Skip to Main Content
by Vault Law Editors | November 02, 2009


1.  Bruce McEwen is positive :

[T]his deal makes superb sense. … As for the New York/London divide specifically, we are informed by a UK legal publication that the architects of this deal should be grateful Hogan doesn't have its roots here in the Empire State: "A conservatively-run practice like Hogan, with a centre of gravity outside the brittle egos of Manhattan, shouldn't be the hardest American firm to align with a UK practice."…The point is simply this: As an industry, we are not nearly as "internationalized" as our clients, and certainly not remotely as global as the premier clients we all aspire to serve.

It sounds to me as though the leadership of Lovells and of Hogan & Hartson are focusing on genuine strategic objectives and not on "who's on first."

2.  Larry Ribstein is skeptical:

[T]he consultants think clients will pay premium prices to a firm that can provide integrated advice on global regulatory and antitrust issues. But in order for that to work, the firm has to keep all those lawyers working for the firm. … Think about what happened to other firms that have grown rapidly to become one-stop-shopping behemoths. Remember Brobeck?

3.  Aric Press on what it means:

Hogells would start life with real advantages, with powerful government, regulatory and litigation practices around the world. These would have critical mass: A quick count yields a projected 90 partners in Germany, 20 in China, 10 in Moscow, eight in the Emirates.

-posted by brian


Filed Under: Law