“Tradition ist nicht die
Anbetung der Asche, sondern
die Weitergabe des Feuers”– Gustav Mahler (1860-1911)
Tradition is not theveneration of the ashes but
the passing of the flame.

foreword

Passing the Flame is a book not only about the firm’s past, but it isalso about our present and our future. It tells the story of how thefirm came to be what it is today and how certain strands – puttingclients front and centre, positive action in the face of adversity, andregular doses of good humour – have remained constant through totoday and doubtless beyond.
Linklaters is at the centre of this story. But this is also the storyof our clients and our markets, and of the environment and thetimes in which the firm has lived. It is the tale of how a two-partner
firm of London solicitors advising small troubled businesses
following the banking crisis of the 1830s grew to become one of theleading global law firms of today.
Passing the Flame comes from a quotation attributed to thecomposer Gustav Mahler, although there are some suggestions
that it may originally have been made by Sir Thomas More.
The words (on the frontispiece) tell us that the value of history lies
not in dwelling on the past but rather in how each generation learns,
carries forward and builds on, the legacy of its forebears. The flameat Linklaters burns bright.
As we celebrate our 175th year, I would like to thank our clientsfor their continued confidence and trust in us, and to all Linklaters
men and women – both current and former – who have created thisgreat firm.
I hope you enjoy the book.
Robert Elliott
Chairman and Senior PartneriAuthor’s NoteP

assing the Flame is the history of a remarkable law firm. The
story tells of the development of a firm from small beginnings
to a leading global operation, of the individuals who shapedthat development, of the often inspirational brilliance of its lawyers– and of the successes and setbacks that inevitably come with anyorganisation that is people-driven. One thing the firm certainly
isn’t, is conventional.
In that spirit, I have endeavoured to write a book that is
not just another corporate history. Here are some differencesthat readers will notice. First, in the book’s structure. Narrative
chapters alternate with “themed” chapters (areas of practice;internationalisation; culture; and strategy). The intention is tooffer readers scope for selecting areas that might interest themthe most. Those who are inspired to read the whole book will findsome areas of overlap and occasional repetition; this is intentional.
Second, within each chapter, there are separate profiles ofindividuals, self-contained items or stories, and what might beconsidered to be random facts or anecdotes. Each, however, has abearing on the history which taken together paint a picture of the firm.
Third, I was keen to reflect the contribution made to the firm’s
history by people at all levels of the firm. Law firms’ histories tend to
be dominated by the input of partners. I felt this was an opportunity
to give voice to those whose experiences might not otherwise be aired– and, in some cases, in their own words (what I have called “Tales”,
an idea, if not the style, borrowed from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales).
Fourth, I have endeavoured to write the history in an accessible,
readable way that I hope will entertain as much as inform. The useof the present, rather than past tense, is intended to make the stories
more personal and immediate. I want to convey the impression of
those being interviewed talking directly to the reader.
Linklaters held nothing back. I have been given full accessto documentary materials. Among the documents I used assource material were internal newsletters dating back to 1969,
management papers to 1964 (when the partnership first establisheda management body) and, to my great surprise, accounts to 1881.
However, my primary sources were the hundred or so interviews I
conducted during the course of 2012. This process was an absolute
pleasure: but for the need to publish the book in time for the175th anniversary I could happily have continued meeting andinterviewing people.
One hundred can only ever be a small cross-section of themany thousands who have passed through the firm over the years.
I hope that others will identify with their experiences and, for those
whose contribution has not been directly recognised, that they cantake vicarious pleasure in reading about others. The firm, after all,comes first. It is for that reason that we have not included an index.
It is my intention that readers can find plenty to interest them,whether picking up the book for a few minutes or settling down
for a long read.
Finally, some acknowledgements and thanks. I could not havewritten this book without drawing heavily on the firm’s earlier
history – Linklaters & Paines: the first 150 years by Judy Slinn.
I acknowledge a big debt of gratitude. I am also very grateful to
all those who took the time to be interviewed, and to respondto my many requests for further information. I wish to extend
my thanks in particular to Charles Allen-Jones, whose recountingof his knowledge of the firm was invaluable and who offered vital
guidance and corrections, and to Richard Godden, who provided
the inspiration for the structure of the book and who also offeredinsightful comments. However, the mistakes, omissions andjudgements rest with me and no one else (which, given I am
dealing with lawyers, I offer with some trepidation).
I hope readers enjoy reading the book as much as I haveenjoyed writing it.
Humphrey Keenlyside
March 2013ii

01
linklaters and paines: 1838-1920........................................................... 1

02
in practice................................................................................................ 14

03
linklaters & paines: 1920-1998............................................................. 38

04
taking on the world.............................................................................. 58

05
linklaters & alliance: 1998-2002......................................................... 82

06
culturE matters................................................................................... 102

07linklaters: 2002- ................................................................................... 126

08
strategy.................................................................................................. 142
APPENDIX: THE ART OF LINKLATERS........................................................ 162

iii

LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

01

Linklaters and Paines:
1838 -1920

Lynn Chadwick, Moon Series B 1965, lithograph 39/70, 50x65cm

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 1

Same vision, separate pathsFor any aspiring commercial lawyer, London was as much theplace to go in 1838 as it is in 2013. The heart of the nation’s
enterprise, legal as well as illicit, it throbbed with commercial
activity. It was also a port and trading centre, and that is what lured
Robert Linklater from Shetland in Scotland around the start of the
19th century. He set up in business in Wapping High Street ( just to
the east of the City of London) as an importer of Irish and foreign“provisions”. His oldest son, Thomas, joined the business. The
second and third of his sons, John and James, went into the law.
John Linklater was, by all accounts, an ambitious young man.
He found “articles” (an apprenticeship) with one Julius Maitland
Dods in the latter’s practice at 6 Northumberland Avenue, off theStrand. Julius Dods had founded the law practice in the wake of
the Napoleonic Wars to capitalise on the commercial boom that
followed the cessation of hostilities. That boom was succeeded by afinancial crisis, precipitated by the issue of many false prospectuses
and the collapse of 50 banks. Julius Dods, as a consequence,developed a reputation for advising small businesses faced withbankruptcy. When the young, bright John Linklater applied to join
the thriving practice, he found a ready welcome.
John Linklater was admitted as a solicitor in the Easter termof 1838 at the age of 21, and was immediately taken on as Julius
Dods’ partner. No other person since in the history of Linklaters
has been made a partner directly on qualification, which is both arecognition of his natural legal ability but perhaps also the productof circumstance. Dods & Linklater thus came into existence in thesame year that Queen Victoria ascended to the throne.
John Linklater’s younger brother, James, joined the firm four
years later and was taken on as a partner in 1843. Dods & Linklater
became Dods & Linklaters, marking the first appearance of theplural of the name which has endured since. When Julius Dods
left to practise once more on his own, in 1845, the practice became
known, not as Linklaters (which would have suited the purposes ofthe firm’s history very nicely) but as J. & J.H. Linklater. Curiously,on the letterhead, the firm referred to itself as “Messrs. Linklater”.
They moved offices fairly frequently (see chart, page 8), mostly to
be closer to the City and further away from the more western areasof the capital. Of the brothers, John was the driving force, althoughhampered by ill health. James continued to practise until 1879.
Thomas Paine hailed from Norfolk. He was part of the samefamily as the radical 18th century political philosopher, also called
Thomas but more usually known as Tom. Tom Paine was much

2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

influenced by the French Revolution, which inspired him to call for
American independence in his pamphlet, Common Sense, in 1776 andhis most famous polemic, The Rights of Man, in 1791.
Thomas Paine’s great grandson, Hugh, a partner in the firm from1961-1983, has in his possession first editions of both pamphlets.
These were used to great effect by another partner, David Lloyd, in apitch during the early 1990s, as he explains: “I asked Hugh if I could
borrow them, and he sent them to me through the internal post.
We were pitching for a job from an insurance company in New York.
After I had finished my presentation, I slipped into conversation the
Tom Paine connection with the firm and, with a flourish, produced
the first edition of The Rights of Man. This was then handed aroundthe room, and greeted with awe and reverence. It was our crowning
glory, and of course we got the job!”
Thomas Paine completed his articles with a solicitor in the
Norfolk seaside town of Yarmouth, Harry Worship. There, Thomas
Paine learnt about banking law, as the firm represented the town’slargest bank, and the finer points of land law. He was curious to learn
more, he wrote, about the “subtle and artificial distinctions by which
a great deal of English property law was surrounded”.
London held more attractions for Thomas Paine. During one
visit, he took in the zoo, ate out at Bertolini’s Restaurant, near
Leicester Square, and finished the day’s entertainment with a trip to
the theatre. The following day, he was to be found slumbering on hisstool in the office (lawyers then working on stools at high desks).
Professionally, too, he felt that London offered more than
Yarmouth. He was, like John Linklater, ambitious. “Fortunately,”
he wrote in his memoir, “youth does not long allow itself to be kept
down by sad anticipations.” He moved to London in 1843, taking his
final exams that same year.
In London, he secured pupillage with a barristers’ chambers in
New Square, Lincoln’s Inn. He then switched profession, moving to
the practice of a solicitor, Timothy Tyrell, where he started on
21 June 1844. While his senior took on private clients, Thomas Paine
was delegated to look after the firm’s “railway business”. He wasinvited to become a partner in the firm in 1849; and the firm became
Tyrell & Paine. The firm’s offices were in Guildhall Yard, very close
to the site where Barrington House, the offices of Linklaters &Paines for 40 years, would be built 100 years later.
Like his more famous forebear, Thomas Paine was interested
in politics. He took a special interest in the Anti-Corn Law League,
which was campaigning against legislation that imposed importPartners and staff dinner, Linklater & Co, 1908.

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 3

What makes a goodlawyer, according toThomas Paine“A certain amount of ability and willing andcontinuous application;
A fairly good knowledge of the principles of law
in most of its departments;
Quickness and alertness in pushing throughand completing business;
An endeavour to carry on business upon
pleasant terms with those one has to meet;
Truthfulness and straightforwardness. Thereis nothing which gives a man the confidenceof his professional brethren so quickly as theexperience that his word and engagement
when given are to be absolutely relied upon.”

4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

duties on cheap grain. He attended meetings at which the League’s
two principal founders, Richard Cobden and John Bright, spoke.
At this point, the paths of John Linklater and Thomas Paine had
not crossed.
As the second half of the 19th century unfolded, the Linklaterbrothers were joined in their practice by William Hackwood, whobecame an expert in bankruptcy, and by Joseph Addison and
Harold Brown. The Addison and Brown families would go on to havea major influence on the firm over the course of the next hundredyears. When each of those became partners, the firm became known
as Linklater, Hackwood, Addison & Brown. (Hackwood was thename given to the firm’s UK nominee company which employedmost of the firm’s staff; the name continued to be used throughout
the 20th century.)
In 1870, John Linklater died at the comparatively early age(even for that period) of 53. His obituary attributed his death tothe “unwearying and continuous exertions in his profession”. His
youngest son, Francis, qualified as a solicitor; records show him
working for the firm in 1878. However, he moved to New Zealandand then Belgium, before dying at the age of 37. John’s eldest
son, John, was called to the Bar and later became a Registrar in
Bankruptcy. James’s only son was also called to the Bar. WithJames Linklater leaving the partnership in 1879, and none of theirsons continuing in the firm, this is the last time we come across a
Linklater in person. However, the name endured. The theory is that,by then, there was such value in the name (what we would call a“brand” today) that the remaining partners wished to keep it.
From 1879 onwards, the firm’s fortunes depended on William
Hackwood, Joseph Addison and Harold Brown. Harold Brown was
rapidly becoming the firm’s leading light as an expert in company
law, but also as someone who made his mark in other fields,
including religion, politics and philosophy (see page 45). However,
he did not seek personal glory, a trait which was handed down to thefamily. Keith Benham, his great grandson and a partner between
1973 and 1998, notes: “The Browns were very modest, which is why
they were not bothered that the name remained Linklaters & Paines,
even though the Brown family was dominant.”
In Thomas Paine’s memoir, Recollections, we get the firstreference to what would today be known as the work/life balance.
He wrote: “In all times, members of the legal profession have beencelebrated for their capacity for enjoying their hours of ease after
a healthy and rational manner.” But that is not to say that he did
not work hard. He devoted much of his working life to the growing
business of the North London Railway Company. Among his
responsibilities, he drafted legislation.
In 1852, Tyrell and Paine were joined by Thomas Layton.
Timothy Tyrell retired in 1857, after some apparently unprofessional
dealings involving the sale of a building.
Thomas Paine’s son, Edgar, joined the firm as an articled clerk,
becoming a partner in 1875, but he retired comparatively young in
1893. Another of his sons, William, became a partner in 1888.
There were other changes: Thomas Layton retired in 1879.
James Cooper, who had been made partner in 1874, died in 1880.
Shortly before, Harry Pollock joined the firm and was made partner

William Paine, thensenior partner of the
Paines side of the firm,
assisted the Instituteof Chartered Secretaries
and Administrators toincorporate as a Royal
Charter Body in 1891.
Over the next 100 years,
the institute’s affairs
were looked after by
William Paine and justfour other Linklaters
partners (Harry Cohen,
Godfrey Phillips, James
Sandars and Alan Ground).
The firm also helped
advise on the formationof the Institute for Fiscal
Studies in 1967, which hasdeveloped into one of themost influential economic
think tanks.

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 5

A big M&A deal, early
20th-century style
In the early years of the 20th century, theMetropolitan Water Board was createdfollowing the acquisition of a number of privatecompanies. The then incarnation of Linklaters
advised on the transaction, which involved somuch work that, for two years, the firm rented
extra offices in Queen Anne’s Gate. Nine clerks
worked full-time on the transaction.
The Metropolitan Water Board continued
to run London’s water supplies until 1974.
The firm’s bill for the work done: £21,000(equivalent to £2m in today’s prices).

Copy of letter sent from Linklater & Co to the Surveyor of Taxes, 10 September 1907.

once James Cooper had died. The firm then became Paine, Layton& Pollock. Thomas Layton left the firm in 1885 to start up anotherfirm. Harry Pollock left the firm in 1894 to become a Member ofParliament. In his place and that of Edgar Paine two new partners
joined, John Huxtable and William Blyth.
By the start of the 20th century, both firms had passed thetorch to the next generation, or were lining them up to succeed.
Sir Thomas Paine retired from Paines, Blyth & Huxtable, aged 77,
in 1898. He was succeeded by his son, William, as senior partner.
On the Linklaters side, two Harolds had been introduced, Harold,son of Joseph Addison, and Harold George, son of Harold Brown.
Both would become partners. They were joined by another Addison,
Gerald, in 1903. That made it, with six partners, a relatively large
firm, now called Linklater, Addison, Brown & Jones. In 1906, Cutler

6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Jones left the firm to start up his own practice, it is thought, because
he felt, as a non-family member, his chances of progress were slim.
What that meant was, in 1907, the firm once again became justLinklater & Co, all partners being members of the Addison and
Brown families. The five partners were supported by 30 male clerks.
Frederick Branson, Harold Brown’s son-in-law, joined as a newpartner in 1909.
In 1910, coincidentally, the joint senior partners, Joseph
Addison and Harold Brown (senior), who were brothers-in-law,both died, after 15 years running the firm. They were succeededby Harold Addison, who would continue as senior partner
until 1933.
In 1918 (“for reasons which are unclear”, according to Linklaters& Paines: the first 150 years), Linklater & Co merged with the firmof Surtees, Philpotts & Co, the first merger in the firm’s history. The
combined firm moved into offices in 2 Bond Court, which would be
the base of operation until that building was destroyed in Second
World War bombing. Bond Court had been bought in 1887 by Harold
and Gerald Addison and Harold (George) Brown.
At Paines, Blyth & Huxtable, William Paine, the son of Thomas
Paine, continued as senior partner of the firm until after the war,
when he joined Lloyds Bank as general counsel. We can surmise thatthe relationship between Linklaters and Lloyds Bank, now one of thefirm’s longest-standing clients, dates from then. The first professional
connection between the Linklaters and Paines firms appears to haveoccurred when a Linklaters assistant, Granville Tyser, moved toPaines, Blyth & Huxtable in 1916. However, there were connections at
a social level: William Paine and Harold Addison were both membersof the City Law Club. Perhaps over glasses of port they ruminated overthe possibility of their two firms joining forces.
In any event, when William Paine left the firm in 1918 and thefollowing year Granville Tyser left to join a merchant bank, the threeremaining partners (John Huxtable, Harry Knox and Harry Cohen)
decided that they would merge with Linklater & Co. Or did they?
During the First World War, the profits at Paines, Blythe & Huxtablefell for the first three years, and were half in 1916 what they had been
in 1912, and commercial work dropped off. In this scenario, they may
have had little choice but to fall into the lap of another firm – in thiscase, Linklaters. Or was the plan to merge hatched at the Ministryof Munitions, the government ministry created in 1915, at which,coincidentally, both William Paine and Harold (George) Brown werecalled upon to offer their services?
Whatever the reason or motivation, on 4 May 1920, the two
firms signed a merger agreement to become Linklaters & Paines.
The toll of the First World War on the UK had been immense.
Three-quarters of a million Britons had been killed, the vast
majority young men – what was called the “lost generation”. It wasestimated that the number of solicitors killed during the First World
War cost the profession the equivalent of a year and a half’s intake,without even considering those who would not be able to practise asa result of injury, either physical or mental.
Into this difficult environment, the new firm made its entry. It
was sink or swim and, as the firm would show many times over insubsequent decades, the challenge brought out the best in its lawyers. The firm and presidentsof the Law SocietyOver its history, Linklaters and its legacy firms
have produced three partners who havebecome president of the Law Society, theprofessional body:> 1882: Thomas Paine, the first president tobe knighted and holding that office when
Queen Victoria opened the new Royal Courtsof Justice in the Strand.
> 1896: Joseph Addison.
> 1992: Mark Sheldon.

