ALB 11.8

IN-HOUSE: THE NEXT FRONTIER FOR LPO GROWTH? AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS

AUSTRALASIAN

LEGAL BUSINESS

SEPTEMBER 2013

ALB30: AUSTRALASIA’S LARGEST FIRMS REVEALED

www.legalbusinessonline.com

ISSUE 11.08 SEPTEMBER 2013

POSTGRAD + EDUCATION:

Exploring your options

IN-HOUSE: THE NEXT FRONTIER FOR LPO GROWTH?  ALB 30  POST GRAD

Round table series

ISSUE 11.08

SPECIAL FOCUS: The future of legal technology

ALB ROUND TABLE SPONSORED BY:

OUT SHINE To lead requires a combination of innovation and the restless ambition to see a vision through.

For more than 25 years, Gilbert + Tobin has helped its clients stay two steps ahead by outthinking the competition on the most complex matters in the market.

Our IP team knows that it is all about having the best strategy and delivering on it. This is what we do best.

“This group offers strong litigation skills in both the patent and trade mark spheres, and is also acknowledged for its impressive copyright work.�

Chambers Asia Pacific 2013 Michael Williams Intellectual Property Group

m o r e i n f o r m at i o n visit Gtlaw.com. au

CONTENTS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

24

1

“IN THE PAST WE’VE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON BUILDING EXTRANETS FOR OUR CLIENTS AND WE’RE STARTING TO SEE A TREND NOW, PARTICULARLY WITH LARGER CLIENTS WHO HAVE A PANEL, THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO HAVE TO CARRY A SECURE TOKEN FOR 10 DIFFERENT EXTRANETS.” Berys Amor, Corrs Chambers Westgarth

AUSTRALASIA’S LARGEST FIRMS REVEALED

ALB 30 Our market wrap of the largest firms in Australia and New Zealand: full headcount and revenue figures.

24

COVER STORY ALB TECHNOLOGY ROUNDTABLE

30

Software procurement, storing client information, efficiency and e-discovery: we bring together a diverse range of technology experts discuss some of the pressing issues of law firm technology.

16

The next piece of the King & Wood Mallesons puzzle falls into place – but what does it mean for Australia?

PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES 20 Understanding the intricacies of how profit distribution works in an equity partnership.

LPO

From business support outsourcing to consulting services, LPO has progressed well past its humble origins – but the veil of secrecy still remains.

40

POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION 52 Time to upgrade your qualifications?

Here’s an overview of what universities are offering in 2013.

DEALS

06

LEAGUE TABLES

08

SPONSORED UPDATE

09

Buddle Findlay

FEATURES KW MALLESONS AND SJ BERWIN

REGULARS

APPOINTMENTS

10

NEWS

12

ACLA PERSPECTIVE

19

PROFILE

50

Alex Blinko, Truphone

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

2

AUSTRALASIAN

LEGAL BUSINESS

ALB ENJOYS ALLIANCES WITH THE FOLLOWING ORGANISATIONS

www.legalbusinessonline.com ALB is a sponsor of the International Bar Association Annual Conference DubaI 2011

Corporate Lawyers Association of New Zealand

www.ibanet.org

www.clanz.org

INTER-PACIFIC BAR ASSOCIATION

Asia-Pacific Professional Services Marketing Association www.apsma.com.au

www.mlaanz.org

Inter-Pacific Bar Association Corporate Counsel Forum www.ipba.org

MANAGING DIRECTOR Andrew Smart

DESIGNER Michelle D’Souza

AUSTRALASIA EDITOR Renu Prasad

PHOTOGRAPHER Thilo Pulch

AUSTRALASIA JOURNALIST Gina Dombosch www.cla.org.au

PRODUCTION EDITOR Imogen Tear

Shanghai In-house Counsel Forum

www.scca.org.sg

www.beijinginhouse.com

ASIA JOURNALISTS Ranajit Dam Kanishk Verghese

ADVERTISING SALES MANAGERS Paul Ferris Peter Ratcliff TRAFFIC COORDINATOR Emily Ings MANAGING DIRECTOR ASIA Andrew Smart

PANTONE 186U

ALB is the Asia-Pacific Legal Media Partner of the IPBA Annual Conference Japan 2011

EDITORIAL ENQUIRIES

Association Of Corporate Lawyers Sri Lanka www.aclsrilanka.com

Indonesian Corporate Counsel Association http://w3.icca-indonesia.com

Renu Prasad T (61) 2 8587 7211 renu.prasad@thomsonreuters.com

ADVERTISING ENQUIRIES AUSTRALIA Paul Ferris

T (61) 2 8587 7114 paul.ferris@thomsonreuters.com

THOMSON REUTERS TRUST PRINCIPLES 01

That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction;

02 That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved; 03

That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts;

04 That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and 05 That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.

Please contact Andrew Smart with any questions. andrew.smart@thomsonreuters.com

Peter Ratcliff

T (61) 2 8587 7543 peter.ratcliff@thomsonreuters.com

HONG KONG Jessie Cheung

T (852) 3762 3267 jessie.cheung@thomsonreuters.com

SINGAPORE Mohammed Ali

T (65) 6870 3736 mohammed.ali@thomsonreuters.com

Regina Keung

T (65) 6870 3917 regina.keung@thomsonreuters.com

CHINA Yvonne Cheung

T (852) 3762 3266 yvonne.cheung@thomsonreuters.com

EVENT ENQUIRIES AUSTRALIA George Sengulovski

T (61) 2 8587 7701 george.sengulovski@thomsonreuters.com

THOMSON REUTERS PROFESSIONAL AUSTRALIA (LIMITED) AUSTRALIA

Level 5, 100 Harris Street Pyrmont, NSW 2009 Australia T (61) 2 8587 7000

SUBSCRIPTIONS Australasian Legal Business is available by subscription.Please call 1300 304 195 or visit www.legalbusinessonline.com COPYRIGHT is reserved throughout. No part of this publication can be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the editor.

CONTRIBUTIONS are invited, but copies of work should be kept, as Australasian Legal Business can accept no responsibility for loss.

ISSN 1839-0382

www.thomsonreuters.com

Do more with the law Do more with your career by studying postgraduate law at Monash University Law Chambers in Lonsdale Street.

Extend your expertise or specialise with an internationally recognised postgraduate qualification from one of the world’s top 13 law schools*.

Catering for law graduates and those from other disciplines, Monash Postgraduate Law provides a number of different study options. This enables you to match study with the demands of your career and other personal commitments.

Monash University Law Chambers 555 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Visit monash.edu/law *QS 2013 World Rankings

AustrAliA

CHiNA

iNdiA

itAly

MAlAysiA

soutH AfriCA

CRICOS provider: Monash University 00008C

Offering a wide range of elective units, small classes and innovative teaching, the study experience is designed to challenge and inspire.

4

EDITORIAL

ALL ABOUT US

T

his month’s editorial will outline some of the changes which have occurred at ALB over the past few months. We normally try to keep the spotlight on lawyers and the industry rather than ourselves, so please excuse this minor bout of self-introspection.

You will have noticed two new names appearing in the magazine of late; it’s time to give them a proper introduction. Gina Dombosch originally hails from the United States, where she has had a diverse range of experience including criminal prosecution, practising in the commercial litigation team at Weil Gotshal, teaching in Africa and working on the Obama campaigns both in 2008 and 2012. Meanwhile, Ben Abbott is a seasoned journalist and a former editor of our sister publication, Asian Legal Business as well as managing editor for publications in the mortgage industry; he joins the team on a freelance basis. It’s great to have Gina and Ben on board and I know their extensive knowledge of the industry can only enhance the depth and insight of ALB content.

On a sadder note, this is the last edition for our managing editor Lesley Horsburgh who is leaving to pursue a new career opportunity. Lesley has been unwavering in her support and commitment to ALB since our acquisition by Thomson Reuters in 2011 and I know I speak on behalf of the whole team here when I thank her for her hard work and wish her all the very best for the future.

Content-wise, a reminder that you can access breaking legal news, deals and appointments information on our online site at www.legalbusinessonline.com. While the consolidated format in the monthly magazine clearly has its merits, those seeking a more immediate source of information may find it beneficial to subscribe to our free email news service. This service is intended to be concise and limited to bare facts; editorial opinion and analysis, when included, is clearly marked as such. We also host complete PDF versions of the magazine on this site, so if you miss an edition you will find it uploaded within a fortnight of the hard copy distribution date.

I hope you find within this media spectrum the option which best suits your information needs – if not, we’re more than happy to hear from you to see how we can improve the service.

RENU PRASAD Australasia Editor, Australasian Legal Business, Thomson Reuters

AUSTRALASIAN

LEGAL BUSINESS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.8

6

DEALS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

YOUR MONTH AT A GLANCE YOUR MONTH AT A GLANCE Deal

Value

Advisor

Client

Lead Lawyer

Amcor demerger of ANZ packaging/ distribution business

A$2bn

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Amcor

Braddon Jolley and Andrew Lumsden

Royal Bank of Canada kangaroo covered bonds

A$1.25bn

Norton Rose Fulbright

Royal Bank of Canada

Petar Kuessner

Rio Tinto sale of Northparkes mine to China Molybdenum

US$820m

Allens

Rio Tinto

Richard Malcolmson

Rio Tinto sale of Northparkes mine to China Molybdenum

US$820m

King & Wood Mallesons

China Molybdenum

Paul Schroder and Stephen Minns

NewSat satellite financing

A$611m

Allen & Overy

US Ex-Im, COFACE (financiers)

David Slade, Adam Stapledon

NewSat satellite financing

A$611m

Norton Rose Fulbright

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Citicorp International

Tessa Hoser

Nyngan and Broken Hill solar PV power stations financing

A$450m

Herbert Smith Freehills

AGL

Toby Anderson, Peter Briggs and Baden Furphy

Nyngan and Broken Hill solar PV power stations financing

A$450m

Allens

First Solar; AGL/First Solar consortium

Anthony Arrow

Nyngan and Broken Hill solar PV power stations financing

A$450m

Norton Rose

Australian Renewable Energy Agency

Vince Sharma

Nyngan and Broken Hill solar PV power stations financing

A$450m

Clayton Utz

IRESS Limited acquisition of Avelo FS Holdings

A$360m

King & Wood Mallesons

IRESS

Joe Muraca

A$300 million

Port of Brisbane medium term notes

A$300m

Herbert Smith Freehills

Port of Brisbane

Patrick Lowden

DEBT

Port of Brisbane medium term notes

A$300m

King & Wood Mallesons

Joint lead managers

MEDIUM TERM NOTES

RCR Tomlinson finance facility

A$280m

Herbert Smith Freehills

Commonwealth Bank

Rowen Cross

RCR Tomlinson finance facility

A$280m

King & Wood Mallesons

RCR Tomlinson

Evie Bruce

William Morris Endeavour Entertainment acquisition of 49% stake in Droga5

US$225m

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

William Morris Endeavour Entertainment

Andrew Lumsden

Centuria Property Trust IPO (proposed)

A$215m

Clayton Utz

Joint lead managers

Stuart Byrne, Natasha Davidson

IRESS renounceable entitlement offer

A$206m

Gilbert + Tobin

Goldman Sachs

Peter Cook

Toby Anderson, Herbert Smith Freehills

A$450 million FINANCE

NYNGAN AND BROKEN

HILL SOLAR PV POWER STATIONS FINANCING

• The power stations are being developed in NSW under the Federal Government’s Solar Flagships Program, with $166.7 million in funding delivered by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, plus $64.9 million in funding from the NSW Government.

PORT OF BRISBANE

• HSF also advised this client on its US private placement in August 2012 and the recent refinancing of their existing syndicated debt facilities.

DEALS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

DEALS REPORTED TO ALB, AUGUST 2013.

Is your firm missing from this table? Please help us keep this table current by emailing deals information to renu.prasad@thomsonreuters.com. You can also view weekly updates to this table on the ALB website at www.legalbusinessonline.com.

YOUR MONTH AT A GLANCE Deal

Value

Advisor

Client

Lead Lawyer

IRESS renounceable entitlement offer

A$206m

Gilbert + Tobin

Goldman Sachs

Peter Cook

Taralga wind farm financing

A$189m

Herbert Smith Freehills

financiers

Joel Rennie and Andrew Clark

Taralga wind farm financing

A$189m

Allen & Overy

Sponsors

Taralga wind farm financing

A$189m

HWL Ebsworth

Sponsors

Peter Dreher and Paul O'Donnell

Domino’s Pizza accelerated entitlement offer

A$156m

King & Wood Mallesons

Morgan Stanley

David Eliakim

Domino’s Pizza accelerated entitlement offer + debt facility

A$287

Ashurst

Domino's Pizza (ASX:DMP)

Sarah Dulhunty, Shawn Wytenburg

Domino's Pizza (ASX:DMP) acquisition of 75% equity interest in Domino's Pizza Japan

A$282m

Thomsons Lawyers

Domino's Pizza (ASX:DMP)

Eugene Fung

G8 Education notes offer

A$70m

HWL Ebsworth

G8 Education

Matthew Reynolds and Caroline Snow

iiNet acquisition of Adam Internet

A$60m

Kelly & Co

Adam Internet

Jamie Restas

Iron Road Limited nonrenounceable entitlement offer

A$52.4 m

Corrs Chambers Iron Road Limited Westgarth

Sandy Mak, Jeremy Horwood

William Hill acquisition of Tom Waterhouse business

A$34m

Clifford Chance

Lance Sacks

Murchison Metals Limited’s equal access off-market share buy-back

A$15.6m

Corrs Chambers Murchison Metals Westgarth

Andrew Lumsden

Energia Minerals Ltd bid by Cauldron Energy Limited

A$5 million

Corrs Chambers Energia Minerals Westgarth

Christian Owen

InterContinental Sydney and InterContinental Sanctuary Cove hotel management agreements

Baker & McKenzie

Mulpha Australia

Graeme Dickson

Pacific Alliance Asia Special Situations Fund acquisition of property portfolio from GE (various entities)

Ashurst

Pacific Alliance

Jamie Ng

Quanta Services acquisition of Nacap

Baker & McKenzie

Nacap Australia

Tony Whelan, Leigh Duthie, Dan Middleton, Simon De Young

David Jones/ Dick Smith JV

Clayton Utz

Dick Smith

Jonathan Algar and Nick Brown

Waterhouse family

A$189 million

FINANCE ARALGA WIND FARM T FINANCING

• Other similar deals for HSF include the refinancing of Victoria’s $1 billion Macarthur Wind Farm and the project development, equity sale and project financing for Australia’s Boco Rock wind farm project.

A$282 million

M&A DOMINO’S PIZZA (ASX:DMP) ACQUISITION OF 75% EQUITY INTEREST IN DOMINO’S PIZZA JAPAN

• Domino’s (Japan) is the third largest pizza delivery chain in Japan with 259 stores, comprising 216 corporate stores and 43 franchise stores as at 30 June 2013.

Jonathan Algar, Clayton Utz

7

8

LEAGUE TABLES

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08 TOP M&A FIRMS - COMPLETED DEALS, YEAR TO DATE 2013

TOP M&A FIRMS - ANNOUNCED DEALS, YEAR TO DATE 2013

1

NO.

1

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS

13,572.72 DEALS: 40

NO.

VALUE ($MIL)

MARKET SHARE: 30.7

RANK LEGAL ADVISOR

VALUE ($MIL)

MKT. DEALS SHARE

CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH

9,495.66 DEALS: 17

VALUE ($MIL)

MARKET SHARE: 29.2

RANK LEGAL ADVISOR

VALUE ($MIL)

MKT. SHARE

DEALS

2

Minter Ellison

10,877.36

24.6

28

2

Herbert Smith Freehills

9,421.34

29.0

31

3

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

8,007.16

18.1

17

3

Gilbert + Tobin

9,226.55

28.4

15

4

King & Wood Mallesons

7,475.85

16.9

36

4

King & Wood Mallesons

7,857.64

24.2

32

5

Allens

6,749.38

15.2

24

5

Minter Ellison

6,820.88

21.0

28

6

Gilbert + Tobin

6,617.07

14.9

15

6

Allens

4,454.35

13.7

26

7

Allen & Gledhill

4,035.86

9.1

4

7

Ashurst

2,707.53

8.3

16

8

Johnson Winter & Slattery

3,672.27

8.3

7

8

Clayton Utz

2,645.99

8.2

21

9

Baker & McKenzie

3,615.03

8.2

22

9

Paul, Weiss

2,280.19

7.0

1

10

Clayton Utz

2,530.47

5.7

23

10

Baker & McKenzie

1,993.37

6.1

17

11

Ashurst

2,288.81

5.2

21

11

Blake Cassels & Graydon

1,959.10

6.0

4

12

Simpson Grierson

1,454.90

3.3

2

12

Skadden

1,831.47

5.6

4

13

Skadden

1,057.35

2.4

2

13

Linklaters

1,519.63

4.7

8

14

Thomsons Lawyers

907.17

2.0

2

14

Simpson Grierson

1,454.90

4.5

3

15

Chapman Tripp

906.62

2.0

2

15

K&L Gates

1,167.38

3.6

6

16

Allen & Overy

819.57

1.9

9

16

Stikeman Elliott

1,099.80

3.4

5

17

Torys

644.90

1.5

1

17

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

1,078.75

3.3

1

18

Linklaters

564.28

1.3

6

17*

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

1,078.75

3.3

1

19

Vinson & Elkins LLP

533.00

1.2

1

17*

1,078.75

3.3

1

20

DLA Piper LLP

440.12

1.0

10

Lawson Lundell Lawson & McIntosh

21

Webber Wentzel

394.50

0.9

1

17*

Squire Sanders LLP

1,078.75

3.3

1

22

Stikeman Elliott

350.74

0.8

2

21

Thomsons Lawyers

907.17

2.8

2

23

Clifford Chance

342.35

0.8

3

22

Chapman Tripp

906.62

2.8

2

24

SJ Berwin

322.27

0.7

1

23

Allen & Overy

865.14

2.7

9

25

Steinepreis Paganin

318.86

0.7

5

24

Torys

644.90

2.0

1

Subtotal with Legal Advisor

32,400.17

73.2

234

25

Johnson Winter & Slattery

578.72

1.8

8

Subtotal without Legal Advisor

11,881.73

26.8

691

Subtotal with Legal Advisor

27,562.13

84.9

207

44,281.90

100.0

925

Subtotal without Legal Advisor

4,904.13

15.1

454

100.0

661

Industry Total

Industry Total Based on Ranking Value inc. Net Debt of Target Source: Thomson Financial Date: 2013-08-20 08:28:04 EDT

Based on Ranking Value inc. Net Debt of Target Source: Thomson Financial Date: 2013-08-20 08:15:54 EDT

Firm Profile

NZ Commentary

DESIGNATIONS UNDER THE FINANCIAL MARKETS CONDUCT BILL – A NEW RULINGS POWER FOR NEW ZEALAND’S MARKET REGULATOR The Financial Markets Conduct Bill (the Bill), which is currently before Parliament, will overhaul New Zealand’s securities legislation.1 It will replace the Securities Act 1978 (principally dealing with primary markets) and the Securities Markets Act 1988 (secondary markets and futures dealers), along with replacing or amending numerous other pieces of financial markets legislation.

This article focuses on one aspect of the new legislation - the power that it will give the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), New Zealand’s financial markets regulator, to designate investment products as being subject to regulation or rule on which regulatory category they will come under.

In a sentence, this amounts to the Bill giving the FMA a rulings power as to the classification of investment products. At present the Securities Act defines both “security” and the concept of an offer of securities to the public very broadly, but provides a range of exemptions and exclusions (for example, products giving an interest in real estate). The application of these definitions, and the associated exemptions and exclusions, has not always been clear and there has been relatively little case law.

The resulting uncertainty presents problems for market participants and their advisers. A marked example was seen with the Supreme Court ruling that products offered in the failed Blue Chip property development were securities, and had been offered in breach of the Securities Act – the Supreme Court’s ruling came after adverse rulings at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, and the FMA’s predecessor agency having reached the view that the products were not subject to the Securities Act.2 The power contained in the Bill is intended to remedy this problem by giving the FMA the ability to designate investment products. This new ability will operate in the context of the Bill’s new treatment of investment products.

