Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) has launched a “decision tree” analysis service with software that helps clients make better decisions when they need to evaluate potential risks in disputes. The service is offered by the firm’s decision analysis team, which is led by deputy head of commercial litigation partner Alexander Oddy and commercial and financial disputes […]

The post HSF develops in-house tech tool to calculate risks in disputes appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

How can you reshape an in-house team in the image you want it to be? This was just one of the issues up for debate at The Lawyer’s latest roundtable with BCLP.

The post GC2B: Creating the perfect business karma for success appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

McDermott Will & Emery has become the latest City firm to diversify its office space, with a number of its business services teams moving into a WeWork office adjacent to its London HQ. Around 20 members of staff from accounting, marketing and business development, HR and research moved across from Heron Tower at the end […]

The post McDermott shifts City business services staff to WeWork appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Norton Rose Fulbright has become the latest global firm to expand its Singapore law practice as it enters into a formal law alliance (FLA) with Singapore litigation boutique Ascendant Legal. The FLA, operating under the brand of Norton Rose Fulbright Ascendant, has recently received the approval from the Singapore Ministry of Law. It is set […]

The post Norton Rose Fulbright forms alliance to expand Singapore offering appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Real estate partner David Cox has become the third partner to leave White & Case’s London office so far this year as he joins King & Spalding. Cox left White & Case following a 15-year stint, having served as head of real estate and real estate finance in London between 2003 and 2014. He joins […]

The post White & Case partner joins King & Spalding in third exit this year appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Barristers from sets including Red Lion Chambers, Brick Court and 3 Verulam Buildings are among the 108 new QCs to be announced today, while lawyers have also made silk from Allen & Overy and White & Case. There will be 108 new QCs this year, with the female percentage in this year’s round reaching at […]

The post QC appointments dip to three-year low with 108 new silks appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

As 20 per cent of the magic circle firm’s overall £1.62bn revenue in the 2017/18 financial year, Clifford Chance’s litigation practice represents a considerable chunk of that sum.

It may not surprise anyone to hear that, when taken on a sector basis, Clifford Chance sees most of its disputes work originating from banks, financial services and insurance. Since 2015, the firm has been on cases for the likes of Société Générale, Canary Wharf Group and Liverpool Victoria Banking Services. Indeed, the sector has contributed 20 clients – more than any other sector – to its practice.

However, gone are the days of the Great Financial Crash (GFC) and the Lehman disputes; A magic circle firm can’t dwell on those past revenue streams.

The financial services sector now leans towards regulatory advice in a way that it never has before. Demand for white-collar advice is on the rise but this is precisely where the firm has seen some promising partners leave Clifford Chance in recent years. In 2017 alone, tax disputes star Liesl Fichardt decamped for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Stephen Surgeoner moved to Dechert and Judith Seddon announced that was taking her talents to the Square Mile by moving to Ropes & Gray just 15 days into 2018. The latter is thought to be the biggest loss with her criminal experience in short supply at the magic circle firm.

In their wake, Luke Tolaini, Zoe Osborne and Carlos Conceicao continue to impress the market with several sources pinpointing them as the London office’s disputes rainmakers, particularly in this ever-growing tranche of regulatory and investigations work, alongside associate stars Ben Jasper, Anna Henderson and Helene Almas.

As if to underline the UK’s regulatory bodies reinvigorated approach, Tolaini and the rising associate trio are representing Pfizer in a long-running battle against the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) over a £90m it slapped on the pharmaceutical giant for alleged “price-gouging”.

That team secured a significant provisional win in front of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in June, instructing Monkcton Chambers’ Mark Brealey QC, and Brick Court Chambers’ Robert O’Donoghue QC and Tim Johnston, to mark the first step in avoiding a £90m fine for his client. The CMA has already indicated that it will appeal this decision in the Supreme Court which could prolong the battle for Pfizer and its British manufacturing partner Flynn Pharma which has turned to Macfarlanes partner Cameron Firth.

Despite some attrition to US firms, disputes remains a steady stream with revenue per lawyer standing at just shy of $1m ($997,706) with 436 lawyers accounting for $435m in turnover in 2017 globally. Data gathered for The Lawyer Global Litigation Top 50 report showed that this was the second-highest total among its magic circle rivals with a significant gap between itself and first-placed Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer which generated $619.4m in its disputes practice over that same period.

Significant changes took place at the beginning of 2017 in London with partner Matthew Newick taking over from Jeremy Sandelson as global practice head, while Clifford Chance lifer Helen Carty took over as London practice head from Jeremy Sandelson who combined the global and London roles. Newick is believed to have taken the decision to appoint Carty to allow him to focus his role much more globally.

One global disputes head at a competing firm described the London backdrop as “pre-crisis mode”, a statement that resounds deeply with Carty.

“You could see that 10 years ago you’d be spot on to say that there will be disputes coming out of [the GFC],” muses Carty when pressed on where Clifford Chance is expecting to see future work coming from. “You could see disputes in the financial arena stemming out of [collapsed US investment bank] Lehman along with a host of other insolvencies. At the moment, it’s quite hard to identify particular circumstances that will give rise to disputes.”

This pre-crisis mindset is causing a headache across the magic circle and it’s difficult to make a case that there is a single, major event that will be the next great disputes generator.

There is inconclusive evidence to suggest that the great destabilisers of our time in Brexit and Trump’s presidency will create solid disputes revenues. Through a solid mix of financial services, high-net worth individuals and pharmaceutical/life sciences clients, the firm looks to insulate itself against what could be a slower time for the mega disputes.

Coupled with that is its ongoing conversation around fees paid to its instructed counsel.

The friction between Clifford Chance and the Bar has been aired in public for nearly 15 years now with Sandelson first going public on his opinion of brief fees in 2004. Those conversations have resurfaced in 2018 after surveys around the practice were internally deemed to show that they were instructing too many different sets.

Blackstone Chambers was most frequently instructed since The Lawyer started tracking data, receiving 10 instructions in that period with Andrew Green QC and Clifford Chance associate-turned-barrister Fraser Campbell each receiving three instructions. Campbell’s stint at the firm between 2007 and 2010 has clearly paid dividends and building a relationship he took with him into Blackstone upon joining in September 2010. Fellow Blackstone silk Javan Herberg QC was instructed on two matters in that time, meaning that these three barristers accounted for 90 per cent of the set’s instructions in this four-year period.

Blackstone’s magic circle rival set One Essex Court (OEC) was tied with insolvency specialist outfit South Square Chambers for seven instructions apiece.

OEC silk Camilla Bingham QC dominated her set’s instructions, acting on five matters during that period making her the firm’s most instructed barrister across the board. Bingham’s work with the firm has been primarily on the claimant side acting on Super-Max Offshore Holdings v Malhotra & Anor and Swissmarine Corporation Ltd v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S for partner Roger Leese, while representing the defendant in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdess for Julian Acrotopulo. The pair are her most frequent clients, each instructing her on two matters since 2015.

The post The Litigation profile: Clifford Chance appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

As if to underline the set’s pole position in the rankings, three of the top four busiest barristers of 2018’s first three quarters all call Blackstone Chambers home.

Nathalie Lieven QC and Ben Jaffey QC were a close contest coming in second and joint-third positions, having handled 12 and 11 cases respectively, though it was their colleague Sir James Eadie QC who came out on top.

Handling an enormous 21 cases this year alone, Eadie’s workload has been enormous. In recognition of his services to the law and government, Eadie was knighted in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list in June.

This year alone, Eadie has acted both for and against the Secretary of State most recently for the defendant in R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department during the non-gendered passports case. He truly lives up to his nickname as the ‘Treasury Devil’.

One of Lieven’s most successful cases of the year saw her act for ClientEarth as it fought against the 2017 Air Quality Plan in R(ClientEarth (No3)) v (1) Secretary of State for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs (2) The Secretary of State for Transport and (3) Welsh Ministers.

Jaffey meanwhile saw a significant judgment come when acting for Barclays Bank alongside Dinah Rose QC during R(Holmcroft Properties Limited) v KPMG LLP and others) which saw his client successfully defend a Court of Appeal claim from house builder Holmscroft.

Jaffey finished alongside Matrix Chambers’ Hugh Southey QC on 11 cases with the latter having led for the Queen on application for Sri Lankan national Kumareswararaja Varatharaj during an immigration hearing. His client won the hearing and was granted British citizenship on the grounds that depriving him would have caused Varatharaj to become stateless.

Three juniors found themselves tied on 10 cases apiece in by Q3 2018 – the most of any juniors at the Bar – with 20 Essex Street’s human rights specialist Julie Anderson, Blackstone Chambers’ financial services expert Simon Pritchard and Landmark Chambers’ public and planning authority Tim Buley all making waves at the Bar so far this year.

Narrowly missing out on that number were Essex Court Chambers’ Edward Brown, 1 Crown Office Row’s Neil Sheldon and 12 Old Square’s Zane Malik, each having acted on nine matters to this point.

The post Blackstone trio lead the way in latest barrister rankings appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

The Commercial Court has played host to some of the highest-value litigation to have reached the English courts, involving some of the world’s biggest corporates. In the last quarter alone, the court reached judgment in 27 cases, involving litigants from 26 countries. These included clients from Cyprus, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UAE.

This feature examines activity in the Commercial Court over the course of Q3 18. This includes a breakdown of the biggest source of clients in the the last quarter by sector, in addition to the top performing firms and chambers.

Banks, Financial Services & Insurance

Organisations from the banking, financial services and insurance sector (BFSI) were the biggest source of clients in in Q3 18. A total of 19 organisations from the sector litigated, of which eight were UK based.

These included HSBC which successfully defended a $2.5bn claim over a finance loan agreement brought by defaulting ship-finance borrowers (HSBC Bank Plc v Antaeus Shipping Co SA & Ors). The bank was represented by Adam Turner of 7 King’s Bench Walk (7KBW) on instruction from Watson Farley & Williams partner Charles Buss.

Elsewhere, Aspen Insurance UK appeared across two cases. In the first (Single Buoy Moorings Inc v Aspen Insurance UK Ltd) the insurer was advised by Clyde & Co as part of an ongoing indemnity action brought by Switzerland based energy equipment manufacturer Single Buoy Moorings. In the present proceedings, Clyde’s instructed 7KBW trio Alistair Schaff QC, Benjamin Parker, Alexander MacDonald in a successful application for disclosure.

In the second case (The Cultural Foundation & Anor v Beazley Furlonge Ltd & Or), Aspen appeared as a defendant alongside fellow insurers QBE Insurance Europe, Great Lakes Insurance and MSI Corporate Capital in a hearing on costs as part of an ongoing dispute over certain professional indemnity insurance policies. The insurers were jointly represented by 7KBW’s Peter MacDonald Eggers QC and Marcus Mander on instruction from Clyde & Co.

Also litigating from the UK were London based investment manager FM Capital Partners (advised by Hogan Lovells partner Crispin Rapinet) and India Infrastructure Finance Company (UK) (advised by Cooke Young & Keidan).

Overseas clients included Deutsche Bank. The German banking giant was advised by Linklaters in the successful defence of a claim brought by the state of the Netherlands concerning the interpretation of an ISDA Credit Support Annex (The State of the Netherlands v Deutsche Bank AG). The German bank was represented by Richard Handyside QC and Rupert Allen, both of Fountain Court Chambers. Clyde & Co acted for the Netherlands. The firm instructed One Essex Court’s Benjamin Strong QC.

In other cases, Essex Court Chambers’ Emily Wood appeared for Société Générale (on instruction from Dentons partner Felicity Ewing) as part of a swap dispute in which shipping company Sixteenth Ocean GmbH, as the borrower, sought to recover monies paid to the bank which it argued had been paid under economic duress. HFW partner Stephen Drury acted for Sixteenth with 3VB’s Peter de Verneuil Smith as counsel (Sixteenth Ocean GmbH & Co Kg v Société Générale).

