, which is up 61% since 2013.

Profitable practice areas
The firm excels in public M&A and this recently became a core practice area. It also boasts one of the best private equity practices in the City thanks to its strength in leveraged finance. Its finance team has been responsible for securing many private equity relationships, an area where rival Freshfields lags behind, and that's helped it to take market share. In 2017, Kirkland topped the deal value rankings for UK M&A and placed fourth by global deal value.

Meanwhile, Kirkland has been trying to boost its corporate/M&A practice in London through a number of magic circle lateral hires.

Kirkland's bankruptcy practice is also very profitable. In 2017 the firm acted on three of the four largest Chapter 11 bankruptcies. That includes Toys R Us in one of the largest ever filings for a speciality retailer.

Before it dominated the transactional space, Kirkland was mainly a litigation firm. And that shows today – in 2017, Kirkland secured 34 trial victories for its clients and was ranked by The Lawyer as the second largest litigation firm by revenue. The firm had recently acquired 17 lawyers from Bancroft PPLC, an elite boutique in Washington D.C. that specialises in Supreme Court and appellate litigation. The move included star lawyers such as Paul Clement, who has "argued more Supreme Court cases since 2000 than any other lawyer" and Bancroft founder, Viet D. Dinh. Over the years, Kirkland has represented clients in many of the biggest headlines including BP's oil spill and Volkswagen's emissions scandal.

Targeted international reach
In 2006, when many US firms were happy to act as counsel for UK firms in Hong Kong, Kirkland ambitiously pursued its own local law capability. It began as a small private-equity-focused office but soon ballooned in size. Between 2011 and 2015 Kirkland more than tripled its headcount in Asia and became one of the fastest growing firms in the region. This helped to position Kirkland for Chinese outbound investment and for large private equity deals in the region. In 2017, the firm topped the Mergermarket table for private equity buyouts by value in the Asia Pacific region.

Kirkland excels in other regions by operating targeted practices. In San Francisco, the firm's patent litigation practice advises big names like Apple, Intel and Cisco. Whilst its fast-growing Houston office has a successful energy practice, which was recently named Energy Practice Group of the Year by Law 360.

The most international of the NY elite
The elite law firms in New York, the 'white-shoes', were traditionally slow to go global, especially compared to the magic circle. But Shearman & Sterling ("Shearman") was one of the few exceptions. The firm was the envy of many for its strategic expansion into Europe. It built one of the best corporate practices in Germany, a market-leading arbitration practice in France, and gained a foothold in the London market before many realised it was possible. And this early global presence helped to attract big clients. In 1998, Shearman, with the help of star partner Georg Thoma, advised on the world's largest industrial merger and the biggest cross-border deal at the time: the merger between German giant Daimler-Benz and US car manufacturer Chrysler.

During the 2000s, Shearman's German practice boasted one of the highest revenue per lawyer ratios in the market and secured many publicly listed German companies as clients. With four offices and a significantly bigger practice than its rivals, Shearman was widely seen as the most successful US law firm to enter the German market, successfully competing against rivals Freshfields and Hengeler Mueller for large M&A deals. In 2004, the firm acted on Germany’s largest ever public-to-private deal as counsel to Blackstone on its acquisition of Celanese.

By 2010, Shearman's London practice began to outperform its US practice by revenue growth, and the firm regularly went up against the magic circle on M&A deals. The firm had a habit of picking up lawyers to launch its international practices. In 2011, Shearman picked up a team of 17 anti-trust and competition lawyers for its Brussels operations and in 2013, Shearman hired of a team from Weil Gotshal & Manges to effectively launch its private equity practice.

Today, almost half of Shearman's partners are outside the US; a higher ratio than many in the New York elite and The Lawyer ranks the firm as having one of the most international practices within its turnover bracket.

Times have changed
But Shearman has scaled back many of its offices since the glory days of its international growth. Its German team is a fraction of the size it once was, now with just one base in Frankfurt. Some suggest Shearman became too big too quickly in Germany pointing to the hiring spree between 1999 and 2002. Others say the firm failed to integrate its German team with the rest of its international practices.

Whilst partner defections aren't abnormal for global law firms, Shearman has been particularly hit in Europe. The firm lost a large number of partners across its offices over the years including most recently, a series of competition partners in Brussels to Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

That leads to the issue of profits per equity partner ("PEP"). Shearman lags far behind the rest of the New York elite when it comes to PEP and that's one reason behind the exits: rival law firms are willing to pay a lot more to hire partners. In recent years, the firm has tried to improve its profitability by expanding the number of non-equity partners and focusing on a niche group of practice areas. And whilst it's still a far cry away from the likes of Simpson Thacher, Skadden and Cleary, it seems to be working: Shearman saw a growth in PEP of 7% in 2017 to $2.3m.

Middle East
Shearman was one of the first international law firms in the Middle East. It launched in Abu Dhabi over forty years ago and bulked up the practice in 2008-9, almost doubling the number of lawyers it had on the ground. This was a smart move; the firm capitalised on activity in the region whilst the financial crisis was ravaging the rest of the world. Whilst the firm has since scaled back its presence in Abu Dhabi, it has been involved in many unique deals. Shearman won a number of awards for developing the legislative and regulatory regime for Abu Dhabi's financial centre in 2015. A team of over 30 lawyers drafted a suite of civil, commercial and financial legislation to be in line with international standards. It was the first application of common law to the Middle East as the Abu Dhabi Global Market hopes to attract investors and multinationals to the region.

Shearman recently opened in Dubai and formed an association with a Saudi Arabian law firm, a move that will likely benefit from the region's increasing diversification and financial investment.

Finance, corporate and litigation
Shearman has one of the biggest finance practices in the US and can tap into these relationships for mandates across the world. After the financial crisis, the firm could offer its European clients a range of financing options thanks to its dual-law capital markets capability, which was an attractive move when bank lending had frozen. The firm also has a number of US-qualified lawyers in London and boasts a market-leading high yield practice, another area where rival magic circle firms lag behind.

For some time Shearman has been trying to make litigation a core practice area. The firm has made a large number of lateral hires to build the team and litigation is now the firm's third-largest practice. It has been involved in some interesting cases: in 2014, Shearman overturned a conviction against hedge fund trader Todd Newman in a victory that had huge consequences for future prosecutors in cases of insider trading. A write-up on the case can be found here. Meanwhile, Shearman's arbitration practice has been involved in the biggest mandates across the world including the largest arbitration award in history. In the famous Yukos v Russia case, Shearman scooped up $60m in fees after billing over 130,000 hours of work.

How Norton Rose Fulbright transformed itself
Norton Rose Fulbright has grown its global brand and transformed its market position at an impressive speed. In 2008, Norton Rose Fulbright was a decent mid-sized firm who, in the CEO's own words, was trying to replicate Linklaters. It was caught between the magic circle and specialist law firms, whilst similar-sized firms like Simmons & Simmons boasted a higher turnover and PEP.

But soon after the financial crash, Norton Rose Fulbright turned its focus outward, on becoming a member of the international elite. Between 2009-2013, the firm made use of Swiss vereins – loose law firm combinations - to quickly expand across the globe, entering Australia, Canada, South Africa and the US.

In those five years, Norton Rose Fulbright grew revenue from £297m to £1.1bn and its partner headcount from 246 to 1,156. All of a sudden, Norton Rose Fulbright was a different beast altogether and many UK rivals followed suit. In other words, Norton Rose Fulbright wasn't following Linklaters anymore.

Perhaps its most impressive merger was with Fulbright in 2013. At the time, not many law firms had successfully carried out a merger with a US firm and after that, Norton Rose Fulbright became a top 10 global law firm in revenue and lawyer headcount.

Getting bigger and bigger
After those mergers, Norton Rose Fulbright spent some time consolidating its practices and developing its presence in Asia and Africa.

But recently, it looks like the firm has been pursuing a second transformation. Since 2016, the firm has opened offices in Europe and returned to Canada, Australia and the US for more mergers.

After its last merger with US firm, Chadbourne & Parke, Norton Rose Fulbright had about 4000 lawyers, revenues of up to $2 billion and 59 offices in 33 countries. In its $1-2bn bracket, Norton Rose Fulbright has the biggest partnership and largest international footprint, according to The Lawyer.

The mergers have given Norton Rose Fulbright a global platform to serve clients. This has led to many lucrative mandates. For example, the firm won M&A Team of the Year in the 2017 Legal Week Africa Awards for its work advising Barclays. According to Legal Week, the bank said that few firms “would have the necessary resources in London and Africa to handle a transaction of this scale”. This is true; Norton Rose Fulbright is one of the most established firms operating in Africa.

Interestingly, even before its recent US and Australian mergers, The Lawyer rated Norton Rose Fulbright as the most international law firm in the world (June 2017). An astonishing 86% of the firm’s partners are based outside its home jurisdiction in the UK. The same applies to earnings, in 2016-17, 80% of its revenue came from outside the UK. That’s a long way away from 2001, when London was the 80%.

