As the regulators come down harder on banks and financial institutions, and Basel III, the Vickers reforms and Dodd-Frank are set to transform the banking and finance sector, which law firms are reaping the benefits?
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) raised £91.2m in fines from UK financial institutions during 2010/11. This marks a staggering increase from 2009/10 when it collected £33.5m. Since the start of 2011 it has fined individuals and institutions £38.4m. It also signals a backing up of the watchdog’s promise to flex its muscles, taking a more prominent position when it comes to enforcement, hoping to strike fear in the UK’s financial services community.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) raised £91.2m in fines from UK financial institutions during 2010/11. This marks a staggering increase from 2009/10 when it collected £33.5m. Since the start of 2011 it has fined individuals and institutions £38.4m. It also signals a backing up of the watchdog’s promise to flex its muscles, taking a more prominent position when it comes to enforcement, hoping to strike fear in the UK’s financial services community.
Established in 2001 by the Labour government, the financial regulator was put in place to oversee the UK’s banks and financial services firms and was given the powers to criminally prosecute any individual found guilty of committing financial crimes.
‘The banks are now dealing with significant regulatory requirements and dealing with very aggressive regulators.’ – Sarah Parkes, Freshfields
In the years following the banking crisis, the FSA has come down harder on the banks than ever before. In October this year, it fined Credit Suisse £5.95m for systems and controls failings. In July, it fined insurance giant Willis £6.89m for failings in its anti-bribery and corruption system and controls. May saw the Bank of Scotland fined £3.5m for mishandling complaints about retail investment products.
‘The last 12 months have been exceptionally busy,’ says Sarah Parkes, financial services litigation partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. ‘The banks are now dealing with significant regulatory requirements and dealing with very aggressive regulators.’
Expectations are that the FSA will keep the pressure up, causing many financial firms to turn to external counsel for help and advice. The 2011 financial year is far from over and lawyers are expecting a glut enforcement action to come from the watchdog.
Things are about to change in the financial regulation sphere. In the UK alone, the changes are staggering. By 2013, the FSA will be disbanded and broken into a number of different parts, while banks will be expected to entirely split their business into two by ring fencing investment businesses from retail businesses by 2019.
Financial regulation is now the hot topic at international law firms. The last two years have seen firms enter into a hiring war to grab as much talent as possible, poaching partners across the UK, Europe and the US to boost numbers.
While policymakers in these jurisdictions are on the verge of imposing arduous new reforms on the banking system, never before has it been so important to have significant financial regulation capabilities as a firm.
But will it spell out cash for the newcomers or will it satisfy everything the old guard has been planning for?
Risky business
Lawyers and accountants were paid £8.8m in fees by the FSA in 2010/11. This is up 20% from 2009/10 when £7.3m was paid out in fees to external advisers and is a strong signal that the regulator has upped its enforcement activity.
Sara George, who joined Stephenson Harwood from Allen & Overy (A&O) in October last year and is a practising barrister, notes the increased level of instructions from clients.
‘The market conditions are absolutely solid. Because of the high level of work, we’ve increased our headcount substantially to deal with demand for specialist contentious regulatory litigators,’ says George. Within the last two years the City firm has gone from one partner to three. It also hired Sean Jeffrey from Freshfields in May 2010.
‘We think we’ll be busy right into 2013 as there does tend be a long tail in litigation,’ says George.
Many partners interviewed for this piece note the importance of having a well-balanced contentious and non-contentious practice. While the advisory side to the practice may serve a steady flow of work depending on the movements of international governments, the contentious side to the practice is arguably the most exciting.
Insider trading, boiler rooms, top-level corruption, and failure to manage risk are just some of the areas the FSA has targeted since the fallout from the banking collapse.
‘We have the ability to assist clients where there is actual or threatened enforecment action.’ – Ian Kirk, Collas Crill
‘The financial crisis has led to more fraud. But the harsh economic conditions make it easier to detect fraud as well,’ comments George.
Stephenson Harwood has taken on its share of high-profile cases. London partner Tony Woodcock famously acted for former Cazenove partner Malcolm Calvert who was charged by the FSA and subsequently convicted on five counts of insider trading. Originally sentenced to 21 months in jail he was released after just seven in October this year.