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 7

LinklateRs and Paines: People, Offices and Name Changes

DODS & LINKLATER

John Linklater Northumberland
6
Street, Strand
James Dods
111 St Martin’s Lane New Square,3
Lincoln’s Inn and
6 Northumberland
Street, Strand

Linklaters
1819

1823

1838

Paines
Timothy Tyrrell
Guildhall Yard

KEYNew partner joinedPartner left, retired or died
Change in address of practice

NAME OF PRACTICE

8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

1840

DODS & LINKLATERS

James Linklater

James Maitland Dods

1845

William Hackett

 Charlotte Row,
1
Mansion House

115 Leadenhall Street

1843

J & J. H. LINKLATER& HACKWOOD

J & J. H. LINKLATER

1848

 7 Sise Lane,
1
Cannon Street

1849

1852

1855

Thomas Paine

TYRRELL & PAINE
Thomas Edward Layton

TYRRELL, PAINE & LAYTON

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 9

LINKLATER, HACKWOOD,ADDISON & BROWN

John Linklater

J & J. H. LINKLATER,
HACKWOOD & ADDISONJames Linklater7 Walbrook

Joseph Addison
1857

1865

Timothy Tyrrell
 7 Gresham House,
4
Old Broad Street

PAINE & LAYTONHarold Brown
1870

1874

1879

1880

James Cooper

James Cooper

Thomas Layton
Edgar Paine

PAINE, LAYTON & POLLOCKPAINE, LAYTON & COOPER

Thomas Edward Layton
Henry Pollock

PAINE, LAYTON, COOPER& POLLOCK

1 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A MELINKLATER, ADDISON,
BROWN & JONESWilliam Hackwood

 Bond Court,
2
Walbrook

1885

1886

1888

Thomas Layton

Cutler Jones

1893

1895

1896

William Paine

PAINE, SON & POLLOCK
Edgar Paine
14 St Helen’s PlaceHenry Pollock
William BlythJohn Huxtable

PAINES, BLYTH & HUXTABLE

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 1 1

LINKLATER & Co.

Harold Addison

Cutler JonesHarold George Brown

1898

1902

Thomas Paine

1 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

1903

Frederick Branson

Gerald Addison

1906

1907

1909

Harry Knox

Merger with
PAINES, BLYTH& HUXTABLE

Henry Surtees
Ralegh Philpotts
Joseph Addison

Merger with
SURTEES, PHILPOTTS & Co.

Harold Brown

1920
1910

1911

1916

1918

1919

Formation of
LINKLATERS & PAINES
2 Bond Court

William BlythWilliam Paine

Granville Tyser

Harry Cohen

Granville Tyser

Merger with
LINKLATER & Co.

L i n k l at e r s an d P a i n e s : 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 2 0 | 1 3

Mark Pearson, Scape lll 2002, acrylic polymer on canvas, 76x76cm

1 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

02
In practiceIn p r a c t i c e | 1 5

market forcesL

inklaters is a commercial law firm. The firm advises on the legal
aspects of doing business. Just as business has developed over
the time that Linklaters has been in existence, so the natureof the firm’s practice has adapted to meet the changing requirementsof business. The process of change accelerated with the globalisationof business in the last quarter of the 20th century. This had anequally significant impact on the size and structure of the firm,
the law that it practised and the clients for whom it acted.
The firm has often been in the forefront of changes in thecommercial environment, significant market shifts or innovative
legal developments. This chapter examines how the firm’s practicehas grown and adapted to the changing market over the course of
its history.
When the nascent firm(s) started in the second decade of the
19th century, there was certainly a lot on offer by way of commercial
law advice. The legal and regulatory environment supporting
business was then in the process of major structural change.
Finance was becoming more sophisticated. For the first time,banks were lending to businesses to finance their trade. Insurance
was beginning to play a more significant role in business. London
was becoming an international money market.

1926: Striking engineers crossing Blackfriars Bridge, London.

1 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

“Company” law, as an area of practice, can be traced back tothis period. Both the Linklaters and Paines firms advised theirbusiness clients on establishing themselves as legal incorporations,
under new legislation that was introduced in the middle of the
19th century. The Joint Stock Companies Acts of 1844 and 1856,
which enabled businesses, for the first time, to set themselves
up as incorporated companies, defined the core principles uponwhich companies could be created: registration, incorporation andlimited liability. Limited liability, itself an innovation that had theeffect of transforming business by reducing the investment riskfor entrepreneurs, was extended to banks in 1858 and to insurancecompanies in 1862. The upshot was a surge of businesses wishing toincorporate as limited liability companies. In the six years following
the passing of the 1856 Act nearly 2,500 companies were registered.
Just as companies were being created, so others were collapsing as it
became as easy for businesses to fail as to succeed.
Linklaters positioned itself as a commercial firm that could
advise on the life cycle of companies. While John Linklater
concentrated on advising on the establishment of business, William
Hackwood, his articled clerk, became an expert in bankruptcy law.
Harold Brown, who joined the firm later, was held in such highesteem that his views were sought by the government of the day
on further changes to the law, which resulted in the Bankruptcy Act
of 1883.
Meanwhile, within the Paines firm, a burgeoning area of work
was in the field of investment trusts and the flotation of companies,
particularly breweries. Family firms issued preference shares to the
public under these flotations (the equivalent of IPOs), as an efficient
way of raising capital, but would keep control of their businesses byretaining the majority of ordinary (voting) shares.
The 1920s, the first decade in which the newly merged firm
Linklaters & Paines operated, was a period of ups and downs.
There was a short post-war boom, but the General Strike of 1926
and the Wall Street Crash of 1929 made for a difficult environment.
However, adapting to challenging market conditions proved to begood experience for other crises with which the firm would have todeal in subsequent decades.
In this period, Linklaters continued to enhance its reputation
as a leading commercial law firm. Among its corporate clients were
Associated Biscuits, The Great Universal Stores, the Manchester
Brewery and Tate & Lyle, and among its “merchant” banks (thesmall UK investment banks) were Brown Shipley, Robert Flemingand Lazards. The firm also counted the London Stock Exchange
among its much-valued clients.
The corporate practice centred around Harold George Brown,
the son of Harold Brown (see Profile, page 45), while a developingbanking practice was handled by Gerald Addison, Malcolm Bairdand Harry Cohen. Roger Chitty was taken on from Stephenson
Harwood to start the firm’s litigation practice in the 1930s. As
industry recovered in the 1930s, the firm’s business picked up
significantly. The firm found favour with the newly createdindustries, such as car manufacturing.
Most work was put on hold during the Second World War (withthe added complication that the firm’s offices were destroyed in thebombing of London in 1941). But, ever-resilient, the partners andstaff carried on, and the practice picked up quickly after the endof war. Linklaters was on the panel of three law firms appointed toadvise the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation. The
ICFC, funded by £15m of equity capital and £30m of debt capitalby the nation’s banks (apparently under government duress), wasset up to finance small and medium-sized companies. Another
Linklaters connection was that, many years later, the ICFC (thenknown as 3i) was chaired by Sir Adrian Montague, a partner from1979 to 1994.
There were regular instructions to advise on listings anddebenture and loan stock issues. Linklaters acted for, among others,
Massey-Harris (later Massey-Ferguson), Monsanto Chemicals,
the English Electric Company, Joseph Terry & Sons, the chocolate
makers, and the property companies Metropolitan Estate andProperty Corporation (later MEPC) and New London Properties.
The listings were being driven, in part, by the penal rates of “death
duties”, forcing family businesses to sell to raise enough money to
pay the tax.
Between 1948 and 1962, a quarter of the companies quoted
on the London Stock Exchange were acquired by other quoted
companies. Linklaters acted on some of the major M&A deals ofthat era, notably the merger in 1951 of The Austin Motor Company(the firm’s client) and Morris Motors, to create British Motor
Corporation (BMC). The firm then became BMC’s lawyers, acting
in BMC’s acquisition of Rover and Jaguar, and then, later still, for
British Leyland, formed out of the merger between BMC
and Leyland Motors. (In the next decade, Linklaters acted for
the British car company Rootes, when it was acquired by the
US manufacturer Chrysler.)In the early days of
Linklaters & Paines,
in the 1920s, office boys
would deliver the evening
mail personally to thepartners at their homes.

I N P R A CTICE | 1 7

To develop its tax capability, which had become more urgent
with the election of a post-war government committed to raisingtaxes to pay for its social welfare programmes, Linklaters recruited
Malcolm Christopherson. A qualified accountant, Malcolm
Christopherson was taken on both to offer tax expertise and toadvise the partnership on its own tax affairs. He later qualified asa solicitor, and became a partner. Together with Mark Sheldon hepioneered the establishment of taxation as a viable practice area
within City law firms. Peter Benham, later a senior partner, said of
him: “He was not a brilliant intellectual, but there is nobody whose
advice I would rather have on practical day-to-day problems.”
Once, during a conference with Counsel, Malcolm Christopherson
suddenly got a violent nosebleed. Rather than leaving the room,
he lay prone on the floor, staunching the flow with a handkerchiefand continued the discussion. He was popular with his cricketsupporting articled clerks for his practice of taking them to Lord’s
to watch the final session of play on a Friday evening.
Tax would become an increasingly important practice area
for the firm in the 1960s and 1970s. In the mid-1960s, the Labour
government introduced corporation tax and capital gains tax, andfar higher levels of income tax. Both individuals and corporations
would seek the advice of Linklaters on legitimate tax avoidance,
share option schemes, corporate restructuring and “dividend
stripping” (buying shares just before a dividend is paid and sellingthem immediately afterwards). With increasingly complex schemes,
there was a need to have the best and the brightest working in thisarea. Jeremy Skinner, who took over as head of the department fromMark Sheldon in 1972, when Mark Sheldon moved to New York to
open the firm’s office there, says: “We had seven assistants in the Tax
department, all of whom were incredibly clever. The least capable
one went on to become a law fellow at Christchurch College, Oxford.
The remaining six went on to become partners, though not all
tax partners.”
The makings of what would become a leading property
practice also took root during this post-war period. Andrew Knox
(later senior partner) was the founding father of the department,
supported by Arnold Lloyd and Ben Jones (who had stood for
Parliament as a Liberal MP). But it was the arrival of Derrick
Bretherton in 1962 which positioned Linklaters as a leading
commercial property firm.
As London was gradually rebuilt, so the property practice grewin size and importance to the firm. The late 1960s and early 1970s
were notable because property became an investment for UK
pension funds and institutional funds. That, in turn, generated unit
trusts based around property investments, and then property bondinsurance-related investments. With each development, Linklaters’
property practice gained, by being able to offer property expertise
supported with finance knowledge.
The firm’s expertise in both property and tax served it
particularly well in connection with a highly contentious andcomplex tax in the 1970s, aimed at raising revenues from theappreciation of the value of a property on securing planningapproval. At one point, it was proposed (by the then UK
government) to tax this gain at 100 per cent.

1 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Generalist or Specialist?

For most of the firm’s history, Linklaters
presented itself as a commercial law firm whose
lawyers could advise on a wide range of business
transactions. An able lawyer would be able toturn his (note the gender) hand to any type ofcommercial deal. Specialisation was anathema.
The arguments against specialisation
dated back to the 19th century. Thomas
Paine, one of the firm’s founders, wrotethat “practice in large cities has become so
specialised in recent years that there are few
men of middle age who do not find themselves
growing rusty as to detail in some branches.”That philosophy prevailed for much of thefollowing century. Presenting a paper to thepartnership in early 1974, the senior partner,
Peter Benham, wrote: “There is a danger ofhaving too many separate departments, eachconcentrating on its own special field. Overspecialisation is wrong.”
John Edwards, who joined the firm in the
1960s, uses a medical analogy to describe
why the partners of the time felt it was wrong to
specialise: “The firm at that stage felt sensitivethat too much specialisation would lead tosuper-duper neurosurgeons who were incapableof removing a leg! Becoming too specialised
would also have a detrimental effect on theyoung lawyers coming through, because theywould not get the all-round experience.”
With growth, globalisation and greater
competition, such arguments gradually lost
ground to the overwhelming need for the firm
to become increasingly specialised, not justin practice areas but also in specific legal“products” and in sectors of business they serve.

Litigation then, and before, had been exclusively managed
by litigation clerks. Among these were some redoubtable figures,
including John Sanders and Frank Farres (who had started his
career as a short-hand typist). “They were just as good as any
qualified solicitor,” Ferrier Charlton later told Judy Slinn, the authorof Linklaters & Paines: the first 150 years. When they retired, they
had more than 100 years of service between them. Luminaries at theBar, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and the Governorof the Bank of England came to their farewell party, held at The Law
Society. The first partner to take control of Litigation was Bill Park
(see Profile, page 23), described in one of the legal weeklies as “theman who brought litigation to the City”.
By 1970, the firm’s practice was divided into three departments:
Company and Commercial (the firm’s principal area of practice);
Conveyancing; and Pensions and Tax. As between Company andCommercial, the company lawyers handled work that had to do withcompany law (as might be expected), shares and debentures, while
the commercial lawyers would advise on contracts and more general
legal issues affecting the firm’s corporate clients. Those clientswould range from the UK’s top companies (the blue-chip clients)
to relatively small businesses.
However, as the decade progressed, and specialisation took
hold, so different practice areas emerged in their own right from
Company and Commercial.
Company law, as it was then called, was largely the preserveof two law firms: Linklaters and Slaughter and May. It was rarely
done by firms outside London. That was to Linklaters’ significant
advantage, leading to a stream of referrals from provincial UK law
firms who did not have the capability to manage the public listingsof their clients. Linklaters, on the other hand, did, and to the evident
satisfaction of the referring law firms. John Gauntlett, one suchcompany law partner, was told by one referring firm, in an anecdote
relayed by Ferrier Charlton to Judy Slinn, who interviewed him
after he retired: “We always like to send things to you people [atLinklaters], because you get the job done properly, effectively andquickly, without undue fuss.”

It was also the manner of dealing with other law firms that
won the firm approbation. Sam Brown, the senior partner during
the 1950s, insisted that Linklaters treat other firms with respect,and should not look down on them as being somehow inferior, justbecause they came from outside the City.
But there was one final important factor that led to the regular
instructions: professional integrity. It was widely recognised thatthe firm did not poach clients from referring firms, once the listing
had been completed.
Indeed, that philosophy extended to all referring law firms,
including the firm’s closest rival. Len Berkowitz, a South African
lawyer who joined the firm in the 1960s, says this was one of the
aspects about Linklaters that impressed him most. “Simon Ward, apartner of Slaughters, once told me that if ever he was prevented fromacting for a client as a result of conflict, he would always send the work
to Ralph Aldwinckle [a Linklaters partner] because he knew that not
only would the work be well done but he would always get the client
back in good order.” It was an era of gentlemanly behaviour. The
cut-and-thrust competition between law firms had yet to happen, letalone the practice of partners moving from one firm to another.
The respect and sense of honour among the firms meant that,for some, the firm could not be seen to be accepting clients to thedisadvantage of its competitors. Anthony Cann (who would go on
to become senior partner) relates how, after some time of cultivating
Salomon Brothers when he was in the New York office in the 1970s,
the chance to act for them was spurned. “Salomons were not happy
with Slaughters, their regular advisers in London, and asked if I could
offer a partner in London to take over their work. I immediately
thought of Ferrier Charlton. I told Ferrier, who then went to see
Salomons and told them they should give Slaughter and May anotherchance because they were an excellent firm! I was astonished, andSalomons were mystified.” (As it turned out, Salomons went toFreshfields, but then finally did turn to Linklaters in London.)
The top law firms regarded themselves as part of a professional
fraternity. Even when acting for the different parties to a deal, it wascommon practice to assist your opposite number to save him from

Kenneth Cole, a partner with the firm for 36 years, handledmany acquisitions during his time, including acting fora particular client who made a string of acquisitions.
Reviewing the accounts of one particular potential target
company, Kenneth Cole noted to his client that he thought
he was paying too much for the company. The client
responded that the most valuable asset was not on thebalance sheet. What was that? Kenneth Cole enquired.
“Bad management” was the answer.

I N P R A CTICE | 1 9

In 1969, the firm advised
on a US$100m syndicated,
multicurrency loan for IBM(equivalent to US$1.4bn in2012 prices). The extent
of the legal documentation?
“Five very serviceable
foolscap pages,” remembers
Len Berkowitz, who assisted
Ferrier Charlton indrafting the documents.
Even that was long comparedwith documents drafted 10
years before: in the 1950s,
a typical takeover document
would run to just three
pages. The documentation
started to get more complex
following the establishmentof the Panel on Takeovers
and Mergers in the Cityof London in 1968. The
Takeover Code is now in
its 10th edition and itself
runs to 300 pages.