Energy & Finance
Norton Rose Fulbright has built a formidable global energy practice. Its merger with Fulbright gave the firm a presence in Houston, the energy capital of the world, and strengthened a number of client relationships in the process. Chadbourne & Parke brought its energy practice to the table and offered Norton Rose Fulbright a deeper US platform. Its merger and strategic alliances in Africa have attracted many foreign investors interested in projects in the region. In 2016, when Shell decided to reduce its legal panel from eleven law firms to six, it’s no surprise that Norton Rose Fulbright made the cut. It’s now one of the largest in the world.

Norton Rose Fulbright was already a good finance firm, but its recent merger with Chadbourne & Parke also provided something that many City firms have been trying to build for years: a deep US finance capability. Norton Rose Fulbright has been exploring a US merger since the 90s and now its New York office is among the 25 largest. The extensive presence should help Norton Rose Fulbright to cement its existing finance relationships and secure new ones from its transatlantic reach. It also follows Norton Rose Fulbright’s hire of 17 lawyers from Sidley Austin in 2016, the rival firm’s entire public finance team.

Efficiency and profitability
It seems that Norton Rose Fulbright’s rapid expansion has not been followed by a boost in profitability. In fact, according to The Lawyer, its PEP was higher a decade ago. To some, that’s the cost of using Swiss vereins. It’s much easier to merge when you don’t have to worry about combining profits or sharing liability, but it doesn’t necessarily mean partners will share work between jurisdictions. There are other consequences too. Norton Rose Fulbright has seen a number of exits over the years, particularly in the Middle East, where lawyers have been unwilling to join the combined firm.

Perhaps it just takes time for the firm to consolidate its new practices. And it is taking a number of steps to do so with its widely marketed 2020 business transformation programme. That includes the implementation of an expensive global management system that will handle everything from time recording to the monitoring of client relationships, and the investment in business services centres in Newcastle and the Philippines. These are expensive upfront costs but it’s a wise investment: efficiency will be essential to the law firms of the future.

Finally, this piece would be remiss if there was no discussion of the person at the helm of Norton Rose Fulbright. Peter Martyr, Norton Rose Fulbright’s global chief executive, has a lot more power than most law firm leaders, but he’s also got a lot more done. When he took the job in 2002, the firm had suffered from failed mergers, partner exits and a belated international expansion. Who knows where it would be today if it weren’t for Martyr.

Corporate and finance capability
Linklaters works on the biggest UK and European M&A deals and regularly competes with rival Freshfields for first place on the league tables. The firm advised on 196 deals worth $235.2bn in 2016-17 and was crowned 'M&A Team of the Year' at the British Legal Awards 2017.

But Linklaters isn't just a corporate heavyweight. In the 90s and early 2000s, the firm built up its restructuring and leveraged finance practices to challenge the dominance of Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance. Therefore Linklaters can boast a well-rounded corporate and finance practice compared to its magic circle rivals.

Clear Blue Water: The Rise of Linklaters
In the late 90s, when many City law firms had begun their international expansion, Linklaters formed an alliance with many leading European law firms, and later merged with three. Under the helm of legendary managing partner, Tony Angel, Linklaters pursued rapid global expansion, which saw the percentage of UK-based partners half from 80 to 40 between 2001 and 2004.

During this time, Angels came under fire for the firm's stagnating profitability and profits per equity partners (PEP) at £674,000, which had fallen below Freshfields and counterparts in the US. But in 2004, Angel unveiled his 'Clear Blue Water' strategy to put Linklaters at the forefront of the global law firms.

Not only did Linklaters' revenue grow to topple Clifford Chance, then the largest law firm in the world, but this was matched by a remarkable growth in profitability. By 2007, profitability had doubled and profits per equity partner stood at £1.294m. Linklaters' had cemented its position as the City's most formidable law firm. Angel's 'Clear Blue Water' strategy would go on to become a case-study at Harvard Law School and a blueprint which many firms followed.

Asian Expansion
Linklaters wasted little time expanding into Asia. In 2004, the firm hired two senior Japanese lawyers together with 20 associates. A year later, it completed Japan's first international merger, absorbing Mitsui Yasuda Wani & Maeda, Japan's sixth-largest law firm at the time. This has led to some lucrative deals including advising Softbank on the launch of its Vision Fund: the world's largest-ever technology investment fund in 2017.

In 2012 this was affirmed by an exclusive alliance with Australian firm Allens. The partnership provided access to lawyers and client referrals across the other side of the globe without the typical costs associated with a partnership. This is an approach it has also mirrored in South Africa in its alliance with Webber Wentzel. In 2017 the firm reviewed five years with alliance partner Allens and plans have been made for more secondments and training between the two firms.