The firm is also currently representing former UBS wealth management chief executive John Pottage, who faces fines for risk management failures. In 2009, the FSA fined the Swiss bank £8m for the failures. November 2011 saw Pottage take on the FSA in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in a bid to defend his name.
‘We’ve noticed a clear trend that the FSA is coming after individuals,’ notes Freshfields’ Parkes. ‘Fining individuals makes it look like a tough regulator,’ comments David Scott, who heads up the contentious regulatory practice at Freshfields.
In 2010, the FSA fined former Northern Rock deputy chief executive David Baker and former managing credit director Richard Barclay for misrepresenting mortgage arrears figures. Baker was fined more than £500,000 by the watchdog, while Barclay had to pay out £140,000.
Perhaps one of the most high-profile instructions was handed to Herbert Smith’s Martyn Hopper in 2009. Hopper was instructed by The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to aid it in three investigations launched by the FSA. The part state-owned bank was being probed by the watchdog over a number of decisions made by top executives, one of which was to take over ABN AMRO.
Sir Fred Goodwin found himself in the hot seat but in December 2010 the FSA concluded that while the executives made some bad decisions, none of it was unlawful or fraudulent, granting Herbert Smith, the bank, and Goodwin a major win. Some banks haven’t been quite so successful.
Clifford Chance (CC)’s Carlos Conceicao is one of the best-known enforcement specialists in London. In 2010, he advised J.P. Morgan on its mammoth £33m fine for failing to separate clients’ money from the banks’; he advised RBS on its £5.6m fine for failing to prevent money laundering; and he was appointed by Gartmore to help investigate the moves made by star fund manager Guillaume Rambourg. Rambourg was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing by the FSA in March.
The Magic Circle firm has 35 lawyers in its enforcement division alone, including ten partners in London, making it one of the biggest in the capital. The firm recently added Judith Seddon from Russell Jones & Walker to its team to bolster its criminal capabilities.
‘Financial institution clients increasingly require specialist advice on financial regulatory matters.’ – Orla O’Connor, Arthur Cox
Freshfields’ contentious regulatory practice has had a busy two years. The Magic Circle firm acted for Credit Suisse over its October fine by the FSA and has taken on a number of related matters. Most notably it advised Goldman Sachs on its £17.5m fine by the FSA in 2010. The regulator also fined Freshfields’ clients Aon (£5.25m), Zurich (£2.27m), and Nomura (£1.75m) that same year.
The firm has ten partners in London dedicated to contentious work for financial institutions. ‘It’s very competitive. All of the large firms are now doing this work,’ comments Parkes.
The firm also successfully fought fines handed to Legal & General in 2005. This was considered a major victory at the time.
With more firms coming onto the scene (in September US firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe hired partners Sam Millar and Tony Katz to launch its practice) landing an instruction on a large FSA investigation or fine is tougher than just relying on a panel relationship.
Instructions are based on personal relationships with the banks, good track records and whether a particular partner was formerly with the FSA. Although most firms deny that FSA experience is essential when hiring a new partner, it has to help.
Expectations in the City are that a continual aggressive crackdown on the banking and finance sector is likely, with enforcement work continuing to flow. Allied to this, the structural changes to the regulatory landscape mean that the future is bright, for lawyers at least.
Taking on the big guns
In the ten years that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has been regulating the UK’s banking sector, only a select few have dared to challenge either a fine or a decision made by the regulator. Criticism from many City lawyers is that the banks settle fines too quickly. Since the FSA’s 2001 creation, the watchdog has been successful in its crackdown on the UK’s financial institutions but has suffered a few losses.
The first major challenge came in 2005, when Legal & General went up against the FSA after it was fined £1.1m for mis-selling mortgage endowments. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer acted for the London-based bank, with contentious regulatory chief David Scott taking the lead role. Scott was successful in getting the FSA to slash the fine in half after a lengthy dispute, which saw the matter heard before the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal (now the Upper Tribunal). The decision also saw Legal & General’s name cleared.
Scott says: ‘The FSA is now very aggressive and it’s keen to do deals. The biggest regret is that the big financial institutions always settle. Thus instead of having a growing body of decisions by the Tribunal, we have acquired a body of public settlements.’
