Legal Business

Revolving Doors: NRF makes a key finance hire in the City, Eversheds bets on Scottish real estate and Dentons hires a team in Paris

legal-business-default

Last week saw Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) and Duane Morris grow their capital markets and employment teams in the City respectively, while Eversheds looked north of the border with an addition in its Edinburgh office. Meanwhile, Dentons hired a 5-lawyer team from Dechert in Paris.

As the debt markets continue to be busy for most firms, NRF boosted its London offering with the hire of capital markets partner Daniel Franks from Fieldfisher. The move is a significant boost for Franks who joins the top ten LB100 firm and will help expand the practice’s transactional offering in derivatives. He will also work closely with the regulatory practice to assist financial institutions in navigating the sector’s growing rule book.

Franks comes with experience of advising on structured derivative products, structured finance and securitisation matters. He joined Fieldfisher (then Field Fisher Waterhouse) in April 2012 after being counsel at Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy, where he gained experience in advising on privately negotiated derivatives.

‘Consistent with derivatives being so widely used in business and finance, derivatives transactional and advisory capabilities are an essential part of our global practice,’ said Jeremy Edwards, global head of banking and finance at Norton Rose Fulbright. ‘Daniel’s arrival will further enhance our offering to clients in transactions, particularly in financial institutions, infrastructure, mining and commodities, energy and transport.’

Also in the City, Duane Morris made an important hire, bringing in Elena Cooper to build its employment, labour, benefits and immigration group, by heading the employment practice in London. Part of her role, will see her strengthen the firm’s international capabilities, and also expand the Duane Morris Institute (DMi), which runs training workshops focused on employment, benefits and immigration issues, into London.

She joins from Fasken Martineau, before which she was a senior associate at Dundas & Wilson from October 2006 to March 2012. She has experience of advising clients on transactional, contentious and HR issues with a particular focus in financial services, hotel and leisure, media, oil and gas, construction, IT and transport.

Meanwhile, in Paris Dentons hired two partners from Dechert along with a team of three associates as it sought to boost its life sciences practice. Both Olivia Guéguen and Anne-Laure Marcerou are partners with experience handling life sciences M&A and both have followed the same career path to date having started at Archibald Andersen, moving on to the Paris office of Coudert Brothers, and then joining Dechert in 2005.

Tomasz Dabrowski, Dentons chief executive Europe commented: ‘Their arrival further bolsters our presence in the life sciences field in Europe which is of strategic importance to the Firm.’

In the UK again, but out of the City, Eversheds grew its Edinburgh office with Hazel Tait joining as partner in the real estate team. Tait joins from Gillespie MacAndrew and advises on all aspects of property law but specialising in clean energy. She has experience in acting for both developer and landowner clients and has been involved in large and small scale energy projects in development and construction.

Before her career in private practice at Gillespie MacAndrew, Tait worked in house at Scottish & Southern Energy. Previously, she negotiated the final suites of property agreements arising from successful bids including transferring offshore transmission assets. In addition, she has covered the submission of bids for large scale clean energy schemes.

‘Hazel’s strong technical ability will make her a valuable member of the team as we continue to capitalise on Scotland’s buoyant real estate market,’ said David Watkins, head of real estate at Eversheds.

jaishree.kalia@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Diversity: Norton Rose Fulbright sets 30% female partner target for 2020

legal-business-default

Norton Rose Fulbright has set a target for its female partnership globally, aiming for 30% representation by 2020.

With 23% of the global partnership currently female, the firm is also aiming for 30% representation on each of its board and management committees.

The firm’s global executive committee at present already has 30% female representation while the international practice has in place several global initiatives to promote gender diversity, including a careers strategies programme; ‘support to women on their way to senior positions’; and inclusive leadership training and unconscious bias education.

Global chief executive Peter Martyr, who was recently re-elected to the role for a fifth term, said: ‘Our global diversity and inclusion initiatives play a pivotal role in retaining and developing people within Norton Rose Fulbright and we now have a clear goal on which to focus our efforts.

‘Diversity and inclusion are inseparable and gender diversity is a key part of this. Our strategy however has a broad focus and in order for us to continue to innovate and succeed it will become even more important for us to work with talented people from different backgrounds.’