Meanwhile, Linklaters celebrated 25 years in Singapore in 2017. Like Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance, the firm can hire Singaporean lawyers and practice local law thanks to its Qualifying Foreign Law Practice licence. Though the firms will be aware that the Singapore Ministry of Law recently announced its decision to review licences in 2020.

Linklaters has also made great strides to offer local law capability in China. Its 'Project Trident' began as a search for a merger partner in the country, but the firm later changed course and adopted the 'greenfield' option, which saw three partners and 16 associates leave Linklaters to set up a new firm, Zhao Sheng. This move was made possible thanks to the Shanghai Free Trade-Zone regime, which allows tie-ups between international and domestic firms, provided the domestic firm has been independent for at least three years. For now, Linklaters has formed a best-friends relationship with the domestic firm, with plans to establish a joint venture in two to three years. This capability will complement its existing M&A, project finance and capital markets practice in the region, offering an integrated service for its clients, and could make it the first in the magic circle to practice Chinese law.

Strategy Refresh: The softer side to Linklaters
After an extensive consultation exercise, Linklaters has rolled out a number of progressive initiatives under its 'Strategy Refresh' announced in 2017. Partners are now given regular feedback on a range of factors, including team-based metrics and innovation. This is a bid to encourage entrepreneurship and a united team, but slightly contrasts with the style adopted by Tony Angels who pioneered extensive financial metrics for partners.

Like the rest of the magic circle, Linklaters has also amended partner remuneration by giving the firm flexibility to reward star partners. The lockstep has been raised to 12 years, with a gate at eight years and a review of partners at the top every five years. These reforms remain conservative compared to the likes of Freshfields and Clifford Chance, who have radically reformed their lockstep models to attract and retain star partners away from US firms.

The firm's reverse mentoring scheme, whereby younger lawyers mentor senior partners, opened in 2017. 'YourLink' rolled out in Germany, offering associates the opportunity to sign up for 40 hour weeks for reduced pay. The firm also posted an impressive trainee retention rate of 84%, above Freshfields 66%, but just under A&O's 85%.

Looking into the future: The US, Germany and new practices
Linklaters has seen strong growth from its New York and Washington DC offices. The firm recently hired a new global head of its US practice and has been clear about its efforts to expand in the US.

Whilst in the past, Linklaters has struggled to challenge Freshfields leading German practice, it's invested in Germany at a time when the rest of the magic circle have pulled out, securing Clifford Chance's Germany private equity head and a Frankfurt finance partner from A&O.

Speaking of lateral hires, Linklaters recently secured Latham's co-head of investment funds, Tom Alabaster. Alabaster previously worked at the private equity firm, Carlyle, and reflects Linklaters' broader strategy to build its relationships with financial sponsors (borrowers). The firm has traditionally had a weaker US fund practice than its rivals and reflects Linklaters' plans to compete with the likes of Freshfields and Clifford Chance.

Linklaters also maintains a relatively small disputes team compared to its corporate and finance practice. With around 55 partners, it makes just over 10% of the partnership at Linklaters and it only broke off as a separate practice area in 2014. But with recent lateral hires in Russia and Washington DC, disputes head, Michael Bennet has spoken of his mandate to grow disputes across London, Continental Europe, the US and Asia.

Technology and Innovation
Linklaters launched its own technology software, LinkRFI, in response to ringfencing reforms. The system helps banks classify their clients by quickly searching through 16 regulatory registers and processing thousands of names in a matter of hours - much faster than the 12 minutes it would take a junior lawyer to search for one, according to Linklaters. It's now being used by Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland and led to the award of Legal Technology Team of the Year at the Legal Business Awards 2017.

Linklaters is developing its own AI platform, Nakhoda, through its AI working group, which will be used for a number of tasks including due diligence. The firm has also trialled a number of third-party AI software, including RAVN and Kira Systems, which help with contract review.

The firm uses project managers across 25 jurisdictions to assist in large mandates, and it has a client committee, which oversees work done for the biggest clients, and identifies relevant opportunities such as secondments. The commmitee has a mandate to improve areas of client service within Linklaters, including implementing greater collaboration within teams and offices.

Meanwhile, its investment in low-cost centres includes its longstanding Colchester office; its business services centre in Poland, which recently relocated to larger premises; and in 2017, a centre in Leece, to support its offering in Milan.

The big firm on the block
You can learn a lot about mergers from the combination between Coward Chance and Clifford Turner. The two firms shared complementary practice areas, Coward Chance in banking and Clifford Turner in corporate law. They each had a different international footprint with Clifford Turner in Paris, New York and Tokyo whereas Coward Chance had a greater presence in Hong Kong and the Middle East. And they worked together to form a united brand, Clifford Chance. So whilst others dismissed the combination of two second-tier City firms, the creation of the biggest law firm in Britain would soon take on the magic circle for global domination.