The Bill imposes disclosure and governance obligations on offers of financial products, which are divided into four categories: debt securities; equity securities; managed

investment products (MIPs); and derivatives.4 For most purposes if a product does not come within one of these four categories it will not be subject to regulation. The Bill will retain the concept of a “security”, but in a more limited sense – the definition of “security” will act as an outer boundary, describing those products that may be made subject to regulation.4 The powers given to the FMA under the Bill will include the ability to make designations with regard to licensing provisions and offering exclusions. The key powers, however, with regard to financial products that the FMA will have will be to: • Declare that a security which is not otherwise a financial product is a financial product of a particular kind (for example, that a particular security which might not otherwise come within the MIP definition in the Bill is, nevertheless, an MIP) • Declare that a financial product is to be reclassified as belonging to a different category of financial product (for example, that an MIP should be classified as a debt security) or • Declare that a security that would otherwise be a financial product of a particular kind should not be classed as a financial product.

As would be expected, the Bill provides procedural safeguards around the use of the designation power. The FMA must consult those persons who would be substantially affected by use of the designation power, and must have regard to the economic substance of the security in question. The designation power may not be used retrospectively, but the FMA may make an interim order preventing the product in question being offered while the use of the designation power is considered. The Bill does not provide a right of appeal in respect of the FMA’s use of the designation power, so it would appear the only potential for challenge would be an application for judicial review.

The designation power clearly offers the FMA the potential to act where it considers that the offer of a particular product represents a threat to the interests of the investing public. Taken together with the FMA’s powers to grant exemptions from

disclosure or governance requirements subject to appropriate conditions, the designation power would enable the FMA to assess how a product should best be offered and tailor the relevant disclosure if considered necessary.

The power may also be useful, however, for market participants who develop new investment products. As noted above a major issue around the application of the Securities Act is the uncertainty associated with definitions and exemptions. If the FMA is willing to assist market participants by discussing proposals, and either using the designation power (with appropriate exemptions if necessary) or issuing a noaction letter, the uncertainty associated with the current regime will be reduced, and financial innovation will be assisted.

As with many of the new powers contained in this overhaul of New Zealand’s securities legislation, it will be up to the regulator to tread the fine line between ensuring appropriate investor protection, and facilitating market confidence and innovation.

The Bill can be accessed online at http://www.legislation. govt.nz/bill/government/2011/0342/latest/versions.aspx - the designation power is set out at clauses 533 to 537.

2 The Supreme Court of New Zealand decision, Hickman & Ors v Turner and Waverley Limited ([2012] NZSC 72), can be accessed online at http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/ judgments-supreme/judgments-supreme-2012.

3 The different categories of financial product are defined at clauses 7 to 9 of the Bill.

4 “Security” is defined in clause 6 of the Bill.

1

This article was written by Chris Holland, senior associate based in the Wellington office of Buddle Findlay, a leading New Zealand law firm.

Chris specialises in financial regulation, capital markets and securities, and funds management.

Chris can be contracted on +64 4 462 0415 or chris.holland@buddlefindlay.com.

CHRIS HOLLAND

Buddle Findlay

APPOINTMENTS LATERAL PARTNER APPOINTMENTS

INTERNAL PARTNER PROMOTIONS

Name

Practice area

Coming from

Going to

TURKS LEGAL

Alex Eastwood

Energy & resources

Gryphon Minerals

K&L Gates

Adele Fletcher

Workplace relations

David Guthrie

Insurance

Norton Rose Fulbright

HWL Ebsworth

Michael Iacuzzi

Insurance

David Sweet

Employment/ Insurance

Cridlands MB

Minter Ellison

WRAYS (principal appointments)

Edward Nixey

Corporate

Ashurst

K&L Gates

Glenn Hughes

Corporate

Henry Davis York

Greg English

Energy & resources

Greg Lewis

Disputes

Albert Ferraloro

IP

K&L Gates

Chris Juhasz

IP

Norman Waterhouse

Piper Alderman

Craig Humphris

IP

K& L Gates

HWL Ebsworth

Joe Seisdedos

IP

DLA Piper

K&L Gates

Jo Woodfield

IP

Sonia Goumenis Banking & finance

Allen & Overy

Clayton Utz

Linda Kennaugh

IP

Tean Kerr

Swaab Attorneys

Lander & Rogers

Marie Wong

IP

Nick Ruskin

Workplace relations Disputes

NOW CLAYTON UTZ RAIDS A&O One of the 14 Clayton Utz partners who defected to Allen & Overy in 2010 will be returning to the fold, Clutz has announced.

Sonia Goumenis Sonia Goumenis is a securitisation expert with over 12 years’ experience in securitisation transactions, acting for a range of participants including sponsors, arrangers, facility providers, investors and trustees in both domestic and cross-border deals. She has acted for Australian issuers in establishing their global covered bond programmes and began her career at Clayton Utz as a graduate, becoming a partner in January 2008.

HWL EBSWORTH EXPANDS MELBOURNE INSURANCE TEAM HWL Ebsworth has announced the appointment of David Guthrie as a partner in its Melbourne insurance team. Guthrie was previously at Norton Rose Fulbright.

Guthrie acts in claims for personal injury damages, property damage and economic loss and his experience includes defending claims under public & products liability policies, professional indemnity policies and general liability policies.

ADELAIDE: PIPER ALDERMAN RECRUITS ENERGY & RESOURCES PARTNER Piper Alderman has welcomed energy and resources partner Greg English to the firm.

English was previously a partner at Norman Waterhouse.

English is a qualified mining engineer as well as an experienced lawyer with over 20 years involvement in multi-commodity projects throughout Australasia. His previous experience also includes a stint in-house at Santos.

K&L GATES LURES RESOURCES GC The Perth office of K&L Gates has added Alex Eastwood as a partner in the energy, infrastructure and resources practice.

Eastwood was previously General Counsel of Gryphon Minerals and prior to that was a partner at Deacons (now Norton Rose). He has over 17 years’ extensive experience in advising a number of ASX listed and private companies predominantly in the energy and resources, mining services and technology sectors.

LANDERS ADDS DISPUTES PARTNER IN SYDNEY Lander & Rogers has announced the appointment of commercial disputes partner Tean Kerr Tean Kerr in Sydney. He was previously at Swaab Attorneys. Kerr is an experienced commercial litigation and insolvency lawyer who advises on all aspects of commercial disputes, insolvency and corporate recovery and restructuring.

Kerr originally qualified as a barrister and solicitor in Canada in 1998. He relocated to Australia in 2002 and joined Swaab Attorneys in 2007.

HWL EBSWORTH RECRUITS K&L GATES LITIGATOR HWL Ebsworth Lawyers has announced the appointment of Greg Lewis as a partner within its Sydney litigation team. He was previously at K&L Gates. Lewis’ practice has a particular focus on complex insolvency related litigation for banks, insolvency firms and corporate clients. He has extensive experience advising on insolvency and restructuring issues and regularly advises on matters involving misfeasance, asset tracing and trans-national issues.

K&L GATES MAKES SENIOR HIRES FROM DLA PIPER, ASHURST, HDY K&L Gates has made three new lateral partner hires in its Australian offices. In Melbourne, Nick Ruskin joins the labor, employment and workplace safety practice from DLA Piper, while both Edward Nixey and Glenn Hughes join the firm’s Sydney office as partners in the corporate and transactional practice, arriving from Ashurst and Henry Davis York respectively.

Each of these hires will diversify the K&L Gates Australia offering. Ruskin is a wellknown public speaker and commentator on workplace relations, Nixey advises domestic and international clients on public/private mergers and acquisitions and particularly transactions in the resources and infrastructure sectors and Hughes has extensive expertise in M&A, with a particular focus on private equity.

FREEHILLS PARTNER REAPPOINTED TO ILSAC Herbert Smith Freehills partner Bronwyn Lincoln has been re-appointed by Commonwealth

APPOINTMENTS Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to the International Legal Services Advisory Council (ILSAC) for another three-year term. She has been a member of the Council since 2004.

ILSAC was established by the Australian Government in 1990 to coordinate Australia’s approach to promoting Australian interests in legal and related services internationally, aiming to enhance Australia’s international presence.

ILSAC undertakes work in four key areas: global legal services and market access, international legal cooperation, international legal education and training and international commercial dispute resolution.

PARTNER PROMOTIONS AT TURKS LEGAL, WRAYS The new partners at Turks Legal are Adele Fletcher and Michael Iacuzzi. Fletcher specialises in work injury damages and workers compensation claims and has handled a number of complex cases. Meanwhile, Iacuzzi has been responsible for running several leading cases on critical aspects of life insurance law. His clients

include Hannover Life, MetLife Insurance Ltd and Suncorp.

IP firm Wrays has announced seven new principals. The new promotions, which are spread across Wrays’ Sydney, Perth and Adelaide offices, are as follows: Albert Ferraloro , Chris Juhasz, Craig Humphris, Joe Seisdedos, Jo Woodfield, Linda Kennaugh, and Marie Wong.

than 20 years’ experience working in insurance, employment and workplace safety law.

Lachlan Drew, leader of Minter Ellison’s practice in the Northern Territory, welcomed the arrival of a new partner. “We are delighted to welcome David to the team. His local knowledge and experience are invaluable in this market and will be of enormous benefit to our clients. He is a perfect fit for us here in Darwin,” he said.

Adele Fletcher

EPHRAUMS JOINS CLUTZ SUPERANNUATION TEAM Clayton Utz has recruited David Ephraums to join the firm’s superannuation practice as a partner.

Ephraums has over 25 years experience in the financial services sector, including senior inhouse legal roles with BT Financial Group, UBS Global Asset Management and AMP. His legal and industry experience spans financial services, funds management, superannuation, life insurance, portfolio services, financial advice and distribution and retail banking, including advice on governance and compliance issues.

Michael Iacuzzi

DARWIN: MINTERS RECRUITS FROM CRIDLANDS

Minter Ellison has announced that insurance and employment lawyer David Sweet has joined the Minters SA/NT partnership. Sweet, formerly a partner of Cridlands MB in Darwin, has more

INNOVATIVE TRADEMARK SEARCH FORMULA that makes us stand out from the crowd since 1986 Order a tailored

Search Product oceania @avantiq.com

BRANDING

SEARCHING

WATCHING

LPO

Oceania PO Box 1244 | Blackwood SA 5051 | Australia | +61 88374 2453 Offices Australia | Luxembourg | Switzerland www.avantiq.com

12

>>

NEWS

TECHNOLOGY IN PRACTICE

Q&A with

Damian Huon Damian Huon is a Legal Technology Strategist and CEO of Huon IT. With over 24 years supporting Australian law firms, Huon IT deliver business-wide outcomes with ‘everything technology’.

Social Networking: Office Taboo or Employee Perk?

Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. LinkedIn. Ten years ago online social networks were virtually unheard of and today, they are as commonplace as the computers and smart phones used to access them. But how is use at work impacting your staff’s productivity?

Seasoned IT advisor, Damian Huon, shares his thoughts on balancing staff’s personal online activity whilst on the clock.

Q1 Should we allow our staff to use social media at work?

These days, can you really say no? Gen Y is the first era of professionals to have been raised surrounded by technology and consequentially has blurred the lines between work and personal time. With the mindset they are connected to work 24/7 via their laptop and smart phone – replying to work emails after hours and hopping on the network at midnight to meet a deadline – they arguably feel it is within reason to check their Facebook at their desk every now and again.

Your first reaction might be to pan the idea, but perhaps finding the middle ground is in everyone’s best interest long term. Although agreeing to it will require having well-defined policies and controls in place. If you can get the balance right so it doesn’t impede KPI’s, accommodating social networking in the workplace not only rewards staff with flexibility and encourages mutual respect, but it can boost morale, too. how can we manage social networking whilst Q2 Sosafeguarding productivity?

Compromise. Any firm which does allow social media at work will understandably be concerned the privilege may be abused, however one of our legal clients found a happy medium by limiting access to approved social networking websites during lunch hours only (e.g.

12-1pm). This is really simple for IT to set up on your firewall and gives staff the social fix they need on their approved break time, leaving the rest of the work day to be spent productively. When combined with a sensible social networking policy, this concession will hopefully make them less inclined to break the rules throughout other times of the day.

to stop someone from using their smart phone Q3 What’s to connect to social media anyway, regardless of policy on their work PCs?

That’s a great point. Mobile technology makes it easy to go online whenever the whim strikes and there will likely be a maverick or two in the office who will defy company policy simply because they can, especially on their own personal devices. Now would be a good time to review your corporate policy on mobile device usage and make any revisions necessary to address personal activity and social networking on company time. Additionally, mobile device management (MDM) tools can be installed on company-issued and BYO devices to restrict access within your own four walls. Your IT guru can enable these functions.

Email your questions to alb@huonit.com.au

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

In case you missed it…..

THE MONTH’S TOP HEADLINES FROM WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM

REVENUES

Slater & Gordon records 37 percent revenue growth Slater & Gordon has announced its full year results for FY2013. The results, which include the integration of new UK acquisition Russell Jones & Walker, show that total revenue is up 36.7 percent to A$297.6 million, NPAT is up 67.6 percent to A$41.9million and the full year dividend is up 10 percent to 6.6 cents per share fully franked. These results all exceeded market guidance.

The firm’s UK business delivered A$70.5 million in revenue and an EBITDA margin of 20.5 percent. In light of the firm’s A$64.7 million equity raising in May, further acquisitions in the UK are expected – one acquisition was completed last week, a second acquisition will be completed by the end of this month while due diligence is being conducted on a third potential UK acquisition.

TMT

Webb Henderson surfaces in Myanmar Webb Henderson has ventured some distance from its humble origins as a trans-Tasman firm with its latest achievement: the firm has been appointed as legal and regulatory advisors to Qatar, Abu Dhabi and London-listed communications company Ooredoo for its Myanmar operations. The firm is advising Ooredoo on strategic regulatory, corporate and commercial matters as Ooredoo prepares to launch its new telecoms business in Myanmar next year.

Ooredoo has been selected as one of the two new foreign telecoms licensees in Myanmar, a country of nearly 60 million people that is just beginning to open itself up to international investment. The other new telecoms licensee is Telenor from Norway.

Ooredoo has a market capitalisation of over US$10 billion and reported 2012 revenues of US$9.3 billion. Ooredoo has approximately 91 million customers across its footprint.

“We are delighted to assist Ooredoo in this significant new undertaking,” said Webb Henderson partner Malcolm Webb.

“It is fascinating to be involved in the early stages of bringing a modern communications services to Myanmar.”

INDUSTRY

Partner promotions: top practice areas revealed Disputes and construction are topping the list of the most popular practice areas in the recent round of partner promotions, an ALB analysis has found.

The analysis was based on 64 new internal partner

NEWS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

>> promotion announcements made over the months of June, July and August. The top five practice areas were disputes and construction (13 percent each) and property, corporate and workplace relations (about nine percent each).

But Burgess Paluch director Doron Paluch says that the real story behind these figures is the absence of any stand-out “boom” practice area. “We are not seeing a substantial trend anywhere in any particular area for partner promotions and these figures demonstrate that,” he said. “My reading of the figures would be that there’s no trend at all. If [one practice area] was at 30 percent, I’d say there’s something there, but those figures are telling us that some practice areas happen to be only slightly ahead of the others. Construction is a bit unusual at 13 percent but that’s well within the standard margin of error. It could simply be a matter of certain partners being in the right place at the right time.”

But Paluch was interested in the lower prevalence of banking & finance promotions, which accounted for six percent of promotions. “It appears that banking & finance has been left behind a little bit; traditionally it would be up there,” he said.

Paluch also noted that it was not entirely unusual to see partner promotions in areas that were not performing well.

“Even when partner numbers are reduced, if you’re a good lawyer and you have been on the cusp for a long time and you are still pulling your weight and the firm doesn’t want to lose you, they will still need to make you up,” he said. “That’s why you’re still seeing some movement even in areas that are not doing so well.”

He added that he was seeing more positive signs of activity in the hiring market. “The Australian national firms have been quiet for so long; they’re now showing signs of waking from slumber,” he said. “Maybe it’s the lead up to the election or the new financial year; we’re just starting to see the first signs of awakening.”

PARTNER PROMOTIONS – TOP PRACTICE AREAS Disputes – 13% Construction/ infrastructure – 13% Property – 9% Corporate – 9% Workplace relations – 9%

HUMAN RIGHTS

UN panel set to explore human rights in North Korea A United Nations-mandated commission investigating the status of human rights in North Korea and chaired by former Australian High Court justice Michael Kirby will commence a series of public hearings in Seoul next week. The commission will gather information from a variety of witnesses, including those who have recently fled the North.

“We are approaching this inquiry with impartiality and with no preconceptions,” said Kirby, adding that attempts to engage with the North Korean government on this matter were at this point unsuccessful. A final written report will be submitted to the Human Rights Council in March 2014.

The council has already committed itself to refer the final document to appropriate UN bodies for follow-up.

13

IN-HOUSE Q&A SHAUN BELL General Counsel and Compliance Officer – PAC Zone

Presented by

Bureau Veritas Australia

your opinion, why have in-house lawyers become an 1 Inincreasingly indispensable part of an organisation?

Of course no-one (person or function) is indispensable, but there are opportunities for in-house counsel to become more valuable contributors to organisations they serve.

First, any support function must demonstrate utility and value to its clients. In my experience the in-house legal function increasingly considers itself a service provider to the business much like a law firm might to an in-house legal department. For day-to-day legal work such as contracts, leasing, HR/IR matters, company secretarial, restructuring and M&A work, in-house legal can provide utility and value in terms of cost, timeliness, availability and importantly client knowledge. Establishing a broad service suite with clear KPIs helps demonstrate utility and value.

Second, in some ways an internal legal function is in a unique position. In-house counsel are often at the fulcrum of decision making and change in the business.

Although detail must be our focus (eg contract review, due diligence etc), we have the opportunity to observe how the company does business across divisions, geographies and different projects.

When trust is built via performance and demonstrating good judgement, this unique position allows us to provide business leaders with insight into how the business might become more systematic, consistent and efficient in its decision making and operations. This also assists in-house counsel to achieve one of their primary objectives – risk management of BAU transactions.

Third, the increase in compliance obligations (external and internal) and the creation of the compliance function – often paired with in-house legal (eg here at Bureau Veritas) – has increased our utility and value.

recent times, the role of the General Counsel has 2 Indiversified into a multi-faceted role, (where the General

Counsel can wear the ‘hat’ of Lawyer, Legal Manager, Compliance Manager, and Company Secretary). In your opinion, do you believe this has increased your risk profile?

Yes, diversification of tasks given to and taken on by the in-house legal function has increased our risk profile. It is a double-edged sword, especially for more senior in-house counsel. Risks attach to non-traditional career and personal development opportunities to become involved in more decision making and non-legal tasks and we must identify and consider those risks.

It is important to maintain as much independence in terms of function, budget and operations as possible, and to be clear in your own mind, with your own staff and with internal clients and external parties when you are providing legal advice and when you are doing otherwise. Easier said than done of course!

your opinion, what do you consider to be the main 3 Inchallenges for inhouse counsel in your particular industry sector?

2013/14 may be a tough year for business. This may increase perceived or actual pressure from customers (internal and external) for clients to take on more commercial and legal risk in order to maintain and increase business. This can manifest in various ways for in-house counsel, one of which is tender/contract negotiation. At the back end, a tough business year means more litigation; usually in the form of collecting unpaid fees for services.

Otherwise, we have some clear plans relating to implementing risk management and compliance materials and training within the PAC Zone, and some interesting resource and knowledge sharing projects amongst lawyers within the Bureau Veritas group worldwide which I look forward to supporting.

