GCR GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW A guide to the world s leading competition law and economics practices 13 th annual edition revised and updated
Global Elite Last year, the demise of Howrey which, at the time, had one of the world s largest antitrust practices led to a major reshuffle of the GCR Global Elite. This year, Dewey & LeBoeuf s bankruptcy has left a similar gap in the rankings, although perhaps not quite as significant as Howrey s. While the new Global Elite list contains many familiar names, there have been some notable changes in position, largely thanks to the strong performances of certain practices over the past year. To compile our rankings, we asked the world s largest firms to provide us with figures for their global competition practices. We looked at the size of a firm s competition practice; the number and location of nominees to The International Who s Who of Competition Lawyers & Economists; the stability of the practice (measured in net partner gains or losses over the year); and several other factors. Our analysis places extra weight on the Who s Who Legal criterion, principally because it provides more qualitative measures than the others, and partly because it is not reported by the firms themselves. We believe the results paint a good picture of the international competition scene. The Global Elite is once again dominated by US and London-based firms, most of which have an extensive global network of offices. Hengeler Mueller was the exception in the last two editions as the only German practice in our rankings, but it just missed out this year amid fierce competition from other firms at the edge of the Global Elite. The top four firms remain the same as last year. Global antitrust leaders Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton remain in the first and second slots respectively, while the talented groups at Linklaters and Arnold & Porter retain the third and fourth positions. Having been last year s biggest climber, the team at Hogan Lovells progressed once again to land in fifth place, after an impressive year on the litigation front in several key jurisdictions. This year, the greatest progression in the table belongs to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and Covington & Burling, which both moved up three places. Two new firms grace the Global Elite this year: Shearman & Sterling and McDermott Will & Emery. Shearman s impressive cast list of Who s Who Legal nominees, boosted significantly by the arrival of several leading ex-howrey partners, place it firmly among the Global Elite. McDermott s ability to attract talented partners to boost what was an already a notable global practice led to an increase in high-profile work in 2012, particularly on the behavioural side. Several firms were on the cusp of being entered into this year s Global Elite, including Baker Botts, Hengeler Mueller and Ashurst. Next year will no doubt see the list change once again. 14 global competition review
Position Firm Position last year GCR 100 1 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 1 2 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 2 3 Linklaters 3 4 Arnold & Porter 4 5 Hogan Lovells 6 6 Jones Day 7 7 Clifford Chance 5 8 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 11 9 Allen & Overy 9 10 Latham & Watkins 8 11 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 10 12 White & Case 12 13 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 14 14 Baker & McKenzie 15 15 Slaughter and May 13 16 Covington & Burling 19 17 Herbert Smith Freehills 16 18 Shearman & Sterling New entry 19 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 17 20 McDermott Will & Emery New entry 16 global competition review
Size of practice Firm no. of competition specialists Baker & McKenzie 315 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 261 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 201 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 200 White & Case 177 Hogan Lovells 171 Jones Day 150 Clifford Chance 145 Latham & Watkins 145 Linklaters 143 Allen & Overy 109 Arnold & Porter 103 GCR 100 Baker & McKenzie continues to claim the top spot in the size of practice table, while Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer holds on to the second position. With 261 competition specialists, the firm trails well behind Baker & McKenzie s 315 lawyers, but lies a way ahead of the other larger groups. Two more firms also boast at least 200 lawyers in their worldwide antitrust practices. This year, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher pipped Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton for third position by just one lawyer. Continuing on its post-merger expansion, Hogan Lovells grew by 27 per cent this year. The firm added 36 competition lawyers to its headcount and is now in sixth position, not far from fifth-placed White & Case. Linklaters also grew by 17 per cent over the past year. The firm now has a similar competition headcount to Clifford Chance, Jones Day and Latham & Watkins: all are between 140 and 150. Discussions often arise about whether size and growth matter at all to a competition practice. Some competition matters simply require a lot of manpower. Although the total number of lawyers