2 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

unnecessary embarrassment, as the following two stories illustrate.
James Wyness recalls one particular time when he had been calledin to advise on a debenture (bond) issue, an area of practice withwhich he was not familiar. Coming up against John Kennedy ofAllen & Overy, a leading figure in the field, James Wyness feared that
he would be made to look foolish. However, Kennedy, sensing James
Wyness’ discomfort, came to his rescue with a helpful intervention.
Lachlan Burn, as a junior associate, was asked to attend a kick-off
meeting for another bond issue. “I arrived to find myself in a hugeroom, with all parties there. Slaughter and May were acting for theother side. I was keeping my head down hoping not to have to speak,when I was suddenly asked whether I was happy with the proposed
timing of the issue. The Slaughters’ partner, recognising that I wasfloundering, came to my rescue and answered for me.”Part of the fraternal ethos stemmed from the way drafting
meetings were then held. All parties would congregate in the offices,
usually of a merchant bank, and the draft document would be read
aloud, with each side invited to comment in turn. The discussions
could last all day, involving all parties and crucially without any
interruptions (“we did not dare leave the room even for the call of
nature,” remembers Keith Benham) until the terms were finalised.
Not that it was all sweetness and light between the top firms.
There was still fierce competition to win the best deals. Internally,
Linklaters would jocularly call its main rival the “Basinghall Streetmob” (Slaughter and May’s then offices were in Basinghall Street),an allusion to the Lavender Hill mob of the 1950s’ Ealing gangster/
comedy movie.
Company flotations continued to generate much work for
Linklaters through the 1960s. As Keith Benham puts it: “I always
said that all of my clients were either listed on the London Stock
Exchange, or, if they weren’t, that’s why they were consulting me.”There was a regular stream of referrals from outside London, as
noted above. With each listing, the reputation of the firm grew.
Advertising by law firms was not permitted at that time. However,each time a company wished to list, a prospectus would be printed
in newspapers, at the top of which would be included the name of
the law firm advising. In effect, it was free and permitted advertising.
The more listings, the better the publicity.
Linklaters was pre-eminent in the devising and developmentof unit trusts. Pioneered by Kenneth Cole, the practice wassubsequently taken on by Martin Day and Paul Harris, thenassociates but later partners. Their book on unit trusts came tobe regarded as the definitive work on this specialist area of law.
The 1970s were a boom time for the firm’s property practice;indeed, for a period, that was the firm’s most profitable area ofpractice as a result of being able to charge “scale fees” (a percentageof the value of the property). In the early 1970s, some of themore senior corporate partners were astonished when Derrick
Bretherton, a property partner, submitted a bill for £350,000 tolongstanding client Commercial Union (equivalent to about £4m
in today’s prices), a figure significantly in excess of what they werecharging for listing work.
Derrick Bretherton identified the need for increasing
sophistication of legal services supporting commercial real estate.

Linklaters and its role in the escape of the Halcyon the GreatIt involved personal threats, injunctions, chasing a ship and at thecentre a daring mission to spirit out of Canadian waters an oil tanker
from under the noses of the Canadian Mounties. If that does notsound like the kind of case handled by Linklaters, read on.
The tanker in question was Halcyon the Great, a 200,000 tonne
vessel that was owned by a shipping-to-holiday conglomerate,
Court Line, chartered by the Newfoundland Refinery Company,and financed by Linklaters’ client Bankers Trust. When Court Linewent bankrupt in October 1974, Bankers Trust went to enforce its
mortgage over the ship (among other assets over which it had taken
security). It was agreed that the vessel could collect a consignmentof oil from the Persian Gulf and sail back to Newfoundland to beunloaded by the charterers. Allowing a week to complete this process,the mortgagees would then take possession of the vessel.
The matter was led by Charles Allen-Jones, then a corporate
partner, and Ted Spencer, then an assistant solicitor but later tobecome a partner. Ted Spencer had a naval background and servedin the Royal Navy for 22 years rising to become Lt Commander. It
was under his watch that the firm for the one and only time had ashipping practice.
Ted Spencer was despatched to Newfoundland, where hegleaned that Newfoundland Refinery might not be as good as its
word not to keep hold of the tanker. He instructed a firm of Quebec
lawyers, hired two tugboats and, in a tactically inspired move, phoned
Charles Allen-Jones during a meeting he (Charles Allen-Jones) was
holding with the charterers and their lawyers, Goodman Derrick. The
purpose of this phone call was to ask for permission to go on board
the Halcyon the Great to meet the captain – permission that he knew
he would not be able to get if he asked anyone locally.
Once on board, Ted Spencer apprised the captain of the situation
and asked him to prepare to set sail at short notice. The captainagreed, but if for any reason he was unable to do so, Ted Spencer
was prepared to sail the tanker out himself. (He had taken the
precaution of having his Masters’ licence with him.) At the sametime, the Quebec law firm started injunction proceedings against
Newfoundland Refinery, to compel the company to hand over theship at the end of the seven-day period.

Charles Allen-Jones flew to Newfoundland, together with arepresentative from Bankers Trust, Dave Welch, and the receiver, intime for the court hearing. That evening, the party was invited by thepresident of Newfoundland Refinery to join their company dinnerat his remote “fishing club”, which was a long way out of town. The
president himself drove them all out, during the course of which hewarned Dave Welch that “if he made trouble, he had better be carefulcrossing the street”, a veiled threat which was only compounded
when they reached the venue. They were given a chilly reception by
the other “guests”, who looked more like mafiosi, seated on eitherside of a long straight table.
The following evening, after the mandatory injunction had beenrefused, the team wondered what they should do next. They decided
that direct action was needed. The team got into cars and headed forthe southern end of Placentia Bay, where the hired tugs were waiting.
They arrived at the dead of night.
Boarding the tugs, they headed towards the aptly named portof Come By Chance, where the Halcyon the Great was moored. The
tanker was approached under cover of darkness, boarded by the
party and the captain told to ready to set sail. Charles Allen-Jones,
Ted Spencer and the others then got back on the tugs, the lines tothe tanker were attached and the Halcyon the Great slipped from its
moorings. Tension rose when one of the lines broke and the bow ofthe vessel starting swinging dangerously towards the jetty. Only theskill of the tugboat crew averted disaster, and the Halcyon the Great
was able to head out towards open seas. The objective was to get into
international waters and beyond the Newfoundland jurisdiction.
In the early morning light, those on the tugboats saw the headlights
of a car in the distance careering down to the jetty. Canadian Mounties
boarded speed boats and set off after the oil tanker in hot pursuit. But
it was too late: the Halcyon the Great evaded capture, continued on its
journey to the UK, sailed up The Thames to Tilbury and was sold (toa Hong Kong company, who renamed it Energy Prosperity). Bankers
Trust recovered the money it was owed, and was duly very grateful forthe ingenuity – not to mention the chutzpah – of the Linklaters lawyers
who masterminded the operation.
There is one obvious question: what made it so urgent to sail thetanker back to the UK? The answer lies in the ice. It became apparent
that Newfoundland Refinery were hoping to delay proceedings – despite
undertaking to hand over the vessel within a week after having taken off its
oil – until the harbour froze over. They would then have a strong bargaining
chip to buy the tanker at a discount off Bankers Trust, who would in allprobability prefer a quick sale than to wait six months for their money back.
Returning to the office the following Monday, Charles Allen-Jones
was anxious that the episode would not receive adverse publicity. He
need not have worried: in the UK, at least, the only medium to pickup on the story was Blue Peter, the BBC children’s TV programme.

I N P R A CTICE | 2 1

The Computerised Legal Information Retrieval Working
Party, set up in the 1970s to explore how the firm could
best access legal knowhow easily and efficiently, liked
to refer to itself as “Clearly Warped”, based on theacronym, CLIRWP.

He was popular with clients for his ability to solve problems. He
pretended not to know any law but, says Peter Farren, who worked
for him, “he had a real instinct for it. He demonstrated that Real
Estate – as it is now called – was a core and profitable practice area”.
Robert Finch says the practice’s expertise of property andfinance played perfectly in a market where property was becoming
an attractive investment (especially at a time of rapid inflation):“We locked up nearly all of the major property unit trusts and asignificant number of pensions funds and developers. Later, thisgave us expertise in transactions involving many of the major
occupiers, particularly in the City banking sector.” Then, when themarket crashed in the middle of the 1970s, the property lawyers
switched into bankruptcy and the receivership aspects of property.
David Lloyd, who became head of Property in the 1980s, expanded
further still, bringing in related expertise in tax, planning andconstruction law to make the department self-sufficient.
Up until the middle of the 1960s, the firm had concentrated its
practice in the City of London, largely acting for UK companies andmerchant banks and with the firm centred on its Corporate practice(then called Company). That was to change in 1966, when FerrierCharlton, by then a leading City corporate lawyer, was instructed by
Warburg, the UK merchant bank and the inventor of the “Eurobond”,
to do the legal documentation for three Eurobond issues in quick
succession. Those three first instructions marked the start of thefirm’s move into international securities work, and would come,fundamentally, to alter the scope of the firm’s legal practice.
The internationalisation of the firm (see Chapter 4) also flowed
directly from these instructions. Ferrier Charlton was given all theEurobond work by an American bank, White Weld (which later
became Credit Suisse First Boston and then Credit Suisse). This wasa real coup: the bank became the leading Eurobond house, which led
to the firm’s pre-eminence in the area. Ferrier Charlton inspired agroup of partners to take on Eurobond work: John Edwards, Terence
Kyle, Jim Watkins and David Barnard (see Profile, page 65). They
created their own practice, which came to be called International
Finance Section, or IFS. Charles Allen-Jones was another who took
on some Eurobond work.
The market arose from an abundance of dollars in circulationin the world economy, which, for economic, legal and tax reasons,
were more easily lent outside the US than on the US capital markets.

2 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

In fact, for the next quarter century, until the US introduced
legislation that opened up its domestic market to outside investors,
Eurodollar issues under English law dominated the international
capital markets. In turn, Linklaters came to dominate that market
among law firms as the leading legal adviser for international
securities’ issues.
It was not just dollar issues. Bonds were issued in othercurrencies, in Europe, Japan and the Middle East. Finance became
more international and more complex. The firm was involved ina range of new financing mechanisms, including the first floating
rate note (issued by Midland Bank in 1975), the first derivatives
structures (specifically an interest rate swap for Citicorp) and thefirst ever “repackaging” of debt using a “special purpose vehicle”
registered in the offshore centre of the Cayman Islands in 1985.
Partner Andrew Carmichael, who devised the structure, notes that
this was another example of the firm developing a new productwhich served it well thereafter. “This vehicle has kept a regimentof lawyers going for decades afterwards. We have been able to adapt
it to any number of uses.”
What was becoming rapidly apparent through the 1970s, withthe expansion of international finance and the opening of the capital
markets, was that English law firms (not only Linklaters) who advisedon such matters were sitting pretty. They had two things goingfor them: English as the lingua franca (as it were) of international
business; and English law as the foundation of internationalcommerce. As Terence Kyle, one of the key lawyers who helped push
the firm in an international direction, explains: “English law has
always been the great system of international commercial law because
it was adaptable to changing circumstances.”
English law was also highly practical, explains Charles AllenJones: “English law came to be thought of as a model internationally,
because of its application without the risk of unexpected traps.
By developing Eurobonds under English law, we helped the City,
not just our clients.” Within the firm, they had another expression
for what they were doing, according to Jeremy Skinner: legal
imperialism. “We wanted to promote English law to head off thecompetition, which in the 20th century was not the French army
but American law firms.”
But there was another key factor that played into the UK law
firms’ hands. “The Americans shot themselves in the foot when they

Bill Park
Bill Park was not only instrumental in building a top litigation
capability within Linklaters, and at a time when such a practice
was considered to be necessary but somewhat beneath the statusof a top firm, he was also more widely considered to be the “manwho brought litigation to the City”, according to The Lawyer. He
joined the firm in 1967, being told that he would never be madea partner because there was not enough work. The firm changed
its tune four years later, when he did become a partner.

A more unconventional City lawyer you could not hope to meet.
Hailing from Cockermouth in Cumbria, he certainly did not speak
like a City gent, with a distinctive way of mumbling out of the side of
his mouth. His behaviour would almost certainly get him dismissedin the modern era, and he drank copiously at lunchtime.
Yet, he was an astounding litigator, given to using a variety
of techniques in the cause of the case. He could be charming or
rude. He might feign complete lack of interest, pretend to bestupid or even to fall asleep in a meeting, as a means of unsettlingan opponent and, more often than not, tricking them into saying
something or agreeing something against their better judgement.
He was a brilliant negotiator who understood perfectly the powerof psychology. Consequently, the clients of the firm always wanted
him on their side. For all his lack of convention and idiosyncrasy, heknew how to command loyalty.
Probably his greatest triumph was in the dispute between
British Airways, the firm’s client, and Freddie Laker in the 1980s.
The dispute involved a claim by Freddie Laker, the owner ofSkytrain, one of the first budget airlines, that British Airways andother airlines had deliberately put him out of business by predatory
pricing on the lucrative cross-Atlantic route. The liquidators filed aclaim for £360m in creditor claims, and triple that for damages.
The dispute lasted for three years, with numerous potential
settlement discussions (Bill Park flew by Concorde to New York 29
times). The settlement was finally reached after Bill Park arrived
in a meeting with all parties present, sporting a toy parrot on his
right shoulder. Out of the side of his mouth, he mimicked the parrot
telling Freddie Laker: “Take the money! Take the money!” Freddie
Laker is reputed to have replied: “I won’t do it for you, Bill, but I will
for the parrot!”
When he took over as head of Litigation, the department
comprised one partner, three assistants and a number of litigation
clerks. When he retired 20 years later, there were 12 partners andmore than 50 lawyers. Alan Walls, now a partner, worked with Bill
Park and has no doubt about his impact on the firm. “He built, fromscratch, the first leading firm litigation department. That was his
influence and vision.”

introduced the interest equalisation tax in 1976, which meant that
there was a withholding tax on interest paid on securities issued outof the United States,” Terence Kyle continues. “That shut out the US
law firms for a good 20 years.”
There were new markets in a fast-developing area of practicethat saw the firm becoming increasingly international. It also
marked the point at which the strategies and paths of the tworenowned corporate law firms in the City, Linklaters & Painesand Slaughter and May, separated. Slaughter and May, even though
it had offices outside London, stayed (largely) rooted in its UK
domestic practice, while Linklaters picked up the internationalball and ran with it.

The early 1970s saw the firm develop more projects work, andthen capitalise on North Sea oil and gas development. Jim Watkins(before he became a partner) advised on a copper mine project inZaire and David Egerton-Smith (who had been sent on secondment
to the Houston law firm Fulbright and Jaworksi) developed an
oil and gas practice. Both the financing elements and commercial
aspects of projects came together in North Sea work. Alan Black(before he became a partner), John Edwards, David Egerton-Smith
and Malcolm Campbell were involved in the pioneering Maureen
Field financing, perhaps the first ever English law limited recourse
project financing, in 1980/81. That, in turn, was instrumental in
the firm winning a lead role in the Eurotunnel project from theI N P R A CTICE | 2 3

mid-1980s onwards (see also Paris office, page 72). The projects
practice evolved out of the Commercial department in the early
1990s, headed by Adrian Montague and, after he left the firm,by Alan Black. They became Group 19, and won a reputation
throughout the City. More recently, Projects became part of the
Finance and Projects department (known internally as “F&P”).
The firm benefited from the change of government in the UK
in 1979 in several ways. On an individual level, the reduction in
the top levels of tax suited the partners well (the era of “profitlessprosperity”, as Mark Sheldon puts it, was over). More significantly,
the Conservative government under the prime minister, Margaret
Thatcher, launched a policy to privatise the key utilities and anumber of state-owned companies. In the years between 1980 and
1997, the firm acted on most of the major privatisations, either forthe government or for the companies being privatised.
It was a rich vein of work (although, some have since argued,
not necessarily the most profitable). Linklaters became known
as the privatisation firm, acting in the major privatisations in thetelecommunications, water, electricity, ports and railways sectors.
British Aerospace, British Telecom, British Airways, BP, British
Rail and what became National Power (see page 27) privatisations
were all handled by the firm. Some 90 lawyers worked on the British
Aerospace privatisation, the largest number of lawyers on any one
deal at the time.
Ferrier Charlton was awarded the CBE for his privatisation
work (see Profile, page 148) and, within the firm, partner Tim Clarkecame to be known as “Mr Privatisation”.
The second major policy change introduced by the Conservative
government had even more far-reaching effects for the firm, andprobably created the size and shape the firm is today. This was
Big Bang, the deregulation of financial markets which came into
effect on 27 October 1986. This was the biggest change to the Cityof London probably before or since. It challenged the venerable
City institutions, did away with longstanding practices (including
abolishing fixed commissions) and led to London becoming a truly
international financial centre.
No surprise, then, that Big Bang had a major impact, too, on
Linklaters. As the international financial institutions moved into
the City, new clients were taken on; at the same time, existingclients, particularly the merchant banks with whom the firm had
longstanding relationships, were acquired. Freer international
markets created new, more sophisticated financial products, andderivatives, securitisation and structured finance entered thefinancial lexicon. In short, the deals became bigger, more complex
and, increasingly, more international. The firm responded bydiversifying into these new areas of practice, by expanding andregrouping (in the Linklaters sense).
Big Bang had an impact, not just on the way the City worked, but
on its very appearance. Here again, Linklaters benefited, advisingon a number of new developments and also on the creation of a new
financial district, in Canary Wharf, to the east of the City. Over theyears since then, the property practice has advised on a number of
iconic buildings in the City, including the Swiss Re building (built
on the site of the Baltic Exchange, which was destroyed by a bomb

2 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Serving a writ (moreusually called a statementof claim) is usuallystraightforward, but
on occasion requires
ingenuity. John Sanders,a litigation managing
clerk who worked for thefirm for nearly 50 years,
once dressed as a milkman,
knocked on the door of
the person being sued
with a pint of milk in
his hand and duly served
the document.