JLegal is a global specialist legal recruitment consultancy focused solely on providing recruitment solutions to the legal profession. For a confidential discussion about your career, contact one of our senior consultants today.

www.jlegal.com Melbourne t | +61 3 8102 1900 Sydney t | +61 2 8228 7680

14

NEWS

MOBILE DICTATION

with Sarah Dart Sales Manager, Asia Pacific Speech recognition speaks louder than BPO Lawyers know time is money - that every second counts. Business process outsourcing (BPO) is often seen as an opportunity for law firms to pass non-core work to a third-party, such as transcription to turn work around faster or during times of overflow.

However, such BPO has limitations. Firms wrestle with the lack of control, high cost, security and privacy concerns, and quality control especially when transcription is offshored introducing language anomalies.

Enterprise-grade speech recognition has advanced to the stage where it offers some clear advantages over BPO. Fee earners can submit dictations instantly (including via their smartphone from wherever they are), to the speech recognition server hosted within their firm’s infrastructure for automatic transcription. This means no data has to ever leave their secure network. All data is communicated securely, held on-site, and can be deleted if necessary.

This approach delivers significant benefits in terms of turnaround and accuracy. Improved accuracy of speech recognition technology over the past five years minimises the need for quality control, and accuracy will continue to improve the more the system is used.

Hicksons, a leading law firm with multiple offices in Australia, has been using BigHand for many years and recently deployed BigHand’s Speech Recognition to their fee earners. The firm is already reaping significant benefits, and the accuracy and speed is universally applauded by Hicksons staff. One of the firm’s partners comments “I am loving it. It is so accurate, and is making my practice much easier to run and more efficient”. Another partner describes BigHand’s speech recognition as “amazingly powerful and helpful software”.

For firms weighing up alternatives to increase productivity, speech recognition is now a compelling option – without the need for ongoing quality control and security risks, and empowering your existing staff to turn work around quicker.

BigHand delivers digital dictation and speech recognition workflow software, hardware and services that enable busy, mobile professionals become more efficient. A multi-award winning voice technology company, with both desktop and mobile app versions of its software, BigHand supports 170,000 users and over 1600 client organisations globally across the professional services and healthcare sectors.

Sarah Dart is BigHand’s Asia Pacific Sales Manager.

For further information please contact Sarah or visit www.bighand.com.au | 1300 662 948 | sarah.dart@bighand.com

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

SPECIAL FOCUS: SALVOS LEGAL Justice, together: a revolutionary idea for a legal practice Salvos Legal is a world first commercial and property law firm run by The Salvation Army. The profits we make from our work with commercial clients allows us to provide pro bono legal services to people most in need through our sister law firm, Salvos Legal Humanitarian.

In this issue we share with you the story of Bill, a client of Salvos Legal Humanitarian.

Luke Geary, Managing When we first met Bill, he had just Partner, Salvos Legal turned 15. He and his adoptive mother, and Salvos Legal Mary, came to see us one evening at the Humanitarian Auburn Salvation Army. Bill was a mature, well-mannered boy. Mary had a complex legal problem and didn’t know the answer to it.

Frankly, nor did we.

Bill was born in the jungle lands of rural Fiji. His parents were unable to care for Bill so they gave the baby to Mary, his maternal aunt, to come back to Australia with her. Mary was married to Frank and they were happy to raise Bill as their own son.

For 15 years, Mary and Frank looked after Bill. Bill studied hard and was the star of his junior rugby league team. He was close to Frank and Mary but was unaware they were not his biological parents.

Sadly, two months before we met Bill, Frank suddenly passed away. Mary came to Salvos Legal because she wanted to tell Bill that she and Frank were really his adoptive parents.

She hoped we could help Bill regularise his migration status, as he was not lawfully in Australia.

We organised for Bill and Mary to get some free counselling and connected them with the local Salvation Army Officers near their home who helped them with their daily needs. We then turned to their legal situation.

What happened next? Read Bill’s story in full at salvoslegal.com.au Thanks to all of our commercial clients including NSW Trade & Investment and Community Sector Banking for making our humanitarian work possible. Over the next 12 months, thanks to all of them, we’ll provide more than $8 million in free legal services to people in need. Now that’s justice, together.

Luke Geary is the Managing Partner of Salvos Legal and Salvos Legal Humanitarian, and has been since the firms commenced in 2010. He is also General Counsel to The Salvation Army Australia Eastern Territory.

Prior to founding Salvos Legal Luke was a Partner at Mills Oakley Lawyers. He specialised in building, insurance and construction law, and also had a substantial practice in commercial litigation and commercial transactions.

Luke is the Salvos Legal client relationship manager for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Community Sector Banking, Community 21, Anglicare, The Salvation Army and Aged Care Plus.

fri 25th

Financial

OctOber

2013

& MEDia MarkEts

Location

Middle Harbour Yacht Club Mosman

charity rEgatta

cost of entry

yacht entry: $2,000 (plus GST) per yacht Price per Guest: $150 (plus GST) ViP spectator Guest: $300 (plus GST)

free with entry All competitors will receive: • a polo shirt • a cap • gourmet lunch pack • entry to beach after party including BBQ, complimentary drinks, auction and raffle draws.

This fun sailing event is a great way to help support worthwhile charities whilst entertaining your clients, networking or even thanking your staff!

ViP Boat A spectator boat will follow the race.

This is an alternative to racing. Guests are able to view the regatta whilst enjoying a seafood buffet served with fine wines.

For entry Forms or sponsorship applications please contact: david.brocklehurst@thomsonreuters.com or call 02 9373 1984 or 0412 411 366

All class of boats are welcome.

Race operated on a handicap basis.

Current cup holder: Deutsche Bank Yacht name: Sputnik

visit www.asxreutersregatta.com.au

on illi m $1 han help raise more t

ity ar h rc fo

ab

Last Year sponsors

16

ANALYSIS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

OFFICIAL:

KING & WOOD MALLESONS COLONISES ENGLAND THE PARTNERSHIPS OF KING & WOOD MALLESONS AND SJ BERWIN HAVE VOTED TO JOIN FORCES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR MALLESONS IN AUSTRALIA? AUSTRALIAN MANAGING PARTNER SUE KENCH AND AUSTRALIAN CHAIRMAN STEPHEN MINNS SPEAK WITH ALB’S RENU PRASAD ABOUT THEIR LATEST VENTURE. ALB: The partners of KWM Australia have voted to include SJ Berwin in the KWM Swiss verein structure. How is that vote conducted – does everyone come together in a room?

SM: For us here in Australia we do – it’s a question of traditions at different law firms. At this firm we always traditionally have a meeting and people turn up at the same time around the country and the [videoconference] goes up and we just run it like a meeting. You can give a proxy if you can’t turn up.

ALB: Do you have a show of hands or do you use a ballot box?

SM: It’s a show of hands.

ALB: How do you see this deal affecting your practice?

SK: The thinking is that this….gives us the UK law capability that we need in Asia…it helps [us advise on] the flow of funds from Europe back into Asia and then likewise as Asia funds go and look for investment in Europe or other parts of the world.

Australia is in the heart of many of those investment transactions, so that’s how it connects for us.

ALB: There was some commentary at yesterday’s press conference about the depth of the relationship between King & Wood and SJ Berwin. Would it be fair to say that King & Wood – as opposed to legacy Mallesons – was the driver behind this move?

SM: No, it’s something relevant for the entire network…in the end it’s a pretty critical element for our practice because in Asia if the law of the contract is not China

or Hong Kong or Australia, it’s going to be English law so we’ve now got that. Particularly in the development of banking products; a lot of that is done by way of English law.

SK: Yes, I wouldn’t say one firm was positioned more strongly in relation to the talks; actually it suited everybody.

ALB: In terms of the pre-existing relationships though – was it King & Wood who predominantly had the relationship with SJ Berwin?

SM: King & Wood have relationships with a lot of law firms because historically a large part of the practice was obviously people investing into China. I think there has been a strong relationship with SJ Berwin but I think they have that with a large number of firms.

ALB: Has legacy Mallesons had much dealing with Berwin?

SM: Quite a reasonable amount but once again this firm deals with a whole number of foreign law firms, both European and American [and others].

ALB: For those people unfamiliar with SJ Berwin – what would you describe as the key characteristics of this firm?

SK: I recently heard someone describe them as energetic and nimble, which is how I would describe them. You can see that because really with KWM based in Asia and they’re looking across to the new world as the way forward which is in itself energetic and nimble. That aligns with where we’ve all come to.

ALB: Where will your global headquarters be – Hong Kong?

SK: No one city will be the headquarters. You wouldn’t say there was one dominant headquarters.

ALB: You’ve opted to continue the verein structure instead of a full integration – can you tell us about that decision?

SK: Vereins are very commonly used across different professional service firms – the big accounting firms use vereins. They mean you stay nimble and focus on clients rather than getting dragged into all of the issues of financial integration. It has served us well.

ALB: The argument in favour of financial integration appears to centre around the teamwork culture that this structure 

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

ANALYSIS

KING & WOOD MALLESONS & SJ BERWIN: QUICK FACTS • From 1 November, SJ Berwin will become the fourth member of the KWM Swiss verein network. After a transitional period, the firm will adopt the KWM brand • Combined firm will have 553 partners (234 Asia, 163 Europe and the Middle East, 154 Australia, 2 U.S.) • Combined firm will have 2,233 lawyers (1157 Asia, 731 Australia, 343 Europe and the Middle East, 2 U.S.) • Combined firm will have 30 locations (11 China, 9 Europe, 5 Australia, 1 Middle East , 2 US, 1 Hong Kong, 1 Japan) • Circa $1 billion USD revenue.

Photo (left to right): Stephen Minns – Australian chairman, KWM; Stephen Kon - senior partner, SJ Berwin; Stuart Fuller – global managing partner, KWM; Wang Ling – China managing partner, KWM.

TIME FOR SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS ON VEREINS ANALYSIS: RENU PRASAD

Despite the contrasting international strategies pursued by Australian firms, there is much common ground. There is an understanding that the balance of global economic power is shifting to Asia. There is an understanding that the Asian economy does not operate in isolation from the global economy and that an Asia strategy must therefore also be a global strategy. There is an understanding that a UK law capability is particularly important for global transactions. None of this is controversial. As King & Wood Mallesons moves west and the Ashursts and Herbert Smiths of the world move east, we start to see a convergence of strategy. Same idea, different execution.

But there is still one fundamental philosophical difference which divides Australian firms in their execution of a global strategy: the question of whether a non-financially integrated merger can produce a global law firm in the true sense of that phrase. That divergence can be seen in the structures used by firms in the Australian market: King & Wood Mallesons, Norton Rose Fulbright and Baker & McKenzie are examples of firms using a Swiss verein structure while Ashurst, Herbert Smith Freehills, K&L Gates, Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance are examples of firms which are either already fully integrated or intend to do so in the near future.

The basic arguments in favour of a verein structure and those in favour of a full integration are well known: full integration is said to promote a heightened culture of accountability and collaboration while a verein structure is argued to be more flexible and is accepted practice in many global professional services firms, particularly accounting firms.

These arguments would benefit from some more robust examination. It appears that many “fully integrated” firms are actually separate legal entities in their respective centres of operation. Is complete integration an illusory concept? Is financial integration just a slightly more sophisticated variant of a verein structure?

Conversely, it is interesting to examine the oft-made claim that verein structures offer enhanced flexibility. Flexibility for whom? It is one matter to say that a verein offers flexibility for those who are charged with the task of building a new firm; flexibility in a “top down” context. But the benefits of flexibility must also flow in the opposite direction; local partnerships should still retain some degree of control of important decisions relating to their practice.

Over the coming years, we will observe how these theoretical observations translate in reality. Will we see, for example, the Australian KWM partnership enjoying a higher level of local autonomy than their counterparts at Herbert Smith Freehills, a firm with full financial integration? And what about shared overhead costs? Will it be less expensive to participate in the KWM verein than in the HSF global partnership?

There is a joke in legal circles that partnership structures are rather like a religion: there is no “right” or “wrong”, only different schools of thought. Both models have much to commend them and the ultimate success of Australian firms in either camp is unlikely to come down to the choice of model. The crucial question will be how that model is executed and whether partners feel that they are getting what they have been promised.

17

18

ANALYSIS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

encourages. How do you foster such a culture in a verein?

SK: It’s the people and movement and workflows and relationships you develop that is foundation for any combination; that’s where we are focussing energy at the moment.

SM: I can give you an example…we acted for Cathay Fortune when it bid for Discovery Metals and Cathay were a client of King & Wood in Beijing. What happened was that most work was done by myself and my team in Australia and a significant part of the work was done in Beijing because of a joint venture between Cathay and the China-African Development Fund and all the financing work was done by David Lam, a partner in the Hong Kong office. That’s emblematic of the sort of deals we can do when you’re pooling resources together in the same way as you’d do between Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

ALB: Does the verein structure mean that each partnership sets its own revenue targets and profitability, or is that done on a global basis?

SK: We still focus on that [globally] because that aligns you and means you’re heading in the right direction. We’ve got an international management committee…. there are representatives from all offices sitting on that international management committee…budgeting, forecasting and results all come to that committee.

ALB: So they set revenues and profit targets and that kind of thing?

SK: They’ll have visibility of it. I’m the managing partner Australia and I’ll set budgets down here but I won’t do that from a silo perspective; it will be done having regard to the opportunities that are out in the network. So it’s definitely not done in isolation.

ALB: How will the firm report revenues – will you be able to report Australian results separately, as was the case in the Mallesons’ days?

SK: That’s a good question – it’s a day out from the announcement and we’ve got to start working towards integration. I don’t think [a decision has been made] yet.

ALB: Do you anticipate any further restructurings or redundancies?

SK: Not at this stage. We had a really strong end to the last financial year; the last quarter for us was strong and the

Sue Kench - Australia managing partner, KWM

“WE HAD A REALLY STRONG END TO THE LAST FINANCIAL YEAR; THE LAST QUARTER FOR US WAS STRONG AND THE PIPELINE FOR US INTO NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR IS LOOKING GOOD TOO.”

- Sue Kench

pipeline for us into next financial year is looking good too. So business for us is looking good. So at this stage, nothing planned.

ALB: Sounds like you have quite a positive view of the market?

SK: At the moment the market in Australia is rebalancing; obviously we’ll continue to look at it but at the moment our forecasts are holding.

ALB: Will you be sticking with the July financial year?

SK: We’ll be holding to July, yes.

ALB: There’s been various reports about a mooted merger in Singapore with WongPartnership – are you able to speak about this?

SK: I think it’s been understood we did have [discussions] with WongPartnership and obviously Singapore remains very important to us and we’ll be picking that up in due course. That’s probably all there is to say at this point.

SM: Yes, Singapore’s important but there’s nothing current with WongPartnership.

ALB: Any discussions with other firms?

SK: We need to bed this integration down first! We’re not talking to anyone else at the moment but that’s not to say we won’t look at opportunities as they arise.

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

ANALYSIS

19

SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE WORKPLACE – Are employers gaining the upper hand?

BY TONY DE GOVRIK, LEGAL AFFAIRS & COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, AUSTRALIAN CORPORATE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, THE PROFESSIONAL BODY FOR IN-HOUSE LAWYERS.

C

Tony de Govrik

reative director and social media specialist, Simon Mainwaring, said “One of the greatest challenges companies face in adjusting to the impact of social media, is knowing where to start.” Certainly, there can be no argument that social media is taking up a large space on the legal landscape these days. Just pick up your local newspaper to see how many legal issues relating to social media are nowadays being reported. No doubt to the delight of many lawyers, a whole new industry is rapidly growing up around it!

Regular readers of this column may recall that in December last year I commented on the use/abuse of social media by so-called trolls and some of the prosecutions that have followed as a result. Then in February this year I had cause to comment on the hoaxers and pranksters using social media to upset listed companies, their shareholders and customers. My attention now turns to social media and the impact it is presently having on the workplace environment.

Recent court cases have shown that social media is fast becoming the new battleground in relation to workplace dismissals. In the past few years there have been a string of cases resulting in dismissals for inappropriate use of social media, most usually through the mediums of Facebook and Twitter but more recently involving the fairly innocuous LinkedIn site as well. One of the early cases, in 2010, involved an employee who posted a disparaging blog about her employer on her MySpace page in which she called management “witch hunters” and “corrupt” and further alleged that the company’s values were “absolute lies”. She refused to remove the blog when directed by her employer to do so arguing that only her friends could access the material.

Unfortunately for her some of those were also work colleagues. The Fair Work Australia tribunal had little difficulty upholding the employee’s dismissal.

This was followed in 2011 by the Good Guys case which received quite some publicity. Again the employee concerned posted a disparaging comment about his employer which was read by work colleagues. Even though the comments posted by the employee were done using his home computer, were outside work hours and made no reference to the employer by name the tribunal had little difficulty rejecting the unfair dismissal application by the employee.

Earlier this year a Federal Circuit Court judge ruled that a woman who criticised the government on Twitter, even though she didn’t reveal her name

or job to readers, could be dismissed from her employment. The woman in question, a public affairs officer with a law degree, used the Twitter account @ LaLegale. Apparently, she had over 700 “followers” when her department investigated her comments.

According to a report by Fairfax Media this included posting critical tweets about Australia’s immigration detention policies, the security company that works at detention centres and government and opposition frontbenchers. The report said that the woman, who represented herself, argued that none of her tweets were “offensive or damaging to individual persons, but instead they are expressions of political opinion, to which all Australians citizens have a constitutional implied right.” However, Judge Neville said the High Court had found that citizens’ implied rights of political expression were limited and that “even if there be a constitutional right of the kind for which [the Respondent] contends, it does not provide a licence to breach a contract of employment.”

In a reminder about the dangers of social media in the workplace the use of LinkedIn, which is normally considered more benign than other social media as it is generally less susceptible to provocative and outlandish statements, has now been the basis for a workplace dismissal. Last month the Fair Work Commission ruled that an employer was entitled to sack an employee on the basis of a LinkedIn email sent by the employee. According to a report by Fairfax Media, the employee concerned had been authorised by his employer, a Canberra-based design firm, to work in his private capacity on smaller jobs outside normal business hours. The employee sent an email via LinkedIn to potential customers which pledged to expand his fledgling business “to a full-time design business.” The pursuit of the particular out-of-work activity by the employee was regarded as incompatible with his duties to his employer.

It would seem that employers are gradually gaining the upper hand in the courts and tribunals when it comes to claims of unfair dismissal by disgruntled employees found to have used social media inappropriately. In-house counsel undoubtedly have a role to play here in encouraging and assisting their employer organisation to have a clearly defined policy on the use of social media both in the workplace and outside of the workplace (where comments by an employee outside the workplace may negatively impact the workplace environment).

20

ANALYSIS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

ANALYSIS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

21

A QUESTION OF

EQUITY LOCKSTEP, MODIFIED LOCKSTEP, MERITOCRACY – HOW WELL DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURES USED IN LAW FIRMS? CONSULTANT AND FORMER HERBERT GEER MANAGING PARTNER BILL FAZIO EXPLAINS THE BASICS.

H Bill Fazio, Consultant and former Herbert Geer managing partner

ow do equity partners share the profits of the firm? This is usually not apparent to people outside the firm and even people waiting for appointment as equity partners are not always aware of how their firm divides profits.

The model Partnership Act (s28 in Victoria) provides that unless otherwise agreed all partners share profits equally.

Many smaller firms still use this approach but often link this with purchasing equity in the firm. Most larger firms use one or a combination of other partnership models with or without add ons.

The model a firm uses is often arrived at through a subtle blend of historic and modern perspectives with some reactive overlays to deal with issues which have arisen over time. More recently there is a keener focus on the linkages between strategy and partner behaviours and the nature of the profit sharing model.

There are several “standard models” available. Firms may also opt to include a bonus arrangement as an “add on”.

The standard models are: • Equal partnership • Lockstep • Modified lockstep • Meritocracy • Separation of work remuneration and ownership return

EQUAL PARTNERSHIP MODEL Under an equal partnership model all partners share equally in the profits, regardless of seniority or differing contributions.