More mergers in the year 2000 with Germany's Pünder Volhard Weber & Axster and New York's Rogers & Wells transformed the newly-formed Clifford Chance into the world's biggest law firm. And whilst the firm didn't quite end the war between British and US firms - the New York merger was a troubled one, Clifford Chance's policy of international expansion prompted many City law firms to play catch-up. In many ways, it was the original one-stop-shop global law firm.

Today, whilst the rest of the magic circle have caught up internationally, Clifford Chance continues to lead the pack in revenue, which rose by 11% in 2016-17.

Private Equity and Finance
Clifford Chance boasts an attractive global private equity practice, which sees it routinely bumping heads with corporate heavyweight, Freshfields, for sponsor-side work. The firm leads the global league table by volume and was recently the highest ranked M&A adviser in Asia for value. So it's no surprise that Clifford Chance won a host of international awards for the year 2016, including European Law Firm of the Year by Private Equity Real Estate and Private Equity International. And whilst the firm saw a number of high-profile funds partners head for US firms, it still boasts a strong US team to complement its private equity practice.

On the other side of the coin, Clifford Chance matches Allen & Overy for its market-leading finance practice.

Global Strategy
The American Lawyer's Global 100 report gives a good sense of Clifford Chance's international presence. Even though London makes up 33% of its revenue, only 29% of Clifford Chance's lawyers are based in the UK, the lowest in the magic circle.

It's also the largest magic circle firm and the third largest international firm in the Asia Pacific. Between 2011 and 2016, revenues in the region increased by 50% and it currently contributes approximately 18% of global revenue. The firm is now targeting 25% and recently appointed five new partners in the Asia Pacific. It also brought in new leadership including representatives from China, Australia and Japan to form a 14-partner team.

Clifford Chance's only base in ASEAN is Singapore after the firm consolidated its Southeast Asia practice in 2017 by ending its alliance in Indonesia and closing its office in Thailand after 22 years. The firm has been present in Singapore for 36 years, where it has a local law practice thanks to its longstanding QFLP licence. It's also able to practice litigation in the region because of its formal alliance with Cavenagh. The firm has been investing in the region - its office headcount doubled between 2010 and 2014, and it now boasts 23 partners. This has helped it win a number of lucrative mandates, as it advised banks on both Singaporean and international law on the flotation of Netlink NBN Trust. Netlink NBN Trust is responsible for much of the broadband infrastructure in the city-state and its 1.7bn listing was the largest in Singapore since 2011.

The firm has allegedly been looking for a merger partner in China for years. It's a risky move, but if any magic circle firm were to do it, it would be Clifford Chance. The firm's investment in the region has seen it party to mega-deals, including its recent role advising the China Investment Corporation in its $13.8bn purchase of Logicor, Blackstone's European Warehouse. At the time, this was the biggest ever acquisition in the Asia-Pacific region.

Meanwhile, Clifford Chance is also ramping up its presence in the US which boasts a sizeable 300 lawyers and 77 partners, a legacy of its merger with US firm Roger & Wells. The firm recently hired 9 partners in the US and Matthew Layton, the managing partner, has said he wants to see headcount rise to 400. The US contributed 13% to its revenue in 2016-17 and Clifford Chance aims to grow that to 20-25%.

Training and People
The firm saw 81% of trainees retained in September 2017, an improvement on its 67% in Spring. Clifford Chance has been reducing the number of trainees it takes on in London since 2010, when it took 136, reportedly the figure will be 'up to 80'. This reflects a broader trend of cost-saving measures to keep up with the market.

It has invested in training programmes including its Continuous Improvement initiative. This is part of its efficiency drive to train all lawyers to adopt these processes in practice.

On a partner level, appraisals are based on a broader range of performance metrics including cross-selling between teams and high-value business. Management is also working on a leadership programme to meet global needs. The firm recently followed the rest of the magic circle in reforming its lockstep to make it easier to reward and retain star partners.

Efficiency drive
The firm has implemented a number of measures to respond to new demands within the legal sector in technology and regulation. Its global head of client services solutions (and former doctor), Oliver Campbell, has invested in a 'Continuous Improvement' practice. This focuses on 'lean' principles, a method derived from the Japanese manufacturing industry, which seeks to minimise waste. Campbell has been integrating Continuous Improvement into Clifford Chance through a number of measures, including bringing in experts to work on projects. In 2014, this method was implemented in over 100 projects and in the 2016 financial year, it provided reported savings of £7m.

