Law Firms For Sale – Legal Services Bill To Change Face Of UK Law Practice

For sale signs will soon be hanging outside solicitors’ practices. Owning a law firm can be satisfying but why would anyone want to buy one? The answer is one dimensional: to make money.

The Government will start pushing the Legal Services Bill through Parliament next month and one of its key features is that, by the end of 2008, non-lawyers will be able to take a stake in a practice. Regulated buyers – surveyors, accountants, actuaries – will be allowed a small holding to begin with, but in time anyone will be able to buy a law firm. Private equity, corporate financiers and flotation-merchants have been drumming up interest for the past 12 months. And the word is that many firms are already a long way down the track in grooming themselves for a sale.

Until now, you’ve had to be a solicitor to own a stake in a law firm, and the Government doesn’t like this. Against consumer interests, the argument goes. It stifles competition, and the level of complaints against lawyers is proof positive that the closed shop works against the consumer. Be that as it may, our legal system is much admired, is probably better than in most other countries and solicitors have to some degree helped create this international reputation. Of course, everyone has some horror tale about fees or delays (or maybe just about losing), but to sweep away the current regime and replace it with something new, based only on an assertion that things will be better, seems a high-risk strategy.

Why take the risk? Cynics might suspect the Government sees a chance to undermine the independence of lawyers, with the siren call of consumer interests providing an excuse. Independence in this context arises out of solicitors having duties to others – to the courts, for example – that override personal business interests and sometimes the short- term interests of a particular client. It need not follow that diluting ownership of a firm by allowing outside interests will mean professional duties become less important. But those obligations that distinguish a profession from something that is just a business sit uncomfortably with the sole aim of outside investors – making money.

It is this that will drive consolidation. Tesco, the Co-op, the Halifax and a few others have the financial power and the brand values to buy or build firms, providing services that are process driven – consumer complaints, debt collection, immigration, employment, per-sonal injury. And in a few years we might have just four or five law firms in England, most probably serving the public from call centres. “Press 1 for a broken leg, 2 if you want to sue your employer, or hold while we connect you with an adviser. All calls are charged at a premium rate”.


Qualcomm Changes Law Firm Again

LAWFUEL – The Legal Newswire – For the second time this year, Qualcomm has replaced the Silicon Valley law firm that was representing the wireless giant in a major patent infringement dispute.

At one level, the move to replace the Cupertino law firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder was a minor procedural matter in a lawsuit Qualcomm filed against Nokia two years ago.
San Diego federal Judge Roger Benitez signed an order Tuesday that approved Qualcomm’s request to substitute Steven Strauss as its lead attorney in the case. Strauss is a partner in the San Diego office of Cooley Godward Kronish.

But the switch also offers more fodder in the continuing saga of “The Qualcomm 14” – the 14 lawyers who face judicial sanctions for misconduct that was detailed in a 54-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster.

Brewster ordered the 14 lawyers to face a sanctions hearing, scheduled for next month, after presiding over a separate patent lawsuit that Qualcomm filed against Broadcom, a rival chipmaker in Irvine.

Nine of the 14 lawyers facing sanctions were from Day Casebeer, including James Batchelder, who led Qualcomm legal team in both cases. The other five were from the Heller Ehrman law firm, including San Diego partners David Kleinfeld and Barry Tucker.

A federal jury deliberated six hours before finding that Broadcom not only did not infringe on two Qualcomm patents, but that Qualcomm also had withheld patent information from official patent bodies.

In the months after the trial, Qualcomm acknowledged it had not produced 230,000 pages of internal e-mails and other relevant evidence for the trial.

Judge Brewster cited the Qualcomm 14’s “inexplicable” failure to find such material in his August ruling, which found “exceptional” misconduct and ordered Qualcomm to pay Broadcom’s legal fees in the case.

Qualcomm later announced that general counsel Lou Lupin had resigned. The wireless giant named Carol Lam, San Diego’s former U.S. Attorney, as acting general counsel.

The company also hired San Diego trial lawyer Bill Boggs and the DLA Piper law firm to replace Day Casebeer as attorneys of record in that case.

In a notice filed earlier this month, Boggs signaled his intent to appeal Brewster’s ruling.

About The Author