is not everything, it is a helpful indicator to understand whether a firm is equipped to take on large international assignments that require significant resources, says Susan Bright, global antitrust co-chair of Hogan Lovell. Size does matter, but it is not just about size, she says. You need enough people in different jurisdictions, so you have the right geographic reach. And of course, you need excellent lawyers. In order to attract cross-border deals or cross-border behavioural work, you need to have strength and depth. As well as advising on strategy, you need a large team to handle document reviews, interviews, responding to information requests and so forth. Samantha Mobley, who co-heads GCR Global Elite s largest antitrust team at Baker & McKenzie, says that in today s globalised economy, companies and law firms cannot ignore emerging jurisdictions such as Brazil, South Africa, Australia and China, nor the smaller countries whose antitrust authorities are gaining teeth. What s important is the depth of your geographic coverage, she says. Multinational clients that operate in 60-70 countries are interested in a service which is offered in the same places they operate. One of our clients is very interested in the fact that we have a team in Vietnam, for example, because it is investing heavily in that country and the regulator there is increasingly active. Having a critical mass in sectors such as US litigation is crucial, says Michael Egge, global antitrust co-chair of Latham & Watkins. Plus companies often like to rely on one-stop shop firms hence the importance of fielding large teams. An increasing number of clients value being able to go to one place and get the highest quality service across several jurisdictions, he says. You absolutely need significant expertise in Washington and Brussels. From a US perspective you also need to have a critical mass in litigation because that is a mainstay of antitrust practice demand is high, the stakes are high, and usually doing it right requires fielding multiple strong teams. What s more, one needs to choose carefully where to place its key players. Egge says: In Europe you need Brussels, but you also need to cover the member states. The key is having a mix of EU and member state capability in Brussels, and then having top talent on the ground in the most prominent enforcement jurisdictions, which include Germany, the UK, France and, increasingly, Spain and Italy. Size, however, could prove dangerous to a law firm, as Dewey & LeBoeuf painfully discovered this year. The firm made it into GCR s Global Elite last year, partly thanks to its acquisition of key ex-howrey antitrust lawyers and overall growth. But many say this was also the main reason of its undoing, as the firm grew too much, too fast. The market impact of Dewey s collapse is likely to be more diluted than the consequences of Howrey s implosion, as key lawyers dispersed across many firms. My opinion is that [Dewey s exit] doesn t change a lot, even though it means there is very good talent moving around, says Egge. We are in a service market where practices can contract and expand very quickly. There s a lot of competition. Talent is always going to find a home. www.globalcompetitionreview.com 17
Who s Who Legal nominees GCR 100 Firm no. of Who s Who Proportion of competition partners Legal nominees in Who s Who Legal Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 40 77% Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 19 76% Linklaters 19 79% Allen & Overy 18 75% Hogan Lovells 16 34% Jones Day 15 22% Clifford Chance 15 41% Arnold & Porter 12 41% Latham & Watkins 12 22% Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 11 15% Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 10 43% Shearman & Sterling 9 60% White & Case 9 26% Baker & McKenzie 9 8% Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 8 36% Herbert Smith Freehills 8 44% Covington & Burling 7 25% Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 7 54% McDermott Will & Emery 7 23% Slaughter and May 5 83% In competition law, talent is defined by experience and skills that are difficult to convey through a figure, but that are immediately recognised by peers and represent the basis upon which The Who s Who of Competition Lawyers & Economists is built. This is why the number of Who s Who Legal nominees fielded by each firm is of paramount importance to the definition of GCR s Global Elite. Quality and talent is crucial in the world of antitrust law. Competition matters may require lawyers to fill in huge forms and wade through vast amounts of data, but the outcome of a merger review or behavioural investigation may heavily depend on a practitioner s advice. Companies may decide to hire a particular lawyer because they trust he or she is able to assess the antitrust risk of a particular business decision how far can a company push in its dealings with competition authorities, and how will the enforcers react? A firm s overall quality is largely determined by the quality of its individuals, rather than just by its numbers, says John Davies, global antitrust co-head of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, the firm with the most Who s Who Legal nominees. But having a high level of talent spread across the team is what