Tom Moore talks to Jonathan Scott, senior partner and chair at Herbert Smith Freehills, about management, why he’s stepping down early and his worries over the reputation of English law.
***
Why have you decided to leave your post early?
We get all the partners together once every two years and, if we ran the election after our November conference, there would be a preoccupation with who would be the next senior partner. If we’re going to spend that money getting everyone together, it’s not the best use of time to be talking about internal issues, so I made a decision, and I want to make it very clear that it was my decision with some internal resistance, that we would have the election beforehand.
I thought it was also important that the next senior partner, who will set the tone for the firm, has an opportunity to address everybody face to face. It was the right decision for the firm, rather than me selfishly.
Have you passed the test of senior partner?
I believe I have. The challenge is to leave the firm as something better than you receive and my leadership has been a stewardship. This is a completely different law firm to the one in which I was elected five years ago, which was a firm of great tradition and legacy but was stuck between being neither big nor small, international nor national. It hasn’t always been an easy journey.
The firm is in an immeasurably better place. We’ve had the international merger, a return to Germany after the end of our European network alliance and our return to the US after 25 years.
How has your role changed since the appointment of the new chief executives – have you felt the need to step back?
David Willis and I saw eye to eye on the strategic direction of the firm and so have Mark [Rigotti] Sonya [Leydecker] and I. When you’ve held the chair as I have for four years, you are more relaxed about giving your chief executives more space, as you’re confident in your role. That was really important for the new chief executives, so I stepped back.
The role of senior partner is not to rubberstamp but to question and to challenge, and so you would expect some healthy tension. However, what that means is the leadership buys into the same strategy. What we really want to get is continuity in our thinking and governance.
Biggest concern for English law and London’s legal services market?
The UK and the legal profession has benefited from the rule of law, whether it’s mercantile or more generally. I worry about what is being done to the legal aid system and access to justice. There’s a mismatch between the people that come to this country and transact under English law because of trust and faith in the rule of law and these issues of access to justice. It goes to the core of society and I don’t feel comfortable with it.
tom.moore@legalease.co.uk