We conclude our three-part history of Allen & Overy with the years 1998—2007, the decade surrounding the turn of our current century.
These years are, for my money, primarily the story of A&O’s investments in internationalization bearing fruit. Indeed, Volume 2 of the history of the firm (A&O at 75, Allen & Overy: London (2005)) is arranged not chronologically but by city. The frontispiece to the volume says simply, "An international practice at home everywhere – this is our story…"
And the list of contents is impressive:
- London
- New York
- Madrid
- Paris
- Brussels
- Antwerp
- Amsterdam
- Luxembourg
- Turin
- Milan
- Rome
- Frankfurt
- Hamburg
- Prague
- Bratislava
- Budapest
- Warsaw
- Moscow
- Dubai
- Bangkok
- Singapore
- Hong Kong
- Beijing
- Shanghai
- Tokyo
Looks impressive, to be sure, and sounds strategically indisputable. But not so fast: We say that from the vantage point of hindsight. All was not so obvious at the time the investments had to be made. From the preface to the second volume (Richard Rowland, qualified in 1969, speaking):
"A fundamental point about the internationalization, you have to remember, is that there was a strong body in the firm who felt that we should not be anything other than English lawyers and that we shouldn’t have offices overseas. When it was first proposed in 1980 that we should have an office in Hong Kong, it was turned down."
In the event, the firm recognized that doing cross-border transactions required local law expertise. Only when the US became a serious entrant in global capital markets in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the die cast. With the disclosure requirements imposed by US and other local law (Rule 10b-5 is specifically mentioned), "we then needed overseas lawyers to be part of the team, and if they were part of the team it didn’t work very well if they were not also part of the organization."
From the preface, other observations about how matters have changed and what are the contours of the current competitive landscape:
- "The culture of the American firm and the way the firms work is extremely strong, and colors their whole attitude, I feel. […] The US law firms are also adapting. T here are more and more US law firms in London. They are recruiting English lawyers and they are expanding aggressively. They have huge resources behind them. And so they represent a challenge."
- "If you ask what is going to happen now [in terms of international financial capitals], I think that New York may come into its own again. [But the obstacle is] that people are more circumspect about the legal system which has populist elements. It doesn’t necessarily have the goodwill that London has and it is still too closed."
- [On the impact of technology]: "When I started as a lawyer (which wasn’t that long ago), people were still sending telexes. You had days between turning around drafts. Now you actually have to have everything at your fingertips if you are going to play at the highest level. We are living in the world of 24/7, of always being accessible. One of the challenges is to know when you can turn to your client and slow things down to take stock.
"Pretty much on every deal I got involved in during the 1970s, the first document I pulled out was the airline timetable, because inevitably it meant actually traveling to the place where the deal was being done."
Internationalization
While the challenges to international growth can be daunting, the lesson of the past decade at A&O can be summed up thus: "It’s worth it."
But again, that was less clear when commitments were being made, and the road in some markets—especially New York—has not gotten easier. Nevertheless, a robust New York capability was seen as essential:
"Eighty per cent of economic activity in the United States, by far the world’s biggest economy, is purely domestic, and, if you add in Canada and Mexico, more than 90 per cent. … Then consider that our top 30 clients are doing at least a third of their business in the US and you can see why it is so vital that we have the resources and the capability to be able to advise them. Put the other way, it’s a gigantic disadvantage if we can’t play where more than a third of their business is."
It’s still a slog. According to Dan Cunningham, a marquee partner brought over from Cravath, "We have to develop our reputation case by case, deal by deal and client by client. There is no other way. We have to do the deals to win the hearts and minds of the legal decision-makers in the big institutions for whom we are likely to act."
Similar stories are told of opening in Moscow, in Hong Kong, in Frankfurt, and in Eastern and Central Europe. Each and every office presented its own challenges, opportunities, and time-lines. There’s no such thing as a cookie-cutter approach to internationalizing a law firm.
For example, to cite the ups and downs of the Moscow office alone, they have included:
- Opening not in an office building proper, but in a flat, where the fax machine was in the bathroom and meetings were held in the kitchen.
- Surviving the October 1993 storming of Parliament ordered by Boris Yeltsin, when A&O’s Russian staff ignored strict instructions to the contrary to remain indoors and mounted barricades on the streets to forestall the Russian Army from storming the building.
- Similarly surviving the August 1998 moratorium on all foreign currency debt repayments—the first time since the Ottoman Empire that a sovereign nation had defaulted on domestic debt—and the immediate collapse of the ruble. Ultimately the firm had to retrench from three floors to one.
- Even today, the Russian economy is scarcely the smoothly running well-oiled machine Westerners might be familiar with. Power is excessively concentrated; the rich/poor gap is dramatic, shocking, and growing; the entire country is far too depend on oil and gas wealth; and the fundamental notion of the rule of law enforced by independent courts remains alien.
The Warsaw office also opened in an apartment, but with an added sleight of hand. The senior partner at the time, John Kennedy, remained convinced that A&O should limit itself to English lawyers practicing English law, so the solution was to open with a Polish lawyer—and the first from any civil law jurisdiction— "Andrzej Siemiatkowski in association with Allen & Overy." Also onboard was A&O’s association partner, the French firm Gide Loyrette Nouel. In the three-room apartment, Gide took the nicest room, A&O another, and the secretaries the third. One early obstacle to efficient communication was that there was only one phone, typically prompting a rush to answer.
Nevertheless, progress was possible. The firm moved out of the apartment in 1992, and by 1994 had trebled in size to 35 people and achieved profitability. By the mid-1990s Warsaw was the firm’s third largest office, after London and Hong Kong.