The firm has also adapted to provide cost-effective legal services to clients. It was one of the first major law firms to offshore to India when it opened two centres in 2007. This contrasts with magic circle rivals who've chosen to onshore or nearshore to Manchester, Birmingham and Belfast.

This is now complemented by Clifford Chance's recent acquisition of Carillion's Advice Services, the legal services branch of Carillion, which recently entered liquidation. The firm fended off 20 buyers to secure the low-cost centre, together with a team of 60 paralegals, who've been working on low-cost legal work such as compliance services, document review and due diligence, for Carilion. The centre also has the benefit of existing expertise in legal tech, AI systems and existing clients.

Technology and Innovation
Meanwhile, a team of 400 lawyers from different parts of the firm, are involved in Clifford Chance's new tech group. The team has been assembled amid growing innovation within financial technology and legal technology, and client concerns over the incoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018.

Clifford Chance has also invested in AI in a number of cost-saving measures for its existing clients. This includes Kira Systems, a document review technology, which is being used in due diligence; and Neota Logic, an automated toolkit used by clients to navigate derivatives regulation, and which is now being used for MiFID II; and finally, CC Dr@ft, which allows in-house clients to build their own contracts.

The global hedge
In the 2016-17 financial year, Allen & Overy grew revenue by 16% and profit per equity partner (“PEP”) by 26%. It’s now the second-largest in the magic circle by turnover and just behind Freshfields and Linklaters in PEP.

But this isn't just about one good year. Indeed, many of Allen & Overy’s rivals have posted good results one year, only to fall behind the next. No, Allen & Overy's story revolves around something else: the firm's aggressive international expansion.

To understand, we need to go back to a time when the world wasn’t so global: the early 2000s. That was a time when Allen & Overy was the smallest magic circle firm in revenue and PEP.

Although it was smaller than the others, Allen & Overy pursued international growth at a rate that surprised many of its rivals. Between the 2005/6 and 2014/15 financial years, the firm opened 22 offices, many of which were opened shortly after the financial crisis - a time when other law firms scaled back their international presence.

Allen & Overy was the first magic circle firm to open in Australia, South Africa, Myanmar and Canada. It was also the first to enter Africa after launching in Morocco in 2011. The firm's investment in Australia proved to be an effective platform to serve the Asia-Pacific region, a move that was soon followed by a number of US and UK firms. The firm supported the rest of its network by a series of best friend relationships, such as its five-year referral agreement with Indian law firm Trilegal.

But key to all of this is the fact that Allen & Overy didn’t expand for the sake of it. It was always led by client demand and growth opportunities. Between 2005/6 and 2014/15 the firm had the highest growth in revenue, net profits and profit per equity partner among the magic circle. This helped it work on many of the biggest deals. Take Africa for example. The firm advised on Africa’s largest-ever project financing and one the largest acquisitions in South Africa. And in 2013, Allen & Overy became the only law firm to complete a deal in every country in Africa - according to its annual review.

The finance heavyweight
Few law firms can compete with Allen & Overy's banking and finance practice. The firm has longstanding relationships with investment banks including Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan, and a vast international platform to serve its clients.

Allen & Overy fought well to maintain its position in leveraged finance after the financial crisis. That was a time when many European corporate clients turned to high yield bonds to finance their deals - a domain normally reserved for US firms. Allen & Overy responded by investing heavily in its US presence, breaking its lockstep to hire a number of star finance partners, and investing in its high yield and leveraged finance teams. This investment has paid off; Allen & Overy is routinely ranked as one of the top two most active legal advisers for European high yield debt.

It's no surprise that Allen & Overy's collected five finance-related awards at the IFLR Europe Awards 2017. The team has had a number of recent achievements across its range of financial products. These range from general lending to complex financial structures. For example, in 2016 and 2017, the firm advised borrowers and lenders on more syndicated loans than any other law firm in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, according to Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg. The firm also advised on the largest residential mortgage-backed securitisation since the financial crisis in 2016. Meanwhile, Allen & Overy's capital markets team topped the Thomson Reuters table for global deal volume and deal value in 2017.

The litigation strategy
Whilst the magic circle have traditionally led the UK market in corporate and finance, the same can't be said for disputes, where the likes of Herbert Smith Freehills and Hogan Lovells boast equally competitive practices. Allen & Overy's move into this market is interesting. The firm stormed Simons & Simmons in 2016, hiring four partners and six associates for its IP litigation practice. Now the firm is looking to Germany and the US amid a growing demand for patent litigation capabilities.

Allen & Overy's recent lateral hires have also bolstered the practice. In 2017, the firm hired a litigation team for its South African practice, three partners for its Investigations and Litigation practice in the US, and a patent litigator for its German office.