Other firms to establish gender targets includes Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) which in late October committed to ensure that 30% of the partnership will be female by the end of 2018 are female, and Herbert Smith Freehills which in March announced its aim to have a 30% female partnership by 2019. Taylor Wessing recently launched a series of initiatives as it targeted a minimum of 25% of its partnership to be female by 2018.

For more analysis of law firms attempts to improve gender diversity see The Target – will tougher measures finally boost gender diversity in the City?

sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk           

Legal Business

The Student View: Norton Rose Fulbright’s Jonathan Ball on forensics, IP and his route to law

legal-business-default

Jonathan Ball of Norton Rose Fulbright initially worked as a scientist before becoming a lawyer, and is now an Intellectual Property and Technology disputes partner. Here, Jonathan discusses his career and the nature of his work and offers some helpful tips for students and professionals from other careers who are interested in a career in law.

Before becoming a lawyer you worked as a forensic scientist at the Metropolitan Police. Please tell us a little bit about your previous career.

I studied Biochemistry at university and was due to start a PGCE to become a school teacher, but I got talking with the Metropolitan Police at a jobs fair in London and a few months later I was working for them as a forensic scientist. It was one of those things that came about by happenstance. As a general forensic caseworker on the bio-sciences side, I was working mainly on violent crime. Over time the job became more specialised in the DNA profiling area and I found that type of lab-based work less interesting, which is one of the reasons why I thought about other potential careers.

Why did you decide to become a lawyer?

I was in and out of the criminal courts as a forensic scientist and was exposed to the legal system and the law. When I was thinking about what I might want to do, my first thought was to become a criminal barrister. I explored that but worked out early on that it was a bit of a financial risk for someone in their mid-twenties. I then looked for some other options in the law, particularly at the larger commercial firms. A couple of friends of mine had re-qualified as lawyers so I spoke with them. I took some work experience and decided that it was something I was definitely interested in.

Tell us a bit about your IP and tech disputes practice and the work that it covers.

Our practice here does all of the work that I would describe as traditional IP litigation: patent, trademark, trade secrets and copyright litigation, though given the nature of the practice the copyright work tends to be in software as opposed to literary copyright. We also advise on a broad range of traditional IP licensing disputes.

Beyond that it’s a fairly broad technology disputes practice outside of pure IP enforcement. Anytime something weird or unusual comes in they tend to send it to us! Anything related to media or technology that is a bit peculiar will tend to end up with us, which keeps things interesting.

How does your scientific background assist you in your practice?

The first and most obvious way is that I’ve done cases where it’s been directly relevant. On a pharma patent case I understand the nature of the technology and the terminology because it’s close to what I studied at uni. More generally, I’m accustomed to scientific principles and the particular way that scientists work and think. We often work with expert witnesses who are experienced academics or industry experts, and they talk in a certain way, so the scientific background helps to engage with those individuals. Thirdly, as a scientist you are taught to have a focus on detail and evidence-based thinking. That analytical background can certainly help as a lawyer.

What’s your favourite part of the job?

It’s obviously great when you get a victory for a client. But I think my favourite part of the job is working as part of a team. When you put a team together on a challenging case, and they work well on a day-to-day basis, that’s probably my favourite part of the job.

What do you see as the most important or interesting trends within the industries you cover?

There are a couple of broad trends developing. If we look at IP enforcement, clients’ budgets are getting squeezed all the time, so there’s pressure on what IP owners are prepared to spend on enforcement programmes. Now clients want a much more intelligent and cost-effective strategy at the outset.

Also, certain industries which have not traditionally focused on their intellectual assets, financial institutions being one example, are becoming more focused on how to protect those assets. We now see much more interest from the financial institution community on protecting their IP.

Why did you decide to join Norton Rose Fulbright? What are the firm’s key strengths?

At the time I was a partner of a firm headquartered in Gatwick as I had moved out of London to see what life was like outside of the City. I spent a few months there and realised that it wasn’t right for me.