In this case, senior partners may be reluctant to admit further partners if the new partners are going to earn more than what is perceived to be their fair share – for example, if they earn more than they have contributed or because too much of their contribution is based on clients that were at the firm before the partner was promoted. In this case, the solution is often a sale of goodwill to the incoming partner. This is a payment to the existing partners which compensates the existing partners for the contribution they have already made. The theory is the incoming partner should be able to afford this goodwill payment – often spread over time – through their increased earnings and they will, if the system doesn’t change, be able to sell their goodwill to the next generation.1 PARTNERSHIP POINTS Where the firm allocates a different share of profits to each partner this is usually achieved by giving each partner individual “points” or “units”. Each partner has a number of points and their share of profit is simply: Partner share of profit = Firm Profit X

Personal Points Total Partnership Points

The role of each model is to determine how these points are allocated.

LOCKSTEP MODEL In a lockstep model, an internal candidate is, typically, offered entry at 40 or 50 points in a system that allows partners to progress to 100 points on a fixed progression basis. There are infinite variations on this and you can see that entry could be at 30 and the top

22

ANALYSIS

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

partner may go beyond 100 points. The essential feature of this system is that you know in advance how you will progress and that these steps are “locked” in.

If expectations on equity partners are relatively consistent, the differing profit participation can be seen as a way of paying something to the senior partners by way of sweat equity rather than goodwill. Consider the table below: Year of partnership

Points

Points foregone from 100

1

40

60

2

50

50

3

60

40

4

70

30

5

80

20

6

90

10

7

100

0

Total:

210

In this simple example and making no allowance for reduced contribution in the early years, the new equity partner has, on one interpretation, contributed (or foregone) 2.1 years profit as a cost of joining the partnership. This analysis can be problematic in the case of assessing lateral partners who are admitted above the base level.

For instance, a partner coming in at 50 instead of 40 isn’t just 10 points better off but 60 points better off when looked at from the perspective of points foregone.

Specific goodwill contributions are less common in lockstep and modified lockstep systems but are still seen.

MODIFIED LOCKSTEP When people refer to a modified lockstep they simply mean their system is not as pure as the one above. The modification might be in the steps, so that you need to meet certain performance levels to progress, or a soft version of a meritocracy.

It may simply be that a bonus structure has been added.

Where there are steps this is often referred to as “banding”. For instance, you may not be able to progress beyond 70 points if your practice or profitability is not beyond a certain standard. Other times the modification is that you may be asked to stay at a certain points level while your practice improves (plateauing)

or you might be asked to drop points until your practice improves.

Sometimes these bands are based around roles: a band that relates to a domestic partner or international partner, a band for managing partners and another for practice unit or office leaders.

As you will see from the discussion below, the further you modify a lockstep the closer it gets to a meritocracy. What keeps it as a modified lockstep is that “standard” people still progress along the lockstep. In other words, there is a band of performance which leaves you in the lockstep. In a true meritocracy your actual performance is assessed every year.

MERITOCRACY Firms with a meritocracy system will say that they measure each partner’s performance (or contribution) every year and then allocate points or units accordingly.

Obviously the difficult issues with these systems are: • What do you measure?

• How do you measure?

• Who does the measuring?

• Is it a formula or still discretionary informed by the measuring?

Unsurprisingly, all systems measure financial performance. Most systems give this a strong weighting. Some systems stop here!

There are many ways to measure financial performance. The most common measures are revenue and profit but there are many variations and nuances within these core concepts. The concept of profit can be problematic. Some systems use accrual accounting (allowing for changes in work in progress) and some only look at the cash outcome (fees billed and collected).

Many systems have regard to non-financial measures. This could be a pass/fail concept, with a fail meaning no access to the bonus pool, or a fail meaning you cannot go up the lockstep.

Sometimes non-financial includes matters like strategic alignment. If your firm’s strategy is targeting specific clients, you might give more reward for strategic client acquisition than retention or acquisition of non- strategic clients. There may be specific programs which the firm is driving and wishes to reward, such as precedent/knowledge initiatives or staff retention. All of these can be measured and that measurement used to influence the points allocation.

To prevent rapid changes in points these systems sometimes have safeguards such as a grace year, no more than a certain % up or down movement allowed per year, etc. These safeguards reflect the partnership culture: the stronger the safeguards the less direct or pure the meritocracy measurement will be. The strength of safeguards varies between systems.

You may or may not see goodwill at these firms. It is more complicated to administer goodwill where points keep changing as each points change will be a sale or purchase to or from one partner to the other partners.

THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR? One feature of most equity systems is that your performance this financial year is what sets you points for next year. So great performance now turns into more points next year and then – provided profit doesn’t fall or you don’t leave the firm – higher income next year.

This delay can be discouraging. Also, many systems look at what might be called sustained performance or quality of practice and so one off performance may not be rewarded. This can happen

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

“THERE IS NO SYSTEM THAT WORKS BEST FOR ALL PEOPLE AND ALL FIRMS IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. IF THE PARTNERS ARE HAPPY WITH THE SYSTEM, THEN THAT IS AT LEAST A GOOD SYSTEM FOR THEM.”

when you just helped your best client get taken over, or you worked exceptionally hard to mind a client for someone and then gave them back. Your performance has been high but it is not necessarily sustainable.

Most bonus systems try to help smooth out this situation and are typically a reward from this year’s profits for this year’s effort. They can also be used to buffer a more rigid lockstep system.

BONUS Each bonus system has its own distinctive features. They are typically bolted on to another structure to deal with special issues.

Most frequently they are designed to allow a few star performers to receive a higher share than the system without bonus would allow. The bonus pool is usually defined as a % of the total equity partner profit pool.

In a typical bonus system there will be a defined outperformance standard and those exceeding this standard will be eligible for a bonus. In some cases the bonus is derived from a formula; other times it is allocated by the Remuneration Committee. Typically, it is not expected that a high percentage of partners will receive a bonus.

So, in a variable points system with a bonus pool a partner’s profit calculation looks like this:

ANALYSIS

23

THE ROLE OF THE SYSTEM IN DRIVING STRATEGY AND BEHAVIOURS: GAME THEORY With just a little reflection it is easy to imagine how a system can drive behaviours: • If you measure revenue and not profit then there will be more focus at a partner level on revenue and less on profit.

• If you measure individual partner profit there will be a reluctance to do anything which reduces profit and so short termism may prevail.

• If you want to drive strategic change but the rate of change is irrelevant to the points calculation then partners will not be directly motivated to change. Old habits will be rewarded equally with new habits.

• Management can declare that staff satisfaction or another non-financial measure is a key requirement but, if it does not get measured, many partners will concentrate their effort on the things that are measured.

This is often referred to as partners learning how to play the game or “I hear what you say, but I know what you value”.

WHICH SYSTEM IS BEST? There is no system that works best for all people and all firms in all circumstances.

If the partners are happy with the system, then that is at least a good system for them.

The harder question for partners to answer is “Do we have the best system for what we are trying to achieve?”

Partner share of profit = Firm Profit (minus bonus pool) X Personal Points + bonus (if any) Total Partnership Points Where bonus pool = Firm Profit x agreed % Usually the bonus pool does not need to be fully utilised if there are insufficient worthy claimants and the unused pool funds are returned to the general profit pool.

SEPARATION OF PERSONAL EXERTION AND OWNERSHIP Some firms look at performance and contribution to profits slightly differently to the above. They separate direct remuneration for doing the job of a partner and the return that might be expected on money in the business (return on equity). One instance of this is incorporated practices where the structure reinforces this distinction.

One approach is to “pay” partners an amount equal to the wage of a very senior lawyer, with or without a bonus system of sorts, and then provide the balance of the return to partners as business owners in proportion to the share of the business they own (points or equity).

FOOTNOTE: 1 Just how the firm deals with work in progress and other matters is beyond this discussion and is not addressed here for this or the other models.

Similarly, systems for financing any partner payments or funding the working capital needs of the firm are beyond the scope of this paper.

2 or Board or Managing Partner; whoever is actually running the remuneration analysis

STATE OF THE MARKET:

AUSTRALASIA’S LARGEST FIRMS & REVENUES

THANKS, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS THE RESULTS OF ALB’S COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL MARKET SURVEY ARE IN – AND AS EXPECTED, THEY PAINT A PICTURE OF A LEGAL SERVICES MARKET WHICH IS STRUGGLING TO FIND TRACTION. REPORT: BEN ABBOTT, RENU PRASAD

T

AUSTRALASIA’S LARGEST FIRMS REVEALED

“IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MUCH OF THE TRADITIONAL TOP TIER TERRITORY IS CLAIMED BY THE RISING MID-SIZE ELITE. WITH THE CURRENT FLUIDITY OF PARTNER MOVEMENTS, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.”

here is no surprise result to unveil in this year’s ALB30 survey; on the contrary, the survey confirms what we have known for several months. FY2013 was a tough year for most Australasian law firms and the ALB30 survey tells a story of reduced headcount and subdued revenue growth across the industry. That is the impression most of us would have had of the FY2013 market, but it’s nice to see some empirical evidence.

There were, of course, exceptions to the general trend and these too would come as no surprise. Mid-size firms have been outperforming their big name counterparts for many years now and this trend continues in 2013. Cast your eye down the list of firms and you’ll find plenty of examples of revenue growth, some of it even in double digits. But what you won’t see is growth from the established top tier firms. This is a market for the challengers.

BIG SIX BUSTED It was only a matter of time before the once dominant clique of the “big six” – in the old parlance, Mallesons, Freehills, Allens, Blake Dawson, Clayton Utz and Minter Ellison – was disrupted by one of the rising mid-size firms. It appears that we are now on the verge of this happening and a new firm will shortly break into the “six”.

HWL Ebsworth, for many years the firm most likely to achieve such a feat, reached 154 partners in July. If firms are ranked by partnership size, HWL is now in equal sixth place alongside Allens. Given the growth

trajectory at both firms, it is likely that HWL Ebsworth will displace Allens in the “six” in the coming months and may have even done so already. However, if the top six is measured by lawyer count, HWL is still a considerable distance behind Allens and also ranks behind Corrs Chambers Westgarth and Norton Rose Fulbright.

This narrative has little practical significance, but it does demonstrate the evolution of the Australian legal services market from a situation where the “top tier”, once synonymous with “big six”, was universally known and identifiable. This is no longer the case; the concept of “top tier” has become disputed territory and a matter unconnected with firm size.

On one view, the presence of former midsize firms in the “six” is of little consequence to the traditional top tier as the two groups of firms are perceived to operate in different market segments. However, this is not a view shared by some of the newcomers, who are gradually distancing themselves from their old “mid-tier” designation and beginning to claim some areas of top tier expertise for themselves. Clearly this trend is yet to reach the rarefied space of the billion dollar M&A deals and capital raisings, but it will be interesting to see how much of the traditional top tier territory is claimed by the rising midsize elite. With the current fluidity of partner movements, anything is possible.

REDUNDANCIES AND ATTRITION The ALB 30 results confirm widespread rumours of hiring freezes and

STATE OF THE MARKET: redundancies in the industry. All of the “big six”, with the exception of Herbert Smith Freehills, shed about five percent of their non-partner lawyer headcount each.

DLA Piper (-10%), Norton Rose (-3%) and Thomsons (-8%) are other examples of firms who will have more empty desks than they did this time last year.

Partnership figures evince a similar story, with nearly all of the above firms slimming down their partnership. The firms which lost significant numbers of partners included Allens (down 7%), DLA Piper and Henry Davis York (down 6%) and Freehills and Corrs (both down 4%). Holding Redlich (down 10%) topped this category, although the higher percentage is partly due to the firm’s smaller partnership size.

And despite persistent media reports to the contrary, Ashurst has not substantially reduced its partnership.

Again, these results are consistent with the common perception of the 2013 legal services market; this is an environment where firms are controlling their staff costs and protecting profit per partner in a vigilant manner.

Firms which have defied expectations by growing their lawyer or partner base over this year may have done so for a variety of reasons. Some firms (for example, Gadens, HopgoodGanim and HWL Ebsworth) have been involved in mergers , although this does not exclude the possibility of organic growth too. Counter-cyclical practices may have assisted growth at firms with large insurance practices (for example, Sparke Helmore and Moray & Agnew).

Finally, there are some firms such as Gilbert + Tobin and Corrs which, despite a client base not dissimilar to that of the big six, have continued to grow through their lawyer count – an encouraging sign in uncertain times.

Over in New Zealand, the headcount results are mixed. Some firms, such as Buddle Findlay and Chapman Tripp are up on last year, but others (e.g Simpson Grierson and Bell Gully) are down.

Unfortunately New Zealand firms do not publish revenues, so this is the extent of the data available on this market. Judging by the numbers, we can surmise that there are still signs of life emanating from over the Tasman – an inference confirmed by what is believed to be an improved deal environment. “It is encouraging that we

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND’S LARGEST FIRMS RANK FIRM

PARTNERS AS AT JULY 2012

PARTNERS AS AT JULY 2013

% CHANGE

193

185

-4.1%

1

Herbert Smith Freehills

2

King & Wood Mallesons

158

156

-1.3%

3

Clayton Utz

202

200

-1.0%

4

Minter Ellison

188

188

0.0%

5

Ashurst

178

177

-0.6%

6

Allens

165

154

-6.7%

7

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

126

121

-4.0%

8

Norton Rose Fulbright

139

143

2.9%

9

Gadens

137

145

5.5%

10

HWL Ebsworth

146

154

5.5%

11

DLA Piper

114

107

-6.1%

12

Gilbert + Tobin

67

69

3.0%

13

Slater & Gordon

93

97

4.3%

14

Sparke Helmore

54

62

14.8%

15

K&L Gates

71

70

-1.4%

16

Maddocks

67

70

4.5%

17

Baker & McKenzie

91

84

-7.7%

18

Moray & Agnew Lawyers

65

69

6.2%

19

Lander & Rogers

55

59

7.3%

20

Henry Davis York

54

51

-5.6%

21

Kennedy Strang Legal Group

71

74

4.2%

22

McCullough Robertson

50

54

8.0%

23

Thomsons Lawyers

58

62

6.9%

24

Chapman Tripp

55

52

-5.5%

25

Russell McVeagh

41

40

-2.4%

26

Simpson Grierson

48

46

-4.2%

27

Buddle Findlay

41

42

2.4%

28

Bell Gully

45

43

-4.4%

29

Holding Redlich

58

52

-10.3%

30

Hunt & Hunt Lawyers

56

60

7.1%

31

Piper Alderman

52

53

1.9%

32

Mills Oakley Lawyers

36

44

22.2%

33

M+K Lawyers

56

57

1.8%

34

Dibbs Barker

45

44

-2.2%

35

Tress Cox Lawyers

36

38

5.6%

36

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

44

41

-6.8%

37

Colin Biggers & Paisley

37

47

27.0%

38

Hall & Wilcox

35

37

5.7%

39

HopgoodGanim

27

33

22.2%

40

Jackson McDonald

30

30

0.0%

AUSTRALASIA’S LARGEST FIRMS & REVENUES – BY LAWYER COUNT, JULY 2013 LAWYERS (EXCL. LAWYERS (EXCL. PARTNERS) AS PARTNERS) AS AT JULY 2012 AT JULY 2013 734

% CHANGE

LAWYERS PER TOTAL FEE PARTNER EARNERS JULY 2013

747

1.8%

4.04

932

774

723

-6.6%

4.63

879

602

555

-7.8%

2.78

755

581

554

-4.6%

2.95

742

546

522

-4.4%

2.95

699

566

525

-7.2%

3.41

679

385

414

7.5%

3.42

535

398

384

-3.5%

2.69

527

354

360

1.6%

2.48

505

242

268

10.7%

1.74

422

344

308

-10.5%

2.88

415

243

254

4.5%

3.68

323

216

224

3.7%

2.31

321

236

257

8.9%

4.15

319

220

231

5.0%

3.30

301

192

200

4.2%

2.86

270

177

174

-1.7%

2.07

258

145

173

19.3%

2.51

242

158

169

7.0%

2.86

228

160

166

3.8%

3.25

217

150

138

-8.0%

1.86

212

151

156

3.3%

2.89

210

157

144

-8.3%

2.32

206

145

152

4.8%

2.92

204

152

164

7.9%

4.10

204

162

156

-3.7%

3.39

202

148

155

4.7%

3.69

197

163

150

-8.0%

3.49

193

131

125

-4.6%

2.40

177

122

114

-6.6%

1.90

174

92

119

29.3%

2.25

172

119

127

6.7%

2.89

171

90

106

17.8%

1.86

163

127

117

-7.9%

2.66

161

123

120

-2.4%

3.16

158

96

98

2.1%

2.39

139

74

85

14.9%

1.81

132

79

91

15.2%

2.46

128

73

91

24.7%

2.76

124

90

89

-1.1%

2.97

119

NOTE: 1. Johnson Winter & Slattery and Herbert Geer did not participate in the survey 2. Publicly listed company Slater & Gordon does not have partners. Figures quoted include the equivalent practice group leaders, principal lawyers and general managers 3. Please note that the figure quoted in the ALB 30 survey for Russell McVeagh in 2012 issue 10.8 erroneously included graduates.

STATE OF THE MARKET: AUSTRALASIA’S LARGEST FIRMS & REVENUES are seeing a higher number of transactions reach completion than was previously the case, and expectations are that the market will trend back towards more typical levels of M&A,” Bell Gully chairman Roger Partridge told ALB. REVENUES We are grateful to the firms who have agreed to share their revenue results with the market. This is becoming an increasingly complex task as more firms enter international mergers and need to review their policies on this matter. Some international firms only publish revenues for the entire organisation rather than on a country basis. It is hoped that this practice will not become commonplace for internationals operating in Australia as the result can only be a diminishment of the information available to the local market.

We understand that some firms absent from the 2013 revenue chart are hoping to participate once again in 2014.

The 2013 revenue results reflect the same stagnant market, with certain exceptions, discussed above. Almost none of the large top tiers had growth, but most did not fare too badly in a difficult market.

The general expectation was that the big firms would record results similar to their 2012 revenues, albeit slightly slower, and this has eventuated.

As has been the case in previous years, the strongest growth came from mid-size firms. Most notable were the firms such as Mills Oakley and Curwoods, which grew without the benefit of any mergers.

However, even at the mid-size level there is evidence of firms running out of steam: there are some notable instances of firms which have previously had consistent double digit growth dropping to single digit growth or firms with a consistent growth trajectory sliding onto the wrong side of zero for the first time in many years.

Some mid-size firms which have previously disclosed their revenues were mysteriously silent this year.

That sums up the situation for FY2013: it’s been a good year for some, but for most it was unspectacular. It wasn’t a complete disaster and if the latest prognostications from the crystal ball watchers are to be believed, FY2014 has started in a more positive fashion. Let’s hope they’re right.

REVENUE FIGURES – FY2013 ($Am) Firm

FY2012 revenue

FY2013 revenue

AdventBalance

14-17 (*)

18-21

Aitken Partners

% change

undisclosed

undisclosed

5%

Arnold Bloch Leibler

68

69

1.49%

Ashurst

382

373

-2.36%

Carter Newell

22

23

2.47%

Clayton Utz

455

437

-4.12%

Colin Biggers & Paisley

39.6

50

26.26%

33

33

1.22%

265

260

-1.89%

Cooper Grace Ward Corrs Chambers Westgarth Curwoods

19

29

52.63%

Fox Tucker

12

12

0.02%

Gilbert + Tobin

155

162

4.93%

Gadens

207

207

0.00%

Hall & Wilcox

46

45

-1.53%

Holding Redlich

69

72

4.17%

Hopgood Ganim

39

41

6.25%

HWL Ebsworth

140

151

7.86%

ILH Group Limited

32

36

12.04%

Jackson McDonald

undisclosed

undisclosed

6.6%

K&L Gates

115

118

2.62%

Kelly & Co

24

26

8.33%

King & Wood Mallesons

424

410

-3.24%

Lander & Rogers

75

81

8.00%

M+K Lawyers

52

58

11.11%

Maddocks

114

117

2.74%

Marque Lawyers

6

7

22.08%

McCullough Robertson

96

94

-2.28%

McInnes Wilson Lawyers

33

34

4.45%

Mills Oakley Lawyers

49

58

19.59%

Minter Ellison

419

416

-0.76%

Moray & Agnew Lawyers

84

104

23.37%

People & Culture Strategies

4

4

14.06%

Piper Alderman

58

63

8.62%

Slater & Gordon

215 (**)

290

34.88%

Sparke Helmore

105

113

7.10%

Thomsons Lawyers

93

93

0.07%

Webb Henderson

undisclosed

undisclosed

11.88%

Wotton + Kearney

27

28

2.06%

* EXPLANATORY NOTE: This table provides revenue information supplied by firms as part of the ALB Top Firms survey.