But to bring our perspective straightaway to today, let us conclude by reflecting a moment on A&O’s latest (2006 fiscal year) numbers, and the just-released Legal Week UK 50. (The full chart is here, and I strongly commend it to you; it’s fascinating.)
As A&O puts it:
"Strategic investment across the globe has helped fuel record 2007 revenue and profits, clearly positioning Allen & Overy among the top six law firms in the world.
"Highlights:
- profit before tax up over 36 per cent to GBP 395 million
- turnover up 20.5 per cent to GBP 887 million
- total number of lawyers worldwide increases by 10 per cent to 2,600
- presence in key global financial markets strengthened with new offices and capabilities in Middle East, Europe and Asia
"Following another outstanding performance across all practice groups and jurisdictions in the year ended 30 April 2007, Allen & Overy reported a 20.5 per cent increase in annual turnover to GBP 887 million resulting in an increase in pre tax profit of 36.3 per cent to GBP 395 million."
And need we add that PPP exceed £1-million for the first time?
The key, for A&O as for its Magic Circle brethren, has been the payoff from their investment in internationalization: "Clifford Chance (CC) managing partner David Childs said the results vindicated a decade-long run of foreign investment by the big four firms. [Clifford Chance, Linklaters, A&O, and Freshfields.] He told Legal Week : “Our foreign offices are now maturing. We are seeing significant revenue increases from these offices and they are becoming more profitable. The model is proving itself.†"
For some who were initially skeptical, this comes as a surprise. Tony Angel describes it thus:
“The US firms are quite surprised,†argued Linklaters managing partner Tony Angel. “When we and other global firms began investing in building networks there was a real sense that scale was incompatible with top-notch work, but the fact that all the firms have done so well shows you can do well and stay focused.â€
The moral of the story today is simple: The large gambles, and gambles they were, that the top UK firms put down a decade ago on the concept of a global legal marketplace are now beginning to seriously pay off. The top four firms racked up £4.18-billion in fees last year, accounting for 40% of the UK’s top 50 firms’ income. US firms have not made similar investments in internationalization (with a very few exceptions).
Simultaneously, the top UK firms have accomplished all the financial and managerial engineering needed to boost their PPP numbers up into the stratosphere, stretching leverage, restructuring, conducting rigorous partnership reviews, and holding associates’ feet to the fire. My question would now be: Is it time to dial back the pressure on "managing to PPP"? As the editor of Legal Week notes, "such gyrations have pushed cultures and businesses near to breaking point."
I will close this extended history of the 75+ years of Allen & Overy with some insights from some of the more prominent heads of London-based firms.
-
David Childs, managing partner, Clifford Chance
On the magic circle pulling away
“Our offices outside of London are now maturing. We are seeing significant revenue increases from these offices and they are becoming more profitable – the model is proving itself.”
-
Tony Angel, managing partner, Linklaters
On the market
“A number of facts have driven the profits of the magic circle firms. It may be that the UK domestic market has not been as buoyant as the global market and within the global market the UK, and international law firms, have been increasing their share. Investment in growing international networks and the growth of London as an international finance centre have provided real opportunities to firms like ours. The sort of deals being done benefits firms with strong financial markets and cross border transactional practices.”
- Konstantin Mettenheimer, co-senior partner, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
On the US
“As a capital market centre, London has been increasingly important, with a very large number of IPOs compared to New York’s very few. There has been a lot of capital flow and economic activity between Asia and the Middle East, not necessarily via London and New York. The jury is out on whether we will see the development of a third financial centre on top of London and New York, be it Dubai, Mumbai, Shanghai, Hong Kong or Tokyo.”
- Nigel Boardman, corporate partner, Slaughter and May
On the US
“The City has gained significant market share in the world financial and legal scene. Part of this is Sarbanes-Oxley. Also Arab money doesn’t like to go to the US, where it cannot necessarily get money back out again. New York is not as good as London for Asian companies to be headquartered in.”
On London
“Ten years ago we were talking about Paris and Frankfurt being significant threats to London, this is no longer the case. As long as there remains differential treatment of personal tax, this will continue to be the case.”
On equity/leverage
“Partnership culls will have hit leverage significantly. I would imagine that the magic circle has shed 600-700 partners worldwide recently.”
We have indeed come a long way from coal stoves.
To expand a bit on the description of the start of the Warsaw office, I was seconded to the Ministry of Privatisation from A&O in London after the firm won an EU tender to advise on Polish draft securities legislation. At the Ministry of Privatisation I shared a tiny office with Stanislas Dwernicki. We had no access to a fax machine as these were not yet working properly on available phone lines. For fax messages we would go to the Marriott who had a fax connection via a satellite dish. During the day we would ask a kind lady at Ministry to send out messages on her telex machine. She was sometimes encouraged with pastry from a nearby French pastry shop. Needless to say the internet and mobile phones would make their appearance only several years later and in1991there was only one taxi company which allowed calling for a taxi. In June 1991and with help from Andrzej Siemiatkowski, A&O was awarded the licence to practise law in Poland as a limited liability company. In compliance with the Polish Commercial Code of 1934, which had not been abrogated by the Communists, I served as the firm’s Managing Director and advised on English law. In a flat rented near the Sejm, Poland’s parliament, both Stanislas and I had very nice rooms with a high ceiling in a pre-War high-class residential “kamienica” which had been spared from German bombing. Initially, the secretaries would sit with us and with the kitchen serving as the waiting room for visiting clients and a fax room. During one tender I and Stanislas had to establish Chinese Walls as we were representing different clients and we had to share the photocopier in the hallway. We were later joined by Andrzej who would share my room and advise A&O on Polish law. These were pioneering times which I remember fondly.