OK, let me be blunt: AmLaw 200 firms are simply too large
and too complex enterprises to be managed with any less professionalism
and strategic and financial acuity than equivalent-sized corporations. (These
days, "equivalent-sized" means about $200-million in revenue, at
the mean.)
So when considering overseas expansion, say, to London,
would one not scrutinize:
- the hard-headed business case for going there;
- client-centric or practice-group opportunities;
- the break-even calculation;
- the legal status of the London office (four choices: UK
partnership, UK LLP, US partnership, US LLP, each with different
tax and regulatory/disclosure consequences); and, not least; - cultural considerations.
The article I linked to is worth a read for the these considerations: Alas,
its tone is supercilious towards US firms’ establishing London
outposts and it claims, with breathtaking ignorance of or obtuseness
towards the actual track record, that "US firms setting up in London
eventually fail." Its managerial recommendations,
then, I endorse; its weirdly xenophobic attitude, I do not.