After the Legal & General decision, the FSA’s enforcement department came under heavy scrutiny. But fast forward to the present day and its decisions have faced challenges and been the brunt of a judicial review.
Freshfields’ Scott also acted for the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) at the start of the year in its judicial review against the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) against the handling of the payment protection insurance (PPI) claims. Scott, along with fellow partner Simon Orton, sought to force both regulators to change the way they handled PPI claims.
But in April 2011, the High Court dismissed the judicial review, granting the FSA and the FOS a victory. SNR Denton commercial litigation and arbitration chief Richard Caird acted for the FSA, while the FOS turned to Russell-Cooke senior partner John Gould.
That same month, the FSA fined Norwich and Peterborough Building Society for £1.4m for failing to give customers suitable advice during the sale of the investment firm Keydata.
Keydata was placed into administration two years prior by the FSA, leaving roughly 30,000 investors £450m out of pocket. But the FSA’s actions against Keydata were called into question in March 2011 after it emerged that the regulator had sifted through e-mails sent between founder Stewart Ford and his former lawyers Irwin Mitchell.
Ford launched a judicial review against the FSA and in October secured a High Court victory – the first of its kind. According to the decision, the FSA had acted unlawfully in the use of legally privileged material in its enforcement investigation.
Ford was represented by Withers partner Harvey Knight, who said at the time: ‘In light of this ruling, there can be no doubt that the FSA needs to take a long, hard look at its procedures and how it conducts itself.’
The times they are a-changing
As most transactional practices still struggle with a changed deal environment, it has never been a better time to be a regulatory lawyer. Although they don’t want to be seen to be dancing on anyone’s grave, privately they are, as a group, very happy with their lot.
Changes to the landscape in Europe, the UK and the US have meant that more than ever lawyers are called in to advise on regulatory implications and effects on their clients’ business.
‘There is a lot of reaction to headlines and the FSA’s more assertive presence,’ comments Norton Rose regulation partner Peter Snowdon. ‘It has given rise to a lot of advisory work.’
Certainly the banks have also placed regulation at the top of the list when considering external legal counsel. Barclays tells LB that it considered the regulatory environment when creating the structure of its mammoth panel and the firms which would sit on it. With forthcoming regulatory changes, Barclays now has to figure out how to meet the new requirements, considering all of the issues ahead of time.
October’s announcement by the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB) that the UK’s banking sector should look substantially different come 2019, will have come as good news to lawyers but not good news to the banks.
The ICB, under the lead of Sir John Vickers, has proposed that the UK’s major banks ring-fence investment banking arms from retail arms.
‘The banks are now dealing with significant regulatory requirements and very aggressive regulators.’ – Sarah Parkes, Freshfields
Vickers’ proposals will see a complete overhaul of the banking sector in the UK and lawyers anticipate that clients will turn to them for advice on how to do business with each separate entity. Expectations are also that lawyers will be called in when the banks actually split as the need for brand new corporate governance structures will have to be established and implemented.
‘There will be a need for a lot of legal planning, and legislation will need to be analysed,’ comments Snowdon.
On the continent, however, Europe’s banks are already facing a raft of new legislation affecting business. With the implementation of Basel III, lawyers are already facing an uptick in work.
‘We advise on international, European and domestic issues,’ explains Jacqui Hatfield, who runs the financial services advisory group at Reed Smith in London. ‘Unsurprisingly, however, given the sheer amount of new regulations, we are paying particular attention to Europe.’
Reed Smith has five partners in London who act on financial services litigation, while on the non-contentious side, it remains just Hatfield. The firm is, however, recruiting another partner in the area.
‘The real question is: how much will Basel III affect lending?’ asks Robin Smith, a Jersey-based finance partner at Carey Olsen.
The answer is, probably a lot. Under the Basel III regulations, Europe’s banks will now need to ensure they are properly capitalised so that should another financial crisis come along, the onus won’t be on local or jurisdictional governments to ensure they don’t fail. Instead banks, by 2015, will have to hold 6% of their capital in a fund for safe guarding.
‘At the moment there is a lot of work on Basel III and there is a lot of pressure,’ says Snowdon.
Outside of Britain, law firms have never been busier. ‘Financial regulation work has become more and more important over the last few years,’ says Martin Lanz, who heads the banking and finance practice at Schellenberg Wittmer.
