Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AzanAshai" data-source="post: 2117" data-attributes="member: 36">A quick overview as I understand it:1. Best Friend's GroupThis is used most notably by Slaughter and May. The firm maintains strategic connections with firms like BonelliErede (Italy), Bredin Prat (France) and others to refer work to on applicable jurisdictional matters. It's an advantage in that it leaves out the risk and liabilities of opening an office in any of those jurisdictions yet loses out on having that physical presence in those areas. Below is a neat article on partner Andrew McClean's perspective on this distinct international strategy:<a href="http://thegatewayonline.com/law/where-to-work/slaughter-and-may-international-career" target="_blank">http://thegatewayonline.com/law/where-to-work/slaughter-and-may-international-career</a>2. AlliancesI don't know much about this, but Linklaters has an alliance with Australian firm Allens - this was done primarily to better service clients in Asia. Both firms remain financially independent but share a joint brand Linklaters - Allens (you can google this and see it for yourself!). It is advantageous as it offers a bit more overlap than the Best Friend's Group with the shared branding.3. Swiss VereinsNorton Rose Fulbright is an excellent example of this. This tactic allows for NRF to expand rapidly without taking on the liabilities of its other offices. So the liabilities of NRF UK is separate to those of NRF Canada. There is question of conflicts of interest between different offices and also there tends to be less cultural cohesion as a result since the offices are managed separately.4. MergersLegacy litigation outfit Fulbright & Janowski merging with UK transactional heavyweight Norton Rose is a good example of this. The hope is by merging, the firms can become greater than the sum of their parts.  [USER=1]@Jaysen[/USER] I'm sure you can shed much more light on this. Disadvantages include the logistics of the actual merger itself. Organizing management, adjusting partner compensation and integrating two differing cultures can be some major hurdles in achieving a successful merger. When done right, firms can bolster credibility in practice areas, increase profitability and market dominance.5. Full Financial IntegrationAn example of this would be with the recent merger between legacy firms Bryan Cave and Berwin Leighton Paisner. Newly formed Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) combined two organizations into one firm and sharing one profit pool. The biggest pro is the fact this creates a symmetrical internal structure and a more cohesive culture. Disadvantages include liabilities being shared and like with all change in law firms, those changed will be met with dissent from those who don't want the integration to go through. This can potentially result in teams or partners leaving for other firms.Article on BCLP merger here: <a href="https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/03/bryan-cave-leighton-paisner-brings-together-two-leaders-two-firms/" target="_blank">https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/04/03/bryan-cave-leighton-paisner-brings-together-two-leaders-two-firms/</a></blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread