Harvard’s Robert Eccles and Jay Lorsch find the debate over whether the public company model can offer anything to the legal industry far from settled
Nearly every law firm today is organised as a private partnership, or something similar. In most countries this is required by laws that prohibit law firms from having external shareholders on a public or private basis. The fundamental reason for this is, because law is a profession, lawyers have an obligation to put their clients’ interests ahead of their economic self-interest. Of course, legal work must be properly compensated to ensure a return to the firm and short-term economic sacrifices in serving a client can have large longer-term benefits in terms of future work because of the client loyalty that is generated. Having external shareholders, the argument goes, creates a potential conflict of interest between clients’ needs and shareholders’ needs. However, external shareholders can provide capital for growth. Since this has historically not been available in the legal profession, the industry is highly fragmented and comprised of a large number of relatively small firms in every country. And there are only a handful of practices – Clifford Chance, DLA Piper and Linklaters – that come close to being global law firms.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