matters most. I don t think you can attract complex antitrust work just by being a brand name, says Davies. You attract that sort of work by having talented individuals or talented teams. People would go to an individual even if the firm doesn t have a reputation for antitrust, but if you have both things the client is normally happier. To put it bluntly, the client knows that if that person goes under a bus they know there will be a strong bench helping out. So how do you make sure talent is recognised? It s a complex thing to achieve, Davies says. The best marketing is on the job, but the fact that you have done a good job on a matter may be known only to a few people. On the contrary, it doesn t mean that if you speak at lots of conferences you are good. It s a cocktail of things. The Who s Who Legal nominee status is a clear indicator of a lawyer s quality. It is the result of a far-reaching peer review, at the end of which only the very best make it into the directory. Impressing enough competition experts to gain a place in Who s Who Legal is no easy task. Market visibility alone is not enough one needs to prove he or she has the expertise, creativity and judgement necessary to be considered among the top practitioners. Each year, Who s Who Legal interviews and sends questionnaires to hundreds of competition experts, asking for a qualitative opinion of their peers calibre. The participants votes are weighted against their own results, so that the preferences of the best practitioners have a greater role in determining the final list. In turn, these numbers are weighted against other factors to shape the GCR Global Elite. Some firms have a small but very focused and talent-rich practice. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Sherman & Sterling count on about 50 competition lawyers each, but more than half of their partners are nominated to Who s Who Legal. This feature is even more marked in the case of Slaughter and May. The firm has a team almost entirely based in London and Brussels, but five out of its six partners are Who s Who Legal nominees the highest percentage in the GCR Global Elite. Clients go to individuals, says Philippe Chappatte, Slaughter & May s antitrust co-head. Individuals can be helped by the reputation of a firm, but a firm is only as good as the sum of its individuals. A firm can be very large and not have great lawyers it will not be likely to attract a lot of business, or it can be smaller and have very good people and attract a lot of business. 18 global competition review
So what does it take to make a good competition lawyer? Above all, [it is important] to have good analytical skills, continues Chappatte. Then having a good understanding of economics and many years of experience. Clients won t use very clever people that don t have good experience. It s also important to have a good understanding of business and substantial experience of dealing with regulators, both at national and European level. Other firms may count on larger groups of practitioners and have a relatively smaller number of nominees, but their leading lawyers may be among the top of the top in a few key jurisdictions. The firms at the top of the table combine large teams with widespread talent. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Linklaters and Allen & Overy have large global practices and crucially about three-quarters of the firms partners are nominated to Who s Who Legal. Freshfields tops the list with more than twice the number of nominees of any other firm that s 77 per cent of its total number of partners. established competition practices in China, which observers say is an increasingly significant jurisdiction. Things are also developing in Africa, where for many years South Africa has been the only recognised competition jurisdiction. Countries such as Zambia, Namibia, the Gambia and Botswana are establishing themselves as serious enforcers of antitrust law, and many firms are keeping an eye on how these fledgling operations develop given the wealth of business potential across the continent. Lateral partner hires Firm lateral partner hires McDermott Will & Emery 3 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 3 Baker & McKenzie 2 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 2 Jones Day 2 GCR 100 Geographic spread (in GCR 100) Firm no. of jurisdictions featured in GCR 100 Baker & McKenzie 17 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 12 Allen & Overy 10 Clifford Chance 10 White & Case 10 Hogan Lovells 9 Jones Day 9 Linklaters 9 With more countries enacting competition laws and greater cooperation between agencies on multi-jurisdictional matters than ever before, having an antitrust practice with a large global footprint can be a significant asset. A one-stop shop for far-reaching competition issues such as global cartels can be more appealing than dealing with several local firms that each have different processes and fee structures. Baker & McKenzie once again tops the charts with its competition teams in 17 jurisdictions. With 12 jurisdictions, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer also clearly sees the value in having its own teams on the ground in several countries, while Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance and White & Case also hit double figures. Linklaters has significantly expanded its global footprint, with three more jurisdictions than last year, while Hogan Lovells and Jones Day have gained by two. Of particular interest to many firms is the growing implementation of competition law in the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore s Competition Commission is going from strength to strength, Malaysia s enforcer began its mandate this year, and the remaining Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries are required to have a functioning antitrust law by 2015. Progress is being made Indonesia recently updated its merger control regime and Vietnam s Competition Authority recommended a radical overhaul of its existing law. Several of the Global Elite now have On the Global Elite lateral hires table, McDermott Will & Emery and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati lead the way with three new partners apiece. McDermott scooped Allan Van Fleet from Greenberg Traurig in Houston and Sabine Naugès from Weil in Paris, while Warren Rosborough rejoined the firm after a stint at the US Department of Justice (DoJ). Wilson Sonsini recruited three partners to its new Brussels office Hunton & Williams partners Michael Rosenthal and Paul McGeown, and Götz Drauz of Shearman & Sterling and Howrey. Roxann Henry, at Morrison Foerster in Washington, DC, says that a lot of recent moves have been from antitrust agencies into the private sector. This contributes a steady stream of lateral activity and avoids the conflicts issue because these folks are looking to develop clients, not bring them, she says. The statistics for this year s lateral partner hires are less dramatic than in our previous edition, when Howrey s disbandment sent waves of some of the world s most talented antitrust practitioners into the marketplace. The collapse of Dewey & LeBoeuf is not born out in these statistics as most Dewey antitrust partners have relocated to firms not included in the Global Elite Winston & Strawn attracted an impressive nine antitrust partners, including New York heavyweights Jeffrey Kessler and Paul Victor. Two former Dewey partners joined Cooley Godward Kronish, while MJ Moltenbrey chose Paul Hastings. In Italy, all of Dewey s lawyers left the firm to revive dissolving law firm Grimaldi & Associati under the new name of Grimaldi Studio Legale. All of this may portend a shift in overall rankings in the future. Henry, who joined Morrison & Foerster after Dewey, says the list demonstrates how Howrey s collapse has spurred deconcentration of the antitrust services market. It s hard for real players with business to move in groups because of conflicts, she says. The Dewey antitrust practice wanted to stay together, but when you need to move quickly, as we did, the conflicts made a full group move virtually impossible. www.globalcompetitionreview.com 19
19. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Global heads: Susan Creighton, Jonathan Jacobson Home jurisdiction: United States Total size of firm: 600 No. of competition specialists: 50 Percentage of competition specialists: 8 Who s Who Legal nominees: 7 Partners: 13 Percentage of partners in Who s Who Legal: 54 Associates: 30 Counsel and consultants: 8 Other: 0 No. of lateral partner hires: 3 No. of partner departures: 0 No. of internal promotions: 1 GCR 100 Another successful year at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Known for its strong practices in New York, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC, the firm opened its first Brussels office in September 2011, making a name for itself in Europe through heavy-hitting partners Götz Drauz, Michael Rosenthal and Paul McGeown. Wilson Sonsini has seven Who s Who Legal nominees, and Franklin Rubenstein was promoted to partner in the firm s Washington, DC, office in February. The firm s client list is enviable, particularly in the hightech markets where Wilson Sonsini is renowned. Global head Susan Creighton and 40 under 40 nominee Scott Sher are long-standing counsel to Google in the US, and are representing the online search company in the FTC s antitrust investigation. The firm also successfully defended Google in an antitrust complaint brought by a US appeal court by TradeComet, and represented Google in the EU regarding a complaint brought by rival Foundem and other companies. Wilson Sonini also acted for Micron Technology in its US$2.5 billion acquisition of Tokyo-based Elpida Memory, and InterDigital in its US$375 million sale of 1,700 patents and applications to Intel. Sher also acted for Seagate Technology in its US$1.4 billion purchase of Samsung s hard disk drive business, which received clearance in the EU, US and China. The firm also advised T-Mobile with regard to Verizon s spectrum wireless purchase. In Europe, McGeown is representing Glencore in its US$90 billion tie-up with Xstrata. Wilson Sonsini acted for Live Nation in a class action brought by concertgoers accusing the company of monopolising the live music market, and was counsel to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center over monopolisation claims brought by West Penn Allegheny Health System, its largest rival. The firm also advised Chevron in Spain regarding the sale of its downstream business to rival CEPSA. www.globalcompetitionreview.com 31
GCR 100: California United States: California Nestled in and around the high-tech hub of Silicon Valley, antitrust lawyers and law firms in the San Francisco Bay Area have a front-row seat for some of the United States most dynamic government investigations and courtroom battles Recommended Meanwhile, three California-based partners work with the larger antitrust team at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, helping to advise the firm s extensive high-tech client base. Dylan Liddiard, a partner in the firm s Palo Alto office, helps Washington, DC, partner Scott Sher and others advise headline client Google in a range of antitrust matters. The California team also advises Transitions Optical in the transition lens antitrust litigation, and Universal Surveillance Systems in a monopolisation case, among other matters. Firm Head of competition Size Clients Recommended Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Jonathan Jacobson, Susan Creighton 3p, 1sc, 5a Google, Universal Surveillance Systems, Transitions Optical, Live Nation Key: p = partner, sc = senior counsel, c = counsel, a = associate, sa = senior associate www.globalcompetitionreview.com 195
GCR 100: US Government Antitrust United States: Government Antitrust The firms practising antitrust law in Washington, DC, are among the best the US has to offer particularly when it comes to handling mergers and other investigations before the US antitrust agencies. But many DC practices pride themselves on being able to handle all types of antitrust matters, from government merger probes to courtroom litigation Highly recommended Susan Creighton leads a five-partner group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Washington, DC. Creighton and Scott Sher are Who s Who Legal entrants, and talented partners Mark Rosman and Seth Silber add to the team s bench depth. The Wilson Sonsini group teems with agency experience at both the FTC and DoJ, and its Silicon Valley roots have established it as one of the go-to US firms for high tech antitrust issues. Sher was selected as GCR s Lawyer of the year Under 40 in 2012, while the team s work on the Google/ITA merger won it our Merger Control Matter of the Year for the Americas award. Over the past year, the team s work for headline client Google has again been front and centre. It is advising the online search leader in an FTC investigation that has captured the attention of consumers and pundits well beyond the insular world of antitrust. Elsewhere, the firm is advising Micron Technology in its purchase of Elpida Memory; T-Mobile in connection with Verizon s acquisition of broadband spectrum from cable companies, and several other mergers. Litigations have included assisting the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in its long-running litigation against West Penn Allegheny, and securing summary judgment for the defendants in the live concert antitrust litigation in Los Angeles and Denver. Firm Head of competition Size Clients Highly recommended Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Susan Creighton 5p, 2c, 18a Google, NVIDIA, Adobe, LinkedIn, Micron Technology, Netgear, HTC Corporation, Transitions Optical, Catalyst Health Solutions Key: eq p = equity partner, p = partner, c = counsel, sa = senior associate, a = associate, oc = of counsel, sc = senior counsel 200 global competition review
GCR 100: New York United States: New York The Libor and e-book cases are keeping many of New York s antitrust practices busy, together with the regular financial services work. Meanwhile, many of these firms have worked hard over the past decade to expand their presence in Washington, DC, and add lawyers with significant government experience to their New York-based teams Highly recommended No New York antitrust team punches above its weight quite like west-coast transplant Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. The team played a part in two matters recognised in this year s GCR Awards its representation of Seagate in its acquisition of Samsung s hard drive business was selected as Matter of the Year, and its successful defence of Netflix in a multidistrict class action was named US Behavioural Matter of the Year. The three-partner practice, which includes Who s Who Legal nominees Jonathan Jacobson and Charles E Biggio, is well known for its experience in the high-tech sector. The firm is acting for Google in several matters, including the FTC s investigation of search and advertising, while other major clients include HTC, Transitions Optical and Micron Technology. The team also acts as regular counsel to a diverse range of clients on top of this, including Coca-Cola and Pixar. This year also saw the successful conclusion of a decade-long class action litigation facing major client Live Nation, after a judge granted Wilson s plea for summary judgment. Firm Head of competition Size Clients Highly recommended Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Jonathan Jacobson 3p, 7a Adobe, Caregroup, Clear Channel, Coca-Cola, Google, HTC, Live Nation, Micron Technology, Mylan, Netflix, Netgear, The Nielsen Company, NVIDIA, Transitions Optical Key: p = partner, a = associate, c = counsel www.globalcompetitionreview.com 217