Although litigation contributes less to global revenue than rivals Linklaters and Freshfields, it has grown a lot since 2008. We've learned that the firm shouldn't be underestimated: if Allen & Overy hires more litigators and continues on its growth trajectory, the picture may be very different in a decade.

Finally, this piece would be remiss if we didn't mention the recent speculation about a merger with O'Melveny & Myers. The move would make Allen & Overy the first in the magic circle to complete a transatlantic merger. It would also give the firm the litigation capability it needs. But that's precisely why some partners are allegedly unhappy with the proposal. Perhaps it's not the elite US corporate law firm that they had in mind.

Investment in alternative delivery models
After the financial crisis, many clients cut back on their legal budgets and that was an issue for many top City law firms. But Allen & Overy adapted. The firm opened up its Belfast Legal Services Centre in 2012 to deliver cost-effective support to the rest of the firm. Today this centre has grown to employ over 500 people and it serves the firm's 44 offices through a range of roles including HR. IT, marketing, and business support services.

The growth of Peerpoint is also an example of the Allen & Overy's commitment to cost-effective legal services. The team of legal consultants are made up of many former senior lawyers at the firm who prefer a more agile style of working. They work on demand so Allen & Overy can tap into the team in times of need and clients can get access to a panel of experienced lawyers. The service has already expanded to Hong Kong and Australia, and there are further plans to move across Europe, the US and Asia-Pacific.

Legal technology
Throughout the 2000s, Allen & Overy was quick to identify the rising demand for international legal services. Today the firm looks to be pioneering legal technology. Whilst many firms have expressed an interest in field, it was Allen & Overy who dived in and built its very own tech incubator. The firm's derivatives expert and entrepreneur, Shruti Ajitsaria, heads up Fuse, a tech space inside its offices, and Allen & Overy encourages its lawyers to get involved with the entrepreneurs-in-residence.

Its been a success story so far. The first company to work in Fuse, Nivaura, helped to launch the world's first automated cryptocurrency- denominated bond issuance whilst at Allen & Overy. The platform automates the issuance of financial instruments and provides a cost-effective cloud-based service for SME's. It's no surprise that Fuse received 84 applicants in 2017 - successful start-ups get the exposure and resources of the magic circle firm.

Allen & Overy's lawyers have also been involved in other initiatives. One of them built MarginMatrix, an automated system that helps banks to handle derivatives compliance across jurisdictions - banks across the world quickly signed up. The firm also backed the Legal Innovation Centre at Ulster University. It's a centre that will be home to academics involved in the research of legal tech, and it'll also train students and legal professionals in the field. These investments have led Allen & Overy to be rated the 'Most Innovative Law Firm in Europe' by the Financial Times. Five times.

"I believe my partner interview was a tad different because most of the experiences on my CV have been in NGO and journalism. The first question I got asked was why law, NRF and why commercial law (all in one). The conversation kind of kicked off from here. They asked me why I was not interested in politics and journalism. They also asked me whether I had stopped having/pursuing an interest in journalism, politics and Human rights law (I had worked at [redacted]) or whether it was something that I continued.

My why NRF answer focused on Emerging markets so I got asked what I would do if I started my career at NRF and all I did was purely domestic work. I also got asked what I think NRF should consider if it were to move into an emerging market. I used Nigeria as an example and from this example, they asked me whether they should move into Nigeria. After this, they asked me whether it was possible I will leave them for an African firm (kind of like why London if you are so interested in Africa). I also got asked what made NRF different from other firms I had applied to and where I see myself in the future.

Part of my interview answers included talking about the opportunity I had to interact with people at NRF, so I got asked whether there was an NRF type and what they (the trainees I met) had described their experience at NRF. I also got asked what type of character I noticed from the people I spoke to. They also asked me whether I was prepared to do the less stimulating work.

They asked me what I thought bothered them at the moment. So, I mentioned increasing competition for clients and Trump’s trade war. Most of the discussion focused on Trump’s trade war and my answer got scrutinized closely. They narrowed down on my statements such as “demand for risk management services will increase as a result of the trade war” and asked what I meant by that statement and how I thought risk management will work supposing Trump made an opportunity a client wanted to exploit illegal. They also asked me how I thought the trade war was going to end/whether I thought it was going to end well.

I also got asked what I felt was my greatest weakness, I gave being too detailed, so they said that’s not too bad a weakness and asked me for another weakness. After this, they asked me which kind of team member I dislike working with, what I felt the job of a trainee was, and considering I had such an interest in NGO work how will I handle a scenario if where I was asked to work for a client I did not necessarily agree with. They then asked me one SJT about what how I will handle being asked to take up extra work late in the day or something like that.