Other international litigants included Arab Bank (Switzerland) (advised by HFW partner Michael Buisset), BNP Paribas (advised by Allen & Overy partner Mahmood Lone) and Switzerland headquartered Quantum Global Alternative Investments (advised by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan).

Energy

Eight companies from the energy sector litigated in the Commercial Court in Q3 18. These included mining giant Glencore, which was successful in its claim to enforce a settlement agreement with Ghana based Springfield Energy (Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Springfield Energy Ltd). Glencore was represented by Timothy Hill QC of 20 Essex Street on instruction from Ince & Co. Springfield was unrepresented.

In other cases, the state of Ukraine was unsuccessful in an attempt to set aside the enforcement of a $112m arbitration award in favour of Russian oil company Tatneft (PAO Tatneft v Ukraine). Tatneft was advised Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton with Essex Court Chambers’ David Foxton QC and Emily Wood as counsel. Ukraine was advised by Winston & Strawn. The firm instructed 20 Essex Street’s Philip Edey QC and Philippa Webb together with Anton Dudnikov of Essex Court Chambers.

Also litigating from the energy sector was Tullow Oil. In Q3 18, the Commercial Court ruled the FTSE 250 company, through its wholly owned subsidiary Tullow Ghana, could not rely upon a force majeure clause when seeking to terminate a contract with drilling contractor Seadrill (Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v Tullow Ghana).

Tullow was represented by Sean Wilken QC, Adam Robb QC and Stephen Kosmin, all of 39 Essex Chambers, on instruction from HFW partner Simon Blows. Haynes and Boone partner Glenn Kangisser acted for Seadrill. The firm instructed Richard Jacobs QC and John Snider, both of Essex Court Chambers and Quadrant Chambers junior Gemma Morgan.

Materials

The court additionally reached judgment in cases involving eight companies from the materials sector. This included Russian headquartered aluminium manufacturer United Company Rusal which was granted a right of first refusal on the potential sale by Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich of his minority stake in a Moscow-based mining company (United Company Rusal Plc v Crispian Investments Ltd & Anor).

Rusal was advised by Macfarlanes partner Iain Mackie and Simon Nurney with Maitland Chambers’ Christopher Pymont QC, David Mumford QC, Thomas Munby and James Kinman appearing as counsel.

Also litigating from the sector were Malysian based Limbungan Makmur (advised by Hill Dickinson partner Julian Clark) and Singapore headquartered Dreymoor Fertilizers (advised by Kerman & Co).

Q3 18 – Top performers

Clyde & Co and HFW were the among the most active firms in the Commercial Court in Q3 18, each acting for clients in three cases. Also working on three cases were Cooke Young & Keidan and Macfarlanes.

Clyde’s is also the most active firm so far this year in the court, working on 12 cases between Q1 18 and Q3 18. Allen & Overy ranks second with 11 cases, followed by HFW with eight. Magic circle duo Freshfields and Linklaters worked on six cases each.

One Essex Court, meanwhile, was the most active set in Q3 18, representing clients in 10 cases totalling 39 case days.  The set received two of its 10 instructions from Cooke Young & Keidan, together with single instructions from Charles Russell Speechlys, Clyde & Co, Debevoise & Plimpton, Mishcon de Reya and RPC.

20 Essex Street and Essex Court were the joint second-most active sets, having each worked on seven cases. The former was instructed by Cooke Young & Keidan in addition to Ince & Co, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Winston & Strawn. Essex Court received five of its seven instructions from US firms. These included Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Debevoise & Plimpton, Haynes and Boone and Winston & Strawn

Essex Court is also the most active set between Q1 18 and Q3 18, representing clients in a total of cases since the start of the year. 20 Essex Street and One Essex Court follow closely behind with 27 cases respectively.

