Independent Firms, Not Big Law, Should Fear Big Four the Most, Report Says
The founder of an association of international law firm networks offers a predictable solution: joining a network of networks can help firms compete in a landscape of disruption.
July 17, 2018 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
As the Big Four accounting firms continue their long-anticipated foray into the global legal market, it's the independent law firms in medium-sized markets—not the global heavyweights—that have the most to fear, according to a recent report from the president of the Association of International Law Firm Networks.
But AILF president Stephen McGarry isn't a disinterested observer. He says these firms can counter the threat through getting involved in legal networks, facilitated by a database he founded that links a number of these networks.
In an analysis titled “Lawyers and Accountants—Professional Services Disruption,” McGarry argues that while concern over the Big Four's eagerness to expand their legal services is merited, Big Law is largely insulated from the threat. He says that the Big Four would have to invest substantially to dislodge these firms from their market-leading positions in major global cities.
The Big Four are slowly moving beyond tax-related legal activities, eyeing a range of practices that could include employment, immigration, international arbitration, cybersecurity and data privacy, and even private equity. Still, they will find it easier to grow in smaller markets where they've been entrenched with their auditing services for decades and have a clear brand name, McGarry maintains.
“It's a no-brainer in that there's no resources that are required to be in those markets,” McGarry said, pointing to countries like Hungary, Chile and Venezuela.
He argues that because the Big Four's operations in individual countries function as independent entities, the coordinating entity at the top could urge each local affiliate to bring aboard, say, five employment lawyers.
“Overnight, they have 500 labor lawyers in 100 countries,” he said. “The local firms are doing the hiring, the firing, and taking care of these lawyers. That's totally different from Big Law.”
McGarry doesn't discount the possibility of the Big Four making a move in a major market like London. But doing so, through a merger with a midsized firm, would require far more resources. To do the same in the U.S. would also require a significant (and for now, unlikely) regulatory change.
To a degree, Deloitte UK's recent deal with U.S.-based immigration law firm Berry Appleman & Leiden helps prove his point. While growing via a merger, Deloitte added a smattering of legal resources in eight different countries: the U.K., China, South Africa, Mozambique, Dubai, Australia, Singapore and Brazil.
Local firms in some of these smaller markets face the sharpest threat, according to McGarry. They've likely long been members of “non-branded” international networks, like TerraLex, Meritas and McGarry's own Lex Mundi. But now they will find themselves competing for talent and clients against the Big Four—with their globally recognizable brands—as well as vereins like Dentons and DLA Piper.
McGarry's answer to the threat isn't shocking, and he's made it before: He points to his online database, LawyersAccountants.com, which links 70 legal and accounting networks with member firms in 160 countries.
He says that gives attorneys, and members of the public, access to 300 to 400,000 attorneys around the globe in seconds. Then, they can immediately put out a request for qualifications to all vetted firms in a given market.
McGarry argues that the referral database bests the network offerings of both the Big Four and the vereins. With the former, there are still four separate networks to scour. And with the latter, there's little quality control, he asserts.
“The networks have to individually vet their members annually,” he said. “On average, networks have been in place for 25 to 30 years, so they at least know each other for years. Unlike vereins, which are just tacking on new units.”
Read More:
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAbout to Become a Partner? Here's What to Know About Your Newfound Wealth
10 minute readHolland & Knight Hires Chief Business Development and Marketing Officer From EY
2 minute readBankruptcy Filings Surged in First Half of 2024 Amid Uptick in Big Chapter 11 Cases
3 minute read11th Circuit: Relying on CPA Not 'Reasonable Cause' to File Late Tax Returns, Even With E-Filed Forms
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250