The Clerk’s Tale
Derek Willoughby was a legal executive in the Company Services
department. He joined in 1946 and retired 46 years later in 1992.
“I joined Linklaters shortly after the war when there were 12
partners and 93 staff. I started as an office boy on 35 bob a week [theequivalent of £60 a week]. In the immediate post-war years, the firm
was fairly formal. You would not talk to partners unless spoken to. If
you wanted to meet them, arrangements had to be done with theirsecretaries. Partners called the staff by their surnames.
I was nearly fired on my third day. When I spoke to Harold
Bundy, a partner, I failed to call him ‘Sir’ and he was mad. I wastold that, if I ever made that mistake again, that would be me out.
At that time, I was working in Granite House, on Cannon Street,
which the firm had been using during the war after 2 Bond Court
was bombed. There were often power cuts, and so we had to havecandles at the ready. One time, the coat of one of my colleagues,
Harry Rudd, caught fire because he was not paying proper attention.
Fortunately, he was alright.
I worked as an office boy from 1946 to 1950. As I remember,there were just four women working for the firm at this time, Freda
Baxter, Nora Fraser, Miss Hughes (I never knew her first name)and Lilian ‘Nobby’ Clark, the telephone operator. We later moved
to 118 Old Broad Street, then to Austin Friars and then, in 1956, toBarrington House.
In Old Broad Street, there was a tiny lift which could only holdthree people, and that was a squeeze. Peter Benham’s children,which of course included Keith who joined the firm later, would
travel up and down in this lift when they visited. They were quite a
nuisance, so one day, while the lift was halfway up with them in it, we
pulled a handle to make it stop. Peter Benham came out of his officeshouting for us to call the fire brigade. We let the children sweat for
about five minutes and then released the lift. They never went in thelift again after that.
After doing my national service, I returned to the firm but thistime working in the outdoor clerk’s department. Our job was to file
documents with Land Registry, Stamp Duty, Companies House,
Probate, the Shipping Register and so on. The department had been
set up by Bill Shaw in 1912 and he headed it until his retirement halfa century later. The filing of documents in the courts was handled bylitigation clerks.
The firm was not particularly generous with wages, but they
did look after staff if something went wrong. Bonuses were paid,
however. Brian Cookson, who went on to become a lawyer with
British Aerospace, put an ice lolly on the desk of a secretary with
the note, ‘This is the only lolly you will be getting this year’, tothe fury of one of the partners.
One or two partners had a fierce temper. John Mayo, it was wellknown, would throw things at people. Andrew Knox once threw a
glass ashtray at me, and it was only because I closed the door quickly
behind me that I was not hit. I did not take it too seriously.
It was only with the post-war generation – Mark Sheldon,
James Wyness, Peter Benham – that people started calling one

another by their first names and dispensed with formalities, or atleast some of them. The atmosphere changed with the arrival ofmore women.
Some of the partners, including Peter Benham and Raymond
Shingles, would host summer garden parties. There would be games
and clay pigeon shooting. Raymond Shingles was a great character.
He liked his whisky, and I remember him telling me he did notmuch enjoy going to Saudi Arabia on behalf of his client, British
Aerospace, because it was ‘dry’.
After Bill Shaw retired, I took over as manager of the Company
Services department and did that for another 30 years. I was offered
the opportunity to take articles – to train as a solicitor – but I turned
it down because I was quite happy being an outdoor clerk. I liked
being outdoors and not stuck in the office.
I also enjoyed the work itself. There was a real skill to being aclerk. You had to manage the bureaucracy and get to know the civil
servants. It was not just a matter of filing documents. We could
use our relationships to make sure that filing would be done moresmoothly. I regarded it as part of the service the firm was giving to
its clients. I always felt that Linklaters was the best, and I intended
to keep it that way.
With computerisation and the exodus of government departments
to the regions – particularly Companies House to Cardiff – there wasless appeal for me in the work. The firm became more impersonal as
it grew in size. I eventually took early retirement. If I had my career
again, I would do exactly the same thing.”

I N P R A CTICE | 2 5

detonated by the IRA in 1992, and better known as The Gherkin),
the Broadgate development and Heron Tower.
There was a significant shift in the role of lawyers, as Andrew
Carmichael, then a new partner, explains. “We moved from being
advisers to becoming transaction managers drawing in expertisefrom different practice areas and jurisdictions who could also advise.
That shift has really determined how we practise ever since.”
By the end of 1985, there were six departments (Corporate (which
included: company and corporate finance; international finance andbanking; investment funds; asset finance; insolvency; commercial
matters; energy; anti-trust; EEC; and employment); Intellectual
Property; Property; Litigation; Tax; Trusts and Pensions).
The firm’s response to growth in international finance workin the 1980s encompassed banking and insolvency work as well asinternational capital markets. However, growth was skewed towards
international capital markets work. The dedicated banking practice
was relatively small, revolving largely around two partners (Haydn
Puleston Jones and Julia Maynard), while other firms werebuilding theirs.
It was only in the 1990s that the firm took concerted steps toaddress this shortcoming. Notable hires were Giles White, John
Tucker and Robert Elliott (the current senior partner), all of whom
were, or became, leading banking lawyers and spurred the growth ofthe department.
John Tucker and Robert Elliott led the establishment, in 1993,
of a corporate recovery and insolvency unit, a tripartite venture
between Corporate, Litigation and International Finance (IFS).
The restructuring and insolvency practice came together in responseto the R&I work arising from the UK recession of the early 1990s.
Banking became a separate practice group in 1995, having
previously been part of IFS. From 1998 onwards, John Tucker
developed a strategy for the firm’s banking practice to become

a top-tier global practice. “Up until then, Banking had really been asupport, not a standalone practice,” says John Tucker. “We thought
we were missing an opportunity to become, firstly, a top-tier, andthen, ultimately, a market-leading practice. We also decided thatthe restructuring and insolvency practice should remain centred
within Banking, with a focus on creditors, to secure counter-cyclicalbenefits.” The R&I practice was bolstered with the recruitmentof Tony Bugg, an insolvency specialist, in 1998. The combinedbanking practice continued to expand through the next decade,with several further high-profile lateral hires and, after a few
years, the successful accomplishment of the goal to be a highly
regarded global banking firm.
For the insolvency practice, the big breakthrough came when
the firm was instructed to work on the Enron administration of
2001. It was during that insolvency that a deep working relationshipwas forged with the administrators, PricewaterhouseCoopers, andlater extended in the firm’s biggest ever mandate (see page 131), theLehmans’ insolvency.
In the years following Big Bang, the firm’s practice fundamentally
altered in response to three key trends: internationalisation;
the firm’s changing strategy; and increased volatility, in aquarter-century which has been marked by a series of crises.
As the firm expanded its network of offices, particularly withthe move into Europe in the late 1990s (see Chapter 5), so thepractices became more international in structure and in nature.
Correspondingly, the number of domestic (purely UK) transactions
became fewer. One indicator of the internationalisation was the
reduction in the number of FT Top 500 companies for whom thefirm acted. In the early 1970s, Linklaters could cite some 230 listedcompanies among its clients, in estimates given by those who
worked for those clients. By 1991, when James Wyness ordered amore scientific analysis, Linklaters could count among its clients 93

Partner Raymond Shingles once
asked his secretary to sew ona missing button in his trouserfly (in the days when trousers
had buttons not zips). The only
problem was, she had to carryout this task while he was stillwearing the trousers! (We assume
no impropriety.)

2 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Electricity privatisation

Richard Godden.

of the FT Top 500, including the company at the top of the ranking,longstanding client, British Petroleum.
This was coupled with a conscious strategy, both to focus thepractice around international deals and to concentrate the workaround a smaller number of select clients (see Chapter 8). As thefirm’s clients internationalised their businesses, so Linklaters
followed. The consequence was that more of the firm’s practice
revolved around “cross-border” transactions.
The firm structured its operation around three core practiceareas: Corporate, Finance & Projects, and Commercial.
Another key change to the focus of the firm’s practice, fromthe early 2000s onwards, was the introduction of sector specialities.
The thinking was that, increasingly, clients needed their lawyers
to be more than simply lawyers, providing pure legal expertisein response to particular requirements, they also needed to havesuch an understanding of their businesses to become moreproactive advisers. To be able to do that, the lawyers needed to bebetter informed about trends and challenges within the industry
sectors in which their clients operated. This was a fundamentallydifferent approach from the basis on which lawyers havetraditionally operated.
What started out as just an idea expressed by the corporate
partner Richard Godden as an item under Any Other Business ina meeting of the Client Committee in 2003 became what he called
the “third dimension” to the firm’s practice, the other two being
the core practice areas (as described above) and the countries andregions in which it practised (what these days are erroneously called

Privatising electricity provision in the UK
between 1987 and 1991 was one of thebiggest transactions on which the firm acted.
The process was divided into two phases. The
first phase of the privatisation (the “vesting”),
in which the firm acted for the Central
Electricity Generating Board, involved thelargest corporate restructuring that had untilthat time been done. It required the break-up
of the Board into four separate companies, thedrafting of 100 pages of secondary legislationand negotiation of 800 separate contracts.
At the conclusion of this phase, there were
two concurrent five-day completion meetings at
which just under 2,000 contracts were signed.
The Central Electricity Generating Board had
become National Power.
The second phase encompassed a capital
reduction, an environmental audit, a working
capital loan and the £2.2bn IPO of National
Power, as well as prospectuses being issued
in Canada, Japan, the United States andcontinental Europe.
Over the four years, 251 lawyers (in thefirst phase) and 170 lawyers (in the second
phase) recorded 70,000 hours (representing
39 “man” years). The highest recording lawyer
racked up 2,375 chargeable hours between
1 April 1990 and 17 February 1991. Total
billings were £10.8m. The highest monthly
billing (£795,000) was almost equal to thefirm’s total bill for two years’ work on theprivatisation of British Telecom in the 1980s.

I N P R A CTICE | 2 7

Groups and their significanceThe “group” has long had a special resonance within Linklaters.
Originally started to provide greater efficiency for lawyers doinga similar type of work, and therefore to serve clients better,groups took on a greater importance. As much social as practicebased, the groups served as cohesive units that underpinned
the firm’s culture and, in some respects, set it apart from theway other firms operated. However, with an increase in size
and the proliferation of groups in recent years, the social
dimension has assumed less importance.
The concept of the group probably came about in the 1950s.
The firm was then small (indeed, tiny by comparison with today) but
growing fast. The establishment of groups was a first effort at
co-ordinating the firm’s practice, both to ensure that clients could
rely on more than one partner for advice, if necessary, and to poolthe expertise of the lawyers. In the late 1960s, the purpose of thegroups was summarised in the following terms: “The grouping oflegal staff in teams of under three or four partners continues
unaltered. The main objects of the grouping are to enable workand experience to be shared between a group small enough tokeep its members in regular communication one with another,and to provide continuity of contacts with and service to clients.”
This was important at a time of a fast-changing economic
and commercial environment. (At the time, the firm barely had
a decent library on which the lawyers could rely, let alone aprofessional knowhow support system.)Mark Sheldon, who joined the firm in 1953, remembers thatthe groups would then typically comprise two partners, perhaps an
assistant solicitor (then called managing clerks) and possibly anarticled clerk. These groups became known for the individual
partners who headed them. By October 1972, for example, thegroups were headed by John Field, John Mayo (which included
Ferrier Charlton), John Gauntlett, Alan Ground, David Caruth,
Bill Park (all in Company/Commercial), John Larwill (Pensions),
Jeremy Skinner (Tax) and Hugh Paine, Derrick Bretherton and
Ben Jones (Conveyancing and Trusts).
The system of numbering was probably introduced in the early
1970s. One of the mysteries is the numbering system. The groups
started at number 10 (not at 1), and different practices were allottednumbers fairly much at random. The senior partner’s group wasGroup 13.
As might be imagined, groups have had their rivalries andsometimes been the source of friction, when one partner has wanteda particular lawyer for his or her group rather than somebody else’s.
Some groups were given their own labels: Group 11 for a while in
the late 1980s became known as the “Russian Front” on account of
its members’ capacity for hard work and somewhat cold attitude toothers. Mostly, though, the competitiveness has been good-natured.

2 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

By the late 1980s, the groups broke down as follows:
11 	Corporate Finance12 	Corporate Finance and Investment Funds
13 	Managing/Senior/Finance Partners
14 	Corporate Finance, Investment Funds and Project Finance
15	International Finance
16	International Finance17	Corporate Finance, Energy, Asset Finance and Contracting
18	Commercial, Anti-trust, EEC and Employment
All of these came under Corporate Department, accountingfor 54 partners and 141 “principals” (assistant solicitors).
The other groups then were:
23	Intellectual Property
31	Litigation
41	Taxation
51 Pension Funds
56	Trusts
74 Property
75 Property, including secured lending76	Property, Taxation, Unitisation and Conveyancing for Staff
These groups comprised between them 39 partners and
147 principals.
Permission to create a group had always to be given by the senior
management. When that was not forthcoming, and groups of lawyers
wanted to achieve the same outcome, they would form themselves
into “non-groups”. The idea, and term, originated from lawyers
advising on Eurobonds, David Barnard and Jim Watkins, who pushed
in the early 1980s to create a separate capital markets group. When
this was turned down (the reason given was that bond issues were apassing phase), David Barnard suggested they call themselves “Not
the Group”. His inspiration was an edition of The New York Times,
produced by a group of journalists on the paper during a dispute withthe paper’s owners when production was suspended, which theycalled Not The New York Times. They changed it to “non-group”, andwhen finally John Mayo, the senior partner, acknowledged the group’s
wish for their affiliation, he pleaded with them to drop the name“non-group”. Jim Watkins came up with the name International
Finance Section (IFS) in 1981. Two years later, two specialist groups
were formed (15 and 16), but they retained the title IFS for thepractice area.
IFS is not the only practice to form a non-group. In the early
1990s, a derivatives non-group was formed to bring together theissues, regulatory, tax and other expertise of the firm, and another forPaul Nelson
construction and engineering. Non-groups reflected a highdegree of entrepreneurship as well as a measure of irreverence forauthority which seem to sum up nicely two key elements of
the Linklaters culture.
In his paper, Ethos, written for the benefit of the German partners
in 2000, when Linklaters was preparing to merge with Oppenhoff& Rädler, Charles Allen-Jones, then senior partner, wrote of thesignificance of groups for the firm: “Larger departments in London
are divided into groups. This is particularly for teamworking and social
purposes (between partners, but especially for the benefit of otherfee-earners and their dedicated support staff)…The group system is
key to the working of the firm in London. All people working in a groupare encouraged to work together, and to take pride in the collective
progress of the group.”Groups have weekly “prayers”, which are meetings during
which group members share information about deals on which
they are working.

Paul Nelson was one of the most brilliant lawyers
in Linklaters’ history, whose early death in 2009
was a great loss to the firm. Having joined thefirm in 1979, he was made a partner in 1987. (Oneof his attributes which impressed those making
him partner was said to be his “anarchic” sense of
humour.) He was instrumental in establishing thefirm’s financial regulatory practice, building on
the work started by Ralph Aldwinckle in the wakeof the UK Financial Services Bill. The financial
markets group (since renamed the financial
regulation group) began life as a separate groupin 1995.
In addition to establishing and growing
a highly successful group, he also found time
to conceive, design and build Blue Flag, thepioneering on-line legal information service,
which he then enthusiastically sold to clientsas an adjunct to the group’s practice, persuading
other parts of the firm and “best friends” lawfirms, to support the product he had built.
BlueFlag was marketed as “the first on-line legalrisk management tool which provides advice anddocuments to clients without the need to consult
a lawyer”. In fact, it was instrumental in helping
build and strengthen relationships with clients,
just as the markets in Europe began to embracecross-border supplies of business.
It was a real pioneering development, and all
the more remarkable for the fact that Paul Nelson
himself was computer-illiterate. But he foresaw
that this type of on-line service filled a gap in thebooming market in cross-border advisory work.
Michael Kent, now head of the financial
regulation group, says, “Paul was ahead of histime with his creativity and forward thinking
and his determination to embrace specialisation.
He was academically gifted but also an intuitive
entrepreneur, who came up with new ideas
and then pursued them through to realisation.
We miss him, but are grateful for the fantastic
foundation he laid for the practice.”

John Field.