Firms which appear in this table may not necessarily be part of the ALB 30 headcount table and conversely, not all firms in the ALB 30 table supplied revenue figures. Some firms preferred to disclose their revenues in a particular format, for example in a range format or by supplying the growth percentage only. ** NOTE: Slater & Gordon’s revenue figures are forecast only (to be announced in August 2013), and include the revenue contribution of its UK business.

Sponsors:

Confirmed keynote speakers include: • Michael Chaney AO, Chairman of NAB and Woodside; and Chancellor, University of Western Australia • Dr Adrian Blundell-Wignall, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General for Financial Markets, OECD • Diane Smith-Gander FCSA, Non-executive Director, Wesfarmers

1–4 December 2013 Crown Perth, Western Australia www.csaconference.com

30

Technology

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

Technology

THEPANEL

Anthony Bleasdale Berys Amor GENERAL MANAGER OF KM, MAURICE BLACKBURN

DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY, CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH

Cristina Libro

LEGAL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS MANAGER, HENRY DAVIS YORK

Danny Simmons PARTNER, CLIFFORD CHANCE

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

31

SPONSORED BY:

BRAVE NEW

WORLD The need to work smarter, not harder is one of truisms of modern legal practice and it has never been more relevant in this era of industry-wide cost consolidation. One group of professionals at the forefront of this transition are the industry’s technology experts.

From hardware to software, from knowledge management to e-discovery, improving efficiency and enhancing client service is their raison d’etre. Let’s hear their thoughts.

Moderator: Renu Prasad AUSTRALASIA EDITOR, ALB MAGAZINE

Dean MacDonald IT DIRECTOR, ASHURST AUSTRALIA

Luke McLean

NSW STATE MANAGER, THOMAS DURYEA CONSULTING

Jonathan Prideaux Russell Wright NATIONAL MANAGER LEGAL TECH SERVICES, CLAYTON UTZ

CHIEF INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE OFFICER, GILBERT + TOBIN

32

Technology

ALB: Clearly times are tough and many firms are looking to cut back on their technology spend. What’s a legitimate area to look at trimming the fat a bit and what’s an example of a false economy?

CRISTINA LIBRO: In terms of the current climate, I think there is a lot of rigid software out there that I think really is not giving us any sort of return on investment. Firms have to start looking for multi-faceted software. Things that not only suit one purpose, but suit many. I think there are a lot of products out there that are quite pliable, so that’s what I see firms steering towards.

DANNY SIMMONS: I think the most important thing when technology is being reviewed is to actually look at what is being used.

How many people are using it? What systems are people using?

When you look across a software suite, you’ll often find things that aren’t being used enough and need to be reviewed.

RUSSELL WRIGHT: Yes I agree and tough times can actually be quite a benefit, because it gives you a chance to make a decision about a particular piece of software that somebody’s attached to, that isn’t delivering a real benefit to the organisation. You can use it as an opportunity to consolidate and standardise your solution. Also, we’re all driving a very high project load, so sitting back and having a look at all of the discretionary projects that are running, you can use it to create focus and get into what really needs to be done.

DEAN MACDONALD: On the point that it’s tough times, I’d say that…this is actually the world that we now inhabit. Everything is getting tighter and we have to actually operate in a more restrictive space than we had to 10 years ago. It is the way forward. So we’re seeing virtualisation come in and saving us huge amounts on hardware - so [the tightening] is not something we should expect to have roll off in the foreseeable future and [that we will] return to the heady days of expenditure.

BERYS AMOR: I agree and what we’re doing as well is going back to the vendors and looking at different types of licensing. So not just a lock in of ‘x’ number of licenses and then software and maintenance every year. We’re looking at different modelling like subscription, so you only pay for what you use and that can flex up and down, rather than just having a set number which, as [Danny] said, you may not be using all of those licenses.

LUKE MCLEAN: What we’re seeing as well with a number of our clients is that you’re already entitled to software that is far beyond what you are currently leveraging. So talking about these enterprise agreements and software assurances, there are a lot of efficiencies in those latter products that you’ve already paid for and you are entitled to, but you’re not actually adopting those.

CRISTINA LIBRO: I think sometimes it’s about conducting a due diligence, because you’d be surprised what you actually have at your fingertips, in terms of what certain pieces of software can actually produce. Sometimes it is a due diligence exercise to take account of what you actually have at that point in time and then look at where the gaps are and what you actually want to fill the gaps that you have.

ALB: I’m interested in the earlier comment from Berys about relationships with the vendors and trying to get a better deal.

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

FIRMS HAVE TO START LOOKING FOR MULTI-FACETED SOFTWARE. THINGS THAT NOT ONLY SUIT ONE PURPOSE, BUT SUIT MANY. I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PRODUCTS OUT THERE THAT ARE QUITE PLIABLE, SO THAT’S WHAT I SEE FIRMS STEERING TOWARDS. - CRISTINA LIBRO

Is that something common to anyone else on this panel? What are some of the particular points of negotiation that have come up?

CRISTINA LIBRO: I think as a firm, especially when you do have quite a good relationship with certain vendors, you are able to leverage that. They want you to purchase the product and you are looking for the same value returned. So I think it is quite easy to come to a meeting of the minds.

DEAN MACDONALD: It is. Understanding their drivers as well as yours and their market space – telcos are a great example.

We’ve recently gone through a telco review and we’ve saved a huge amount of money, but that was by a depth of understanding with Telstra and how to work through that.

That took us a long time to work with them on that, to understand where they were coming from as well. A lot of it is about communication and how it is approached by each side.

BERYS AMOR: It’s very competitive as well.

It’s competitive for us and it’s competitive for the vendors as well. It’s in their best interests to go into negotiating.

LUKE MCLEAN: It’s understanding where they’re coming from but also [understanding] the time frames. It’s very easy to find out when the end of a quarter is for a particular vendor or when end of financial year is and, if you can align some of your expenditure around that, you’ll see mountains move, in terms of discounts and getting what you need.

ALB: To what extent do the mountains move?

LUKE MCLEAN: I’ve seen, from our side, some extreme end-of-June style deals. I’m working with a law firm at the moment

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

33

SPONSORED BY:

where I’m seeing discounts in the realms of 75 percent, for a particular business development manager to hit their quarter number or yearly number.

ANTHONY BLEASDALE: It’s interesting, especially with that comment around price. In a previous role I did that kind of work and now, on the other side of it, you learn from those experiences. I still respect the vendor who wants to come and be a partner, but, at the same time, that isn’t going to [get those offering a] 75 percent discount in the door. I think there is a risk that if you don’t go into it as a partnership and if both of you don’t recognise the value that you are bringing to that solution, you may run the risk of always putting forward the cheapest option. You need to take into account what’s best for the firm. I understand for some firms the drive around cost is really important but, at the same time, if you can engage with a partnership, as we’ve done with many of our vendors, we’ve been able to deliver projects in half the time.

ALB: So it’s not just always about price?

RUSSELL WRIGHT: It’s engaging with the vendors so that they have a full understanding of what you are trying to do. Quite often you are engaging about a particular piece of their offering. They have a lot of contracts and a lot of other business streams that they are doing, so understanding their market pressures is very important.

It’s not that you are going to try to beat them down to the last dollar, but everyone is keen to get closure, so move to do things.

ALB: Let’s talk about project management tools, particularly in relation to clients – how can they improve transparency and collaboration?

BERYS AMOR: At Corrs we’re looking at legal project management or putting in place some kind of methodology and a different culture for lawyers on how they manage their matters. Clients want it, they want to see more upfront pricing modelling, different types of fee arrangements and also better client reports. I think an [appropriate] methodology will provide that transparency for clients.

JONATHAN PRIDEAUX: I think many of our clients are heavy users of project management and have been for quite a long time. I think

IT’S VERY EASY TO FIND OUT WHEN THE END OF A QUARTER IS FOR A PARTICULAR VENDOR OR WHEN END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IS AND, IF YOU CAN ALIGN SOME OF YOUR EXPENDITURE AROUND THAT, YOU’LL SEE MOUNTAINS MOVE, IN TERMS OF DISCOUNTS AND GETTING WHAT YOU NEED. - LUKE MCLEAN

they’re really expecting law firms to use the same sort of techniques and rigour because they’ve seen the benefits of employing all sorts of project management techniques. A lot of the impetus for project management is really coming from our clients.

ALB: To what extent are firms using those project management tools? Are they standard practice, or is there still some distance to go?

JONATHAN: I think it’s varied from one firm to the next. Certainly it’s something we are looking at and we have employed project management techniques for some time, but it is something that we continuously look at and try to improve.

Give your legal professionals secure and fast access to the information they require across any mobile, tablet, laptop or desktop device.

View a demonstration on how today. e: info@td.com.au

p: 03 8420 0100

w: www.td.com.au

34

Technology

CRISTINA: We have it embedded in workflow technology at HDY for the last seven years and it’s one clear way that we can show our clients that we are delivering those efficiencies internally. I think the driver for that has reaped a lot of results both internally and externally with the client. The transparency then comes when you inject best practices through project management fundamentals. You get the benefits internally with the staff and externally for the clients.

ANTHONY: I certainly feel with our large litigation in the class action area, one of the things we need to establish early are those steps we are going to go through before the action takes place, then once that action takes place, not just relying on the orders that are set down by a court, but actually being able to maintain that not only with defendant law firms but also ourselves and the expectations of the plaintiffs. Running large class actions needs to have some large structures around it – without structure everyone can be running in different directions. Certainly, our litigation support people have put that in place, so everybody knows their roles and responsibilities.

RUSSELL: It’s very much key in human resources and utilisation of people and it’s a key tool to avoiding crisis; if you’re not organised that’s what happens.

LUKE: We need to make sure it’s an agile project methodology. So when you’re going through your list of projects, [we need to make sure] that you’re working out the risk profile against those. Because what we are finding is that if people tend to implement the same methodology regardless of project type, there tends to be a lot of unnecessary overhead and cost. Whereas if you can, up front, profile [a project] to say it is high risk, it will touch every partner and every lawyer in the business, then, yes, we need to have this rigour.

On the other hand if it’s a very low impact project, then you can just have a cut down version of that methodology.

JONATHAN: I agree, I think you need to take a very flexible approach to project management. There’s a lot in running a legal case that is outside of your control and therefore you do need to have that flexibility to adapt, to react to a turn that a case might take that you are not expecting.

CRISTINA: And I think that’s when project management shines, when it gets to the extent that it’s actually allowing the lawyers to do what they do best, but is still providing that basic framework.

In my experience it’s definitely been the case that each practice area or each project has required a fresh set of eyes and its own bespoke method of providing legal management principles.

DEAN: And sometimes that bespoke [aspect] can take a wide variety. Down one end you’ve got the things that are fairly repetitive; at the other end you’ve got completely bespoke work that is much harder to fit within a true restructured project schedule. So it’s not a case of one size fits all with this, you have to actually approach it on a case by case basis.

ALB: It becomes a process for the sake of process otherwise?

DEAN: Yes it actually costs more when you do that.

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

AND SOMETIMES THAT BESPOKE [ASPECT] CAN TAKE A WIDE VARIETY. DOWN ONE END YOU’VE GOT THE THINGS THAT ARE FAIRLY REPETITIVE; AT THE OTHER END YOU’VE GOT COMPLETELY BESPOKE WORK THAT IS MUCH HARDER TO FIT WITHIN A TRUE RESTRUCTURED PROJECT SCHEDULE. - DEAN MACDONALD

ALB: Here’s a great quote: “collaboration – it’s more than just sharing documents.” So what does collaboration mean for you guys?

ANTHONY: I actually read a really good article on this topic, which mentioned an organisation who used to pay for their staff lunches. By removing that, their staff began bringing in their lunches and eating at their desks. They lost all their productivity and collaboration and discussion – people didn’t understand what projects everyone was working on. For me collaboration sometimes gets focused in the legal sector on contracts or collaborating around a document, when actually what we’re trying to do is get an understanding and sharing.

So collaboration in our firm is not just about sharing the content we are working on, on a daily basis, but at the same time, sharing that information with our clients so that they understand what we’re doing.

CRISTINA: I think that is the 21st century legal service delivery model. It’s more about becoming a partner with your clients; you become almost an extension of this business. You actually leverage your services to help them achieve, not just that parcel of legal work, but their business objectives. So I think it’s more about a partnership and an alignment with your client to deliver those services.

LUKE: And also about how they want to receive that information. So whether it’s internal communications or [communications] to your clients, some want

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

to use the latest technology, such as instant messaging, others are still very paper based. So again it’s profiling and making sure you are catering for each one of those collaboration mediums, as opposed to just how your own firm delivers communication.

RUSSELL: We were talking earlier about the project management approach – you can’t just shoehorn everybody into one particular fit. [We need to] create a solution which is flexible and services different clients’ needs. It also services different styles of contents, it’s not just documents. It’s project reports, it’s instant messaging, even some video conference stuff you can get involved in, which just makes it easy to communicate.

DANNY: I think email, at its basic level, has changed collaboration.

On any matter, essentially everyone involved in the matter is almost on every email. So everyone knows what is happening. That’s been a big change in legal practice. In the past it may have been a partner speaking with a client and then communicating to everyone else and feeding it back through. Now it’s changed so that everyone sees everything, almost, from the beginning.

ALB: But do they actually read the whole chain?

DANNY: Well they’re expected to.

BERYS: And again it’s not just providing technology that helps to facilitate it, but it’s a cultural shift too of people’s behaviour and removing some of the physical barriers as well to create that culture of collaboration. But yes, technology can provide some fantastic tools to help facilitate that.

ALB: Moving onto e-discovery – a lot has been written about predictive coding and how that interacts with e-discovery. Is it possible that we might find that e-discovery will replace certain LPO functions?

JONATHAN: Discovery historically is quite an expensive project. It’s one that clients often might struggle to see the value that they get from the spend, but it’s something that is generally required. So, it is an area we’re always trying to drive down the cost of and make our lawyers more efficient. It’s a manually intensive process, so the idea of predictive coding is trying to reduce some of those huge volumes of documents that we are required to review and thereby reduce the cost. LPO has the same end game, but that works slightly differently where you are replacing quite an expensive legal workforce that you might have domestically, with an offshore more cost-effective work force. Both really are viable options; clients really are keen to reduce the cost, particularly in high-cost litigation, and both should really be looked at in the context of the case that you’re working on. They should be considered as part of an overall strategy of managing documents in a litigation, but certainly both should be considered these days, yes.

ALB: Is it possible that firms might have access to this software and find that they actually don’t need to refer discovery work out to a specialist?

JONATHAN: Yes absolutely, as I said both are viable options.

Predictive coding technology can be employed to avoid that use of a large number of people to review documents, it is definitely a viable option these days. If used properly it can, in the right circumstances, really help to reduce the cost of litigation.

SPONSORED BY:

“FOR ME COLLABORATION SOMETIMES GETS FOCUSED IN THE LEGAL SECTOR ON CONTRACTS OR COLLABORATING AROUND A DOCUMENT, WHEN ACTUALLY WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO IS GET AN UNDERSTANDING AND SHARING.” - ANTHONY BLEASDALE

RUSSELL: It’s a measure of risk really. There’s a number of studies out there matching predictive coding against the traditional, people-based reviewing technique and looking at the error rates in the approaches.

There are different styles of predictive coding as well; some are more applicable to a particular type of document than others.

So it’s a little bit of an art form in terms of figuring out the best way to approach it, but it is a strongly emerging trend.

ALB: Is there a question over its reliability at all?

RUSSELL: No, it’s a question of just managing risk. Which option is going to deliver you the least risk? People make mistakes. So if you have set up predictive coding you have to make sure you are getting the same accuracy returns. You have to be checking it all the time.

JONATHAN: It’s like all technologies. I think by itself it’s just a piece of software that isn’t going to give you a great result.

It’s about how you implement it; setting expectations for the sort of the results you might get and then managing those expectations. The great thing about most technologies is that they are unbiased, so when you do get a result through the use of this technology, if documents are missed, well it’s not because of any underhand sort of reason.

If you have a large team of people reviewing documents, they are all human beings and they are all a bit different.

Technology doesn’t have any emotions, it doesn’t have any down days. It needs to be used in a very transparent way, I think.

If parties cooperate more on the way they

35

36

Technology

do discovery in the first place, then the technology definitely has a place.

DEAN: And part of that is the speed at which it is evolving. The algorithms are being built at a rapid rate to improve and reduce risk. We see this with everything when we start with a technology.

If we take voice to text – 20 years ago it was almost unheard of, but we’ve seen a rapid increase of it being taken up. We all effectively carry a device that can do it with nearly 100 percent accuracy. This is the same with these algorithms. The more they tweak, the more feedback we have, the sharper they get and the more we move to a semantic-type search set of tools that can [identify] roughly the shape of what we are after and this is your output.

DANNY: The documents being reviewed have changed a lot too. We went from all paper based documents….now discovery is primarily emails and other electronic documents. The volume has gone up as well because, with everyone being copied on emails, you’re going to have multiple copies of emails with long email chains. Those systems assist that, they reduce the number of documents that have to be reviewed.

ALB: Which brings us to the issue of courtroom technology and how that’s going to improve the efficiency of hearings. Jonathan, can you lead us on that?

JONATHAN: Sure. Courtroom technology has been around for some time and there are varying forms of it. The sort of courtroom technology that I’ve been involved with is really where you’ve got large commercial cases with a large number of documents that need to be presented in court. Courtrooms are very traditional, there is a lot of history and tradition around the way a courtroom works and if you walked into a courtroom now it probably doesn’t look a whole lot different to how it might have looked 20 or 30 years ago, compared to more normal business environments. Courtroom technology has been around for almost 20 years, but it has never really quite taken off. I think there are a number of reasons for that. One is that it has been quite expensive; electronic courtrooms are very bespoke so there’s a lot of cost in setting them up: the infrastructure, the software, the people and the workflow. And they have only really been used for the really big cases. I think these days though, or certainly in recent times, what I’ve noticed is that we are getting some traction with better courtroom technology. The cost has come down, the ease of implementing an electronic courtroom has improved and people are just generally becoming more comfortable. I think the great thing about courtroom technology is it really helps with the logistics within the courtroom. A trial is a very expensive thing to run from one day to the next, so if you can just improve the workflow and the way information flows through a courtroom, then you can achieve some pretty good savings. I think that the cost of running a courtroom really needs to be looked at in that context. Yes, it is an expense, but it should be looked at in

COURTROOM TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, BUT IT HAS NEVER REALLY QUITE TAKEN OFF. - JONATHAN PRIDEAUX

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

WE WENT FROM ALL PAPER BASED DOCUMENTS….NOW DISCOVERY IS PRIMARILY EMAILS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. THE VOLUME HAS GONE UP AS WELL...

- DANNY SIMMONS

terms of how much can it save us in terms of the time it takes to run our trials.

BERYS: But who would drive that though?

The courts themselves?

JONATHAN: Well, when it comes to implementing a courtroom, it is normally a decision between the parties. Your barristers will have a lot of say, because the trial tends to run the way they want it to run, and also the judges as well.

BERYS: But surely you could have some infrastructure in place already?

