Pulat Yunusov’s Post

We should not be surprised that Cleary Gottlieb has become the latest major firm to adopt a two-tier partnership – or should we?   Is the increasing adoption of two-tier partnerships a smart way of retaining talent and increasing profit per partner, or does it challenge culture and brand by introducing “second rank” partners?   Cleary is not alone. The trend of firms switching from one-tier partnerships or increasing their current Salaried Partner ranks is with us and should come as no surprise. We have just completed a survey of 192 leading firms globally. 34% of all firms are either actively increasing their Salaried Partner roles or reviewing whether to switch from a one to two-tier model.   The results were quite stark. Despite firms introducing or increasing the number of Salaried Partners for what they see as the “right” reasons, this approach is failing for all the “wrong” reasons. And the fact that 27% of firms report that SP roles are actually reducing, not increasing, profitability points to the potential hurdles.   This does not suggest that Cleary has made the wrong decision – far from it. It just means they should proceed with caution and with guardrails. Who said leading a law firm was easy!   Two of the most curious findings from our survey:   Only 27% of firms have the same selection criteria for both Salaried Partners and Equity Partners, pointing to the seeming contradiction in the two tier approach. And, when asked what benefits introducing or increasing Salaried Partner ranks would have on clients, the answer was a resounding 0% - but are firms even thinking about the impact on clients? I discuss the survey outputs with Stephen Revell here: https://lnkd.in/dAfcDDcr   In addition to the 192 firms who participated, the research wouldn´t have been possible without:   - My colleagues Stephen Revell (co-Chair of the IBA´s LFMC), Mari Cruz Taboada and Chris Dignan (who analysed the results);  - Soledad Atienza Becerril (Dean), Luis de Carlos (President) and Cristina Andrés (Director) IE Law School´s LawAhead Centre for commissioning the research; - Bryon Fong and Dana Walters Harvard Law School´s Centre on the Legal Profession who will be publishing an Insight on the results. The LawAhead Center on the Legal Profession collaborates with key players in the legal industry, including CMS Albiñana & Suárez de Lezo, Cuatrecasas, Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, Garrigues, Pérez-Llorca, RocaJunyent, Sagardoy Abogados and Uría Menéndez, as well as leading companies like CaixaBank, Microsoft, Aena, MAPFRE and Telefonica. The research is discussed as part of a related 10 part series on the Path to Partnership: https://lnkd.in/d-5A2ayA The Spanish introduction - ¿Qué supone ser socio de capital en una firma de abogados? - is here: https://lnkd.in/dcVNEvsz. Lexington Consultants Møller Institute International Bar Association

Stop bashing other law firms/advisors! As someone who has dedicated over a decade to the legal profession and now serves as General Counsel, I have had the privilege of working with many talented people. However, there is a recurring issue that I find particularly frustrating: the tendency of some advisors to belittle their peers. I was interviewed as an associate for a position and the partner said that they only count 50% of my years as lawyer because based on their experience only they know how it is done and other firms aren't as good... It is getting even worse as GC. Too often, I hear statements like, "That firm is not Champions League", or "They are not as good as we are". Similarly, when discussing pricing, it's common to hear why the other offer must be incorrect because "only we know what’s really happening." This approach is not only unprofessional but also unproductive and I am getting annoyed by it to be honest. It undermines the spirit of collaboration and mutual respect that should be at the heart of our industry. 🔹 Focus on the value that you bring, rather than the perceived shortcomings of others. If I ask for a pricing, focus on you. I do not want you to make yourself bigger and better by telling me how everyone else does not know what they are doing. 🔹 Yes, you might have drafted it better. But you do not know what happened. Maybe you can dedicated an entire day to the task while others were given one hour to just come up with something. 🔹 Please stick to a minimum of mutual respect and professional courtesy. What are your experiences? Have you heard that your firm is the only one that actually knows how it is done?

What do you get if you combine the 100 biggest law firms in the world by revenue, with detailed, independent research into the quality of all of their practices provided by Legal 500? The answer? Completely different insight into what the definition of a global law firm really is or should be. Anna Huntley and I have explored various way of cutting a really huge amount of L500 data in order to create some alternative views of the firms that really are the best global law firms for Legal Business Magazine. We haven't published a single definitive list here. But we have created various options, which give better representation to UK/UK heritage firms like Clifford Chance, Linklaters, DLA Piper, Freshfields, Herbert Smith Freehills and Hogan Lovells which have genuine geographic reach. Of course, the ever-increasing importance of the US to international law firms cannot be underestimated, but nor should a list of the biggest and best global law firms basically equate to a list of the biggest US law firms, irrespective of whether they have any international reach.