I N P R A CTICE | 2 9

The office boy’s tale
Michael McGrath was an office boy between 1922
and 1926. He recalled his time with the firm inletters written to James Wyness in October 1995.
“I joined Linklaters & Paines in 1922, aged
15, as an office boy. I earned 22 shillings per week
and an extra 15 shillings per week for working
overtime doing ‘indexing’ of the carbon copies ofletters. The office hours were 9.30am to 6.00pm,
but I came in at 8.30am and left at 7.00pm, those
extra hours being used for the indexing work. On
Saturdays the office hours were 8.30am to 1.00pm.
I suppose I spent between 55 and 60 hours in theoffice each week.
I came from Hoxton, where, according to mymother, every brand of criminality was practised.
My mother told me that there were thieves ‘aboveus, below us and on each side.’ When I arrived at
L&P it was a different world. I was treated withevery kindness.
The offices were in Bond Court. What I
remember most about the building was themagnificent spiralling staircase, which was
between 8 and 10 feet wide.
This was the layout of the office. On the
ground floor were the offices of three partners(Harold George Brown, Fred Branson andMalcolm Baird), and one managing clerk (Henry
Attridge) as well as the general office (Mr Aldiss,
Mr Bennett and four office boys, including me).
On the first floor were the offices of three partners(Harold Addison, Gerald Addison and Henry
Surtees) and two managing clerks (Mr McLennan
and Mr Walmesly). On the second floor were theoffices of two partners (Harry Cohen and Harry
Knox) and one managing clerk (Edgar Kentish).
On the third floor was the small litigation

3 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

department, in charge of which was Mr Crane,
and the cashiers’ office. Generally speaking, all therooms were exceptionally spacious. Each of theoffices of the partners Harold George Brown andFred Branson, which were on the ground floor,
were about 25 feet by 20 feet.
The total staff must have been about 35.
There was only one woman, Mrs Summers, whoworked for Fred Branson.
One day a client came into the office, whom
I could just about see over the counter. He
announced that he had an appointment with Mr
Surtees. When I asked him his name, he told me.
I then announced over the internal phone that
‘Lord Hedward’ay’ was here to see Mr Surtees.
My pronunciation of his name caused muchmerriment in the general office because, comingfrom the East End of London where that is
how we said it, I had put an aitch in front of his
name. (In fact, his name was Lord Edward Hay.)
I learned from this and never made that error
again. Many famous names were to approach thatcounter, including Gordon Selfridge, the founderof Selfridges.
Of all of the partners Henry Surtees ‘topped
the bill’ for me. He once sent three junior clerks
out to buy themselves overcoats, which he paid for
himself. But the others were all real gentlemen.
The two Addisons were very easy-going.
I never received a rise in pay in the periodof over four years that I worked for the firm. I
was very high-spirited and someone must havethought I was cheeky. So I probably did notdeserve a rise. One thing I did gain from the firm
was the ability to work hard and I know it servedme well for the rest of my life.”

“geographies”). As he explains the thinking behind the initiative,
Richard Godden says: “Offering knowledge of sectors accorded
exactly with our goal of aligning our practice with what our clientswere doing in their businesses. It was not the knowledge of sectors
per se that was important, although that certainly helped, sector
knowledge demonstrated to our clients that we were focused on
their businesses. It helped us to identify and win new clients. The
focus on sectors proved to be a more rational way of resolving client
conflicts. Critically, also, we developed sectors on a global basis,
which tied in perfectly with our global strategy.” A focus on sectors
now permeates every aspect of the firm, from the way that practices
operate to the business services support (including Finance and IT
as well as business development).
By 2012, the firm had honed its sector focus into 16 different
sectors, comprising:> Automotive> Banks> Chemicals> Energy and Utilities> Food and Beverages> Healthcare> IT, Business Services and Media> Infrastructure and Transport> Industrials> Insurance> Investment Managers> Mining> Private Equity and Sovereign Wealth Funds> Real Estate & Leisure> Retail> Telecoms
Post-Lehmans, there was a greater focus on financial regulation,
which in turn necessitated an expansion of the financial regulatory
practice. The financial markets group, started by Paul Nelson (seepage 29), was incorporated into the Finance & Projects division andbrought alongside the bank regulatory capital practice to create aformidable practice area, whose work has increased substantiallywith each year since 2008 and is likely only to increase.
The evolution of the different practice areas has not detracted
from the central strength of the firm, its top-quality corporate
practice. “Down the years, the firm has had excellent relationships
with leading corporates, which has fed through to all practice areas
and also resulted in Corporate being generally the most profitable
practice. In each generation, there have been market leaders, datingfrom Sam Brown, including John Mayo and Ferrier Charlton,
through Len Berkowitz, Charles Allen-Jones and David Cheyne,
to present partners, Matthew Middleditch, Jeremy Parr andCharlie Jacobs. The tradition of excellence among corporate lawyers
has been handed down from generation to generation,” notes
Anthony Cann.
With the concurrent rise in the finance practice over the past
20 years, Linklaters has achieved a leading market position inboth its core finance (including restructuring and insolvency) andcorporate practices. In an increasingly volatile market, marked
by all-too-frequent recessions, having dual strength has helped
the firm to weather the storms.
For most of its history, there was little or no objective way ofmeasuring whether the firm had met its goal of being a top firm.
However, in more recent years, the advent of legal directories,
which rank law firms and individual lawyers, has allowed for amore objective assessment of the firm’s capabilities.
In both Chambers (UK) and UK Legal 500, Linklaters is the
only one of the top five UK law firms to be ranked in the top tier inthree major practice areas: Corporate and M&A; Banking (including
Restructuring & Insolvency); and Capital Markets (Debt andEquity). Linklaters is also the only one of the five in the top tier forthe other critically important practices of securitisation, derivatives
and financial services regulation, as well as being in the top tierfor pensions and commercial property. Despite the vicissitudesof the directories’ ranking systems, that remains a remarkableachievement and says a lot about the firm’s drive to become thevery best commercial law firm. 

Len Berkowitz.

I N P R A CTICE | 3 1

Changes in the world of technology
Linklaters has always been quick to adopt new technology. Here is a sweep throughthe firm’s history to see when and what changes happened.

1907
The first telephone. Linklaters was behind the times inintroducing this technology; other firms of solicitors had
started using the telephone from 1879. The legal press was
sceptical, fearing that the telephone would lead to breachesof confidentiality. It was recommended that the telephone be
put in a separate room with no risk of conversations being
overheard. It was in 1910 that the firm hired its first female
employee, and her job was to operate the telephone.

1880

1880s
The typewriter was first introduced
into the firm, for the use, exclusively,of the typists. It is thought that lawyers
did not start using them, and then
only in a minor way since they would
rely on dictation, until the beginning of
the 20th century. Short-hand, whichuses strokes and symbols to represent
words, was also introduced at the endof the 19th century. The effect was thatlawyers could generate more letters, andtherefore work more efficiently.

3 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

1920s
The first dictaphone. Harold
George Brown, one of the
Brown family who dominatedthe firm between the end of the
19th century and the first halfof the 20th century, was said
to have tried out a dictaphonein the 1920s but preferred theconventional method of dictating
to secretaries. He was probably
not the only one.

1960s
The first photocopier. Up until then, copying had been a laborious
process. If you needed more than five copies (which could be done by atypist with an original and five carbon copies), you had to type on a wet“stencil”, which could then make up to 50 copies. The photocopier was
made by Rank Xerox, and for a long time it was called Xeroxing rather
than copying. It took some persuading of the partners to invest in a Xerox
machine because of the expense (Xerox charged a “royalty”), but once it
had been installed, queues formed to use it because of the time it saved.

“Trunk” dialling introduced, a virtualprivate network between a dozen
law firms that enabled them to call
one another free of charge. That wassoon followed by direct dialling.

1968

1940s
The firm had a telephoneswitchboard, with plugs that thesingle operator, Mrs Lilian “Nobby”
Clark, would push in or pull out of
the board to make connections.
She knew the voices of all thepartners and staff, as well as
those of all of the firm’s clients.

1960s

1960
The first telex machine. Telex
transmitted typed pages down
telephone lines. The firm hadfour telex machines, two forsending telexes “out” and twofor incoming messages. By the1970s, there were two shifts forthe firm’s telex operators, a day
shift and an evening shift. Oneof the telex operators always
had to leave by 7.30pm in orderto get to the London Palladium
where he was a member of adance chorus.

The first calculator,acquired by partner
John Gauntlett at a
cost of £80 (six times
the weekly salary of anarticled clerk).

I N P R A CTICE | 3 3

1969

1973

First memory typewriters, called the magnetic
tape electric typewriter. “Documents preparedon these machines are stored on tapefrom which can be prepared subsequent
copies by the simple process of running
the tape through one of the machines,” ran
the announcement in the Office News of
September 1969, addressed to all “principals”(lawyers) and secretaries.

First direct telephone circuits
between the firm and key
clients, which then were:Lazards, Law Debenture
Corporation, Schroder Wagg,
BP, Charter Consolidated,
Charterhouse Group and(from 1974), the London
Stock Exchange.

1973
Introduction of the A4-sized paper,to replace foolscap. The Litigation
department resisted, saying that the
courts would not accept the new papersize, but had to relent when clients
insisted on it.

1973
1971
1970s
The firm introduced computers torecord time and to store information
about files and clients. The system
was also capable of making“enquiries” (search function).

3 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

First audio dictating machines.
This was coupled with theestablishment of “typing pools”,
groups of typists who would not
be attached to any individual
lawyer, but who would take inwork on a centralised process.
This was the earliest version of
the Document Processing Centre.

First facsimile (fax)machine. Later, “fast” faxmachines were introduced,
which enabled whole
documents to be sent in
one go, without the need forsomeone (usually an articledclerk) to feed through one
page at a time.

1995-1996

1982
Roll-out of the first word processing system, Wordplex.
The first machines were shared between four and six
secretaries. Wordplex enabled the direct transmissionof documents between offices. Each secretary was
given a desktop computer, to act as a word processor,
to provide access to the Document Centre, precedentand knowhow libraries, and to act as a screen to client
matter information.

NeXTstep IT system introduced,
marking a significant upgrading of
the firm’s technological capability
with graphical workstations given
to all lawyers and secretaries for the
first time.
For the first time it became possible
to create richly formatted documents
through the FrameMaker word
processor. Desk diaries were(reluctantly) swapped for thecalendering application PencilMeIn.
The systems enabled global lawyers towork together, collaboratively, through asingle document management system.

1993
Linklaters participated in ascheme involving 11 law firms
to have their own Virtual Private
Network, which provided digital
telephone links and discounts
for overseas calls.

1988

1985
A computer aided drafting system(CADS) was introduced, to manage
standard form documents.

Wang VS mainframe system
introduced into the firm. Lawyers
as well as some support staff were
given terminals to access the Wang
OIS (Office Information System).
Wang OIS was predominantly aword processor but also included
a basic email system to send
messages between terminals,
known as “wangograms”.

1995
FirmControl practice management
system introduced to support all
global financial processes.

I N P R A CTICE | 3 5

1998
NeXTstep replaced by a Microsoft desktop
to provide access to Microsoft Office.
Linklaters becomes one of the first firms
to use Windows NT (Terminal Server
Edition) and introduces Documentum for
document management. The firm moved
all IT infrastructure outside London andColchester into new data centres inHong Kong and New York.

2001
Introduction of Billback,replacing Equitrac, a “costcapture” system that records
costs on photocopying,
telephones, fax and printing.

1996
Linklaters launched Blue Flag, the firston-line legal risk management tool toprovide “commoditised” legal advice on
European regulatory issues.

1997
To counter the risk posed by terrorism,in particular the IRA, the firm’s global
IT infrastructure was moved to a centre
based in Colchester. The location was
also used to house a new round-theclock support operation.

3 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

1999
Mobile phones given as standard to
all lawyers, starting with the issue of
the Ericsson T28 flip phone.

2000
Introduction of Netm@il (later
FireFly) to provide access to thefirm’s email system from any
internet-enabled browser.

2004

2003
Introduction of global SAP
software, an integrated
platform to bring together
practice management, finance,
human resources and client
relationship management. Allof the firm’s offices enabled tooperate on a single platform forall business functions.

First BlackBerry devices
issued, to enable lawyers
to access their email
through mobile devices.

2011
Upgrade to Microsoft Office 2010.
The new software installed on allcomputers for 5,000 staff overthree weekends.

2012

2007
TimeKM introduced, as a standard
time recording application.
2002
Linklaters became the firstlaw firm to use DealBuilder,a document automation
system that generates draftsof documents from the firm’s
official precedents.

As of 2012, the systems now used
globally can process 10,000 new
documents created each day, and 25m
emails sent each month (of which about
a quarter are external). SAP processes
around 400,000 timelines (computerrecorded timesheets for lawyers) and
10,000 bills a month. New mobile/iPadapplications for both clients and lawyers
are in the course of being developed.
The innovations continue.

I N P R A CTICE | 3 7

Carl Laubin, The Square Mile 1997, oil on canvas, 183x305cm

3 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

03

Linklaters & Paines:
1920-1998

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 3 9

Building a reputationO

n 4 May 1920, the firm of Linklaters & Paines was established.
The firm started with nine partners, soon reduced toseven with the retirement of two partners, one from the
Linklaters side and the other from the Paines side. The offices,
at 2 Bond Court, were rented to the firm by the three partner
owners (the Addison brothers, Harold and Gerald, and Harold(George) Brown).
The senior partner was Harold Addison, who continued as
senior partner until his death in 1933. Known as the “General”,
he was a stickler for formality. Woe betide any articled clerk wholeft the office without wearing a hat; if any was foolish enough to
do so, his articles (the equivalent of a training contract) would be
immediately terminated.
Along with the Browns (see Profile, page 45), the othernotable family in the Linklaters history is the Addison family. The
connection dates back from the firm’s beginnings (Joseph Addison
was articled to John Linklater) right through most of the 20th
century, when Bill Addison (Joseph’s grandson) retired in 1987.
Between them, Joseph and his sons, Harold and Gerald, served
as senior partner for a combined 59 years.
Between the two families, the Addisons and the Browns
accounted for 12 partners. The last of these to retire was John
Phipson, whose grandfather was Harold (George) Brown, whojoined in 1959. “We were always told that the family firm was thebest in the world,” he remembers. Another family connection,by marriage, was the Benham father (Peter) and son (Keith), after
Peter Benham married Harold (George) Brown’s daughter, Phoebe.
Another name associated with Linklaters over an extended
period of time is that of ‘fforde’. Arthur fforde joined Linklaters& Paines two years after its formation, became a partner in 1928
and left 20 years after that to become headmaster of Rugby school(although he did much more – see Profile, overleaf ). His son, John,
joined in 1951, made partner in 1956 and retired in 1987. The double‘ff’ in the surname gave rise to the younger fforde’s nickname within
the firm: firefighter.
The newly merged firm of Linklaters & Paines may have started
its life in the most testing of circumstances as Europe set about
rebuilding its political, economic, commercial and social structures
after the destruction of the First World War, but the partners hadvision and determination. Who knows, they may have seen an
opportunity to turn the unpromising market environment to theiradvantage. It would not be the first time in the firm’s history, and

4 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

The firm’s fee for handling an
IPO in the 1960s was 500 guineas.
A guinea was worth 21 shillings (inpre-decimalisation currency, a pound
being 20 shillings). That would bearound £8,500 in 2012 prices.

certainly not the last, that the firm would respond to adversity witha positive outlook.
What is clear is that the partners sought to create a more
modern operation. For one thing, the partnership took the decision
to have their accounts professionally audited (which was not thencompulsory). The firm started a pension scheme for its staff. The
staff were given an extra incentive to participate in the firm’s successwith the introduction of a profit-sharing scheme, the first such
scheme of any City law firm.
Seemingly, there was no retirement age: in 1929, nine of thestaff were older than 65, three over 70 and one was aged 82. Oneof the staff members, Edgar Kentish (a lawyer), had joined before
the First World War and continued to be employed until his deathat 80 in 1963. He was in the habit, in his latter years, of leaving theoffice around 4 o’clock each afternoon with a cheery “good night” toanyone he passed on the way out of the office.
Not that the staff were looked after in all respects. Judy Slinnwrites in Linklaters & Paines: the first 150 years that the nine
members of the copying department worked in “gloomy conditions,wrestling with the primitive machinery then available” and that
their offices were “more like a public lavatory than an office”.
The firm gradually grew in size. By 1929, the time of the WallStreet Crash, the firm was 50-strong. By 1937, the firm comprised
11 partners and more than 80 staff. It was the largest firm in theCity of London. Intriguingly, there was a possibility – although it
is not clear how seriously this was pursued – of a merger between
Linklaters and Freshfields. Had that happened, it would have caused
as much of a stir in the legal market as the merger between Coward
Chance and Clifford Turner 50 years later. Why didn’t they merge?

The firm’s partners, partners’ retreat, Selsdon Manor, Surrey, UK November 1984. It is now Selsdon Park Hotel.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 4 1

Arthur fforde
Arthur fforde (the double ‘f’ stemming fromthe original Anglo-Saxon spelling of the name)was one of two Linklaters partners knighted forservices to the government during the war (theother being Sam Brown). After working for the
Ministry of Supply, he moved to the Treasury
as under-secretary, where, it was said, he would
quote Plato or Tacitus during meetings. He would
read Greek on the tube coming into the office andalso used Greek quotations on his self-composed
Christmas cards.
He was also a practical, commercially mindedlawyer for whom legal documents should be
precise and to the point. Exasperated by pedantic
amendments made to one of his draft documents
by lawyers from Slaughter and May, he had a special
rubber stamp made, “Is this a point of substance?”,which he duly stamped in the margin against each of
the amendments before returning it.
He continued as a partner until 1948 (having
originally been made a partner in 1928), before
leaving the firm to take up the position as
headmaster of Rugby School (which he himself
had attended as a boy). There he stayed until
1957, when he became chairman of the BBC
governors, as well as a director of Equity & Law,
Save & Prosper, and the Westminster Bank
(the forerunner of NatWest and then RoyalBank of Scotland).

Until the Clean Air Act of 1956 helped to
improve the quality of London’s air, staff wereallowed to go home when, as sometimes happened,
the London ‘pea-souper’ fogs descended on thecapital. Not because of the difficulties ofgetting home (although that was also the case),
but because the fog got inside the firm’s
offices in Barrington House. The yellow fog
was sometimes so bad that you could not see
one end of the corridor from the other.