I knew Norton Rose, as it was back in 2008, was a big corporate commercial and banking firm, and a very long-standing name in the market, but I didn’t really know them as an IP firm. They were looking to build an IP litigation practice from among what was at the time a very good transactional, non-contentious IP and Technology practice. I looked at it and thought “this is the most unbelievable opportunity for me. I also liked it from a cultural perspective; the people I met were the sort of people I wanted to work with.

What would you say has been the highlight moment of your legal career to date?

The last minute of the first trial I had ran as a partner, which began at my previous firm. I’d done a lot of patent litigation as an associate and a senior associate, but always with a partner ultimately being responsible. This was the first big piece of patent litigation I had as the person in charge. I brought it across with me when I joined Norton Rose Fulbright and we ran it here for the second six months through to trial. The first trial is challenging, so that sense of achievement walking out of trial having taken my first case as the supervising partner was really profound.

What are your interests outside of the office?

I’m doing a bit of cycling now, which is fun, and I also recently ran a marathon – it was my 45th birthday two weeks ago so I think a mid-life crisis is looming! Other than that, I have three teenage daughters, so I have to run around after them at the weekend (sports, Duke of Edinburgh hikes, parties, the usual sort of thing), but every now and again I get to the pub, the cinema or to Selhurst Park to watch Crystal Palace.

What advice would you offer to professionals in other sectors who may be considering a career in law?

It’s a great profession to get into if you’re serious about it but first get informed as to what it’s all about. Get some work experience so you can see what it’s like and make a more informed decision on whether it’s a career for you. Talk with people in the industry who you know, go and sit with a barrister for a week, and with a solicitor, and just get as strong an idea as possible of what the profession is all about.

When applying to firms, focus on two things. Firstly, express yourself very convincingly to recruiters about why you are changing your career. There are good reasons why some people may make that change, and firms are looking for people who are keen to re-qualify, but employers will want to explore that in some detail. Make sure you’ve done your homework, express your reasoning and enunciate it well. Secondly, think about what skills or experiences you possess which would be valuable to a career in law. If you can communicate that in the process you will do well.

Having worked with trainee recruits of late, what would you say are the main strengths that they possess?

I’m always impressed by the intellectual calibre of the recruits coming through, which seems to get stronger year on year.

Also, I notice that our new recruits, and the students I meet with when I go to campuses, are focused on their future careers at a very early stage. They come with a real hunger to work hard.

Finally, what advice would you offer to prospective trainee recruits?

The most important thing in many respects is to concentrate at uni and get a really good degree, as that’s the starting position. You need to think about what you may want to do, look for opportunities for work experience, apply for vacation schemes and get a good spread of experience.

When it comes to the application process, particularly at bigger commercial firms, you need to come across at the application stage and interview as a commercially-minded individual. As well as being an excellent lawyer, you need to understand the nature of our clients’ businesses and have a real interest in that.

Finally, we have a diverse workforce. We’re looking for people from different backgrounds and with different ideas. We’re not looking for a ‘type’ and we want people with personalities who can be themselves at work.

Daniel.coyne@legalease.co.uk

This article first appeared on the website of Lex 100, Legal Business’s sister publication.

Legal Business

‘There is much still to accomplish’: Norton Rose Fulbright re-elects Peter Martyr for fifth term as chief executive

legal-business-default

Norton Rose Fulbright has re-elected Peter Martyr as global chief executive for a further three years, an appointment that will constitute the leader’s fifth term in the top role. The firm has, however, appointed Martin Scott, the firm’s global corporate head, M&A securities, to succeed Martyr as managing partner of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.

In the summer Legal Business revealed that Martyr was widely tipped to stand in the legal giant’s election for the top leadership role. With Martyr’s three-year term ending in December, the City-based chief was known to have put himself forward to take on the role again.

Martyr was widely viewed as a successful leader after repositioning the legacy Norton Rose as a global force with a series of audacious mergers, though some partners and ex-partners have grumbled over the lack of consultation from the firm’s central management.

The firm has also appointed Charles Hurdon, managing partner of Ottawa and head of employment and labour for Canada, to succeed current Canada LLP managing partner John Coleman. Both Hurdon and Scott will take up their new roles with effect from January 2015 for a period of three years. The new global head of corporate, M&A and securities, for Norton Rose Fulbright and the new Ottawa MP are to be confirmed shortly.

