From the wires, and I quote:
"Altman Weil is pleased to announce a strategic alliance
with London-based Jomati Limited. Like Altman Weil, Jomati is an
independently owned global management consultancy advising law firms
and corporate law departments. It is led by Tony Williams, formerly
the worldwide managing partner of UK-based international law firm
Clifford Chance and worldwide managing partner of Andersen Legal."Both Altman Weil and Jomati focus on high-level work involving
strategy, merger, financial performance and organizational structure,
and share a goal of providing clients with sophisticated, innovative
solutions to management issues. By allying, Altman Weil and Jomati
broaden their capabilities to serve legal organizations throughout
the world.
Both organizations were involved in the two transatlantic mergers of US
and UK law firms announced in 2004. Altman Weil advised DLA in the
recent DLA Piper Rudnick mega-merger. Jomati acted for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
in their combination with Nicholson Graham & Jones."Because an increasing number of US and UK firms are considering
the possibility of a transatlantic merger, there is a growing need
for advisors with breadth and depth on both sides of the Atlantic.
This alliance will allow us to provide in-depth, on-the-ground,
consulting services to clients in the UK, Europe and Asia, multiplying
the value either firm could deliver independently to law firms
with an international agenda."
So what? Actually, so a couple of things:
- The study of market structure tells you that the geographical
footprint of service-providers (Altman-Weil, Jomati) to an industry
(the AmLaw 100 and UK 100) should align. Simply put, you
want to be where your clients are. Seen this way, a better
question than "why?" is "why not before?" - Globalization is proceeding apace; it is increasingly limiting
to have critical mass only in London or only in New York. And
the divide between the US-based and the UK-based firms is starting
to look flimsy.
Combined with last month’s news about
Thomson acquiring Hildebrandt, the legal-consulting industry also
appears to be consolidating in mimicry of its target clientele. The
interesting question now becomes whether these deals will have any
impact on the relative success and failure quotients of US firms
targeting London and UK firms targeting New York. Up until
now, it’s fair to say the former efforts have fared far better than
the latter.
Why is this so? I’ll resist the glib temptation to attribute
it to some nebulous and self-congratulatory "entrepreneurial" blood
in American veins which is hypothetically lacking in English veins;
that "explains" precisely nothing.
Rather, I have
a more straightforward theory (Occam’s
Razor, anyone?): The UK partner lockstep-compensation system
operates potently to inhibit them from paying gunslinging New York
rainmakers—who they need to build a presence here—what
they’re worth on the open market. The daytime drama that has
been Clifford-Chance’s embrace of Rogers & Wells is only the most
conspicuous example. (I have faith they’re sorting it out,
but the point still obtains.)
