Becoming a lawyer was suggested to me by other people. I was about 15, and doing a lot of debating and public speaking in school. People started saying to me: ‘You should think about becoming a lawyer.’ The school was supportive, and sent me to conferences and such.
It was also because of watching TV. A lot of people say Crown Court, but I liked the American ones. The media attraction got me thinking about the advocacy side.
Doing law was not at all common for my school. I went to a comprehensive school in Swansea, and it was very mixed in terms of catchment and ability but had a strong deputy head mistress who would try to identify those pupils who could go on to some of the well-regarded universities. That was pivotal. You need that sponsorship.
My great mentor here was Charles Plant, who ran the litigation division for many years. I remember when I qualified and worked with him, after a year I had a lot of work and the biggest case I was doing was up against one of the very experienced litigation partners at Lovells.
Lovells were issuing one interim application after another and I went to Plant asking what I could do. He said: ‘Start fighting back!’ The penny dropped. It’s about tactics and strategy. When in a difficult situation I just think what the end game is.
International disputes have changed enormously. When I first came to the City we did a huge amount of High Court litigation, but the international disputes and arbitrations were far between, whereas now I can’t tell you how many firms are trying to get a piece of the action. We have over 100 arbitrations going on at any one time across the world. It would have been single digits when I started.
Seven oil and gas companies asking what happened and I’m reading the judgment to see what went wrong.
Litigation changed. I loved it in the beginning. It was brutal in those days. You would be in court all the time arguing applications and it was great to cut your teeth. But it’s moved from paper to online. It’s all changing.
Disputes attract more colourful characters than other parts of the law – people who love the law and like to use it to further the client’s goals but with a little personal flair. We’re people who enjoy being centre stage.
In disputes, you enjoy the tough side of it, especially in this firm. You have to be tough, stand your ground. It’s not all about negotiating, you have to be persuasive about your client’s case. I’m thinking back to people like [former head of litigation and Herbert Smith senior partner] David Gold. If you come from that stable, it’ll be ingrained in you.
To be honest, I’ve been taken aback by how proud I am of becoming a QC. It was suggested by some former judges that I apply, and they sponsored me, which was brilliant. I did it quickly as I had a run of English cases and it takes a year all together. But it was not something I had been focused on for ages. When it happened I was delighted but shocked.
Since becoming QC I get lots more instructions as counsel, even if I’m not involved in the case day-in, day-out, or if the firm’s not. The sheer amount of advocacy has rocketed. It’s a challenge getting used to moving from one case to the next when you haven’t been involved from the beginning.
Three years ago a client wanted me to do a High Court case. It was the enforcement of an arbitration award. It was three weeks in the High Court and I had only ever done procedural applications before. That was a big challenge. But I would be bored if it wasn’t like that.
My worst day in the office has been the same for over 20 years. I was involved in a case in the mid-1990s with Ted Greeno: one of the big oil and gas cases. We won in first instance and two years later had the Court of Appeal. I had not been involved [at this point], but Ted was on sabbatical when the result was due. I went with the clients and we lost horribly.
I had seven oil and gas companies asking what happened. I was trying to look at the judgment to see what went wrong. The other side were canny and instructed Jonathan Sumption and he came up with some very clever arguments to turn it. We did appeal in the end – got Gordon Pollock QC in – and were successful in the Lords. Lasted six or seven years. One of those cases which makes your career.
So I just had the worst day, lost this big case and came back to the office, and the thing that was close to my heart was my pro bono Caribbean death penalty cases. I had one client on death row in Trinidad and we were doing various appeals, but I had a message to say he had been executed and it was actually a mistake. A pretty bad day in the office.
I did think about going to the Bar but changed my mind at Cambridge. I went to a few dinners and realised it wasn’t for me. It wasn’t for someone who went to a comprehensive in South Wales, and a woman, frankly.
These days with family and everything, it’s hard to have me time. My father was a big Swansea City football fan. I’ve converted that into being a Chelsea supporter. Sport is a big side of my life, mostly football these days. Travel too. My husband and I, as my kids put it, ‘drag them around the world’. My husband is very into photography but refuses to take pictures of me, as I’m difficult as a subject. I love being in the outdoors and walking.
I tell younger lawyers to be versatile and take new opportunities when they pop up. In disputes, you have to analyse the law, the legal issues, the procedural issues, but always stand back and figure out your case theory, where your client wants to go and how you’re going to get there.
You have to add some colour to it, so the people hearing the case want to hear more. Don’t just grind the case.
You have to add some colour to it, so the people when hearing the case want to hear more. Don’t just grind the case. It’s more fun when you do it that way.
I’ve been at Herbert Smith for 32 years. It’s changed a huge amount. Partners seem to work harder these days. But the culture hasn’t changed much. I know some think HSF is a very tough environment, but there’s a lot of camaraderie.
It’s very meritocratic. It’s a lively atmosphere, there’s a lot of banter. You can tease. I love that.
Where it has changed, it’s changed for the better. I was on our partnership council for two terms around the time of the merger with Freehills, and Herbert Smith has always been focused on quality advice but not always on the bottom line. That always irritated me. Because of the quality of the service we’re giving we should really be very profitable. We’ve turned that core practice into results.
We haven’t become ruthless. I do worry about that changing. While we still have a modified lockstep at the partnership level that imbues a sense of collaboration. That’s important. I don’t want us to become an eat-what-you-kill law firm.
The bigger challenge is coming from the way the industry is changing. Technology is depersonalising the services and it’s a challenge to ride that wave without losing the core team spirit. We all joke about Millennials, but it’s an issue in that the generation want all the technology, all the freedom, but still want to feel loved. And why not? We all want that, but it’s a big challenge. How do you hold on to the culture as all this unfolds?
I am lucky to be very busy. It’s rare we are not approached about the big things. We are strict on conflicts. We don’t go near cases where a commercial client is involved. We might be a bit too strict on that sometimes.
I think about retirement a lot. We used to have a mandatory retirement age at Herbert Smith at 60. We don’t have that anymore, but I’m still thinking I will probably move on at that point. Given that I am 55 in February that’s five years to go. There’s things I want to achieve before then, but I would then like to become an arbitrator, I’ll definitely give that a go later.
Paula Hodges QC is head of global arbitration at Herbert Smith Freehills.