Scott commented: ‘Following on from Peter and all he has done to transform our business will be a challenging task, but I am looking forward to continuing his legacy of investment in our clients and our people. With Peter in the role of global chief executive, I will, of course, have the benefit of his guidance as well as that of an effective management team. We are committed to a growth strategy across these regions and my priority will be to deliver this growth rapidly and effectively and in alignment with Norton Rose Fulbright’s global plan’.

Martyr added: ‘I am delighted to be working with Charles and Martin for the next three years as part of the Norton Rose Fulbright global leadership team. We have made great strides in the development of our global platform. There is much still to accomplish and I look forward to the continued growth of the business with the talented team we have’.

sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk    

Legal Business

Dealwatch: Baker & McKenzie and Norton Rose Fulbright lead on Battersea Power Station £1.4bn real estate financing

legal-business-default

In what constitutes one of the biggest UK real estate financings in recent years, Battersea Power Station has raised £1.4bn from a syndicate of Asian and Middle Eastern banks with Baker & McKenzie and Norton Rose Fulbright landing key advisory roles.

Announced yesterday (28 October), and signalling the high demand by domestic and international investors for real estate as an alternative asset class, the financing on the deal comprises a £750m facility to fund the development of the Power Station building; and a £600m facility to fund the development of Electric Boulevard.

Bakers’ London real estate partners Justin Salkeld and Stephen Turner advised the lenders alongside the firm’s Europe head of energy, mining and infrastructure, Mike Webster, and Singapore-based principal Emmanuel Hadjidakis. Norton Rose Fulbright’s team included Dan Kennedy on financing aspects of the deal and partner Dan Wagerfield on property aspects.

Although not typically ranked for its capabilities in property finance, Bakers has acted on certain heavyweight mandates in the burgeoning real estate market previously, including Salkeld acting for CIMB Bank Berhad and a syndicate of banks on the £790m refinancing of the site acquisition and development financing for phase one construction at Battersea Power Station. More recently, the top Global 100 firm secured a role advising on the receivership of London’s iconic building, the Gherkin, valued at around £650m and put up for sale after collapsing into receivership earlier this year. With the 40-storey skyscraper expected to be purchased by a foreign buyer, Bakers acted for the facility agent for the senior lender syndicate and its receivers Deloitte.

Norton Rose Fulbright, meanwhile, is ranked top tier in commercial property and typically takes on large-scale, long term development projects including Battersea Power Station and London Gateway.

sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Guest post: ‘Seamless’? The unintended consequences of Norton Rose Fulbright’s ‘combination’ argument

legal-business-default

A few weeks ago reports surfaced about a motion seeking to compel Norton Rose Fulbright to withdraw from representation of its client Duke University in a case brought against the university by the estate of John Wayne, which wants the right to market alcoholic beverages branded with Wayne’s ‘Duke’ nickname — a textbook trademark dispute.

The Wayne estate sought to disqualify Norton Rose Fulbright on the straightforward grounds of a conflict, namely that legacy Fulbright & Jaworski had long represented Duke University and Norton Rose Fulbright Canada was a longstanding advisor to a minority shareholder of the distillery producing what would be Duke whiskey.

The response of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP to the purported conflict? I’m afraid I must quote from coverage of the dustup in some detail:

In the course of the dispute, the firm said that the June 2013 tie-up has been ‘mischaracterised’ as a merger – a claim that is likely to prompt questions over the level of integration at Norton Rose Fulbright and other Swiss verein firms. […] The motion, which cites press releases issued by Norton Rose Fulbright at the time of the go-live date of the tie-up, said: ‘The Fulbright firm promised it would provide “seamless” legal services flowing from each of their member firms to the others.

‘In a later release, the managing partner of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada stated, “[…] Our Canadian clients now have new north/south access to the Americas seamlessly with lawyers who are based in each country’s key markets”.’

It said Fulbright seemed to want ‘all the benefits of combining its member firms’ and to market itself as a legal services ‘behemoth’, but is ‘unwilling to accept the accompanying burdens of the merger’.

