- Sep 9, 2024
- 678
- 1,239
Hi @camrxc the best resource by far for this should be the updated Slaughter and May law firm profile I wrote for TCLA in the summer. On the forums I discussed two of the firm's distinguishing aspects: its best friends model and its market leader position in public M&A. I will quote them bellow:Hi @Andrei Radu! Was wondering if you might be able to tag in some posts you’ve done in the past on the kinds of things that differentiates slaughter and may
Hey @lawyersum I will firstly just caveat the following by mentioning that the subject of the merits of this international strategy is a controversial one. I have analyzed this topic from the perspective of a firm operating this model in a lot of detail when writing TCLA's updated Slaughter and May profile, which you can access here. To give you the headline benefits I identified:
- Potentially less exposure to run of the mill international work, but more exposure to the most complex cross border mandates in the market: the main rationale for this system is that it is practically impossible to try to obtain top of the market capabilities in every jurisdiction involved in cross-border matters. Some firms are more successful than others, but none operates leading full-service teams everywhere. This would not make sense from a business perspective, as setting up shop in another jurisdiction is very expensive and there are huge discrepancies between the levels of profitability of different legal markets. However, some firms simply did not want to accept the idea that they would have to rely on substandard teams in foreign offices, as this would lead to a delivery of substandard client service. As such, they followed a strategy which involved the creation of a system of network and 'best friends' firms, which are the best independent firms in each major jurisdiction. The idea is these firms will have (i) the flexibility of picking and choosing the firms they work with in every jurisdiction - so if different firms have leading teams in different practice areas, they can choose the one with the most relevant expertise; (ii) can always promise clients the best of the best of legal service across the board; and (iii) can get referral work from the other firms in the network. The significant downside of this model is that it is more administratively burdensome and does not offer the same simplified and quick service as that of a firm with an expanded network of its own offices. Arguably, in terms of pitching for mandates, this means that a firm operating a 'best friends' model will be disadvantaged when trying to win roles on simpler cross-border mandates. At the same time however, best friends firms should have an advantage when pitching for the most complex mandates, as those are the ones for which top quality of legal service everywhere is most pertinent. If you are interested in this type of cross-border work the most, that could be a benefit.
- Secondment opportunities at the offices of the leading independent US and EU firms: at Slaughter and May, trainees have historically gone on secondments at firms like Cravath (in New York), Hengeler Muller (in Germany), Uria Menedez (in Spain and Portugal), BonelliErede (in Italy), Bredin Prat (in France), and De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (in Holland). Arguably, experiencing a secondment in the oldest and most established firms in another country is a more interesting and useful professional experience than going on a secondment in the same firm's foreign office.
As for (ii) - if top tier corporate work is of central focus that should work out in your favour, as I know Slaughter and May still considers itself to be the best firm in the market for that. Whether that is actually the case is more debatable; the important factor is that if you make a good argument to that effect then it looks plausible that you would choose Slaughter and May over the others. What could that argument be? Well, firstly, you could focus on the (relatively uncontroversial fact) that Slaughter and May is considered to be the best firm for UK public M&A work, and then explain why public M&A is more attractive to you than private M&A. Alternatively, you could focus on the idea that Slaughter and May arguably has the deepest institutional relationships with UK corporations (for a number of years they advertised that they represent more FTSE 100, 250, and 350 clients; and also of being the default 'boardroom advisor' of UK corporates) and then explain why that kind of market position attracts you. However, I would be research and aim to be able to defend the claim that Slaughter and May will be able to keep its position despite its lack of international offices (particularly in New York, where the other MC firms are heavily investing into) and dwindling best friends network (particularly having increasingly lost its US best friends as they moved into London - Davis Polk a number of years ago, and now Paul, Weiss, and to an extent Cravath as well).