4 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

History does not relate, but we can speculate that the partners of
Linklaters felt assured enough in the firm’s own strength to continue
on their own – and that the partners of Freshfields felt likewise.
The families continued to dominate the firm in the interwar years. Harold Addison was senior partner until 1933, to be
succeeded by Harold (George) Brown for just two years, and thenby his brother, Gerald Addison. Evidently, the firm was successful
throughout that decade, and, for the partners and staff, it was a
happy and contented work environment. There were annual
dinner dances, sporting events on Saturday afternoons (Saturday
morning being a working “day”) and convivial partner lunches in
the partners’ dining room (it was the responsibility of the senior
partner to carve the roast). What could possibly go wrong? The
answer to that was, the German bombing of London (see Wartime
Service, right).
The destruction of Bond Court meant that the firm had tooperate from its small offices in Granite House, on Cannon Street,as normal activity resumed after the war. These were offices that
had been rented before the war. At the end of 1945, additional space
was rented in 118 Old Broad Street. The ground floor had been
occupied by a Japanese bank before the war, and was still set up asa bank when the firm moved in. The general office staff sat in offices
behind the bank counters, and two litigation clerks sat in what was
the customer area. Not the ideal office environment: rats could beheard scurrying along behind the wooden panelling on the walls.
The partners Arthur fforde and Sam Brown had offices on the firstfloor; James Sandars an office on the second floor (as did John
Sanders, not to be confused, the litigation managing clerk); the Costs
department on the third floor; and the partners Peter Benham andJohn Field on the fourth floor. There was a canteen (which cost 3
shillings a day) and strongroom in the basement.
Shortage of coal in the post-war years, particularly in 1947, led
to cold offices (rooms were heated by coal fires) and sometimes
no electricity at all (candles would then provide the light). Peter
Benham impressed a young Ferrier Charlton, who joined in 1948,
by always attending to phone and other messages left for him before
taking off his coat and thereby demonstrating how important it
was to respond immediately to clients’ requests. But the truth
may simply be that the offices were too cold.
Uncomfortable though the offices may have been, the firm did
not want for talented people. Returning to the office from the war
were Sam Brown, Arthur fforde, Kenneth Cole, Andrew Knox, Bill
Addison and James Sandars. Three new arrivals deserve particularmention: John Mayo, Ferrier Charlton and Godfrey Phillips.
There will be much more written in this book about the first two,but Godfrey Phillips is also worthy of a place in the Linklaters
history. A practising barrister, the co-author of a legal textbook on
constitutional law (together with Professor E.C.S. Wade), Godfrey
Phillips achieved renown as the secretary and then commissioner
general of the Shanghai Municipal Corporation, the body thatadministered the International Enclave in the Chinese city before
China achieved “liberation” in 1949. In these capacities he had to act
as intermediator between the arguing nations competing for controlof the enclave. These were not just any arguments, and aroused

Wartime service
The two World Wars inevitably had an impact on
the firms (in the case of the First World War) andthe firm (in the case of the Second World War).
Apart from men being called up to fight,
others were called upon to serve in government
ministries. In the First World War, William Paine
and Harold (George) Brown worked in the
Ministry of Munitions and, from 1918, Harold
Addison in the Admiralty. (Up until then, Harold
Addison had continued to work and sleep in theoffice, keeping a camp bed in his office.)
In the Second World War, Sam Brown
joined the Ministry of Economic Warfare,and then moved to the Ministry of Aircraft
Production when that was established in 1940.
Arthur fforde served in the Ministry of Supply,
before moving to the Treasury as undersecretary. Both were knighted for their services.
Fred Branson was taken on as adviser to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Others saw distinguished service at thefront. Ferrier Charlton was an aircraft pilot(awarded a DFC and bar), Derrick Bretherton atank commander and James Sandars fought in
the invasions of Sicily and Italy. Harold Bundy
fought in both wars. Harold Russell, Frank
Farres and Bill Nevill were others who fought in
the Second World War.
A consequence of the Second World War
was the destruction of the offices at 2 Bond
Court on the night of 10 May 1941. All thatsurvived was the strongroom. Fortunately,
because it was a weekend, no member of staff
was killed or injured. The firm then had totransfer to a few rooms on the second floor of
Granite House on Cannon Street. The Chase
Bank on Lombard Street offered offices toPeter Benham and Harry Cohen.
Peter Benham, who was not able to fightas a result of disability, continued to workthrough the war. He described how the life of
the office continued, although the office did
shut at 4.00pm each day. Most of the work was
broadly commercial (all M&A, corporate andcapital markets work ground to a halt) with avariety of miscellaneous work, including issues
arising from the Trading with Enemy Acts.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 4 3

The tea trolley
and the VAT man
The tea trolley was central to life in Linklaters
during the 1960s and 1970s. The tea ladies
would wheel the trolleys down the corridors
each morning and afternoon, serving tea
and coffee (free) and biscuits and rolls (forwhich they charged). When the UK joined
the Common Market in 1973, value addedtax (VAT) was introduced on most goods andservices. VAT inspection teams followed up by
making sure that businesses were charging
VAT appropriately.
Linklaters received its first VAT inspectionsome time in 1975. The story goes that thewhole process was going smoothly until the
VAT inspector was offered a cup of tea fromthe trolley and saw that food was charged for.
Were these charges included on the firm’s
VAT return? he enquired. The answer wasno, because no one had given it a moment’s
thought. The argument that it was a separatebusiness from the firm’s with a turnover below
the taxable limit was rejected, and the firm had
to pay both back tax and a fine. The really bad
news was that the trolley ladies’ biscuit prices
went up.

4 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

strong passions and even led to violence. At one meeting, a Japanese
representative shot (fortunately, only a glancing blow) the
chairman of the Council, Tony Keswick, then the head of
Jardine Matheson. Godfrey Phillips himself was the target of
an attempted assassination.
He joined the firm in 1945, qualifying as a solicitor in the same
year, and was made partner in 1946. However, he left, seven years
later, to join Lazards, the merchant bank. Although Lazards was aclient, his departure was viewed by some within the partnershipas an act of disloyalty. Godfrey Phillips’ son, Peter, himself joined
the firm and, after leaving, was instrumental in instructing thefirm on one of the largest transactions it would ever work on, theEurotunnel project.
By 1956, the firm had 17 partners and a staff of around 175. There
was pressure to find better office accommodation. An ideal solution
presented itself in Barrington House (see page 54). Three years
later, the firm also leased a flat just off Park Lane. This was for the
exclusive use of partners, most of whom lived outside London but
who might need to spend the occasional night nearer the office ifthey were working late or, more usually, to be more conveniently
placed for the airport. The care of the firm’s flat was entrusted to acouple who lived in the basement. It was a satisfactory arrangement
until it was discovered that the husband helped himself regularly
to the contents of the drinks cabinet. Later on, the firm rented aflat behind Harrods, where it had to contend with problems of adifferent nature. While redecorating, it was discovered that the flat
had been insulated with asbestos.
For Mavis Rees, who joined the firm in 1959 as a secretary, thefirm was steeped more in the bonds forged by wartime experience,
than by the families. “Quite a few people, partners and staff, had
fought in the war, and obviously lived through it, and that reallyshaped the culture of the firm,” she recalls. “Those were reallystrong bonds, which to some extent bridged the divide between
partners and the rest of us.”
In 1961, the firm had 18 partners and a staff of about 120.
Along with Slaughter and May, Linklaters was the largest firmin the country.
With the retirement of Sam Brown in 1961, the senior partner
mantle was handed on to Andrew Knox. The family tradition may
have continued (Andrew Knox was the son of Harry Knox, who had
been a partner in the Paines side of the firm), but it marked a shift
in the approach to running the practice. It started to become morecommercial. The attention to the client became sharper. For the firsttime, also, the firm had a property lawyer, rather than a corporate
lawyer, at its head. Mark Sheldon, who did part of his articles withAndrew Knox, was greeted with the words: “Very nice to meet you,
Sheldon. My last articled clerk was an absolute disaster.” Chiefamong his articled clerks’ tasks was to buy Andrew Knox’s second
pack of cigarettes each day.
James Sandars, who succeeded Andrew Knox as senior partner
in 1969, was another in a line of hard taskmasters. When he waspresented with drafts by his assistants, all that remained of theirwords would generally be “Dear Sirs” and “Yours faithfully”. He wasa firm believer in offering his articled clerks good all-round training

The Browns
The Linklaters may have given the firm their name, but the firm
really owes its strength and leading reputation to three generationsof the Brown family who played a dominant role over the best part ofa hundred years.
Harold Brown, who was the senior partner of the Linklaters
side of the firm between 1895 and his death in 1910, establisheda leading reputation as an authority on bankruptcy. In 1882, hedelivered a paper to the Social Science Association, called “On
Bankruptcy and Liquidation”, in which he called for “great andfundamental change in bankruptcy legislation in order to bringabout real purification of the commercial atmosphere”.
He wrote a pamphlet on the Suez Canal in 1884. He argued forreform to company law, commenting in detail on the Parliamentary
Bill of 1888. His objections were that the bill would drive businessaway from London. He also argued in favour of voluntary, rather
than compulsory, winding up. The bill was eventually passed into
law in the Company Act of 1900.
Harold Brown was given to using what is quaintly describedas “trenchant language” – a trait that had been enthusiasticallyadopted by one or two other Linklaters partners down the years(no names mentioned).
Harold Brown had wide-ranging interests besides politics and law,
including the theatre, chess, cricket, poetry and the rearing of poultry.
His son, Harold George Brown (“HGB”, as he was always
known), seems to have taken up where his father left off, becoming
an eminent lawyer and renowned figure in City circles. He was
the principal partner advising two of the firm’s main clients, The
Debenture Corporation and BP (then called the Anglo-Persian Oil
Company). He was appointed to the Board of the BBC in 1931, andbecame vice-chairman. He was a director of BOAC, the forerunnerof British Airways, and a director of Lloyds Bank. He sat on thecommittee set up to recommend changes to the Companies Act
of 1905 and on the 1936 Anderson Committee, formed to assess
the viability and validity of unit trusts.
Also like his father, HGB was a keen sportsman, squash and golf
being his chosen leisure sports. At Cambridge, he was the heaviest
member of the Cambridge crew, whose boat filled with water(although did not sink) in the boat race of 1898.
HGB’s son, Sam Brown, was made partner in 1928 and wassenior partner from 1956 until 1961. He was awarded a knighthoodfor his service for the government during the war, during which hebecame under-secretary at the Ministry of Aircraft Production andsteered through the nationalisation of Short Brothers, the aircraft
manufacturers of which he later became a director.
Like his father and grandfather, Sam Brown was in demand tosit on government bodies as an expert adviser. The post-war Labour

Harold Brown, Harold George Brown and Sam Brown.

government tried to tempt him to become chairman on one suchbody, with the minister promising him significant remuneration for
his work. Sam Brown turned down the offer, since it was not in his
nature to “be well paid for doing nothing”.
He had a reputation as a practical lawyer who believed thatclients were best served by providing direct, straightforward advice.
“It doesn’t have to be perfect, it has to be right,” he would tell his
assistants and articled clerks. His client skills were also exemplary.
One client, after finishing a meeting with Sam Brown, told anotherpartner, Hugh Paine, “I always feel better after I have met Sam. I feelless worried about things.”
He felt that the system of charging articled clerks a premium todo their articles with the firm was unfair, and he stopped it. But, in
return, he expected high standards. He would tell his underlings,“I don’t mind how many mistakes you make, as long you don’t makethe same mistake twice.”
Charles Allen-Jones, who joined the firm after Sam Brown had
retired as a partner but was still working as a consultant, remembers
him as being a “towering figure, and very remote. You might see him
walking down the corridor, but he would not say ‘good morning’.”
But Barry Mayo, as a recently joined cashier, recalls that once hemistakenly entered his office to ask him to sign cheques (as had tobe done by a partner each day), not realising that Sam Brown was
the senior partner. “He never turned a hair,” Barry Mayo remembers.
“He signed the cheques, quite happily, and did not rebuke me forhaving disturbed him.”
Sam’s son, Bill, followed him into the firm and was lined up tojoin the partnership, but before that happened, decided to leave thefirm and emigrate to Australia. He joined the Australian law firm
Allen Allen & Hemsley, one of the constituent firms with which
Linklaters formed an alliance in 2012.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 4 5

The Chauffeur’s Tale
Ted Unwin was the firm’s chauffeur between
1969 and 1997.
“Before I joined, the firm had two femalechauffeurs. The one before me left the firm
car – it was a Wolseley – unattended while
she was seeing her boyfriend, and it wasstolen! I was recruited by Barry Mayo, theoffice manager, who hired me because I
looked like a younger version of his father,
who was also a chauffeur. The first car I drove
for the firm was a Ford Zodiac.
I found out that the firm wanted its own
car largely because Kenneth Cole, one of thesenior partners, had a bad back. He had been
injured playing rugby. To sit comfortably incars, he had to position himself at the front of
any seat. If taxis stopped suddenly or jerked,
he was apt to fall off the seat. So, Raymond
Shingles and John Gauntlett, other partners,
decided we should have our own car with amore careful driver.
I got to know the partners very well, andI was on first-name terms with most of them.
They became friends, and I got to know theirfamilies. I would be invited to their children’s
weddings. Raymond Shingles, who loved
cars, would quite often invite me to his homein Hurst Green in Kent, so he could show off
whatever new car he had acquired. He had
a Bentley at one point. I would sometimes
have pie and mash with Hugh Paine, forlunch, because Hugh preferred that to thepartners’ dining room.
I liked a joke, and most would share inthem. There were a couple of exceptions.
Peter Benham, who became senior partner,
was always quite tense – especially when
we got stuck in traffic. He would get out of
the car and try to see what the problem was.
When there were train strikes, I would collecta number of partners from their houses, so
there would be six in the car. The Zodiac had abench front seat. He was one of them, usually,
and would sound off about the strike.
During the three-day week of 1974, whichcame about because of the miners’ strikeand power shortages, one partner came toreception and asked to be taken somewhere.
I said I couldn’t, I was afraid, because there
was a power cut! He didn’t get the joke andleft without getting a ride.

4 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Ted Unwin and Mark Sheldon, withMark Sheldon showing his CBE.

We were one of the first firms to have aphone in the car. John Edwards, I am told,
had applied for a licence to have a phone inhis car. When the firm said it needed one, he
let them have the use of that licence. It was
like a walkie-talkie, so you had to say “over”,
when you had finished speaking and wanted
the other person to speak, and press a button
when you were speaking. Quite a few of thepartners found it difficult to get used to that.
Bill Addison was one of the partners
given to occasional outbursts of temper.
Once he was in the car with John Sanders,
who was a litigation clerk and had beenworking for the firm for years. There had beensome kind of mistake made during a case, andBill was shouting at John for having fouled up.
However, John had had an accident in the war
which had affected his hearing, and I think hehad a hearing aid. After several minutes of Bill
shouting, John turned to him and said, ‘Sorry,
Bill, were you saying something?’ Fortunately,Bill saw the funny side.
I would spend quite a lot of time goingbackwards and forwards to the airport. I
had to wake up Mark Sheldon on one of his
trips to New York because he had forgotten

to adjust his alarm when the clocks changed,
and he had overslept. Another time, I got alate-night phone call from Charles Pettit,
who had returned from New York and said
his car had been stolen from the parking lot.
I drove over, and while we were in the car I
asked him which of the Heathrow terminals
he had flown from. It turned out to be adifferent one from the one he arrived back at,and his car was there all the time.
However, the partner I used to take mostto the airport was Bill Park. For days,
possibly weeks, I drove him to Heathrow
where he would catch the 10.00am
Concorde flight to New York, and thencollect him that same evening after his
return on Concorde arriving at 7.00pm.
That was during the British Airways disputewith Freddie Laker.
I liked all of the cars we had, except for
one – a Volvo, which we had towards theend of the 1970s. In the car’s first service,
16 parts had to be replaced. It so happened
that I was asked to collect the then chairmanof Volvo from the airport, together withCharles Allen-Jones, and deliver him
to the Dorchester. The chairman, Pehr
Gyllenhammar, was interested to know myopinion of the Volvo. I told him straight. I
told him about the 16 things that needed
fixing. I said, “Whoever designed this car is
not a driver!” Charles was sitting in theback, looking out the window and trying
not to be uncomfortable. We arrived at
the Dorchester, in the pouring rain. It wasanother feature of the car that you had toopen the boot halfway so the rain would run
off before opening it all the way. Thistime, I forgot to do that, and the rain soaked
his case and coat, which were in the boot.
“And that is another thing that needs
fixing,” I said. I had that car for a year, and I
threatened to drive it into the river unlessthe partners changed it.
I worked with the firm for nearly 30
years. I only ever had two weeks off (when I
ruptured an achilles tendon) and one day off
sick, as did most members of staff when oneof the tea ladies (not a regular) put bleach in
the tea urn to clean it. It is a great firm, and I
could not have had a better time.”because he described his own articles (not with Linklaters) in theearly 1930s as being similar to that of an unpaid office boy. He came
to Linklaters after playing squash with a young lawyer at the firm
who said that Arthur fforde was looking for an assistant.
“Enormously conscientious” was the assessment of James
Sandars by partner Ralph Aldwinckle. “He was also a visionary,and he recognised early on that we needed to be in Europe.” Heinstigated and supported the firm’s membership of The Club, a loose
collection of law firms from different jurisdictions who would meetonce a year to swap ideas. After visiting Moscow for the firm, hestarted studying Russian and reached a level of proficiency to be able
to read the Russian classics in the original. He was also a painter,mostly water colours (and had his paintings displayed in the Law
Society Art Exhibition).

The firm started paying
articled clerks a salary in
1960. Up until that point,
articled clerks were unpaid,
but neither did they haveto pay a premium for being
trained (as was generally
the practice). The startingsalary for articled clerks
was £200 a year (equivalent
to about £3,800 in 2012).