The post Commercial Court activity: Q3 18 appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Some 4,184 litigants were involved in cases that reached the English courts between Q1 18 and Q3 18. A large proportion of these litigants were non-commercial and comprised individuals or public-sector organisations. But just under half (44 per cent) were commercial organisations involved in high-value disputes.

In the last three quarters, the biggest source of commercial litigants were organisations from the banking, financial services and insurance sector (BFIS). Furthermore, the 350 companies litigating in this period was a 27 per cent increase on the same period last year. Broken down by sub-sector, the biggest growth in BFIS entities came from insurers (up 61 per cent), investment managers (up 25 per cent) and banks (up 16 per cent).

Information technology companies are also frequenting the courts more. The 78 companies litigating over the last three quarters was a 44 per cent increase on the 54 companies that appeared in court last year. Within this, the biggest sub-sector growth came from technology hardware and equipment companies (up from 10 to 31) and software and services companies (up 31 per cent).

Elsewhere, the number of companies litigating from the healthcare equipment and services sector grew by 42 per cent from 99 to 141. The cause of this uptick has been the sub-sector growth of healthcare equipment and technology companies (up 67 per cent), private health care providers (up 59 per cent) and NHS organisations (up 29 per cent).

Other growth sectors included consumer goods (up 42 per cent), utilities and power production (up 39 per cent), transportation (up 27 per cent), materials (up 26 per cent) and energy (up 21 per cent).

At the other end of the spectrum, litigation activity has reduced in other sectors. This includes consumer services – 95 companies from this sector litigated between Q1 18 and Q3 18, a 12 per cent decrease on the 108 companies litigating in the same period last year.

The number of commercial and professional services companies also fell.  121 companies in this space appeared in court in the last three quarters compared to 136 last year, a 11 per cent decrease.

Country breakdown

Of the commercial litigants involved in cases between Q1 18 and Q3 18, 34 per cent were located outside of the UK. This is compares to 29 per cent last year. Companies from the US proved the biggest source of overseas clients in the last three quarters, with 78 appearing across 61 cases. This represents a 32 per cent increase on the 59 companies litigating last year.

The biggest growth in international commercial clients came from India which grew from five litigants to 23, while the number of clients from Mauritius increased from five to 21. Cyprus proved to be another source of emerging clientele (up from seven to 20) as did Luxembourg (nine to 25) and the British Virgin Islands (13 to 30).

The post A new wave of clients: The litigation sectors on the increase appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

For chambers, forging strong and effective relationships with law firms is key when it comes to securing litigation mandates. From the perspective of firms, knowing which sets are instructed most frequently acts as a useful indicator of a chambers’ strength and capability.

In this analysis, The Lawyer has scrutinised its Litigation Tracker database to pinpoint relationships between chambers and the UK ‘litigation heavyweights’ from 2015 to present.

Relationships with the UK’s litigation heavyweights (the magic circle, Clyde & Co, Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), Hogan Lovells, Pinsent Masons and RPC) are some of the most prized going. These firms generate some of the largest litigation revenues, while regularly securing some of the biggest mandates that reach the English courts.

Who’s instructing whom?

Some 92 sets have been instructed by the heavyweights since 2015. One Essex Court emerges as the favored set among these with 91 instructions. It received mandates from all 10 heavyweights with Mishcon de Reya (20 instructions) its most frequently instructing firm. The set also boasts strong relationships with Herbert Smith Freehills (16 instructions) together with Freshfields (15 instructions) and Allen & Overy (11 instructions).

Blackstone Chambers ranks in second place with 77 instructions. The set received 18 instructions from Mishcon de Reya and 12 and 10 instructions from A&O and Clifford Chance respectively.

Brick Court and South Square received 68 instructions each from the heavyweights. The former worked alongside HSF most frequently (15 instructions), followed by Freshfields (14 instructions) and Clyde & Co (eight instructions).

South Square was most regularly instructed by Linklaters (22 instructions). Alongside this, the set also picked up work from Allen & Overy (14 instructions) and Freshfields (13 instructions).

Fountain Court ranks in fifth place with 48 instructions. The set was instructed 13 times by A&O and seven times by Freshfields. It also worked alongside HSF on six occasions.

