1 / 16

Managing the Process

Managing the Process. Panel Discussion. Panel. Nigel Thorne – Shoosmiths Giles Rubens – Hildebrandt Baker Robbins John Coman – A&L Goodbody Armen Khachaturyan – Asters Martin Brodey – Dorda Brugger Jordis Tomaso Cenci – Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partners.

bian
Download Presentation

Managing the Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing the Process Panel Discussion

  2. Panel • Nigel Thorne – Shoosmiths • Giles Rubens – Hildebrandt Baker Robbins • John Coman – A&L Goodbody • Armen Khachaturyan – Asters • Martin Brodey – Dorda Brugger Jordis • Tomaso Cenci – Gianni, Origoni, Grippo & Partners

  3. Key themes of the discussion- client expectations • What expectations do clients have when appointing and dealing with international law firm groups? • How do client expectations compare with the approach of the WSG and are there regional variations in approach by the WSG? • To what extent should the WSG be seeking to emulate international law firms and other international legal firm groupings and what are barriers to overcome?

  4. Key themes of the discussion- To what extent are their practical barriers to meeting client expectations? • Terms of business • Responsibility for fees • Caps on liability • Insurance levels • Consistency of documentation

  5. Result of WSG Members Survey

  6. Result of WSG Members Survey

  7. Result of Client Survey

  8. Meeting Clients’ International Expectations Giles Rubens – Hildebrandt Baker Robbins

  9. Meeting Clients’ International Expectations- Response of the Panel • Who is the WSG in competition with? • Do clients have differing expectations? • Does the ‘type’ of work make a difference? • Should the WSG be doing anything different to meet the challenges?

  10. Practical barriers to meeting client expectations? - Question for the Panel • When using WSG lawyers do you prefer the other WSG firms to be engaged by the client or by your firm? • [WSG Members survey result: 75% say the client] • [Client survey result: 50% say your firm] • Do you think your clients generally prefer to instruct other WSG member firms directly or through your firm? • [WSG Members survey result: 56% say through your firm] • If you are appointed through another WSG member do you prefer to be engaged directly by the client or by the other WSG firm? • [WSG Members survey result: 56% say by the client]

  11. Question for the Panel • When you are appointed by other WSG firms or their clients do you always set out the terms of your engagement in full or only set out brief terms such as fees? • [WSH Members survey result: 73% say in full] • [Client survey result: 88% say in part] • Does it vary depending on whether another WSG firm appoints you or it is a direct engagement from the client? • Have you experienced any clients being unhappy with having to enter into more than one set of engagement terms and conditions with different WSG members on the same transaction?

  12. Question for the Panel • Would you expect to limit your liability for particular pieces of work? Have you any experience of any issues arising regarding this when either being appointed by clients of other WSG firms or when appointing other WSG firms in relation to your clients? • [WSG members survey result: 63% cap liability] • [Client survey result: 63% do not accept caps] • Professional indemnity insurance caps vary between WSG members. Has this created any issues for you or your clients or can you anticipate it doing so? • [WSG members survey result: cover varies fairly evenly from amounts in the ‘Euro nil to 2 million’ range to ‘above Euro 100 million’.] • [Client survey result: 33% expect minimum of Euro 2m to 5m, 50% expect minimum Euro 5m to 20m, 17% expect minimum Euro 20m to 50m]

  13. Question for the Panel • If you engage other WSG members firms do you expect them to bill at the same intervals as your firm? Has this created any issues for you, other WSG members or your clients or can you anticipate it doing so? • [WSG Members survey result: 80% insist on payment at same intervals however 61% also say they bill monthly] • [Client survey: 50% insist on same billing intervals]

  14. Question for the Panel • If you instruct other WSG firms on due diligence exercises or on other processes where standardisation might be appropriate do you seek to apply standard styles, formats, definitions, glossaries etc on other WSG firms? Have you had any resistance to that? • [WSG Members survey result: 75% require the same format] • [Client survey: 84% require the same format]

  15. Question for the Panel • Do you know if the rules of professional conduct in your jurisdiction mean (in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary) that if a client that you commission work for from another WSG member does not pay then your firm will be responsible for the fees of the other WSG member? • [WSG Members survey result: 20% say they are responsible]

  16. Conclusions?

More Related