From my experience, I think you should have answers that prove you are certain you have an interest in commercial law and if you have dabbled in something else before a deciding on a career in CL have an answer on why you are not more chasing the alternative. I also think compared to my interviews at Skadden and Slaughter and May, Norton Rose is very commercial heavy and I was not expecting to be asked which country NRF should invest.

I think one thing I did that helped me was learning some key industry factors and tying them into my answers. So like when I said NRF was forward-looking by investing in Emerging Markets and Renewable Energy where they now have Tier One capabilities, I also said RE is supposed to take in 8 trillion in investment by 2050 and only a firm like NRF that has already secured high-level mandates like financing the building Serbia’s biggest RE farm (I think) will be at the forefront of capitalising on the surge in investment (in a more elaborate way though). I also knew somethings about Nigeria’s economic prospects which made discussing whether NRF should move into Nigeria very easy.

They kept a poker face but I think they were lowkey impressed. Just avoid making your answers too long by trying to add too much commercial info and this tactic may help! Also, get ready for any follow up questions like whether you are interested in RE and what you feel are they challenges facing the RE industry (I did not get asked pheww). Key advice: Be able to answer any follow-up question on what you mention."

A student has kindly shared his experience for the Norton Rose Fulbright interview. This will later be copied in the relevant interview experiences section, but I'll post it here first, as he has gone out of his way to provide some fantastic detail and candid advice. Please see below.

"I believe my partner interview was a tad different because most of the experiences on my CV have been in NGO and journalism. The first question I got asked was why law, NRF and why commercial law (all in one). The conversation kind of kicked off from here. They asked me why I was not interested in politics and journalism. They also asked me whether I had stopped having/pursuing an interest in journalism, politics and Human rights law (I had worked at [redacted]) or whether it was something that I continued.

My why NRF answer focused on Emerging markets so I got asked what I would do if I started my career at NRF and all I did was purely domestic work. I also got asked what I think NRF should consider if it were to move into an emerging market. I used Nigeria as an example and from this example, they asked me whether they should move into Nigeria. After this, they asked me whether it was possible I will leave them for an African firm (kind of like why London if you are so interested in Africa). I also got asked what made NRF different from other firms I had applied to and where I see myself in the future.

Part of my interview answers included talking about the opportunity I had to interact with people at NRF, so I got asked whether there was an NRF type and what they (the trainees I met) had described their experience at NRF. I also got asked what type of character I noticed from the people I spoke to. They also asked me whether I was prepared to do the less stimulating work.

They asked me what I thought bothered them at the moment. So, I mentioned increasing competition for clients and Trump’s trade war. Most of the discussion focused on Trump’s trade war and my answer got scrutinized closely. They narrowed down on my statements such as “demand for risk management services will increase as a result of the trade war” and asked what I meant by that statement and how I thought risk management will work supposing Trump made an opportunity a client wanted to exploit illegal. They also asked me how I thought the trade war was going to end/whether I thought it was going to end well.

I also got asked what I felt was my greatest weakness, I gave being too detailed, so they said that’s not too bad a weakness and asked me for another weakness. After this, they asked me which kind of team member I dislike working with, what I felt the job of a trainee was, and considering I had such an interest in NGO work how will I handle a scenario if where I was asked to work for a client I did not necessarily agree with. They then asked me one SJT about what how I will handle being asked to take up extra work late in the day or something like that.

From my experience, I think you should have answers that prove you are certain you have an interest in commercial law and if you have dabbled in something else before a deciding on a career in CL have an answer on why you are not more chasing the alternative. I also think compared to my interviews at Skadden and Slaughter and May, Norton Rose is very commercial heavy and I was not expecting to be asked which country NRF should invest.

I think one thing I did that helped me was learning some key industry factors and tying them into my answers. So like when I said NRF was forward-looking by investing in Emerging Markets and Renewable Energy where they now have Tier One capabilities, I also said RE is supposed to take in 8 trillion in investment by 2050 and only a firm like NRF that has already secured high-level mandates like financing the building Serbia’s biggest RE farm (I think) will be at the forefront of capitalising on the surge in investment (in a more elaborate way though). I also knew somethings about Nigeria’s economic prospects which made discussing whether NRF should move into Nigeria very easy.

They kept a poker face but I think they were lowkey impressed. Just avoid making your answers too long by trying to add too much commercial info and this tactic may help! Also, get ready for any follow up questions like whether you are interested in RE and what you feel are they challenges facing the RE industry (I did not get asked pheww). Key advice: Be able to answer any follow-up question on what you mention."