The Swiss firm, which has offices in Zürich and Geneva, advises the regulator FINMA, as well as a number of European banks and US-based brokers.
Lanz adds: ‘With the financial crisis there has been a regulatory boom in the financial markets which increased the need of clients for advice and support in implementation of new regulations.’
Ingo Braun, a partner in the finance practice at Austria’s Baier Böhm, notes that in the last few years the firm has seen many more transactions which are driven by regulatory requirements, such as non-performing loan transactions and credit-risk driven transactions.
‘It is essential that our lawyers have experience in both contentious and non-contentious work. Of course, for excellent services it is essential to have specialised lawyers for different types of work. For financial regulatory work lawyers always have to do both due to the specific legal framework in Austria,’ says Braun.
He points to the CEE region as being the most important for the firm’s work.
Meanwhile, Orla O’Connor, financial regulation partner at Ireland’s Arthur Cox, says having regulation capabilities at the firm is important to business.
‘Financial institution clients (both domestically and internationally) increasingly require specialist advice on financial regulatory matters and expect our firm to have the necessary expertise to advise on complex regulatory issues,’ says O’Connor.
Arthur Cox, which currently has two partners in its non-contentious financial regulation practice and nine in its contentious regulatory practice, regularly advises the Irish government on its response to the banking crisis. It also took a role acting for the UK government on Northern Rock’s operations in Ireland.
O’Connor says that Ireland, the UK, Europe and the US are now the most important regions for regulatory work.
Maples and Calder has also scored roles advising on the Irish government’s sovereign guarantee of the Irish banking system, as well as providing regulation advice on new bank resolution legislation, which has modified the insolvency procedures of Irish credit institutions.
‘Estimates of regulatory changes coming down the tracks over the next three to five years have ranged in thousands in terms of separate pieces of EU and domestic legislation,’ comments Nollaig Murphy, who heads the finance practice out of Maples’ Dublin office. ‘In that regard, regulatory lawyers are clearly in demand at the moment.’
’We’re seeing a higher level of transatlantic investigations now. It’s important to have quality people and brand recognition.’ Barney Reynolds, Shearman & Sterling
‘Having financial regulation capabilities is essential given the institutions and public/regulatory bodies that are our clients,’ says Beverley Lacey, a partner at offshore firm Mourant Ozannes. Currently it is primary adviser to the Jersey Financial Services Commission and has acted for the commission on matters concerning Belgravia Asset Management and the funds managed by it. The firm also acts on regulatory investigations and insurance transfer schemes. Mourant’s team includes one partner and seven associates on the non-contentious side, while the contentious side to the practice has one partner and eight associates.
Stateside, things are a little more up in the air. With the signing of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 by President Barack Obama, the US financial system is about to be entirely overhauled by new regulation. While policymakers are still writing the rules, it is thought that more than 240 new regulations will emerge as a result. Keeping in mind the ‘too big to fail’ mentality, the Dodd-Frank Act hopes to end the taxpayer bailout.
However, the most important component to the new reforms is the Volcker Rule, which will stop banks and institutions from engaging in proprietary trading that isn’t approved by clients. It also prevents banks from owning a private equity firm or a hedge fund. ‘It is now essential to have US capabilities,’ says Scott.
‘We call this the “Sea of Change”,’ explains CC financial litigation partner Roger Best. ‘We have a whole initiative at the firm focusing on which regulations are going to change and how to educate our clients.’
CC is particularly noted for having one of the best, if not the best, regulatory practices in the UK. In July this year, the firm hired Monica Sah from Morgan Stanley. Before joining the firm, Sah was head of legal and managing director for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney covering Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia.
At the time financial regulatory and markets head Christopher Bates said: ‘This addition to our team is very timely. The significant number of current and impending major regulatory developments means that our clients are facing an unprecedented sea of change.’
Sah’s hire is part of a wider trend that has developed among UK firms. Recruitment into the regulation practice, whether on the contentious or non-contentious side, has exploded in the past two years.
The regulation bubble
In 2011 A&O, Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP), Eversheds, SNR Denton, Herbert Smith and Osborne Clarke all boosted their respective financial regulation abilities in London.
Osborne Clarke hired two partners in June, with the arrival of former BLP funds head Tim Simmonds and Addleshaw Goddard partner David Blair. Similarly, Clive Cunningham jumped ship from Taylor Wessing for Herbert Smith that same month.
While most firms just poach partners or senior associates from rivals, a few firms this year have hired straight out of the regulators and governmental bodies, something that has been commonplace in the US for some time but which has gained momentum over here in the last few years.
The most recent example is Eversheds’ hire of Greg Brandman from the FSA in October. Brandman, a former investigator within the enforcement and financial crime division of the FSA, brings Eversheds’ numbers in the area to 130 lawyers.
In June SNR Denton turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistant general counsel, Thomas Laryea. A specialist in the African market, Laryea initially joined the firm’s London office but has since relocated to Washington DC.
Recruitment specialist Fox Rodney notes that as the regulatory landscape is changing, it continues to be an extremely important area for law firms.
‘Having financial regulation capabilities is essential given the institutions that are our clients.’ – Beverley Lacey, Mourant Ozannes
‘There is an onslaught of new legislation from Europe (Basel III, the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive etc) and financial services firms require advice on complying with this new legislation. In addition, firms are also faced with the changing architecture of the UK financial services regulatory system,’ says director Siobhán Lewington from Fox Rodney.
The recruiter, which specialises in placing finance partners, says firms are recruiting in both contentious and non-contentious but there has been a notable increase in the recruitment of contentious regulatory partners. ‘Our impression is that the contentious teams are very busy,’ says Lewington.
While London has been somewhat of a boom market for recruitment, firms are also enhancing their war chests internationally.
A&O has been busy beefing up its international regulation practice. In March, the firm hired investment management specialist Frank Herring in Frankfurt from Norton Rose. The firm further recruited into its newly launched Washington DC office a trio of financial regulatory lawyers from local rival O’Melveny & Myers, which included Barbara Stettner and Chris Salter and counsel Charles Borden. Then in October A&O took on O’Melveny partner Bill Satchell.
CC, in a bid to rebuild its depleted New York litigation practice, hired three federal prosecutors from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. David Raskin, Christopher Morvillo, and Edward O’Callaghan will boost the firm’s white-collar and regulatory enforcement capabilities in the city.
As the banking and finance sector has globalised, so has the nature of the regulatory work facing partners, whether it’s on the enforcement side or a piece of advice on a transaction.
And while many firms note the increase in enforcement and investigations launched by regulators on home turf, the increase in cross-border and global investigations has lawyers and their clients paying attention.
‘We’re seeing a higher level of transatlantic investigations now,’ comments Barney Reynolds, who heads up the global financial institutions advisory and financial regulatory group at Shearman & Sterling.
Reed Smith’s Hatfield agrees: ‘Our significant US capability allows us to offer a full cross-border service to clients – after all there is no shortage of new regulation emanating from America.’
‘It is essential that our lawyers have experience in both contentious and non-contentious work.’ – Ingo Braun, Baier Böh
Reynolds says: ‘It’s important to have quality people and brand recognition in New York, Washington and London. We’re unusual because there aren’t other US firms in London that can offer both the UK and US regulation piece.’
Shearman currently has ten lawyers in London focusing on financial regulation in London. Reynolds says the firm also has partners in France, Italy and Germany.
CC’s Best notes the increasing presence of the US Department of Justice (DoJ) on investigations. ‘The DoJ is aggressive and easily holds an institution accountable,’ he says.
‘The focus now is on cross-border capabilities,’ continues Best. ‘Our clients are delighted that one firm can cover all the jurisdictions.’
All of this hiring has Norton Rose regulation partner Jonathan Herbst worried. He says that the financial regulation legal market is set to become overpopulated.
‘It’s a bit like the dot-com bubble,’ says Herbst. ‘Ours is not an easy area to make money in. It’s not like we have big deals. But a lot of firms are busy recruiting anyway.’
The top-ten LB100 firm has 20 lawyers in its London non-contentious financial regulation practice, including one other partner (Peter Snowdon), a professional services lawyer, two FSA processing specialists and a raft of associates. The group, perhaps a little more organised than its rivals, divides itself into three groups: banking, asset management and market infrastructure and commodities.
Fox Rodney is expecting to see firms hire more fixed-share partners and counsel in the area rather than taking a punt on an equity partner because the area is so tough to make a huge profit in.
‘It can be very difficult for financial services regulatory partners to develop profitable and self-generating practices,’ comments Lewington.
The recruiter notes that this is particularly the case with US firms in London. It boils down to the advisory and, according to Fox Rodney, the project-based nature of the work. Because it can be labour intensive, firms won’t make as much from regulatory partners as they would from transactional partners.
However, the Magic Circle firms in the area are more likely to hire an equity financial services partner because of the already well developed nature of their practice.
‘You cannot dabble anymore,’ explains Herbst, who goes on to stress that in this changing landscape of regulatory requirements for financial institutions, it’s important for lawyers to be in the know.
Freshfields’ financial regulation chief David Scott agrees. While this is an interesting area of work to be in, he says it isn’t the most lucrative for firms, but it is perhaps one of the most crucial.
Ian Kirk, partner at offshore firm Collas Crill, says it’s very important for the firm’s commercial lawyers to be conversant with regulation. He says it’s mandatory to have a mix of contentious and non-contentious partners in order to have a well-rounded practice.
‘We have to have the ability to assist clients where there is actual or threatened enforcement action and that’s where the skills of our dispute resolution lawyers are needed,’ says Kirk.
The Channel Islands firm has ten non-contentious and seven contentious lawyers and is currently looking to hire more.
A brief Guide to the key regulation changes
Vickers reforms
Recommendations made by Sir John Vickers, chair of the Independent Commission on Banking, that by 2019 the banks will do as follows:
• Ring fence retail banking arms from investment banking arms, thus creating two new legal entities with separate boards.
• In the process, banks will have to maintain 17-20% of certain assets to act as ‘loss-absorbers’.
• The reforms are expected to cost the banks between £4bn and £7bn.
• Create a new system to make it easier for customers to switch current accounts.
• Banks must have additional capital – roughly 10% of retail assets such as shares or retained earnings – to act as a safeguard against future losses.
Basel III
Agreed upon by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in September last year, Basel III, the third instalment of the Basel Accords, aims to achieve the following:
• Requires banks to now hold 4.5% of common equity and 6% of Tier 1 Capital (common shares and retained earnings).
• Requires banks to have additional buffers:
(1) a mandatory capital conservation buffer of 2.5%; and
(2) a discretionary counter-cyclical buffer, which allows domestic regulators to require up to an additional 2.5% of capital during periods of high growth.
• Introduction of a minimum 3% leverage ratio and two required liquidity ratios (requires the banks to hold sufficient high-quality liquid assets to cover cash flow over 30 days).
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Signed into law by US President Barack Obama in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act implements a reform of the regulations currently governing the country’s banks. Policymakers are still writing the rules, which it is estimated will create more than 240 new regulations. It aims to achieve the following:
• The creation of new regulators in a bid to streamline the regulation process.
• Aims to end taxpayer-fuelled bailouts of US financial institutions.
• Requires investment advisers, hedge funds and private equity firms, no matter what size, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and makes them subject to new registration requirements.
• One of the most important components to the Act is the Volcker Rule: it proposes to stop banks or institutions, which own a bank, from engaging in proprietary trading that isn’t approved by their clients. It also aims to prevent banks from owning a hedge fund or private equity firm. It hopes to limit the liabilities that the large banks hold.
Regulate this
The question remains, can firms make their regulatory practices profitable enough to justify having large teams in place? There is a clear argument either side; some say no, because so much of the work is advisory it does not generate huge amounts of fees. The flip side is that it can in fact be lucrative, especially if you have a big-name partner and a good line in litigation work.
‘Many firms use it [regulation practice] as a marketing tool to keep the banks happy,’ comments a City partner. ‘It’s much harder to do than they think.’
Striking the right balance between having a successful regulation practice and a strong banking offering is one area firms are still grappling with.
Reynolds concludes: ‘Next year the work is going to ratchet up and this practice area will be ever more important.’
One thing is certain, a modern day banking practice cannot work without a decent regulation offering. The difficulty is that the right sort of talent to make a top-notch practice isn’t that easy to come by. The race is on.