However, Fulbright argues that the estate’s claim shows a misunderstanding of how Swiss verein arrangements function, pointing out that the firms operate as separate legal entities that do not share confidential information with each other. […] The filing continued: ‘In short, while Mr. Woodbridge may be a client of [Norton Rose Fulbright Canada], he is not a client of Fulbright & Jaworski and never has been.’ […] It adds that the estate’s case ‘improperly relies on hearsay “news accounts” mischaracterising the combination as a “merger”’.

A Norton Rose Fulbright spokesperson said the union between the firms has ‘always been seen and referred to as a “combination”’, adding that ‘any misrepresentation has probably been made by the media’.

And from coverage in Law360 (metered paywall), we have this:

‘Despite plaintiff’s bald assertions to the contrary, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP did not merge with [Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP] or any other firm when it became a part of the verein,’ the motion to deny DQ said. ‘Importantly, member firms do not share privileged information with other member firms unless they are retained by and working together for a client on the same matter.’ […] The structure of the Norton Rose Fulbright verein and the ethical rules that bind the attorneys at issue assure that there will be no disclosure of confidential information to Duke’s counsel,’ the defense motion argued.

Now, the law of conflicts is not my thing. But this does set one thinking.

If the Norton Rose Fulbright ‘combination’ wasn’t a ‘merger,’ and if ‘the structure of the Norton Rose Fulbright verein and the ethical rules that bind the attorneys’ is something they pay attention to and abide by, then what about other ethical rules about sharing across the boundaries of two or more law firms? Specifically, ABA Rule of Professional Conduct §1.5(e) reads as follows (emphasis mine):

(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

 (1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; (and)

 (2) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and

 (3) the total fee is reasonable

We can question—and on another day and in a different context I certainly would—whether this type of presumptive prohibition on fee-splitting actually does anything to advance efficiency and/or client utility one iota, but it is currently in effect and binding on members of the bar, like it or not.

We also don’t know the inner workings of Norton Rose Fulbright, and the degree to or circumstances under which money moves between firms, but assuming one of the primary purposes of the verein is to enhance depth in client relations and build revenue through a common brand and a larger ‘seamless’ global platform, it would seem to be Management 101 that incentives ought to be in place to encourage people to refer work across the platform.

On their face, such incentives would seem to constitute:

  • a division of fees
  • between lawyers not in the same firm
  • without regard to proportionality of services performed
  • and without client consent as to amount and pro rata share, much less memorializing such consent in writing.

[Point of clarification: I’m not talking about payments assessed in the regular course of business for the privilege of belonging to the club (‘dues’ or other imposts which elsewhere in the economy are often labelled or thought of as franchise fees). Those are presumably fine and I don’t see how they could pose an issue.]

The question seems simple to me: If a compensation structure rewards lawyers for cross-firm referrals and if funds to pay those rewards cross firm boundaries, I don’t see how §1.5(e) doesn’t come into play.

Could it be that Norton Rose Fulbright disclaims to clients, perhaps in fine print on their website or in their engagement letters, that they are not a single firm, legally speaking, despite their talk about seamless, one-firm service?

I hope for their sake that’s precisely what they say. Lord knows if lawyers excel at anything, it’s generating legal fine print and burying Talmudic distinctions in a virtual hairball of prose. Let’s assume for purposes of discussion that Norton Rose Fulbright has done just that—I’ll even spot them doing it with effective and binding language.

This doesn’t really address the core problem, does it?

In fact, if you look at what’s going on here from a client (read: human) perspective and not a legalistic-hairsplitting perspective, this strikes me as precisely the kind of ‘trying to have it both ways’ behaviour that the disqualification motion accuses the verein of:

Both ‘having all the benefits of combining its member firms’ and marketing itself as a legal services ‘behemoth’, but ‘unwilling to accept the accompanying burdens of the merger.’

Lawyers get enough of a bad rap in the public imagination for this very kind of behaviour: Saying one thing for widespread public dissemination and standing on contradictory legalistic distinctions invisible to anyone who’s not a lawyer, and implausible to many who are, when that tactic suits their self-interest. Taking off my ‘thinking like a lawyer’ hat and putting on my common-sense economic/management 101 hat, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine some people would actually find this behaviour off-putting at best and insulting at worst. Either way, I won’t be planning to nominate this for the profession’s most shining hour.