Completing the top 10 are Three New Square (39 instructions), Matrix Chambers (38 instructions), Monckton Chambers (38 instructions), 3 Verulam Buildings (36 instructions) and 8 New Square (35 instructions).

Go-to barristers

With 13 instructions each, South Square’s Daniel Bayfield QC and David Allison QC were the heavyweights’ go-to barristers. The former was instructed most frequently by Linklaters (seven instructions), followed by HSF (four instructions). Bayfield also received a single instruction apiece from Clifford Chance and RPC.

Meanwhile, Allison received six of his 13 instructions from A&O, while also working alongside Freshfields (four instructions), Linklaters (two instructions) and Clifford Chance (one instruction).

Erskine’s Martin Moore QC was instructed 12 times by the heavyweights as was Monckton Chambers’ Daniel Beard QC. One Essex Court’s Sonia Tolaney QC picked up 11 instructions, while Blackstone’s Michael Fordham QC, Fountain Court’s Richard Handyside QC and Brick Court’s Tony Singla each received 10 instructions.

The post Relationship analysis: The litigation heavyweights and their go-to chambers appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Ince Gordon Dadds’ tie-up is off to a tentative start, with the newly-merged firm understood to be starting a redundancy consultation among its staff. Commencing next week, and three months after the £110m merger was agreed, Ince Gordon Dadds will embark on a redundancy process which The Lawyer understands will largely affect support staff on both the […]

The post Redundancy consultation set to begin at Ince Gordon Dadds appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Eversheds Sutherland and Hogan Lovells are acting on the development of the BBC’s new studios, as part of the £1bn regeneration of the cultural and education district of London’s Olympic Park. Real estate partner Ian Barker at Eversheds is advising the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), alongside senior associate Hugo Jay and associate Ezra Mackenzie. The LLDC […]

The post Eversheds and Hogan Lovells take top roles on new BBC development appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

DWF former City funds head Lorraine Reader is to join DLA Piper's real estate team, just months after news of DWF's intended IPO broke in June last year.

The post DWF real estate partner lands new role at DLA Piper appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Fieldfisher has started the process to find a successor to senior partner Matthew Lohn, The Lawyer has learned, with two partners throwing their hats in the ring. Corporate partner David Wilkinson and real estate partner Anthony Phillips are understood to be the first to have launched their bids. Both partners are longtime Fieldfisher lawyers. Wilkinson was […]

The post Fieldfisher duo vie for top job in senior partner elections appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Herbert Smith Freehills and Morgan Lewis & Bockius are representing a consortium in its rescue of troubled Flybe Airways for £2.2m. The consortium is formed by Connect Airways, a joint venture company owned by Cyrus funds, Stobart Aviation and Virgin Atlantic. Morgan Lewis partner Georgia Quenby has been leading for Connect and Cyrus, along with […]

The post Morgan Lewis’ latest recruits come good as firm joins trio on Flybe sale appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Happy New Year. The Speed Read is back for 2019 and those who took an extended Christmas break will find, as they slope back into the office wiping the last crumbs of mince pie from their mouths, that a number of interesting developments have already taken place in the legal world this year. Those lawyers whose […]

The post The speed read: Freshfields’ private equity woes, and why Clyde’s women need to avoid blandness appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Jenner & Block partner Jason Yardley, one of the 30+ speakers at last year’s Managing Risk and Litigation conference, talks to The Lawyer about the newly established commercial courts across Europe and their potential impact on English Commercial Courts, and whether costs will have a greater impact on London as a preferred forum for international disputes.

Will English law continue to be the preferred choice of law for cross-border transactions?

I think it will, at least in the medium term. Britain’s long history as a trading nation has given us centuries of statute and case law focused on trade, including the particular issues that arise out of cross-border transactions. The certainty that tradition brings for businesses, coupled with widely respected courts (particularly the Commercial Court) and their flexible yet (generally) predictable and consistent approach to changes in the way international business is done, continues to make English law an attractive choice for those who value certainty in their transactions highly, including those whose transactions have no other connection with England. The UK leaving the EU (if and when that happens) is unlikely to have an immediate, material impact on that choice.

