DLA Piper co-chair Juan Picon announced his departure last week for Latham & Watkins.

Last week’s shock news that DLA Piper senior partner and co-chair Juan Picon is leaving to join Latham & Watkins means the firm is losing arguably its highest profile partner in continental Europe.

His surprise resignation means DLA’s operations outside of the US are currently being led by the London-based duo of co-CEO Simon Levine and disputes partner Janet Legrand, who has stepped in as interim co-chair.

When it comes to finding a permanent replacement for Picon though, former partners say that it would be politically desirable for his successor to also come from the firm’s continental European offices, where the civil law system predominates.

One former partner says: “Levine and Picon were a strong team - having the axis of a UK partner and a European partner was important. There has been a concerted effort from DLA to make sure the management team was representative so you would want someone from the European practice to step forward and keep that balance.”

Another says: “You have to look at the fact [former DLA Italy managing partner] Federico Sutti, who was the big civil law practitioner before Juan, left to join Dentons in Milan. It is not a great track record of big name civil lawyers in the firm leaving for rivals.”

Sutti left in 2015 with a 21-strong team to set up a Milan base for Dentons, having missed out on the DLA co-CEO job to Levine.

Speaking to American Lawyer affiliate Legal Week following Picon’s departure, Sutti had harsh words to say about DLA’s approach in Europe under its current management.

“When I had my last conversation with Simon Levine in May 2015, before resigning from the firm, I said: ‘You are going to destroy what Nigel Knowles has created in 20 years in three years.’”

“DLA was a combination of very good offices with people working together - that was the vision. The idea of empowering the group heads, verticalising the practices, centralising everything in London - this was a disaster. It has killed the local initiative.

“If you are a Linklaters or Freshfields, you benefit from a strong brand and client base – even if you are in Italy or Spain there are advantages. But if you are at DLA you have very little of this, so every day you have to fight for clients – that is the challenge.”

The firm has also closed two European offices this year in Berlin and Tbilisi, as well as its base in the Australian capital of Canberra, as part of its attempts to boost profitability in the post-Nigel Knowles era.

One former partner says: “A lot of the European offices were put together by Nigel; he had a charismatic relationship with a lot of those offices - they liked and trusted him, and when he left that link disappeared. Berlin and Tbilisi have shut – those are small offices, but the fact is Simon was closing European offices and not closing places like Liverpool. In the grand firmament, is Liverpool more important than Berlin?”

Levine says that the decision to close offices was taken at a local level and was an illustration that the firm’s management is responsive to local concerns.

“The suggestion to close Berlin came from the German managing partners, and the idea of closing the Canberra office came from the Australian managing partners. Closing those offices actually proves that we listen to what local management want to do,” he argues.

DLA’s joint managing director of Europe Olaf Schmidt maintains that the firm is not centralised in London, and that the management of the firm by practice group is a more effective method than through a network of almost independent offices.

“We run our business through the practice groups and not through autonomous offices. I know for some other international firms this is different, and we respect other business models, but it is not our business model.”

“We believe that a global law firm has to have internationally operating groups, they need to be cohesive and run vertically, which can sometimes conflict with local decision makers, but we have managed to harmonise the system pretty well. These verticals are not run out of UK – we have group heads from Paris, from Amsterdam, they are run by the best people. That is the business model which we follow,” he says.

Schmidt also argues that the firm has grown its continental European offices in recent years and that the departure of Picon (pictured) was unrelated to the current direction of the firm. It is understood that his decision to leave was motivated in part by family considerations.

“Juan was clear on why it happened and his reasons have to be respected. We are disappointed, but if you knew him, he was tired, he was finding the travelling hard, he couldn’t do the job any more. It wasn’t that he got frustrated because the firm was run from the UK.

“In fact, the trend is the opposite. Jan [Geert Meents] and I are on the executive, the board is composed of mainly Europeans. The trend is moving towards the mainland European business in terms of people and also in terms of revenue and moving away from dominance by the UK, which is no longer the majority of our revenue. From a business perspective, mainland Europe counts more and will count more in the future,” he says.

In the last five years, DLA’s mainland European business has seen revenues rise 34% from £256.9m to £344.8m. The region accounted for 40% of EMEA & Asia Pacific revenue in 2016-17, up from 33.9% in 2012-13, with the UK accounting for 32.8% of the 2016-17 total.

Fee earner headcount in mainland Europe accounts for 42% of the EMEA & Asia Pacific group, with the UK standing at 33%.

Levine echoes Schmidt’s comments, saying: “As a matter of pure fact, if you look at the senior management and governance team, it is an equal split between UK and people from civil law jurisdictions who all have big practices and are leaders in their fields.”

While Picon’s appointment as senior partner was unopposed, it is not clear that this will be the case with his successor. The election, which according to Levine is likely to take place in the new year, is open to any partner that chooses to step forward.

Meents, DLA’s managing director of sectors and clients, says: “If you look at our partnership agreement, it is a job which is up for election. If anyone in the partnership decided they want to run for the job, nobody will prevent them from running.

“It was different last time, as it was the first time after Nigel and it was very important for us to show continuity and to make the transition as smooth as possible. There was an agreement among the partnership that Simon and Juan were a good couple; there was no imposed non-election – it was a decision of the partnership to go for one candidate.”

One former partner floated London-based DLA board member Jon Hayes and London managing partner Tom Heylen as possible candidates for the role. Neither Meents or Schmidt would comment on whether they are planning on standing.

Another says: “There isn’t an obvious replacement from the civil law world, and that itself is something of a problem, because what happens? Do you have a contest where the fact the civil law part of the world will never win a ballot means you get another Brit? Or an Australian? And if so, how does that leave the European part of the firm?”.

However, Meents argues that DLA has moved on from a stage where it is necessary to have a geographically representative leadership, with the quality of the candidate the most important consideration.

“The firm has grown to the stage of maturity where quality comes first. We need to find the right people who are happy with those roles and drive the firm forward. If that person came from continental Europe, fine; if we found a preferred candidate in the UK, that is also fine. I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on their nationality, as long as they were in the position to take the firm forward and fill the space Juan left,” he says.