JONATHAN: Yes and the courts are getting better at that. The court buildings themselves are improving their infrastructure. A lot of them have local area networks and internet connectivity, which means you don’t have to spend a lot of money installing a bespoke system set of hardware. They’ve still got a little bit of work to do, I think one of the most important things that the courts could do is really improve the availability and the reliability of the internet connections. That way you can host an electronic courtroom environment remotely and you don’t need to bring in that sort of hardware. It makes it a lot quicker to get an electronic courtroom implemented.

DEAN: The lack of infrastructure shows on the networking side, although I know some of them are improving it. We recently defended in a large litigation matter at the Federal Court and we effectively had to designate an IT person to go and sit there because their internal networks were so bad. We are seeing that the court is incredibly slow in adopting wireless, particularly secure wireless, because

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

You can also view video footage of this roundtable at www.legalbusinessonline.com

you don’t just want to drop your documents on a wireless in a courtroom that just anybody can attach to. So, I agree that if the court got fundamentals in place, particularly as a standard, it would be much easier for both sides to drop in a layer on top of it.

RUSSELL: Even simple things, like you are still seeing all those court trolleys running up and down. We produce our documents to be displayed on tablets, so you take a tablet to court rather than a trolley. That gives you other advantages too, because you’ve got some navigation and search functions, rather than looking through the files that are on the trolley. So it’s going to be one of those gradual things. If we look back over the years when I first started in legal, I had to sign off on some new golf balls for golf ball typewriters. That shows my age somewhat, but it also demonstrates that we’ve come a long way.

JONATHAN: I think tablets have actually given electronic court environments a bit of a boost, even the senior barristers, the judges all use them and everyone looks for ways to use them within the court environment. I think there are some great applications out there that can support the running of a trial. I know Corrs developed one and the software that’s used to run an e-court these days can also run on a tablet. So that has actually helped quite a bit.

ALB: But it sounds, in terms of most courts’ own infrastructure, progress has been a bit slow.

JONATHAN: It has. I mean, they do obviously work and focus on their own internal needs, but when it comes to what the parties might want within a court environment, I think they see that as the parties’ responsibility. I think we need a little bit more collaboration so that the basic infrastructure is put in place and then the parties can sort of drop in a layer of technology on top of that, a lot more cheaply and a lot more easily.

ANTHONY: I think it goes back to our original conversation around partnership with vendors. All parties need to come to the table. You know, iPads didn’t exist five or six years ago, but the technology has moved on so quickly that the demand is actually exceeding it now.

We are running an action where we have over 7,000 plaintiffs who are able to stream and have live interaction with the court in Melbourne. And that’s one of those things where you think to yourself, would people have even demanded that 10 years ago?

It’s really interesting now that people are starting to look at more technology. Certainly the feedback that we got from our partners is to ensure that when they are looking at documentation, that they don’t feel like they are outside their binder or file or manilla folder environment. We’ve actually worked with a few vendors as well, looking at what Corrs did and things like that and really understanding the usability, rather than just trying to deliver content.

SPONSORED BY:

37

WE PRODUCE OUR DOCUMENTS TO BE DISPLAYED ON TABLETS, SO YOU TAKE A TABLET TO COURT RATHER THAN A TROLLEY. THAT GIVES YOU OTHER ADVANTAGES TOO, BECAUSE YOU’VE GOT SOME NAVIGATION AND SEARCH FUNCTIONS, RATHER THAN LOOKING THROUGH THE FILES THAT ARE ON THE TROLLEY. - RUSSELL WRIGHT

I think there’s an argument that firms, vendors or whoever it is, need to engage more with the courts, not just to provide them services or to attend, but to say: what can we do to help? Our vendors work work with us and provide that support as a partnership, so maybe then we can push that a bit further with the courts and start to really recognise where they can help the courts interact.

ALB: What interaction do you guys have with the technology people in the court system? Is there a formal process for exchanging ideas, or is it just ad hoc?

JONATHAN: It’s a little bit ad hoc, particularly when you do have a large case and you do need to bring in some sort of technology infrastructure, that tends to be when we do engage with the people from the courts.

RUSSELL: It’s certainly on a case by case basis.

ANTHONY: There were some notifications that went out a few years ago about the new online filing, but even then it can only be a certain type of upload, with a certain type of structure, I think it was HTML and it can only be 10 megabytes. There were all of these concepts and, realistically, if you are going to upload information online you don’t just want to be uploading a 10 megabyte document. In that case a person will still need to wheel the trolley with the rest of the information to the courts.

ALB: Let’s talk about how clients interact with firms – imagine a situation where you have, say, a client who’s got a panel with 10 firms on it. The question then is how does the client interact and access data

38

Technology ...WE’RE STARTING TO SEE A TREND NOW, PARTICULARLY WITH LARGER CLIENTS WHO HAVE A PANEL, THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO HAVE TO CARRY A SECURE TOKEN FOR 10 DIFFERENT EXTRANETS. - BERYS AMOR

with those firms? Are there 10 separate sites for each firm that they use, or is there one central site provided by the client?

BERYS: In the past we’ve been very focused on building extranets for our clients and we’re starting to see a trend now, particularly with larger clients who have a panel, they are saying that they don’t want to have to carry a secure token for 10 different extranets.

They are turning it back and wanting us to put the information on their site in a particular format. So rather than us building something, handing it to the client and saying this is how you view your information, we’re finding that we are getting some pushback, clients saying no, this is how we want to view our information, we want you to put it on our system. Is anyone else seeing this?

CRISTINA: I can say I’ve definitely seen that trend, it’s this trend towards integration and I think it’s because our clients are a lot more sophisticated now with their use of technology. You can understand how frustrating it would be to go to 10 different sites.

We still have to balance this demand with leveraging technology to address our clients’ needs, but I think we now have to shift our mindset to looking at how we can integrate with their systems. Our focus has always been on the user experience, but even more so now because our clients have a panel of firms. Also, sometimes it is looking at what the client’s system is all about.

I think it can be about keeping it simple; sometimes I have just gone out and visited the client’s premises and you can see that some of the tools will integrate quite easily – it’s not as big an issue as what it could be. We have to keep focusing on the user experience and what the client wants and needs. It’s easy. I just think we have to be a little bit innovative about the way we approach it now.

DEAN: That ties back with what we spoke about originally about us dealing with our costs and us needing to get closer with our suppliers.

That’s exactly what our firms’ clients are expecting of us. They want us to use their tools, rather than whatever we give them to use. The security angle is fascinating. We are seeing more and more of the tender documents coming through and we are effectively now back ending their security; we hold some of their most sensitive data within our domains.

So we have to go to what our most strictest client wants; that way we can respond in kind to it. It permeates almost everything we do now.

JONATHAN: I’ve certainly noticed an emerging trend in the area I work in with some of our larger clients bringing in the same sort of tools, technology and expertise in-house. If they are heavily regulated or if they do a lot of litigation, or need to do a lot of internal investigation around some of their own huge collections of unstructured data, then they are starting to employ the same kind of

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

processes and analysis that we would use in running a litigation. That works quite nicely because it means they already have the information filtered and in a format that they can give to us and we can then work.

LUKE: From my perspective, the reason these clients are asking for [use of] their systems is the difficulty in accessing all these different partner and firm systems. If you met half way, if you made an interface that was quite easy for them to use, then from a technical point of view that is a much simpler proposition then trying to integrate with thousands of different clients and systems. So, if you could meet them half way and have that middle ground where they do have a single interface for a number of firms, they’re less likely to need that same level of integration into their backend systems, which is going to make it a lot simpler for you to manage and control.

ALB: Well I guess you’re all familiar with the politics of law firms – what are the odds of us seeing this kind of cooperation?

CRISTINA: Yes, I think that’s a big ask, it’s a really big ask. I think it’s a great solution, but in reality it’s really difficult.

LUKE: Or we need a third party who is willing to take it on?

CRISTINA: Maybe that is the key, but I think it is something that quite possibly could be canvased.

DEAN: There’s a massive risk around putting a middle man in with the handling of these transactional and even the nontransactional documents. Russell spoke about it earlier, the world has moved, we have to actively manage risk on a daily basis, unlike what we had to do 10 years ago. So pushing documents through a middle man would mean we’d have to pass all obligations onto that middle man and we’ve seen no middle man yet who’s willing to accept any of our risk.

DANNY: Well in some jurisdictions it’s not legal either, you always have to maintain control of the documents in your systems.

ALB thanks the panel for taking the time to participate in this Roundtable. Next issue, our panel returns to discuss mobile devices, cloud computing and the cultural issues associated with implementing new technology.

The information you need, at your fingertips.

Virtual Desktop Technology allows legal professionals secure and fast access to the information they require across any mobile, tablet, laptop or desktop device.

Thomas Duryea Consulting and EMC brings together mobility solutions to provide the power, performance and reliability that your legal business needs to be competitive.

View a demonstration today. e: info@td.com.au p: 03 8420 0100 w: www.td.com.au

40

LPO

LPO: DON’T ASK DON’T TELL

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

LPO

41

LPOS ARE REAPING THE BENEFITS OF THE LEGAL INDUSTRY’S ATTRACTION TO THEIR NEW SOLUTIONS BASED OFFERINGS. THEIR BUSINESS IS BOOMING IN AUSTRALIA, YET THEIR CLIENT LIST IS SHROUDED IN SECRECY. GINA DOMBOSCH INVESTIGATES.

LPO

42

LPO

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

W

hile the LPOs have recently completed a startling transformation of their business model, they are prohibited from discussing their client list or success stories. The vast majority of their client names remain under lock and key.

When inquiring about LPO partnerships beyond those that have “come out of the closet,” there is a notable wall of silence, particularly in Australia. Why is everyone so reluctant to openly discuss their legal outsourcing? It feels more like inquiring about cosmetic surgery than a mainstream business practice. There is clearly a stigma attached and even a distinct “don’t’ ask don’t tell” policy in place. Since we can’t discuss the majority of who is in the closet, we can discuss who has come out so far.

Four years ago, Rio Tinto made a radical headline grabbing announcement to partner with LPO CPA Global in India and outsource document review and contract work in order to slash its legal spend by up to 20%. This seemed to have paved the way as some big names followed suit.

In 2009, both Pinsent Masons and Allen & Overy announced partnerships with Exigent and Integreon respectively with regard to litigation work and document review. In Australia, King Wood Mallesons announced in 2011 that it signed a contract with Integreon and would outsource tasks such as document review, discovery, due diligence and document processing.

Ashurst then joined the list. “After a year of research and investigation, in late 2011 we publically announced our intention to utilise an LPO, for some aspects of our work, in response to client needs,” says Dr Brett Wright, Executive Director, People, at Ashurst. Corrs Westgarth Chambers also publicly acknowledged its use of LPO. But apart from those firms, few have been willing to publicly embrace their use of LPOs in Australia.

Our industry experts acknowledged that the vast majority of their clients insist on strict confidentiality. They are simply not permitted to openly discuss the existence of their business relationship.

“We’ve had deals where we have worked together on press releases (even for internal announcements within a client) and then at the last minute would be told it would not be announced. It’s like being told ‘we want to marry you but we don’t

“WE’VE HAD DEALS WHERE WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER ON PRESS RELEASES (EVEN FOR INTERNAL ANNOUNCEMENTS WITHIN A CLIENT) AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE WOULD BE TOLD IT WOULD NOT BE ANNOUNCED. IT’S LIKE BEING TOLD ‘WE WANT TO MARRY YOU BUT WE DON’T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO KNOW WE ARE MARRIED.” Brent Larlee, Integreon

want anyone else to know we are married,” says Integreon’s Brent Larlee, Global Head of Legal Services. “Some big law clients that we have relationships with have allowed us to speak about it, but many are very explicit telling us we cannot do so,” he says. During diligence trips by Australia’s firms to an LPO offshore facility, not only was the existence of the trip under strict non-disclosure agreements, but schedules were carefully calibrated to prevent law firms from “crossing over” with each other. When asked if any of their clients have ever explained why they insist on such secrecy and confidentiality, the LPOs shockingly admitted they did not know the reason. “It’s always been the way” or “it’s just the rules we have to play by in this market” they explained.

The question still remains “Why?” Brent Larlee offered a possible explanation. “I think there might be two reasons [clients have not been forthcoming], particularly in the U.S.: first, outsourcing has been viewed negatively in the past due to nationalism and second, the perception of potential brand degradation when it comes to outsourcing,” he says. All the LPOs agree that corporations are far less secretive about their arrangements than the law firms.

Microsoft, for example, permits Integreon to publish case studies regarding their use of LPO. Since it was virtually impossible to get comment from Australian law firms regarding a possible negative

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

stigma attached to their secret LPO partnerships, we turned to the corporate market to shed some light.

Brian Salter, the General Counsel of AMP, has been hailed universally by the LPOs as a thought leader and innovator for his public declaration that firms on his panel who do not have an LPO arrangement will not be eligible to run his company’s litigation. “I’m surprised that some firms are reluctant to disclose their LPO arrangements. I certainly know of one firm that, quite correctly, sees its willingness to embrace LPOs as a positive and has made a point of including LPOs in its marketing of clients,” he says. “It positions the firm as willing to embrace new and innovative ways of doing things in the interests of its clients.” Exigent’s Managing Director Nicola Stott agreed that she is seeing more firms use and brand their LPO partnership with Exigent as a method to win business.

“Law firms should be constantly seeking new ways to serve the interest of their clients and they need to be prepared to reengineer their businesses to reflect the changes in the external market. Those that do so will prosper and ensure their long term success and LPOs are an example of this,” Salter says. “While they do require firms to approach litigation differently and perhaps give up revenue that they would have otherwise received for discovery and so forth, they offer enormous cost and other efficiencies to clients.” Ashurst agrees with this philosophy. “Utilising LPOs, where and when appropriate, can help deliver on our firm’s commitment to providing great service to clients who want their work done as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. This is not something new for us, nor is it something we shy away from,” says Dr. Brett Wright.

The LPOs agree that law firms are far more sensitive about disclosing their LPO arrangements than the corporations.

Deloitte and Touche’s 2012 Corporate Counsel Survey contained a key finding that 96 per cent of respondents indicated they outsource at least some routine legal work to external providers and that 58 per cent outsource some of their more complex tasks. Brian Salter agrees that corporations are far more comfortable with the concept of outsourcing. “Corporate Australia has been outsourcing offshore for a long time and is cognisant of the risks

LPO

43

“I’M SURPRISED THAT SOME FIRMS ARE RELUCTANT TO DISCLOSE THEIR LPO ARRANGEMENTS. I CERTAINLY KNOW OF ONE FIRM THAT, QUITE CORRECTLY, SEES ITS WILLINGNESS TO EMBRACE LPOS AS A POSITIVE AND HAS MADE A POINT OF INCLUDING LPOS IN ITS MARKETING OF CLIENTS.” Brian Salter, AMP

as well as the opportunities. That’s probably one of the reasons why clients have been driving the LPO process with their firms.

Australian law firms are less familiar with offshoring and are still on a learning curve,” he says. “As they become more experienced with the concept I would expect them to be more willing to be open and have richer and more sophisticated conversations with us about offshoring various new categories of our work and why that would be in our interests.”

Sue Laver, general counsel for Telstra, speaking at the Australian Corporate Lawyers Conference, said that LPO in Australia is the “next wave” in legal services and Australia corporate needed to be actively encouraging firms to take action. But Brent Larlee believes that Sue Laver and Brian Salter are in the minority as vocal proponents of LPO. Why is that? During Larlee’s recent trips to Australia to assist in setting up Integreon’s onshore presence here, he observed that it is a less trodden path for in house counsel to give an edict to their external firms. “For the most part, corporate legal in Australia do not have the same understanding of the leverage they have with their outside counsel as their counterparts do in US and UK,” Larlee says.

Brian Salter believes one of the roles of general counsel is to be constantly looking for new ways of delivering to shareholders by embracing new approaches and ways of doing things. “Large litigation matters can be extremely labour intensive and expensive, which is one of the reasons we have been attracted to LPOs as an alternative. We have had a long relationship with all of the firms on our panel and they understand the business reasons that are leading us to encourage them to explore the potential offered by the use of LPOs,” he says.

The question remains: Is “LPO: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” an effective policy? Is it bad for business “We would much rather be able to list all of our clients, which would help increase acceptance and understanding that there are in fact alternative, more efficient ways to do the work” says Integreon’s Larlee. Nicola Stott says she would definitely prefer to be able to advertise her clients and their success stories and case studies: “As a business owner myself I would want to know about these sorts of alternatives as the world is changing and business dynamics are changing. It’s only fair that everyone knows what’s possible.” Therefore, one could argue that it’s high time to repeal “LPO: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in Australia.

44

LPO

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

LPO’S ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF HOW THE LEGAL INDUSTRY CONDUCTS BUSINESS AS THEY MOVE TOWARD SOLUTIONS BASED SERVICES AND MORE INNOVATIVE WAYS TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCY. GINA DOMBOSCH INVESTIGATES.

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

LPO

45

46

LPO

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

O

Brent Larlee

Kate Robinson

Nicola Stott

Paul Cowling

utsourcing is not a new concept. Manufacturing, health care, telecommunications, recruitment, financial services, travel and automotive industries have all been outsourcing for over a decade in the face of globalization and growing economic pressures. Business functions such as procurement, finance, HR, marketing, secretarial support and of course call centers are routinely outsourced by global corporations.

The legal industry has been historically slow to embrace the concept compared with other industries despite reported savings of 20-30 percent on the cost of a legal transaction. However, Australia’s use of LPO now seems to be on a straight upward trajectory. Some say there has been more LPO activity in Australia in the last 6 months then the market has seen in years. “There has been a seismic shift in the landscape at a speed and pace never seen in the legal industry” says Exigent’s Managing Director Nicola Stott. “The sales cycle [in Australia] 18 months ago was approximately six months and now with growing interest from corporations, it is only six weeks.” Integreon’s Kate Robinson is another expert who believes that Australia’s legal sector is on the cusp of a major change. So what is causing this huge uptake in the LPO industry?

THE NEW AND IMPROVED LSO: A SEISMIC SHIFT It is well known that LPOs entered the market initially to assist in large volume document review in connection with litigation and corporate transactions. However, there are now many new areas where it is believed that additional value can be provided to the legal sector. As such, most LPOs believe the moniker for their industry should be aptly changed to LSO (Legal Services/Solutions Outsourcing). “The business model for Exigent in the last 10 years has almost changed beyond recognition from providing back office support to playing a strategic and integral role in business transformation,” says Stott.

The key point is that LPO is more than just a process shortcut – even if old perceptions still persist. “If you see LPO as just a cheap way of getting repetitive work off your desk, you are not going to be using the model effectively and benefiting from the range of efficiencies which it is capable of delivering,” [pull out quote] says Paul Cowling, COO of Legal Resources, a fairly new entry into the Australian LPO market. So what are the trends in this new and improved LPO industry?

COMPLEXITY OF OFFERINGS: The depth and breadth of LPO services has expanded dramatically. While most LPOs cite that their bread and butter as large scale document review and processing, the other 50 percent of their business has expanded to industries not previously seen as within the purview of LPO. “In the past it was predominantly high volume basic document review but technology is now allowing LPOs to increasingly deliver a wide range of services and efficiencies” says Legal Resources’ Paul Cowling.

Integreon sees that while historically the majority of document review requirements were largely driven by litigation, they are now seeing growing activity related to regulatory agency and governmental body inquiries particularly for major financial institutions.

“THERE HAS BEEN A SEISMIC SHIFT IN THE LANDSCAPE AT A SPEED AND PACE NEVER SEEN IN THE LEGAL INDUSTRY.” Nicola Stott, Exigent

CPA Global says that their clients are taking a broader range of services from them and cites intellectual property as one of the biggest areas of outsourced legal services. “What’s changed over the past few years is the range of IP support services that are now available and in demand: everything from administrative tasks including docketing, invoice management and agent management, to more sophisticated services in highly technical areas such as IP management software, patent search and patent analytics,” says Anand Sharma, CPA Global Director of IP and Legal Support Services.