Having said that, plainly there is a threat in the longer term. If the UK’s importance as a business hub declines, and particularly if its commercial courts suffer as a result, there are plenty of legal systems snapping at the heels of English law. Despite financiers’ dislike for its lender-liability provisions, for example, US law (and NY law in particular) can only gain from any such decline, while other legal systems (such as Russian law) are now mandated for parties in certain circumstances, in an express attempt to curb the use of English law.

Probably more importantly, however, if Brexit results in a significant legal and/or practical weakening of the ability to enforce English court judgments elsewhere (including, but not just, in Europe), that will inevitably erode enthusiasm for English law over time.

In your opinion, will the newly established commercial courts across Europe succeed in winning business away from the English courts?

Boringly, my answer is very similar to the previous one. With one very large caveat, I think that all of the factors that currently make English law and the English Commercial Court the preferred choice for cross-border transactions will continue to favour the English Commercial Court over, say, the new, English-language, international commercial chambers at the Cour d’appel in Paris, the first instance and appeal courts in Amsterdam and the District Court in Frankfurt, or any of the others still in the pipeline.

If you choose English law to govern your contract, why go to one of those courts, rather than the courts which developed and apply that law daily, to have it interpreted or enforced? The answer, of course, and the very large caveat, relates to the enforceability of English court judgments. Just as parties to an English-law contract may choose to refer disputes to, say, the DIFC courts to ensure the enforceability of any judgment in the UAE, if the final form of Brexit makes the enforcement of English court judgments in Europe significantly more difficult (or more uncertain), some parties may choose to try one of the plethora of new commercial courts springing up to take advantage of just such an outcome (as the Chancellor of the High Court put it, ‘If one were a cynic, one might think that some of them were hoping to capitalise on the uncertainties created by Brexit’).

Perhaps more obviously than the new European commercial courts, however, I believe that it is international arbitration which is likely to benefit from any weakening of the enforceability of English judgments and from any resulting drop-off in the use of the English courts. I also believe that, while the two systems currently co-exist (and overlap) relatively happily, if there was to be a significantly greater and systemic switch of international, commercial disputes from the English courts to international arbitration to take advantage of the enforceability regime of the New York Convention, and if the development of binding English case law and related legal certainty were to be diminished as a result, over time that in itself could start to eat into English law’s position as the preferred choice of law for cross-border transactions.

Is London still the right forum to choose from a cost perspective?

I’m not sure that even the most fervent supporters of London as a dispute resolution centre would claim that cost is a strong reason to come here, as opposed to some of the alternative fora. Resolving international disputes in London, whether in the Commercial Court or though international arbitration, has for a long time been, and remains, horribly expensive and a desire to reduce legal costs is clearly not why parties choose London, being drawn instead by the strengths I have referred to above and by the depth and expertise of the legal market.

But with other jurisdictions increasingly recognising the value of and fighting for the international disputes market, relative cost is coming into sharper focus. London cannot rest on its laurels and the ongoing focus on ways to reduce costs (particularly in relation to disclosure) should be welcomed by everyone.

Tell us two truths and a lie (in any order)

• I have only played bridge once in my life, but that was with the Governor of the Bank of England;
• I took on Simon Shaw, 6’8” ex-England and Lions rugby player, in a drinking game and won;
• I once appeared in a TV advertisement for Fairy Liquid

The post The 60 second interview: “London cannot rest on its laurels in the global disputes market” appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

As early as you like in 2019, here comes the consolidation in New Law.

The post New Year, New Law, same old Old Law appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.

Deloitte Legal has ended its nine-month long search for a leader of its new UK legal arm, with the appointment of a new managing partner from Allen & Overy. The role, which for months was believed to have targeted a general counsel, has by contrast fallen to A&O banking partner Michael Castle, who has spent […]

The post A&O partner takes top UK job at Deloitte Legal appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs.