The growth of law firms with multiple offices in different countries has been and continues to be the subject of much analysis. Many of these international offices, whether acquired through merger or organic growth, are successful but plenty fail to meet expectations. This trend has not been universally adopted and many lawyers at firms around the world have opted to preserve their identity and independence rather than be part of a large global firm. I am not setting out here to debate the merits of the two alternatives, but rather to address the challenge posed to independent firms by the global model.
The global model seeks to offer large clients a one-stop shop in a number of key locations around the world. The model depends for its success on each office having a minimum spread of capability and depth of expertise in order to cope with major multi-jurisdictional transactions effectively. The model claims a higher level of consistency among the various offices than offered by independent firms working together. Whether or not this consistency exists in practice will vary from firm to firm and within a firm, from office to office.