Audience participation time: What am I missing here?

Bruce MacEwen is the president of Adam Smith, Esq. You can read his blog here.

Legal Business

Norton Rose Fulbright hires oil and gas head from South African firm Bowman Gilfillan

legal-business-default

Norton Rose Fulbright has enhanced its top tier energy practice in South Africa with the hire of energy specialist Lizel Oberholzer, following recent expansion by other international law firms in the market.

Set to join the firm this month (August) as a director from local firm Bowman Gilfillan where she served as head of oil and gas, Oberholzer focuses on the upstream and midstream sectors, and is experienced in energy, resources, and utilities regulatory law.

Having tied up with local firm Deneys Reitz in the region 2011 and named Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa, the firm currently ranks first tier in mining, projects and infrastructure, and real estate and construction by the Legal 500.

The appointment follows recent expansion in the region by Baker & McKenzie, which in late May opened an office in Johannesburg with lawyers and staff from Dewey & LeBoeuf in South Africa followed by the acquisition of local competition firm Vani Chetty last week.

Simmons & Simmons also forged a presence this month through an alliance with Fasken Martineau in a bid to enhance its respective African offerings.

On Oberholzer’s appointment, the firm’s global head of energy Simon Currie said: ‘We have a leading global oil and gas practice, and the arrival of Lizel into the team will further strengthen our offering to our global clients. We strongly support the growth of Cape Town as a hub for the oil and gas industry in Africa.’

Head of energy at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa, Matt Ash, added: ‘Her appointment continues the growth of Norton Rose Fulbright’s strong regional and global energy and natural resources practice, particularly in the oil and gas sector.’

It comes as partners at Bowman Gilfillan are said to be in talks with magic circle firm Allen & Overy as it pursues plans to break into South Africa. On this, an Allen & Overy firm spokesperson said: ‘Africa is a strategically important region and one that we continue to monitor very closely for further growth opportunities. We are regularly approached by interested parties across the continent but we have nothing to announce at this time.’

Sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Law Society pays £1m recruitment bill as Norton Rose Fulbright receives £435k

legal-business-default

The Law Society paid out approaching £1m in recruitment fees over ten months in 2013, as Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) took the lion’s share of disclosed legal fees for that period, standing at almost £450,000, the body’s latest accounts reveal.

Recruiter Michael Page took home £919,919 in the ten months to October 2013, a 41% uptick on fees paid in the whole of 2012, when the figure was £654,555.

The fees are listed in the Law Society Group (LSG)’s latest financial accounts published in early June, with the 2013 financial period shortened to October in order to align it with the payment of practising certificate fees.

With regard to its recruitment bill, a Law Society spokesperson told Legal Business: ‘Some senior positions within the Law Society Group were filled by interim contractors and permanent staff provided by Michael Page. The Group comprises the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and our shared services arm, Corporate Solutions, which includes HR and finance departments.’

NRF, meanwhile, was paid £435,373 in ten months, which despite being by far the largest legal fee disclosed, constituted a 19% drop on 2012, when the top ten UK and Global 100 firm received £537,803.

Much of the work stemmed from NRF’s role advising the SRA in relation to professional indemnity issues.

The Law Society is obliged to disclose the fees received by NRF as a ‘related party transaction’, as NRF competition partner Martin Coleman is a member of the SRA board.

Transactions are also listed for Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), which took £5,352 – an 85% decrease on 2012’s sum of £35,976 – and Weightmans for consultancy fees, which received £17,054, down 52%.

HSF’s fees are disclosed in light of Charles Plant’s recently ended role as SRA chair, while at Weightmans transport lawyer Charlie Jones is on the council.

The LSG’s latest financial accounts also show that the cost of dealing with an increasing number of firms in financial difficulty doubled from £3m to £6m, in a period that saw the body enter the black for the first time since 2010 and outgoing Law Society chief executive Des Hudson receive a pay rise of nearly 20%.

Michael Page declined to comment.

sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Norton Rose Fulbright ups NQ salaries to Magic Circle levels

legal-business-default

Top 10 Global 100 firm Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) has elevated its newly-qualified (NQ) lawyer salaries to Magic Circle firm levels, putting it on a par with Linklaters and Slaughter and May.

Backdated to 1 May, NQs have received an increase of 3% to £65,000, while first-year trainees are up to £39,500 from £38,000 the year before and second-year trainees now make £44,500.

The increases bring the firm broadly in line with Linklaters, which this year increased its NQ pay by £1,000 to £65,000, while first-seat trainee pay by rose by £500 to £40,000. Slaughter and May announced its new salary bands in late April, under which first year trainees receive £500 more than last year, bringing their pay up to £39,500. Second year trainees received £1000 more, boosting their salary to £45,000 and NQs were awarded a £2000 raise to £65,000.

NRF’s EMEA head of human resources, Lak Purewal said: ‘It is essential that we attract and retain high quality people, and ensuring our salaries are competitive is one of the ways to achieve this goal.’

Remaining ahead of the pack however, is Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer which this year unveiled a significant pay rise for NQs and one-year PQE lawyers. The global elite firm upped pay packets for first and second year trainees to £40,500 and £45,500 respectively. NQ and one year post qualification experience (PQE) lawyers – known as career milestone (CM) foundation – will see their pay bracket rise from 2012’s level of £65,000 – £72,000 to £67,500 – £77,500.

Meanwhile, rival Magic Circle firm Clifford Chance this year announced salary hikes across the board, with NQs set to see their salary rise to £67,500 from £63,500, with the maximum bonus awarded potentially bringing the total to £81,000 for the 2014/15 year. First year trainees will receive an increase from £39,000 to £40,500, and year two trainees will receive an extra £1,500 to £45,500.

NRF’s salary boosts follows the announcement this morning (8 July) of the firm’s first year post merger financial results for 2013/14, which recorded revenues of $1.851bn with profit per equity partner (PEP) estimated at $660,000, projecting the firm into the top 10 of the Global 100 for 2013/14. Further unaudited figures show revenue per lawyer came in at $528,000 and profit per lawyer stood at $188,000 at the 3,537-lawyer firm.

Sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Financial results 2013/14: Norton Rose Fulbright unveils revenue of $1.85bn and PEP of $660k

legal-business-default

In its first financial year post-merger Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) has recorded revenues of $1.851bn with profit per equity partner (PEP) estimated at $660,000, projecting the firm into the top 10 of the Global 100 for 2013/14.

Published today (8 June), further unaudited figures show revenue per lawyer came in at $528,000 and profit per lawyer stood at $188,000 at the 3,537-lawyer firm.

Highlights since the merger of Norton Rose and Fulbright & Jaworksi went live last June include the expansion of the combined firm’s Latin American footprint via the launch of an office in Rio de Janeiro, with the hire of BP’s global corporate assistant general counsel Andrew Haynes as office co-head.

The firm did, however confirm in April that it was withdrawing from the Prague market, citing difficult market conditions, having already closed its doors previously in the region in 1996. Its Australian offices also suffered at the hands of local market conditions as the firm confirmed in November last year that it had made 30 staff redundant, including 12 fee-earners and 18 support staff.

Heavyweight new client wins saw NRF scoop the role as global legal adviser to British automotive group McLaren from longstanding adviser Baker & McKenzie. The firm also advised one of its oldest clients, Edinburgh-based UK and European asset manager F&C Asset Management, on its $1.2bn acquisition by Bank of Montreal through its subsidiary BMO Global Asset Management (Europe).

Peter Martyr (pictured), global chief executive, Norton Rose Fulbright said: ‘We had a big jump last year and this year has been steadier, with underlying growth of 4%. We have yet to complete a full financial year with the US, but we are happy with the way things are going. Currency fluctuations have been very high in the last few months which can affect our reporting, but our year on year performance is good. Our revenue of $1.851bn (including 12 months US revenue) at 30 April 2014 reflects our strong global platform.’

Legal Business revealed in mid-June that the firm is now gearing up for its global leadership election, with Martyr set to stand again, and if elected, it will constitute his fifth term in office.

Sarah.downey@legalease.co.uk