“Law firms are beginning to embrace the concept of legal services outsourcing in this broader context as they too face pressures of cost and time efficiency, needing to balance effective deployment of their own resources,” he adds.

Exigent is now developing tailored packages and approaches for various industries. Areas where packages are to be offered include retail commercial contracts; process maps for claims processing in the insurance space; assistance in the financial services area particularly with the advent of the FOFA and My Super legislation; commercial support for M&A transactions and even social media monitoring. “Another interesting growth area is in resources. We have been working with a very large firm under the umbrella of business analytics and developed a process and platform technologically to help manage their external legal spend” Stott says.

CORPORATE INTEREST ON THE RISE: The LPO experts universally agree that there is a notable increase in outsourcing from corporate legal departments particularly in Australia. Most cite that their current business portfolio is split

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

evenly between law firms and corporations where previously that was not the case – for example, eighteen months ago, Exigent’s business in Australia was 90 percent comprised of law firms. Integreon has experienced a similar uptake from the corporate world. “It used to be law firms were the primary advocates and purchasers of document review services but now corporations are looking to directly engage with us too,” says Integreon’s Global Head of Legal Services Brent Larlee. “This is a natural evolution given the fair amount of institutional knowledge we’ve gained in working with law firms to meet the needs of corporate clients on compliance work, regulatory investigations, M&A support and due diligence,” he adds. Integreon’s Kate Robinson echoes this sentiment: “We have previously been focused on maintaining

LPO

47

“IF YOU SEE LPO AS JUST A CHEAP WAY OF GETTING REPETITIVE WORK OFF YOUR DESK, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE USING THE MODEL EFFECTIVELY AND BENEFITING FROM THE RANGE OF EFFICIENCIES WHICH IT IS CAPABLE OF DELIVERING.” Paul Cowling, Legal Resources

and building law firm relationships but now strategically, the focus is on corporations,” she says. CPA Global also believes that as the market matures, they are seeing increased confidence on the part of corporate legal departments.

Exigent is seeing a huge influx of direct corporate inquiries in Australia. The company has had meetings with over 90 ASX listed corporations in the last 6 months alone – notably without their external law firms in tow. “The pipeline now in Australia is enormous compared to several years ago when business

48

LPO

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

“MID SIZE FIRMS ARE GENERALLY LOOKING FOR COST EFFICIENCIES AND IT IS NICE TO SEE THEY TOO ARE THINKING INNOVATIVELY.” Kate Robinson, Integreon

development was slow. The pipeline now has a definite bias toward corporate GCs as opposed to law firms, where we thought the majority of our business would emanate from,” says Stott.

INCREASE IN CONSULTATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES: LPOs are also becoming involved in the provision of consultancy and project management services. Exigent, for example, recently re-engineered over 200 of their processes across all practice groups as well as the back office for one client. “[This] opened our eyes in terms of efficiency possibilities,” says Stott.

ONSHORE PRESENCE: The introduction of an Australia owned and managed LPO, Legal Resources, well as Integreon’s decision to have a full time presence in Australia signals a shift in the market.

“The legal market is highly relationship driven and building trusted relationships is a two-way process. Having a physical presence day to day on the ground faclitates that process” says Paul Cowling.

“Physically being here and understanding the dynamics of the market and some of the economic pressure that our clients are facing has certainly added weight to our offering.” Kate Robinson, Integreon’s new Account Manager in Australia admitted it has been helpful to have face to face interaction here to talk through collaborative ideas together.

“People are now starting to pick up the phone and speak to me directly beyond existing projects about how we can work collaboratively together,” she says.

MID TIER FIRMS JOIN THE LPO PARTY: Mid-tier firms are now said to be the most active in the LPO space. “Mid size firms are

generally looking for cost efficiencies and it is nice to see they too are thinking innovatively” says Integreon’s Kate Robinson. Mid tier firms are also using LPOs as a way to compete for work alongside the larger firms. “They utilize LPO as a way of delivering a flexibility of resource which enables them to undertake significant pieces of work - such as large scale litigation or large corporate transactions requiring significant legal support at a paralegal type level - where their own internal capability may not have previously allowed them to do so,” says Cowling from Legal Resources. Exigent’s Nicola Stott adds: “[Mid tier firms] are recognizing the opportunities to use LPO as a way to compete and win business and have moved to a more sophisticated and innovative way to deliver legal services to give the client more added value,” she says.

COLLABORATION: LPOs are citing collaboration with law firms in order to win business as a growing trend. CPA Global cites that they work not only provide legal support services to Rio Tinto but also work in conjunction with a number of their external law firms. “This three-way relationship between corporate client, outside counsel and legal support services provider is quite typical of the new legal services delivery model that legal services outsourcing has helped create,” CPA Global’s Anand Sharma says. Exigent has formulated a specific “Joint Delivery Model” which they worked on initially with Corrs Chambers Westgarth in order to jointly pitch corporate clients and maximize both parties’ expertise. While it began with Corrs, now Exigent is working with McCarthy Tetreault, a Seven Sisters firm in Canada which is branding their joint delivery model arrangement to take out to the Canadian market.

Integreon has also seen collaborative efforts with their major law firm clients in the U.S. and UK, including Seyfarth Shaw where they developed a “new collaborative legal services delivery model.”

They believed that together, they could empower general counsel to outsource a greater volume of contracts and facilitate in-house lawyers to better focus their time on value-added work. Integreon says that contrary to early concerns LPOs would compete directly with law firms, it has become clear that a true symbiotic system is the most effective model.

BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES: While the general understanding is that LPOs provide legal support services only, there is a growing trend toward providing law firms and corporations with business support services. Exigent cites Ashurst as a client who utilizes the 24/7 delivery of shared services supporting areas such as secretarial, HR and marketing. In some cases, the interest in business support services has outweighed that in legal support services. Integreon’s Kate Robinson cites that more and more of her time here in Australia is dedicated to working with firms and corporations on business support, which has had a strong client base in the U.S. and UK. Australia seems to be fast catching onto this trend. The business support work is handled offshore in Bristol, London, Fargo North Dakota, Noida, Mumbai, and Manila and there are a range of services from virtual assistants to full time people dedicated to a specific client.

DELIVERY CHAIN COMFORT: Under the traditional model, clients have dealt directly with their in-country project manager and have not dealt directly with the off-shore LPO team. This is now

LPO

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

“THIS THREE-WAY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATE CLIENT, OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDER IS QUITE TYPICAL OF THE NEW LEGAL SERVICES DELIVERY MODEL THAT LEGAL SERVICES OUTSOURCING HAS HELPED CREATE.” Anand Sharma, CPA Global

changing. Brent Larlee says that Integreon is experiencing the second phase of legal outsourcing. “Clients are becoming more comfortable with the LPO delivery chain and for example, are more willing to liaise directly with offshore project management leaders and not necessarily require locally based project managers” he says.

OFFSHORE WITHOUT THE OUTSOURCE: Some companies have embraced the concept of outsourcing offshore but kept the work “in the family” by opening their own LPO facility. Herbert Smith Freehills was the first international law firm to embrace this concept opening an office in Belfast in 2011 to focus on large

scale document-intensive aspects of litigation, arbitration and regulatory investigations. In a short time, the office has expanded exponentially, signalling the success of this concept. “HSF Belfast has been a phenomenal success with clients. In response to client demand, the office has grown from 26 full-time employees – including 19 fee earners – when it first opened in 2011, to 114 employees in the present team – including 107 fee earners, 34 of whom have joined recently to assist with a large project,” says Libby Jackson, Director of the HSF Belfast office.

“In the last six months, we have expanded our Belfast offering to clients to include corporate due diligence services and support for the real estate practice in London.” HSF is also currently looking at how to further service their clients in Australia with their Belfast office. “Further to our success in the UK and beyond, we look forward to developing the potential of the offerings in Belfast for the benefit of our clients in Australia,” says Alan Peckham, HSF Chief Knowledge Officer.

49

50

PROFILE

WELL CONNECTED ALEX BLINKO’S TRUPHONE HAS AN INNOVATIVE PROPOSITION TO COMPETE WITH THE LARGE TELCOS AROUND THE WORLD. THEY HAVE SAVED THEIR CLIENTS BETWEEN 30-90% AND REMOVED “BILL SHOCK” FROM THOSE WHO TRAVEL INTERNATIONALLY. GINA DOMBOSCH SAT DOWN WITH ALEX BLINKO TO DISCUSS TRUPHONE AND THEIR SUCCESS IN AUSTRALIA. TRUPHONE STARTED ON A CHEESE FARM Alex Blinko has five mobile numbers. One phone, one SIM card, one voice mail but multiple mobile numbers in the U.S., UK, Hong Kong, the Netherlands and Australia.

Blinko is the Managing Director of Truphone in Australia, a company which has over 4,000 corporate clients and an estimated value of over $450 million.

The phrase “necessity is the mother of invention” was never more true than the early beginnings of Truphone. James Tagg, a serial inventor, was frustrated at the lack of mobile phone reception on his cheese farm in Kent, England. He developed the first voice over IP technology for mobile (long before Skype existed) which he patented and developed into an application. But then James realised that the chasm wasn’t simply voice over technology on mobile phone devices. The main issue was the high costs of data locally and abroad. “Truphone started in the consumer space but we started to realise that businesses were the ones suffering the longest and hardest with data roaming charges,” Blinko says. Blinko explained that for most companies, five percent of the employees can represent 30 percent of the corporate mobile spend due to their international travel schedule.

“Mobile plans were not as strong as they

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

are today and when you travelled overseas data costs were high and they are still very high,” Blinko explains. Truphone got into some GSM technology initially, then developed more patent and innovation around that which became the core of Truphone’s proposition: a multinational GSM service with one network around the world. “It’s different technologies coming together for one seamless service and it’s the only one of its kind,” Blinko says.

“The options for businesses right now are limited – it’s telco roaming charges take it or leave it. Or, you can switch SIM cards or get a prepaid service,” Blinko says. Many know these options are very often expensive and cumbersome. Truphone is offering an innovative alternative for their customers.

“Our focus is on business people with international lifestyles (making or receiving a lot of calls), travel internationally or a combination of both,” Blinko says.

TRUPHONE AUSTRALIA Truphone is based in London but has offices in the U.S., Hong Kong, the Netherlands and Australia. While the Truphone product is currently offered in five countries, they are rapidly expanding and expect to be in eight by year’s end and between 2025 within the next two years. “We have been quietly successful in Australia. It’s an incredible market due to its geographic location and the frequency of business travel” says Blinko. “Key global verticals and professional services firms such as consulting, legal and accounting feel the pain the most and have been highly receptive to Truphone.” Truphone has expanded quite a bit in the last two years getting out awareness in Australia through partnerships such as the Australian Business Traveller and corporate travel events. Truphone also offers a 90 day pilot program to companies who are interested in a “try before you buy” option.

“Businesses are very receptive to that as you get key stakeholders traveling and we can port not only their Australian numbers but also UK or U.S. phone numbers,” Blinko says. The pilot program has been very successful as many initially think that the idea is “too good to be true.”

Has Truphone penetrated the legal market here given the global partnerships which have been forming in Australia in the last few years? “We have a very diverse and growing customer base in Australia which is principally SMEs and we do have some law firms as clients,” Blinko says. “Many have affiliations, offices and partners

PROFILE

51

either regionally or globally and some have either an Asian or UK presence.” Blinko explains that Asia is now one of Truphone’s key market strategies as many of their Australian customers have heavy Asian-oriented travel patterns and Truphone sees Hong Kong as a commercially live market.

TRUPHONE’S LEGAL TEAM Truphone’s product is very unique and as such, it requires a legal team to have tribal knowledge of its business. Not many telcos expand into global markets the way that Truphone has since most will operate individual businesses within each country. Truphone offers one seamless product and one set of terms and conditions but as Blinko explains, the regulatory environments of each country can be quite different and thus present a wide variety of legal issues.

Truphone’s in-house legal team is led by Greg Mappledoram in the London office and is comprised of nine lawyers. Truphone recently added to their in-house team in Hong Kong by having a full time lawyer in-house who previously worked with the Hong Kong Communications Authority and has significant regulatory experience as well as prior roles in London, Singapore and Australia. “Our philosophy with regard to legal matters is that we first try to handle what we can internally,” Blinko explains. “External counsel plays more of a supporting role at this point in our business for when we need specialist or industry advice.” Blinko explained the goal is to get the ratio down where 67 percent of the legal work is handled in-house and 33 percent is done externally. Truphone does have one legal panel though for their substantial IP work which gets reviewed on a regular basis. The majority of the work is handled in the UK by Boult Wade and Tenant. “Apart from the IP panel, everything else is done on relationships,” Blinko says. For example, Truphone recently used Simmons & Simmons for their recent $100 million corporate financing deal with investment company Minden.

In Australia, Truphone uses two main firms for their legal work: Gilbert & Tobin and McKay Solicitors. “Australia has quite a complex environment with regard to regulatory standards and employment law so we need baseline policy information here and advice on the market or updated information on industrial relations or the Fair Work Act,” Blinko says. While Truphone’s in-house team handles most of their contract work, Truphone looks to Gilbert & Tobin to assist with the customer pilot programs or channel partner contracts in Australia as well as some litigation work. “G&T was chosen on reputation and they represent a high profile low risk relationship.” Blinko says. He adds that as the business continues to expand, they will continue to seek local expertise to support their growth in this highly regulated market.

In the last year, Truphone’s external legal work has been focused on employment contracts and employment issues given Australia’s unique workplace relations environment. “We are also reviewing and updating our terms and conditions, regulatory screening, and examining all of the existing regulation surrounding telco, mobile and customer laws as well as reviewing our corporate and consumer contracts,” Blinko says. “As a client I need good pragmatic advice.”

And what type of billing structure does Truphone prefer? “We try to get fixed pricing which is what we prefer but it’s not always an option especially if you go to a big firm,” Blinko says. “The challenge is trying to find someone agile enough who understands that while we are relatively small with a limited legal spend, we still need specialist advice from someone who knows our business, our corporate model and how we operate.”

52

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

DEALERS CHOICE:

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

LAWYERS HAVE NEVER HAD MORE CHOICE WHEN PURSUING THEIR POST GRADUATE EDUCATION. A VAST ARRAY OF COURSE OFFERINGS, INTENSIVE STUDIES OFFERED YEAR ROUND AND INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC EXPERT LECTURERS ARE THE NEW “NORM” OFFERED BY AUSTRALIA’S TOP LAW SCHOOLS TO CATER TO BUSY WORKING PROFESSIONALS. GINA DOMBOSCH REPORTS.

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

JOELLEN RILEY

DAVID DIXON

IAN RAMSAY

ANGIE ZANDSTRA

DR ALAN DAVIDSON

MOIRA PATERSON

Left to right: David Dixon, University of New South Wales; Joellen Riley, University of Sydney; Ian Ramsay, University of Melbourne; Angie Zandstra, College of Law; Dr Alan Davidson, University of Queensland; Moira Paterson, Monash University

53

54

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

T

he New York Times recently wrote that a college degree has become the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement. Many would also argue that having a basic law degree is headed the same direction. This “upcredentialing” has fueled the post graduate legal education market where lawyers can further specialise and set themselves apart from those with an entry-level law degree. But a post graduate education is a large investment of both money and time, both of which can be in scarce supply as a working professional.

Clearly there are a plethora of considerations which are relevant for those interested in a postgraduate degree. How will your study enhance your career? How will you balance study with work and family obligations? What type of time investment does the degree require during the year and how convenient are the courses in terms of location and scheduling? What kind of financial support does your employer provide? These are personal considerations which go to the heart of making the right choice.

To help make the decision easier, we’ve approached six of the top Australian law schools and asked them to outline their program highlights as well as recent trends in both their course offerings and degree enrollment. We’ve also interviewed students at those institutions to get their perspective. As every lawyer knows, it’s the client experience that counts.

MONASH UNIVERSITY

Moira Paterson, Director, Graduate Studies Faculty of Law

Moira Paterson, Director, Graduate Studies Faculty of Law, Monash University

BASIC FACTS: • The Masters Program has approximately 90 offerings across the calendar year and the vast majority of the units are offered in intensive or semi-intensive mode.

• Domestic law graduates can start at any time during the year; domestic non lawyers and international students can start in either February or July.

• Class sizes are small and capped at 30 and taught in a highly interactive seminar style.

• Students are provided with materials six weeks before commencement of classes and (mix of hard copies and electronic readings accessible through the library website).

• Assessments range from take-home exams to research papers.

• Popular options include Commercial Law (takeovers, commercial insolvency and corporate governance and directors duties), Labour Law (employee relations and occupational health and safety), and Human Rights (terrorism and international humanitarian law).

• One particularly high growth area would be dispute resolution practitioners seeking practical training in ADR or trial practice advocacy.

COST For 2014 (and at the time of printing), the fees are: Master of Laws Course fee: $27,600 (unit rate $3,450); Master of Laws (Juris Doctor) Course fee: $33,900 (unit rate $4,238); and Graduate Diploma Course fee $27,600 (unit rate $3,450). Single Unit non-assessed: $2,588 THE SELLING POINTS • A program that has been centered in the heart of the legal

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

• • • •

precinct so as to maximise opportunities for involvement of experts from the judiciary, the Bar and leading law firms.

A strong international element.

Ongoing renewal so to as to ensure a continuing focus on contemporary legal developments and issues.

LLM offers maximum flexibility to either specialise or select from a range of courses.

Monash Masters of Law (Juris Doctor) is offered to students who have completed degrees in non-law disciplines to practice law. It can be studied full time or part time at the central CBD location which allows students more flexibility to combine work with study.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE Marian Clarkin is a Barrister working in Melbourne who finished her Masters of Laws (Commercial Law) at Monash University in 2010. She completed her degree with a mixture of both intensive and semester long coursework but preferred the intensive studies. “On balance, it was easier to manage the intensive subjects and block out a week in my diary than try to juggle work and study over an extended period of time,” she says.

A critical factor for Clarkin was having the Monash Law Chambers in the CBD close to her work. While her studies compromised her social life, in that her free time was spent studying, she created a student life during her semester long studies including friendships with international students from Asia, Norway and Germany. “Monash is very progressive and has an international focus. I was able to study international commercial aspects of the law that were not offered as part of my undergraduate studies,” she says.

Clarkin says that her post graduate degree gave her more confidence, improved her research skills and also brought her understanding of the law into the 21st century including emphasis on issues such as e-crime, payment systems and e-commerce legal issues. “Another benefit of the post graduate education was becoming part of the Monash alumni in Melbourne, in particular. It made it easier for me to network being part of the university community,” she says. Clarkin was also approached to tutor undergraduates, and worked as a Sessional Tutor in Administrative Law, after she completed her degree. Clarkin’s post graduate experience was pivotal, as she is even considering pursuing a PhD at Monash in the future.

THE SYDNEY LLM

CRICOS 00026A

SYDNEY LAW SCHOOL

“Sydney Law School is a powerhouse for critical legal thinking. It attracts academics of the highest calibre from the most reputed universities across the globe, and fosters an environment where academic enquiry and rigour is actively nurtured and encouraged. My study has enabled me to learn from experts in public international law, challenged my thinking and greatly supported my professional development.�

Sashika Jayewardene, Master of Laws (LLM)

56

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE Associate Dean, Professor Ian Ramsay

Professor Ian Ramsay, Associate Dean, University of Melbourne

Professor David Dixon, Dean, University of New South Wales

BASIC FACTS • Currently offering 180 subjects this year in the masters program of which 90 percent are offered on intensive basis over a one week period.

• Assessments range from take home exams over three days to major research papers of 10,000 words.

• Class sizes typically in the 20-25 student range.

• The Masters programs generally take two years to complete and can be tailored around work commitments which is essential for interstate students.

• Over 80 percent of the students are part time and 25 percent are interstate students who enroll in intensive subjects.

• Oldest degree and that with the highest enrollment is the Masters of Law. Specialist areas which have attracted high enrollment numbers include Commercial Law, Construction Law, Public and International Law, Tax, IP, Health and Medical.