Jay Edelson’s firm continues to lead. The “new paradigm” for class action lead counsel selection discussed below is great stuff. And it could also be more broadly applied with small modifications to Rule 23 adequacy of counsel analysis as well. #classactions #consumerprotection #rule23 #frcp23

𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 "𝗕𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀": 𝗔 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗳𝗲𝗹𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 It’s that time of year again when the air is filled with the scent of freshly printed certificates, and the echoes of self-congratulatory speeches reverberate through law firms everywhere. Yes, it’s the season of the "Best Lawyer" awards! Knowing countless best lawyers personally, I find myself in a unique position to celebrate this inflationary marvel with appropriate reverence. First, let me express my profound admiration for each "Best Lawyer" who has managed to secure this prestigious title. Truly, it is no small feat to rise above the tens of thousands of your peers, who are also apparently the "best." Your finely honed ability to both practice law and receive awards is nothing short of miraculous. "I am truly honored and humbled to be recognized as the best," they declare, as the audience of fellow best lawyers nods in mutual recognition. One can only marvel at the diversity within the ranks of the best lawyers: environmental, corporate, tax, and even award-fixing specialists. It’s a rainbow of legal talent, each color more vibrant and self-assured than the last. Let’s not forget the arduous path each of these best lawyers has taken to achieve this pinnacle of success. The late nights, the missed family dinners, the relentless pursuit of billable hours—all culminating in this shining moment of recognition. Your resilience and dedication to receiving awards are inspiring to us all. So, dear best lawyers, bask in the glow of your collective brilliance. Revel in the knowledge that you are, each and every one of you, the absolute pinnacle of legal excellence. Reflect on the improbability of so many bests coexisting in the same professional universe, and give yourselves a well-deserved pat on the back. In closing, while it is impossible to personally congratulate each of you due to the sheer volume of best-ness, know that my admiration is vast and boundless. Here’s to another year of being the best, and may the number of best lawyers continue to grow exponentially. Cheers! 😉

The 2024 edition of Chambers Global recognizes Jones Day with 105 practice rankings and 114 lawyer rankings. The real pride lies in what our clients say about us: "the lawyers have excellent technical knowledge and are concise, commercial, and responsive," and further lauding the Firm's "strong international experience and thus the ability to provide solutions that work in several jurisdictions." #investigations #fcpa #anticorruption

Harbour is a wealth of information.

Great to make The BTI Consulting Group's list again for Top 30 law firms for Client Service. This is the core of what it means to practice at #Mintz and is always something we aim to achieve. #Clientservice #BTI #Top30 #BigLaw

#LawyersofLinkedIn, tune into this Toronto Lawyers Association (TLA) webinar, and watch as Shalabh Gupta, CA, CBV, CFE and Kinjal Shah deliver a primer on business valuations. Shalabh Gupta and Kinjal Shah give a refresher on the concept of value in the context of business valuations, explaining how it reflects an asset's earning potential, market perception, and associated investment risks. The presenters discuss standards of value, the contexts in which they are applied, and highlight the distinction between price and value, illustrating these differences with practical case scenarios. Shalabh Gupta and Kinjal Shah emphasize the importance of expert-prepared business valuations in various legal contexts, such as tax strategies, shareholder disputes, and family law matters. The pair provide guidance on commonly used business valuation methods and their applications, they offer case studies, to depict how each valuation method is applied in specific situations, and stress that valuation is both a science and an art. You can watch the full program on-demand at CPDonline.ca when you get a low cost subscription! Save 50% on your 2024 CPD when you enter the code '2YEAROFF'! https://lnkd.in/exhBsx5a #Law #lawstudents #lawyers #lawfirmmarketing #lawyerlife #lawyering #lawsuits #lawandlegislation #legalissues #legalprofession #paralegals

In the 23andMe MDL, we filed a brief today arguing for a new paradigm for Courts to evaluate leadership motions in class actions. The basics are below, but you can check out the Reuters coverage here: https://lnkd.in/eRKaFjig.  We start with the premise that under the current framework, courts are put in an uncomfortable position: first, pick the lawyer for the class—evaluating their backgrounds and proposed strategy in the case—and then snap back to the decider role when those strategies play out. The result is generally large bloated "consensus" teams that lead to quick and really bad settlements. So what to do? The answer we suggest is unusual: let's ask the class. With the help of incredible professors Alissa Del Riego and Joseph Avery, we ran a survey asking the class what they wanted to see in a lead firm. And the results were illuminating:  1. A smaller, more efficient lead team  2. Lawyers with proven track records in the specific legal claims being brought  3. A record of really good settlements in similar cases  4. Financially strong firms - we argue that a good proxy is to see which firms took PPP money during the pandemic.  5. Firms that want to litigate the case and have done real investigatory work instead of those that want to settle without having done the work And, wait for it.... 6. Firms that deliver high claims rates. But here's the part that gets us uninvited to the plaintiff's parties. The class also cares about cost. So, we are doing the unthinkable: we're saying up front that we won't seek the lessor of (a) 20% of the actual real benefits to the class (not cy pres, unclaimed funds or injunctive relief) or (b) the percentage of the class that files valid claims. That is, if there's a 5% claims rate, we will seek no more than 5% of the fees. As we've argued at conferences, if courts adopt this as a rule, the days of anemic claims rates will be done, just like coupon settlements were ended post CAFA. Really excited to get this idea out into the world. #classaction, #mdl, #reform