Latest news – Innovation disconnect at firms; GCs tipping litigation rise; Top gong for Hebert Smith Freehills

Firms battle to meet innovation promise

A new study suggests that many law firms need to ramp up their efforts if they are to back their promises of being innovators. According to the 2016 ALPMA/InfoTrack report, Adapting to the Changing Legal Landscape, there is a “disconnect between what law firms think and what they do”.

While most Australasian law firms rate themselves as innovative, the study authors felt there was little evidence to support the claim. ALPMA president Andrew Barnes commented that “there is a real discrepancy between how innovative firms believe they are and what they are actually doing in terms of their investment in innovation and in people, process and technology initiatives to drive their firm forward”.

More than 160 law firms across Australia and New Zealand were surveyed for the report, with 65 per cent of survey respondents across small, medium and large firms believing their firm was innovative or very innovative, with only 6 per cent indicating they were not at all innovative. However, few firms had a dedicated innovation budget or a proactive group that was responsible for innovation. One-third of respondents were unhappy with the level of innovation investment at their firm.

GCs expecting rise in litigation, disputes

Most general counsel are expecting an upward trend in virtually all of the metrics relating to litigation and the broader disputes area, according to a new international report. Norton Rose Fulbright, in its 2016 Litigation Trends Annual Survey, polled more than 600 corporate counsel representing companies across 24 countries on disputes-related issues and concerns. Highlights of the report include:

• The trend of respondents expecting a rise in litigation continued from recent years, as 24 per cent believe the volume of disputes will increase in the year ahead versus only 13 per cent anticipating a decrease;
• Companies that had no lawsuits commenced against them decreased from 25 per cent to 19 per cent during the past 12 months, with 81 per cent of respondents being sued in the past year;
• Respondents who needed to conduct any type of cross-border discovery increased from 35 per cent to 41 per cent this past year. Those needing to conduct cross-border discovery in more than half of their matters doubled from 7 per cent to 14 per cent;
• Companies not facing any regulatory proceedings showed little change from last year at 66 per cent. However, 97 per cent of respondents perceived regulators to be more interventionist during the past 12 months;
• Litigation related to contracts stood as both the most numerous at 40 per cent and the top concern for respondents at 42 per cent; and
• Alternative fee arrangements were used by 60 percent of respondents.

In releasing the report, Gerry Pecht, Norton Rose Fulbright’s Global Head of Dispute Resolution and Litigation, said: “We see the trend of businesses becoming more proactive in how they assess and control litigation exposure.”

Herbert Smith Freehills an ‘attractive’ firm

Herbert Smith Freehills has taken out the top honour as Australia’s “most attractive firm” for the second year running.  The annual Top 25 Attraction Firms ranking is based on the results from one question in research conducted by Momentum Intelligence and Lawyers Weekly survey.

They asked: “Which firms would you most likely consider a move to if you ever decided to leave your current firm?” More than 700 people responded to the question. In second place, also for the second year running, was King & Wood Mallesons, while Allens, MinterEllison and Ashurst rounded out the top five. In related research, it was found that gender is a factor in terms of which firms people prefer to work for, with women being more inclined to select national firms and men often preferring global firms.

The Top 25 Attraction firms are:

1. Herbert Smith Freehills

2. King & Wood Mallesons

3. Allens

4. MinterEllison

5. Ashurst

6. Gilbert + Tobin

7. Norton Rose Fulbrigh

8. Allen & Overy

9. Clayton Utz

10. Tied, Baker & McKenzie, Clifford Chance

12. Henry Davis York

13. DLA Piper

14. Corrs Chambers Westgarth

15. K&L Gates

16. PwC Legal

17. KPMG Legal

18. Gadens Lawyers

19. Lander & Rogers

20. HWL Ebsworth

21. Tied, Jones Day and Clyde & Co

23. Mills Oakley

24. Hall & Wilcox

25. Deloitte Legal