SELLING POINTS • Asian law has always been very strong here in the law school as we have one of the oldest center studies of Asian law in the world. We have a strong commercial program and human rights subjects are very popular particularly specialisations such as environmental and health/medical law.

• Many of our electives are not offered anywhere else in Australia.

There are at least 30 new subjects introduced each year which result from our advisory boards we have for each of the 23 specialist areas. For example, there are new specialisations in Environmental Law and Energy Resources in response to demands and suggestions from those working in the area. For any new area, we require academic leadership as well as strong links and input from the profession and industry.

• Each year we have 50-60 international visitors from international leading law schools and organisations who will teach our intensive subjects. This adds a strong dimension and educational advantage to the program.

COST Graduate diplomas: $16,800; Masters degrees: $33,600; individual subjects: $4,200 STUDENT PERSPECTIVE Lilian Topic is an Executive Officer with the Rural and Regional Committee at the Parliament of Victoria and graduated from University of Melbourne only weeks ago with a Masters of Public and International Law. She pursued her degree during the last six years through the intensive course offerings having several breaks in between due to work commitments and emphasised the University and Faculty were incredibly supportive. “I do not think you can offer post graduate programs for working professionals and not be flexible with workplace restrictions. I am so indebted to the Faculty in this regard.” Topic said the standards were very high in the program and it was the most intellectually challenging thing

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

she has ever done. “The sacrifice is the experience which is undoubtedly worth it as the program challenges you on all levels,” Topic says.

Topic found the classes very interactive particularly the intensive options where she had total immersion for five days.

“We had experts in the field during our intensive courses who often brought in former judges, barristers or colleagues who had worked on the cases we were discussing,” Topic says. Topic says the interaction with her peers was a large part of the experience of this degree.

“My peers were both highly qualified and inspiring and many from around the world bringing practical examples that were informative to everyone including the lecturers,” Topic says. Topic cites having study leave and support from the Parliament a huge motivating factor for pursuing her degree. “You have to motivate yourself of course, but at Parliament you have great support and encouragement to improve your skills,” she says.

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Dean, Professor David Dixon

BASIC FACTS • There are 20 post graduate programs and 11 Master of Laws specialization programs.

• Class size for first year law classes 28-30; successive years 44-90 with the average being 49.

• Courses are taught in an interactive seminar style and most assessments are research essays approximately 6,000 – 7,000 words.

• Students can apply throughout the year but they can only commence in Semester 1 or Semester 2.

• Materials vary from textbooks to readings provided via the University online learning portal which is used throughout courses by the students and lecturers • Corporate and commercial law courses as well as international law and human rights have become increasingly popular.

• New courses are developed by academics and program convenors then considered and approved by faculty committee –

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

approximately five new units are developed each year depending upon student demand and changing legal environment.

• The Master of Laws is the degree with the highest enrollment particularly the commercial law stream. Both International and Human Rights specialisations have become increasingly sought after.

COST $555 per unit of credit; $3,330 per course and $26,640 for an eight course Masters Program SELLING POINTS • We are particularly proud of the open door policy and accessibility that exists between lecturers and students which our international students truly appreciate as a disparity from the European traditions. We place a high expectation on our teachers to develop close relationships with the students so professors’ doors are open and they are available. This is an area in which we are ahead of the game.

• There is a strong international element in both the students and the lecturers. The international students, many who enroll

57

after meeting an alumni, come from over 40 countries and greatly enrich the course discussions. As an international university, we have key relationships with specialist academics from around the world who come to teach intensive courses each year.

• With our degrees, we try to be ahead of the trends and determine where students might benefit from new programs. One of these examples is our successful Masters of Business Law program intended for people who might require legal knowledge in a specific area but do not have a law degree.

• The Juris Doctorate can be done flexibly, intensively and either in the evening or during traditional daytime classes including during the summer. The degree is popular with people working in another occupation but wanting a law degree.

The Melbourne Law Masters 2013 Melbourne Law School – Australia’s number one and world number five law school in the 2013 QS World University Rankings.

2014 Program available soon.

Register your interest today! www.law.unimelb.edu.au/masters

MLS23319_Law_masters_ALB (W)_186mm x 119mm_AUGUST13_d1a.indd 1

illuminating

21/08/13 10:03 AM

58

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY SYDNEY Dean, Professor Joellen Riley

Dean, Professor Joellen Riley, Sydney Law School

BASIC FACTS • There are over 156 units of study – one of Australia’s largest postgraduate programs in law.

• 78 percent of units are offered on intensive basis and 22 percent on a semester length basis. Intensive units are taught over four days from 9 to 5 often a Friday and Saturday, a week’s break and then another Friday and Saturday while some can be four days in a row. Fifty percent of the units have a corporate, commercial or taxation basis and all units are available for audit toward Continuing Professional development.

• Class size varies from 20-60 in post graduate coursework.

• There are rolling admissions for post graduate coursework but the LLB and JD have set admission periods in the second half of the year.

• Each student is given access to the Learning Management System (LMS) with a unique login and password plus each individual unit of study has its own landing page with access to the relevant unit outline and supplementary materials. There are a variety of assessment tools including class participation, in class tests, take home exams, assignments, essays and formal exams.

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

• Subject matters within the 159 units which have shown notable trends in popularity include: Banking and Finance Law, Labour Law, Climate and Environmental Law, Energy and Resources Law, Commercial Law, Corporate Law and Tax Law. • New units are offered each year – for 2014 there are eight including Duties and Shareholders Rights, Regulation of Corporate Crime, Law of Not-for-Profits, White Collar and Corporate Crime • The LLM programs is the most popular of the post graduate degrees followed by the Masters in Environmental Law, Labour Law and Relations, Taxation and Business Law COST The cost per unit of study is $3,810 and the annual cost of a one year master’s degree is $30,480. A graduate diploma is half the rate at $15,240.

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

REFLECTIVE OF THE GLOBALISATION OF LEGAL SERVICE, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 20 INTERNATIONAL LECTURERS THAT COME EACH YEAR TO TEACH INTENSIVE UNITS. THERE ARE ALSO OFFSHORE PROGRAMS OFFERED IN SHANGHAI, BERLIN, CAMBRIDGE AND KYOTO. SELLING POINTS • Reflective of the globalisation of legal service, there are approximately 20 international lecturers that come each year to teach intensive units. There are also offshore programs offered in Shanghai, Berlin, Cambridge and Kyoto. This allows students to learn about other legal systems and experience other cultures in country. It also demonstrates to students how the law may be used in developing and/or advanced economies and governments.

• The Juris Doctorate has exclusive features such as the opportunity to study core units in International Law (Public International Law and Private International Law) – the only Australian Law School

“My Masters in

coMMercial litigation has really helpeD My

career in law “

“The matters I have worked on have been exactly on point with the issues and advices from my assignments. My lecturers have helped me immensely by showing me the ropes in practice, providing me with support, whilst making the coursework and materials exciting and easy to learn.”

Tannie Kwong

HICKSONS LAWYERS, MASTERS GRADUATE

Our Applied Law Programs focus on what is happening in practice right now. You can undertake our programs as single subjects, at Graduate Diploma or at Masters levels.

Our next semester starts in March 2014. Find out more today.

Call 1300 506 402 or visit collaw.edu.au/alp

59

60

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

to deliver such a focus; access to approximately 120 elective units of study across all areas of specialisation; exchange opportunities and offshore study at various international institutions.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE Michael Jeffreys is currently enrolled in the LLM program at Sydney University while working in Mergers & Acquisitions at Deloitte & Touche. Jeffreys was recommended to pursue the LLM degree by a senior tax barrister given the specialised and technical nature of Australian taxation and Jeffrey’s interest in tax since his undergraduate degree. He has been pursuing his degree on a part time basis in the traditional semester format one evening per week for two hours. “The subjects that I focus on are those which I consider, or will be, directly relevant to my practice areas at Deloitte, primarily Australian tax law,” he says.

Jeffreys described the lecturers as helpful and even impressive as Sydney University has two of the leading Australian tax minds (Richard Vann and Graeme Cooper) who Jeffreys says provided “insightful and thought provoking sessions.” He also says the majority of the students are either professional Australian tax advisers or employees from the ATO and bring a diverse range of experience and insight to each subject. Jeffreys said the LLM has helped his practice immensely. “Participation in the LLM has allowed me to cover a diverse range of Australian tax topics in a far shorter period that it would take to learn about those topics simply through on-the-job experience. Through participation in the LLM, I have been able to rapidly develop a strong technical focus, which has led to accelerated progress in my workplace,” he says.

Jeffreys recently received the University of Sydney Foundation Prize at the annual Prize Giving Ceremony.

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Dr Alan Davidson, Director, Postgraduate Coursework Programs

Dr Alan Davidson, Director, Postgraduate Coursework Programs, University of Queensland

BASIC FACTS • Most postgraduate students choose to progress through the Master of Laws degree on a part-time basis • LLM students can choose from a total of 83 course subjects – these are rotated, with around 40 offered each year • These courses can also be taken individually, on a non-award or Continuing Professional Development basis • Intensive and semi intensive courses comprise the majority of offerings and consist of either 4 days (Thurs/Fri/Sat/Sun) or 2 days across successive weekends.

• Class sizes are typically between 10 and 30 students for postgraduate coursework programs. Smaller classes ensure that students benefit from an interactive learning environment that stimulates debate and facilitates network building • International students comprise around 30% of the LLM cohort and hail from 27 countries. UQ provides extensive support services for international students to help them settle in and enjoy a positive learning and living experience • Among the most popular LLM subjects are those in mining, energy and environmental law; alternative dispute resolution

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

subjects such as mediation and international arbitration; commercial law; electronic commerce; international trade; intellectual property law; and civil litigation.

COST $1,580 per unit ($3,160 per 2 unit course) for students commencing in 2013 indexed annually; LLM (16 units); LLM Advanced (24 units); Graduate Certificate in Applied Law (8 units), Graduate Diploma in Applied Law (16 units) Master of Applied Law (24 units) SELLING POINTS • A research intensive environment: the TC Beirne Law School is ranked in the world’s top 50 for law in the Social Sciences category of the latest QS World University Subject Rankings.

UQ is positioned at 85 in the top 100 Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) for 2013. This is the third-highest ranking of an Australian institution in 2013.

• The LLM course format attracts international and interstate lecturers who complement the School’s existing expertise. These include UN and WTO executives, a former Supreme Court judge, legal practitioners, and a Judge/Professor of Law from the China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing • The flexibility to choose courses which best reflect a student’s particular interests, allowing students to deepen their knowledge in a specific area or to construct a more generalist study plan • The postgraduate course list is continually reviewed by the School to ensure it meets the current and future needs of legal practitioners and other professionals • Support for UQ coursework program students includes access to the Walter Harrison Law Library and its collection of print and online resources and legal databases such as LexisNexis, Westlaw, CCH, Thomson Legal, LawOne and many more • Postgraduate students can attend a wide range of research-led events, providing them with access to original

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

research and opportunities to network with academics and practitioners within their area of interest STUDENT PERSPECTIVE Natialia Wuth is an in house lawyer in the financial services sector and completed her Masters of Law (LLM) degree from the University of Queensland earlier this year. Wuth said she chose University of Queensland because of the offering of intensive classes which required her to only commit to physically being at the University for four full days including the weekend. “The intensive courses well suited me as I was able to balance my work, personal life and still continue my education” says Wuth. “It was a manageable investment of time.”

Wuth chose the LLM degree generally as she wanted to continue her professional education and increase the depth of knowledge and expertise in the law.

“The choice to pursue my graduate degree was more to stimulate me intellectually than due to my job requiring me to do so. While it enhances professional opportunities, it is also personally very rewarding,” Wuth says. The practical expertise of the lecturers and the networking opportunities with fellow

the FIRSt LAW OF

PROFeSSIONAL DeVeLOPMeNt PRePARe FOR tOMORROW tODAY

ALB_PLCS_118X186

With a choice of over 70 contemporary legal subjects UQ’s intensive law courses are ideal for keeping up-to-date in a particular field of law, and are delivered in a format that suits your lifestyle.

Courses may be studied as part of a postgraduate degree program, or on a non award or Continuing Professional Development basis.

To find out more call 07 3365 8824, email pglaw@law.uq.edu.au, or visit law.uq.edu.au/plcs

UQ LAW PROFeSSIONAL LeGAL COURSe SeRIeS CRICOS Provider No: 00025B

61

students were also key attractions.

“We heard from engaged people in the various industries which offered practical experience and insights from a different perspective,” she says. The accessibility of the lecturers was also impressive. “All of my lecturers had full time jobs, yet were always willing to help including answering emails well before the course began.”

“I also found the networking opportunities terrific – I made some wonderful personal and professional contacts and mixed with like-minded people who were both ambitious and passionate,” Wuth says.

Wuth empathically stated she would recommend the University of Queensland to any colleague. “From the librarian to the lecturer to the Dean, I was provided quite an extraordinary level of support,” she says.

62

POST GRAD LEGAL EDUCATION

COLLEGE OF LAW

Angie Zandstra, Director, Applied Law Programs

Angie Zandstra, Director, Applied Law Programs, College of Law

BASIC FACTS • The College offers over 40 subjects in the various Master of Applied Law program. Coursework is delivered through an online learning portal and students have weekly online tutorials where they interact with their lecturers and students.

There are some face-to-face components but they are limited and on the weekends.

• Two intakes per year, one in March and one in August.

• Class sizes vary but there is never any more than 25 in one group.

• The majority of the program is taught during traditional semesters but online with no lectures that require physical attendance.

• Students are given a timetable that they can work through at their own pace each week as many need to schedule their study around their own work and family commitments.

• A strong demand continues for very practical courses. We are in the process of developing a new course for family dispute resolution practitioners and also new courses in property and commercial transactions. There are major structural changes happening within the legal profession and it is more important now than ever to ensure that, as a lawyer, you are adding value to your firm or organisation. This means knowing more than just the law. Lawyers must have strong technical and drafting skills, but also developed commercial skills and understand how they can add value to their client.

• We are also seeing very strong growth in our Master of Applied Law (Commercial Litigation) and this current semester has the strongest enrolments we have seen. I suspect this is being driven in part by the very competitive nature of private practice right now, particularly in the mid tier and large firms, and studying a specialised masters like this is seen as an important demonstration of commitment and something that will make the lawyer stand out.

COST Each subject is $2,475. Limited additional fees for withdrawals, external exam etc and students can pay upfront or with FEE-Help.

SELLING POINTS • The College is very focused on what it provides – practical law for practicing lawyers, so we only develop courses that cover this.

• We are the 7th largest provider in Australia of postgraduate awards. The majority of our students study part-time as they are mostly practicing lawyers and we have students studying all over Australia.

• All of the lecturers in the Master of Applied Law are legal practitioners. We have retired judges; barristers; in-house counsel; partners in firms of all sizes; tribunal members and registrars; specialist mediators; accredited specialists in relevant areas. The distinguishing feature of the College’s programs are that they are about legal practice, developed for practitioners

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

and taught by practitioners.

• The growth in the in-house market has seen an increase in enrolments in our Master of Applied Law (In-house Practice). We are seeing demand here from lawyers already in in-house roles but who may want to learn more about the commercial aspects of working in-house and how they can add value to the in-house function.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE Clint Coles is a solicitor at Everingham Solomons Solicitors in Tamworth and currently studying at College of Law completing his last unit toward his Masters of Applied Law Commercial Litigation.

While he has always handled litigation matters, Coles was particularly interested in business litigation and thought in 2010 that it would be a good time to get further qualified and become more specialised.

“I had spoken with other practitioners who had done this particular degree at the College of Law and advised it was extremely helpful,” Coles explains.

“I didn’t want to do something purely academic but something more practical to help with my everyday work,” Coles explains. Coles explains that another major factor in choosing the College of Law was not having to commute after work to class.

“I considered masters degrees at various universities but chose against them mainly because the College of Law was more practical and helpful at work, plus, I didn’t have to travel to pursue my education” he says.

Coles took either one or two subjects per semester which consumed approximately 10-12 hours weekly to review the material and attend the tutorials.

“It is not a major struggle keeping up with work and my studies although exam time can be a bit stressful,” he says. “But the effort has been worth it.”

“The preparation and courses make you fluent in procedure and the degree has definitely improved my efficiency a great deal.”

AUSTRALASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS ISSUE 11.08

POST GRAD

63

Q&A

...with Lorri Field, Associate, Kells and student, The College of Law Master of Applied Law (Commercial Litigation) 1) WHAT FIRST MOTIVATED YOU TO PURSUE A CAREER IN LAW? Unlike many lawyers it was not a career that I had my heart set on. During high school I was earning pocket money working as an office junior in a smaller law firm and intending to pursue a career in accounting. The partners of that firm suggested that I was better suited to a career in law and, as it turns out, they were right!

2) WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO UNDERTAKE YOUR POSTGRADUATE STUDY ONLINE WITH THE COLLEGE OF LAW? HOW HAVE YOU FOUND THE ONLINE NATURE OF THE COURSE? The main attraction of online study was the flexibility. To a large extent it allows you to determine your own study times and program and to alter these to accommodate other professional and social commitments. This has been extremely helpful in a profession where the demands of work and your working hours may vary greatly from week to week.

3) WHAT IMPACT DO YOU THINK UNDERTAKING YOUR MASTERS HAD ON YOUR CAREER? HOW DOES THE COURSE RELATE TO YOUR CURRENT ROLE? I have one further subject to complete to obtain my masters however have already found the study beneficial. Since my admission as a lawyer I have practised primarily in the general commercial area with a natural interest and occasional involvement in commercial litigation. The practical nature of the masters course has provided me with the skills to pursue a specialisation in commercial litigation.

4) WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO RECENT LAW GRADS LOOKING TO START THEIR CAREERS? There are countless career paths that can be pursued with a law degree. You need to make sure the avenue you pursue is where your heart lies. To have a successful career requires great financial, intellectual and personal investment and this won’t be possible if you haven’t found the area or role that suits you.

5) WHAT IS THE BEST CAREER ADVICE YOU HAVE EVER RECEIVED? Make the most of your opportunities, strive for the best and don’t let fear hold you back.

6) WHAT ARE YOUR LONG-TERM CAREER GOALS? To obtain specialist accreditation in commercial litigation, to lead a commercial litigation team and to become a partner of Kells.

MASTER CLASS

www.thomsonreuters.com.au/events

CONTRACTUAL RISK & COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION Sydney | 17-18 October Melbourne | 24-25 October Brisbane | 29-30 October ABOUT This two day Masterclass will examine recent developments in the areas of contractual risk, focusing in particular upon how to minimise and manage risks that arise before a contract is entered into, and also commercial arbitration. It will provide attendees with essential tools to assist in how to think about and manage pre-contractual risks, and how to more effectively conduct arbitration proceedings.

WHY ATTEND Through the analysis of recent legislative developments, day one will provide attendees with essential tools to more effectively mitigate risks arising before a contract is entered into. Day two will allow attendees to get the latest update on commercial arbitration practice.

SPEAKER HIGHLIGHTS • Marcus Jacobs QC, Barrister, 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers • Peter Callaghan SC, Barrister, Nigel Bowen Chambers • Michael Rudge SC, Barrister, Nigel Bowen Chambers • Jeffrey Goldberger, Special Counsel, Ashurst PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS Day 1 - Contractual Risk: • Risk considerations in entering into pre-contractual documentation • Tips and tricks in managing risk in procurement processes • Contractual mechanisms for allocating risk Day 2 - Commercial Arbitration: • New opportunities – revised commercial arbitration act • Innovation in dispute resolution • Future opportunities for domestic commercial arbitration • Shaping arbitral procedures to the dispute at hand

SECURE YOUR SEAT BY 20TH SEPTEMBER AND SAVE WITH THE EARLY BIRD RATES! HOW TO REGISTER ONLINE: www.thomsonreuters.com.au/contractualrisk PHONE: 02 8587 7960 EMAIL: savitha.viswanathan@thomsonreuters.com