Sir Sam Brown’s portrait
and the Jardines’ clock
On 19 September 1957, the UK
government increased the Bank ofEngland interest rate from 5 per centto 7 per cent, ostensibly to avert afurther run on Sterling. Never had theinterest rate been raised by more than
1 per cent in a single move, causing
the price of government bonds (giltedged stocks) to fall dramatically.
It was rumoured that a number ofCity institutions, among them Lazards,
the Royal Exchange Assurance,
Jardine Matheson and Robert
Fleming, had been given advance warning (illegally) and were able tosell off their Treasury holdings before they fell in value. Linklaters was
instructed to advise them.
The stakes were high: not only were the reputations of theinstitutions at stake, so was that of the City of London. However, theallegations proved to be groundless. A tribunal set up to investigate
eventually found that there was no justification for the allegations.
Although the firm – in particular, Peter Benham – had put in a lotof work, it waived its charges, “for the honour of the City as a whole”.
In recognition of this generosity, Lazards commissioned a painting of
Sir Sam Brown, then the firm’s senior partner, by Edward Halliday, andJardines presented the firm with a clock, with the following inscription:“Presented to the partners of Linklaters & Paines with gratitude andesteem for an act of unusual kindness in the City of London”.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 4 7

The trait that is most associated with James Sandars was thesoftness of his voice. “Whispering Jim” spoke so quietly that at theend of “kick-off” meetings when merchant banks and lawyers would
gather to agree the overall terms of the deal, a hush would descend
in the meeting room whenever he was asked his opinion because
otherwise no one could hear what he was saying. Another partner
who would also use the quietness of his voice to great negotiating
effect was Adrian Montague, who formed the Projects group towards
the end of the 1980s. It was said that many a term was agreed by the“other side” because they didn’t like to ask him to repeat what hehad said, so they simply concurred.
On retirement, James Sandars handed a file of green documents(the file copies, before the introduction of photocopies) to twoof the other partners in his group, Len Berkowitz and Chris Gorman.
These were carbon copies of letters he had written to all his
clients informing them that the two of them would be looking
after their affairs in future. “He had not consulted us,” recalls
Chris Gorman, “and it is quite possible he did not consult theclients either.”U
Andrew Knox.

Andrew Knox, the senior partner from1961 to 1969, had this put-down
for a partner who came into thepartners’ dining room wearing a shiny
navy-blue suit (then considered very
loud and ostentatious): “I see ourincandescent partner has arrived.”

4 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

p until 1967, law firms were not permitted to have more than
20 partners. From the early 1960s, this was proving to be an
obstacle to the firm’s development. There were candidates
who clearly merited partnership and might be persuaded elsewhere
if the offer of partnership was not forthcoming. At least that was
the fear: talking to people of that generation, they would never havebeen so presumptuous as to assume they would be made partners;
almost always, the call from the senior partner came as a surprise.
It was, however, perceived to be a problem so long as the
maximum of 20 endured. One solution was for the senior partner
to retire and become a consultant, which happened in the case of
Sam Brown, to go “above the line” on the firm’s headed notepaper.
Another was to make the next in line “associates”, and also put theirnames on the letterhead. The category of “associate” was also given
to those lawyers who were not regarded as partnership material but
who made a valuable contribution nonetheless to the firm, perhaps
because of their expertise in a particular area of law, such as patents
or European law. Jack Barounos, who retired in 1981, was the last of
this category of “associate”.
The limit of 20 was lifted by the Companies Act of 1967. Bycoincidence, the firm’s 21st partner (Jeremy Skinner) was thenephew of the life peer who steered the 1967 Companies Act
through Parliament. The lifting of the limit on the number ofpartners necessitated a meeting of the whole partnership to review
the partnership deed. Astonishingly, this was the first time all ofthem had met, as a memo to the Finance & Policy Committee (FPC),
the firm’s principal management body, reported, “outside licensed
premises”. This was a reference to the licensing laws that applied in
the UK restricting when and where alcohol could be served.
Four partners were made up in 1969, and five in 1970. Within
five years of the limit being lifted, the partnership had grown by half,
to reach 33 partners, 76 assistants, 19 legal executives, 32 articledclerks, 115 secretaries and 104 people working in “administration”,
making a total of 379 people.

The “bowler” and its
place in the firm

Alison Joanes, then Charles Allen-Jones’ articled clerk, drew this cartoon to hint at
how cold the office was in the winter of 1986.

Peter Benham took over as senior partner in 1972. The son-inlaw of Harold (George) Brown, he had “looked after the shop” during
the Second World War and was made partner in 1946. Another in aline of dedicated lawyers that had come to typify the Linklaters work
ethic, he would work in the evenings and at weekends, often rising
before 6 o’clock on Saturday mornings to do three hours before
breakfast. “He liked nothing more than complicated drafting,” hisson, Keith, remembers.
It was under Peter Benham’s stewardship that the firm made its
first real moves internationally, opening offices in New York, Parisand Brussels and, in conjunction with local firm Deacons, in Hong
Kong (see Chapter 4). He certainly supported the firm’s growinginternationalism, even if he could not predict how far and how fast
the firm would change.
With the restrictions on the number of partners lifted andcontinued increase in demand for work – despite the so-called“secondary banking crisis” of the early 1970s – the firm continued
to grow fast. It was by then occupying three floors and part of theground floor of Barrington House and one floor in Garrard House,
which was within easy walking distance of Barrington House.

Think of the City after the war, and the image thatusually springs to mind is the bowler hat. Madeof hard black felt (which would withstand being
stamped on), the “bowler” was a close-fitting,
low-crowned hat that had originally been
designed to protect people on horseback fromlow-hanging branches. But they came to beworn throughout the City. Henry Pickthorn, whojoined the firm after the war, recalls that bowler
hats served as a great leveller: “It made theCity a more dignified and egalitarian place – wewore the same uniform, bank clerks looked likechairmen and chairmen looked like bank clerks.”
So it was in Linklaters. It was not justoutside the office that they would be worn. The
procedure was you would wear them into youroffice, and hang them on a hat stand. They had
to be worn while walking down corridors, buttaken off in the lift. John Phipson, something of arebel even though a family member, claims to be
the first articled clerk to refuse to wear a bowler.
Many partners would also keep a second jacket
in the office, wearing their best jacket to meetclients and the other for everyday use.
The tradition endured into the 1960s,
the last of the bowler-hat brigade being John
Gauntlett, John Mayo and Bill Addison, who
refused to take an assistant with him to ameeting at a bank if he wasn’t wearing a hat.
The best story about bowler hats, however,
belongs to Sir Arthur fforde, who, each August
before setting off on his summer holiday,
would throw his bowler hat into the Thames off
London Bridge.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 4 9

The missing chocolate
biscuits

On Black Monday, 19 October 1987, a bull
market which had lasted five years cameto an abrupt halt. The bottom fell out of the
London stock market, and shares on all stock
exchanges plunged. It was the worst day for theCity since the Crash of 1929. It was followed, as
one might expect, by an economic downturn.
At Linklaters, the firm’s management
committee instituted a range of measures toaddress the downturn. Among them was thedecision to stop providing chocolate biscuits inthe meeting rooms, a saving of a few thousand
pounds a year.
When this bold act of cost control came tothe attention of the Daily Telegraph City Diarist(whose brother worked for Warburgs and fed
him the information), an item duly appearedin the column on 4 May 1988. The column
quoted a “portly financier” (presumably the
Warburgs banker) saying, with a heavily
laboured pun, “I’ve heard the City is slimming
down, but this takes the biscuit.”
The column had the desired effect. The
following week, at the insistence of Peter
Farren, the partner in charge of the firm’s PR
who realised that there was some damage
limitation needed, the chocolate biscuits
were reinstated.

5 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Peter Benham was, in turn, replaced by John Field in 1976.
He was the next most senior partner, and assumed the role on thatbasis (see Buggins’ turn, page 117). He was somewhat quieter thanhis predecessors, and less given to anger outbursts. He was someoneof “enormous common sense”, according to Ralph Aldwinckle, who
was assigned to his group on qualification.
The firm’s growth continued unabated through the 1980s. On
a number of fronts, the policies of the Thatcher government hada profound impact on the firm. For one thing, it made decisions
about office space much easier. The decision to abolish exchange
controls (one of the first measures to be introduced by the incoming
government) led to the government’s Export Credit Guarantee
Department vacating three floors of Barrington House. In time,those floors were rented, redecorated and occupied by Linklaters.
The Thatcher government’s immediate reduction of the highest
rates of income tax benefited the partners personally, andprompted a change in the lockstep ratios, to reduce the differential
between the highest and lowest earning partner from 6:1 to
3:1. Later, that figure would come down further, to 2.5:1. The
government introduced incentives to encourage more people tosave for their own pensions, another measure which benefited thepartners personally.
The increased profitability of the business provided scopefor new investment: in people, in increased office space, andparticularly in new technology. Linklaters was certainly one of
the first law firms to recognise the value to the business of having
access to the latest technology. In 1986 the firm invested some £3m(then a huge sum) in a desktop computer for every member of staff.
The two proponents for investing in the Wang Office Information
System, Richard Bailey, the finance partner, and Tony Angel, atax partner, argued that the investment would be repaid in moreproductive lawyers. Tony Angel, in a paper to the Finance & Policy
Committee, wrote: “The benefit to us from Wang is to be derived notfrom its word processing capabilities but from electronic mail andtime management and accounting, management information andknowhow. The cost is justified on the additional productivity given
to those who earn money in the front line.”T

he first Linklaters & Paines brochure, in 1986, could just as
easily be written today, with some fine tuning to update thelanguage: “We aim to produce businesslike and practicalsolutions to problems, and to give commercially based legal advice
to clients to assist them in running their businesses. We possess theexperience, the manpower and the technical resources necessary
to undertake large and complex transactions at short notice and tocomplete them with speed and efficiency. We take every opportunity
to exploit advances in technology to improve the service we can giveto our clients.”
With exponential growth, it was becoming increasingly clearthat the firm was becoming too big to manage with the existingcommittee set-up. There was too much pressure on the senior
partner. Brilliant lawyers though they were, and towering influenceson the firm, it is quite likely that neither John Mayo (senior partner
between 1980 and 1985) nor Ferrier Charlton (1985 to 1988) relishedJohn MayoJohn Mayo is rightly regarded as one of the most influential, if notnecessarily the most easy of people to have passed through thefirm. Gifted with a brilliant mind (“frighteningly intelligent”, in theassessment of Anthony Cann) and possessing all the qualities invariably
associated with the best lawyers (drafting skills, diligence, attention
to detail, focus on the needs of clients), he also brought a commercial
instinct that was rare for lawyers of his era. Together with FerrierCharlton, John Mayo represented the post-war generation who helpedin the transition of Linklaters from a predominantly family firm, albeit
one with a great reputation, to a leading commercial law firm.
He joined the firm in 1947, and was made a partner in 1953. After
contracting tuberculosis, he had to take two years off work. With
weakened lungs, he would huff and puff his way around the office. The
shortness of breath may have been a contributory factor to his temper
outbursts, during which he was quite likely to pick up the nearest object
and throw it at whomsoever had upset him. Bottles of ink, ashtrays and,sometimes, the phone would be hurled at potential victims. In the caseof the phone, it would usually fall harmlessly to the floor once the cord
had stretched to its limit, but on one occasion he threw it with suchforce that the phone was ripped from the wall. “He was like a volcano,”
remembers John Edwards, “just waiting to erupt. He barked out orders,probably to compensate for his wheeziness.”
He didn’t brook any argument. “People said of John, you didn’t
disagree with him, you asked him for his point of view,” James Wyness
notes. “If you disagreed with him, he would shoot you down inflames!” Group meetings at which he presided tended to be moremonologues than discussions, for that reason. His very presence could
be intimidating: when he left in the evening to catch the train home,others would avoid him in the corridor. He would not acknowledge
people while passing by in the swing doors. Strangely enough, theonly person who was not intimidated by him was Agnes, one of the tea
ladies, who would deliver his tray of coffee with a cheery, “Morning
darling,” to which she would always receive a civil answer.
At the same time, people who knew him well remember a manof great kindness, devoted to his family and generous to his partners.
When he was senior partner, he and his wife, Susan, entertained groupsof young partners at their home, events which are remembered withgreat fondness by those who attended them. His tempers became fewer
and farther between with age. He was a decisive and highly effective
senior partner at a critical time of the firm’s development.
Above all, John Mayo was a truly exceptional lawyer with a Citywide renowned reputation. He was involved in many of the market’s
most important M&A and other corporate deals. He had the brilliant
lawyer’s knack of identifying problems and resolving them. “John not
only had a terrific grasp of the law, his powers of financial analysis andcomprehension were remarkable,” remembers Charles Allen-Jones.
John Edwards says of him: “He had this ability to sit in a room ofquarrelling bankers, and sum up what people wanted in two sentences.”
The same happened in meetings with Counsel. On one famous
occasion, the firm instructed leading Counsel (Bob Alexander and his
junior, Jonathan Sumption) to advise on how it should respond to acrisis in Hong Kong involving its joint venture partner, Deacons(see page 74). While others were talking back and forth about the issue,
John Mayo started writing on a piece of paper. With his head bent inconcentration, and writing in his tiny handwriting, after 10 minutes ofdrafting he waved the paper with a flourish and said, “I’ve done it!”That was the letter that was finally sent to Deacons: there was no needto have instructed Counsel.
When the first version of the Takeover Code was published,
John Mayo was working on the merger between Rio Tinto andConsolidated Zinc. The code was published in the morning; bylunchtime that day he had drafted the appendix to the offer
document that complied with the new takeover conditions
and had it circulated to all those working on the deal.
He embodied the firm’s core values, of dedication to clients,
perfection, imagination, commerciality and also integrity. When
Anthony Cann expressed his reservations about acting for Mirror
Group Newspapers after the company was taken over by Robert
Maxwell, John Mayo (then the client relationship partner)
immediately phoned up the Mirror Group and said the firm
would no longer act for them.
In his farewell message to the firm in October 1985, he summed
up his philosophy and what he hoped would be his legacy: “Let all legal
advice be practical and business-like, aimed at finding solutions rather
than raising difficulties. Let our letters of advice be short, capable ofbeing understood and including answers to problems. Let us operate
pleasantly – even when we have to be tough in the interests of ourclients, we don’t have to be unpleasant. To all of you who have worked
with me over the years, I offer thanks for your help (and for bearing
with me in moments of irascibility).”

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 5 1

The Typist’s Tale
Connie Highman joined the firm in 1946 as a legal typist.
She ran the typing pool for many years, retiring in 1980.
“I was hired by Mrs Vida de Vere Summers, a name I shallalways remember. When I joined, Britain was still recovering fromthe war. The typewriters we used were antiques.
I started in Granite House, on Cannon Street. In 1947, wemoved to Austin Friars, on Throgmorton Street. When we moved
to Barrington House in 1956, we were on the 6th floor, but, as thefirm rented more floors in the building, we kept moving on up to the
8th floor.
Over the years, I got to know many of the partners by their firstnames, having known them from when they were articled clerks.
In 1966, I took over responsibility for running the typing pool.
My aim was to ‘do the impossible’. I got to know everyone and wasalways treated with respect. My staff were excellent typists, andspeed and accuracy were of the essence. The ‘Queen of Speed’ was
Phyllis Roberts. Haydn Puleston Jones, a partner, always asked forher to do his work. Another typist, Mary Herd, was profoundly deaf,
but she was excellent at lip reading.
Over the years, I saw how typewriters changed from manual
to electric. We went from using carbons of many colours tophotocopying to Roneo Stencils to IBM magnetic cards to Wordplex
with A, B and C disks serving as back-ups.
Sergeant MacKenzie (always known as Mac) headed the general
office in Barrington House. Mac would look after the New Zealand
All-Blacks rugby team when they visited. He would take time off workand arrange a lot of the logistics. I think he was in charge of the kit.

When I retired in 1980, Ferrier Charlton gave me a glass figurineof an owl, which I still have to this day on my shelf, in gratitudeand ‘as a symbol of wisdom and patience’. I was also given a bounddocument, in the style of our formal documentation, full of goodwishes and remembrances from friends, colleagues and staff
members. Adrian Montague, one of the partners, wrote in it of‘your unfailing ability to work miracles without any notice at all’ .”the role. Various options were considered, including appointing achief executive from outside the firm, but it was decided that thebest option would be to appoint a managing partner.
James Wyness was the obvious and ideal candidate, having
set up and managed the successful growth of the Paris office (seepage 72). He became managing partner in 1987, but took on thejob somewhat reluctantly. “To use a sporting metaphor, I felt I wasbeing taken off the pitch and put on the bench, but, once I moved,
I threw my efforts into it.” He introduced strategic analysis and set
about introducing more business rigour into decision making. “My
objective was for the firm to become more professionally managed,
and run as a business. We had to pay more attention to our costs,
and to the management of our finances,” he reflects today.
He asked the practice areas to develop five-year plans, withclear targets and business objectives. These, stacked up one on topof another, made for a big pile, recalls Chris Gorman (“almost as tallas James Wyness himself”). Joking or not, the papers marked an
important change in the approach to the business. It was probably
necessary. The market was becoming increasingly competitive.

James Wyness also brought in people from outside the firm tomanage the key support services. In addition to Tony Blackett, who
had been recruited in 1983 to become director of administration,
Geoff May was taken on to manage HR and Robin Landon as financedirector. With the lifting of restrictions on law firms being able toadvertise and market themselves in 1986, an outside PR consultancy,
Goode Associates, was used to advise on the firm’s public relations.
The firm’s first annual review, first proposed by Ferrier Charlton in
1987, was published in 1992.
Mark Sheldon succeeded Ferrier Charlton as senior partner
in 1988. He was appointed after a consultation, rather thansimply by virtue of being the next most senior in line, marking
the end of “Buggins’ turn”. Honoured though he was, the timing
was not ideal because he was also due to become president of the
Law Society in July 1992. Mark Sheldon would have preferred
not to have taken on both roles, but was persuaded to do so by
his partners. He now modestly says that he felt others would
have done a better job, and that a lot of the work was carried out
by James Wyness, first as managing partner and then as joint

5 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

senior partner, from 1991 onwards. He is downplaying his own
contribution. David Lloyd, a property partner and contemporaryof Mark Sheldon, says of him: “Mark was clever, ebullient andforceful. He was undoubtedly one of the builders of the modern
firm. There are partners who built the structure, those who
maintained it and those who sheltered within it. Mark is definitely
in the first group.”
James Wyness was succeeded as managing partner by Chris
Gorman, in 1991. Chris Gorman was faced with two pressing issues
in his time of office: the need for the firm to move into new offices,and the investment in and incorporation of a new, expensive
but very superior IT system, NeXT. To this day, people argue
whether NeXT was the right technology to adopt. It proved to beincompatible with the Microsoft systems used by all the firm’sclients, and the firm moved over to Microsoft itself by the end of thedecade. More successful was the move into Silk Street (see page 56),
the first major property deal since the early 1990s recession. Just
as Linklaters had set the pace with the move to Barrington House
40 years earlier, so the Silk Street move was deemed to bea masterstroke.
Chris Gorman stood down as managing partner, for personalreasons, in 1995. It seems to be a Linklaters trait that he, too, ismodest about his achievements in the role. “I did not feel it was agreat success, but I survived for four years. I was at the cusp between
the old firm, which was laissez-faire, and the new firm, which
inclined towards firmer management. When we were juniors, ourjob was to work at the coal face and to make sure the firm continued
to maintain its position. It was not our job to question what theolder partners were doing. I think we should, in retrospect, haveskipped a generation, but we didn’t. The Young Turks who werepushing up were much more concerned about the bottom line.”
Linklaters & Paines, as the firm was then still called, wasunrecognisable from the small firm which had started in 1920. By
1998, it comprised 214 partners and more than 700 other lawyers,
230 trainees and a total staff of 2,300 (about a third of whom wereoutside London). The firm practised in 12 countries out of 14 offices.
However, the key strategic decision for Linklaters & Paines in
the 1990s was Europe. The die would be cast with a phone call, taken
by Chris Gorman’s successor, in March 1997. 

Colonel Petherwick was a fictional
client (some believe that he wasa real client at some stage) usedby partners as cover for trips to
Lord’s, Wimbledon or Twickenham
during working hours. They would
write in their diaries “Meeting:Colonel Petherwick”.

John Gauntlett’s
cartoons

John Gauntlett, who joined the firm after theSecond World War having trained with anotherfirm and was a partner from 1950 to 1978,
was one of the great characters of Linklaters,
not least because of his penchant for wearing
colourful ties and socks at a time when sober
was the order of the day, for his gregariousness
and for his natural ability to get on with anyone
and everyone. He would just as easily play
marbles in the corridor with a secretary andchat to the cooks in the kitchen as commanda meeting of merchant bankers to attention.
David Caruth wrote of him: “John was
self-effacing, without rancour and the mostpopular partner of my time with all who methim.” Sue Fowler (then Verey) is equally fullof praise: “John Gauntlett was a pinnacle of alawyer, as charismatic as anyone but always
with a twinkle in his eye. He knew everyone,
liked everyone and no one had a bad thing
to say about him. The atmosphere in a room
would change when he came in and hecould always be relied on to say something
completely off the wall. He was a true
English gentleman.” He also had a talent as
a cartoonist and for many years his cartoons
adorned the walls behind the reception
in Barrington House. Truth be told they
are not to everyone’s taste, as comical
representations of legal in-jokes, butreaders can judge for themselves.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 5 3

Barrington House“The Swan with
Two Necks”

B

y the mid-1950s the firm was finding it increasingly difficult to
operate effectively, both because of increasing size and by reasonof being based in separate offices. The issue arose as to whether itshould find offices which would house everyone, and allow for growth.
There was not a huge choice, because large sections of the City of
London remained bomb-damaged, but one new building, Barrington
House on Gresham Street, was available. It was an eight-storey
building which, wrote Judy Slinn in Linklaters & Paines: the first 150
years, “stuck out like a sore thumb among acres of desolation”. The
building was named after the chairman of the company which owned
the building, Legal & General: Jonah Barrington.
Not everyone was convinced of the wisdom of the move. Somepartners felt that the site was too far from the City “proper” and not
close enough to the Bank of England. Others complained that the area
was not worthy of a firm of City solicitors, having previously been
occupied by businesses in the textiles trade. Even being west of the
Bank of England was enough to attract adverse comment from thefirm’s competitors. Interestingly, much the same criticism was levelled
at Allen & Overy when it moved to Cheapside two years later, so thismay be another example of the firm bucking and then leading the trend.
John Mayo and Ferrier Charlton, then junior partners, drove a
hard bargain with Legal & General, to rent the whole of the sixth floor
and two wings of the seventh (a total of 25,000 square feet). One of thewings was immediately sub-let. The two secured the space at a rentof 15 shillings (the equivalent of 75p) per square foot, a 15 per centdiscount on the prevailing market rate. Better still, the 35-year lease
had no provision for rent reviews at any time. Over time, more floors
were let, until by the time the firm moved into Silk Street, all but 5 percent of the building was occupied by the firm.

The office of John fforde was on the 6th floor.
On his desk was a button linked to a lightoutside to summon his secretary or articledclerk. In 1981, Nick Eastwell, an articledclerk in his group, surreptitiously pulled thewires out of the wall disconnecting the light.
It was never repaired.

5 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Cover designed by John Clent.

Barrington House was built on the site of an oldinn, The Swan with Two Necks, which dated
back to the year 1500. Before he retired, FerrierCharlton wrote a short booklet about the historyof the site, which was circulated to the firm.
The “necks” in the name, he wrote,referred to the practice of marking swans’
beaks with two cuts (nicks, then spelled“nekes”), to show that they belonged to theVintners Company. The Swan with Two Necks
was burnt down in the Great Fire of London of
1666, before being rebuilt.
The inn came to prominence towards theend of the 18th century with the development of
the mail coach. The coaches would departfrom the inn to Bath, Liverpool and Manchester,among other places. Thomas Paine, one of thefirm’s founders, is recorded as having travelledfrom the inn to his native Norfolk.
The inn was pulled down in 1856 andreplaced by new buildings occupied by the
London & North Western and the London &South Western Railway Companies. Thosebuildings were themselves destroyed in theSecond World War bombing.

Catch a thief
Barrington House was somewhat easy to access in the days before
swipe cards and security guards. Despite regular warnings in OfficeNews to staff not to leave handbags and wallets lying around, there
was a spate of thefts.
Probably the most celebrated theft was that of the partners’
television, stolen by a thief posing – in classic style – as an engineer,
wearing white overalls. One poor temporary secretary, Cathy Rising,when challenging someone who she didn’t recognise, was stabbed inher hand with a pair of scissors. One of the culprits turned out to be asolicitor (not named) with a gambling habit, according to the partner
David Caruth in the book he wrote of his life, A Life of Three Strands.
However, there were a few successes: “On Friday 12th September
Barry Mayo noticed a casually dressed young man strolling round theoffice on the 6th floor. The answers he gave when questioned as to why
he was in the office were not acceptable and the police were called. He

The deal struck by the two partners proved to be a master stroke:in later years, the firm did two “sale and leasebacks” of the original
lease to raise capital for the partnership. As market rents rose oversubsequent decades, the gap between the rent paid on Barrington
House and the going market rate offered scope to realise capital.
Rather than pocket the money, the partners decided in each case tosink the money back into the partnership. Mark Sheldon, one of thejunior partners who benefited from the older partners’ largesse, notes:“That was a remarkable act of selflessness and really reflected theethos of the partnership – the partners putting the firm before theirown interests.”
At the time, the offices were considered to be smart but not overpretentious. The staff were shown the building before the move, and it
was regarded as being modern. The parquet flooring lent the offices atouch of class, although eventually had to be carpeted over because ofholes left by stiletto shoes. The building started without a staff canteen,
because Mecca, a restaurant in the basement, had the restaurant
franchise. In February 1957, the staff were canvassed whether theywould prefer to have a canteen (as they had had in Old Broad Street)or be given luncheon vouchers. The canteen would be in the Mecca
restaurant. The response was overwhelming (a “washout”, Colonel
Clowes, the office manager, wrote in his notebook): of the total staff of135, 106 voted against the canteen, with only 10 in favour. There were
two reasons for this, remembers Barry Mayo. The food at Mecca wasappalling, while, at the same time, a number of family-run restaurants inthe area were starting to open up, where the food was infinitely better.
Each partner had his own large office, and outside his officewould sit his secretary. Each assistant would also have his own office.
(There was just one female assistant who was taken on in 1955.)
Gerald Addison, who had been senior partner for 21 years, diedshortly before the move, and never occupied the room that had been
specially designed for him. 

attempted to leave the office and was restrained. It transpired that he
was a borstal [prison for young offenders] escapee and has admitted
to thefts in the region of five to six hundred pounds from offices.” Thenote concluded: “Do not leave handbags or jackets containing wallets
where a walk-in thief can see them.” – Office News, October 1975.
“On Wednesday 8th May 1985, Bridget Edwards, secretary to the
Office Services Department, saw a man entering the security doors of
the 8th floor, C Wing, with a pair of scissors in his hand. She realisedthat it was the same man who had been on the 3rd floor in Marchand was suspected of taking a handbag. She asked him who hewanted, when he ran down the stairs. Bridget immediately informed
Ray Rawlinson [who worked in the general office], while she called
the police. Ray Rawlinson chased him down the stairs across the carpark, and he was eventually cornered by Ray and the police from
Wood Street in the gardens in Love Lane.” – Office News, May 1985.

Kitty Langley, at Reception, 6th floor, Barrington House,probably in 1960. John Phipson says of her: “Mrs Langley
was a lady with big writing and a big voice, who sat behind theraised reception desk and knew everything that went on. It was
only when she got off her dais that she turned out to be tiny.”

Barrington House wasdivided into wings, A, B,
C, D and E. If anyone said
they were going to “F”
wing, with a knowing look,that meant they were off tothe pub in the basement.

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 5 5

One Silk StreetThrough the 1980s Linklaters expanded in size and came tooccupy all but 5 per cent of Barrington House. Nonetheless,there was pressure to find alternative premises. Barrington
House was looking its age and was not equipped for the increased
technological needs of the firm. Neither did it accommodate
everyone; many other staff were in other nearby office buildings.
It would be far better to have everyone under one roof.
While there was pressure to move, the firm took its time tofind the right place. Property partner Robert Finch led the project.
The search began in earnest in 1990, just as the UK was entering
recession. Falling market rents and significant inducements
by developers to attract tenants, such as rent-free periods andcontributions towards fit-out, played into the firm’s hands, but there
was also nervousness about the costs of such a big move when it was
not clear what impact the recession would have.
Robert Finch had clear instructions about the size and shapeof the building (“we wanted a long, narrow building with plenty ofnatural light”) and the facilities that the building should be able toaccommodate (including plenty of room for conference and meetingrooms, canteen facilities and a large conference hall). Matchingnumbers to space gave rise to a calculation of cost per fee earnerabove which the firm would not go, in order to maintain the firm’s
competitiveness. The team developed a point scoring system for eachbuilding they looked at, which gave an instant guide on suitability.
After an extensive search, the firm decided on a building, orrather buildings, in Silk Street, just to the north of the Barbican.
The site had once formed part of the large Whitbread Brewery,which, remarkably, was left largely undamaged by the Second World
War bombing. Brewing stopped in 1976, and some of the buildings
were demolished to be redeveloped for office use. That turned out
to be Milton House and Shire House, both of which were leased by
BP and then joined together. BP moved out in the 1980s, and thebuilding sold to a Japanese developer. When the developer wentbankrupt, the German fund CGI agreed to buy the buildings subject
to agreeing a pre-lease to Linklaters.
The location was ideal. “The focus of the City was then moving
northwards, and with Silk Street being close to the Barbican, we
would be in at the centre of this trend, but the site also satisfied
another of our criteria, to be within 10 minutes’ walk or taxi rideto the Bank of England,” Robert Finch says. Transport links wereexcellent, with Moorgate tube station in one direction and Barbican
station in the other.

5 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

One Silk Street.

Robert Finch, ably assisted by Robin Landon, the financedirector, struck an extraordinarily beneficial deal for the firm.
The rent was in the range of £20 per square foot below theprevailing market rate (at the time £45 was considered to be acompetitive rent). CGI also offered a major contribution towards
the refurbishment and fit-out costs, so much so that the firm did notneed to draw on partner funds, which, when you consider the fit-out
costs were £35m, is pretty remarkable.

The ritualof letter opening

In fact, it was such a good deal for Linklaters that CGI, on
reviewing the “heads of agreement” (the basic terms of the deal)
pleaded to reopen some elements of the negotiations to make itworth their while. Linklaters agreed, but still achieved their objectives.
Simon Clark, a property partner with specialist tax expertise,advised on the tax structuring of the agreement. “It was anincredibly sophisticated deal, fully utilising the skills and expertiseof those involved. I heard one senior corporate partner expressing
his surprise after we had briefed the partnership. He hadn’t realised
how complex such deals were.”
Linklaters took leases on 350,000 square feet with options on
a further 100,000 square feet. Initially, four floors of Milton House
were sub-let. The agreement involved staggered rent review dates
to minimise the risk that a single review for the whole building
might leave an expensive liability should rents start falling.
The agreement, signed in March 1995, drew public attention
as the first big major pre-let to take place after the recession. Overthe next two years, the buildings were completely remodelled
and refurbished. One and three quarter acres of brown glass were
removed from the old elevations for recycling. Some 1,600 people,
22,000 crates and 15km of files moved into the new premises in thesummer of 1997. The official opening was February 1998, by the thenLord Mayor of London, Richard Nichols (himself a solicitor).
For the first time since 1982 the London office was under one
roof. That one single benefit would add between 15 and 20 per
cent to the firm’s profitability, Robert Finch estimated. He also
negotiated with the Corporation of London to allow the firm tohave one address rather than two for the offices. One Silk Street waschosen, a particularly suitable address given the firm’s prominenceamong law firms and the legal connotations associated with silk.
What might have been less suitable was the initial choice of
postcode. Companies were allowed to choose the final two lettersof the postcode. Having been allocated EC2Y 8, Tony Blackett, thedirector of administration suggested “ZZ”, until it was pointed
out that would lead to different pronunciations (for Americans,that would be “zee zee”, rather than “zed zed”), and partner John
Phipson’s observation that zizi is also a rude word in French). So themore logical and simpler letters “HQ” were chosen instead.
That was not the only move that year. The firm also rented
45,000 square feet in a business park outside Colchester, about
60 miles northeast of London, to become a new data,
communications and storage centre. 

In the pre-email era, there used to be a
tradition of partners’ “Letter opening”. This
would involve a selection of partners going toa meeting room first thing in the morning andreading quickly through all the mail that hadarrived. A green baize cloth would be spreadout on the table, and envelopes (which had
already been split open by the postroom)
would be set out. The partners would then readthrough each one, and set aside any which
needed special attention, for example if any
contained a complaint or even a suggestionthat something was amiss. These letters would
then be directed to the right group, or taken up
in person.
“It was a simple and effective methodof managing risk,” recalls Simon Clark, whotook part in the process as a junior partner
before it was stopped, “and it was very
interesting. While we were opening the letters,
the partners would talk and usually gossip.
It was an excellent way to learn about thefirm, and some of the personalities who havecontributed to our history. Added to that, it wasa type of informal training about what it meant
to be a partner, at a time when there was nosuch thing as partner training. Many of thepartners were relatively senior and would go on
to take leadership roles. It was known as thealternative FPC (Finance & Policy Committee).”

L i n k l at e r s & P a i n e s : 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 9 8 | 5 7

5 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

04

Taking on the world

Clifford Fishwick, Harbour Entrance 1967, oil on board, 60x60cm

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 5 9

The international dimension

Dating back to the 19th century, there has always been aninternational dimension to the firm’s practice. By the 1890s, forexample, partners on both the Linklaters and Paines sides ofthe firm that would merge in 1920 had advised clients in India, China,
Japan, Australia and Canada. Harold Brown, the senior partner from1895 to 1910, took six months away in 1906 to visit Canada, Korea
and Japan, both for business and recreation (what would be called asabbatical today). In Japan, he was introduced to the Bank of Japan,
the Industrial Bank of Japan and Mitsui & Co. His verdict: “Japan willborrow too much, use the money badly and end with a financial crash.”
The Linklaters firm had among its clients the Canadian National
Railway, while the Paines firm served British interests in Latin
America, particularly in Argentina. The relationship with one of thefirm’s clients, BP, dates back to 1919, when it was the Anglo-Persian
Oil Company. Another was the newsprint company, Bowater, forwhom the firm first started acting in the 1930s.
It was for Bowater that, in 1960, John fforde (a partner) travelled
to New Zealand when Bowater was proposing to invest in a plant in
the country. It took John fforde five days to get there (although weassume he must have stopped off on the way), and in all he was in the
country for three weeks. The story goes that the deal was announced
by the New Zealand prime minister in Parliament, after the country’s
attorney-general and John fforde had themselves finished thephotocopying (all civil servants having clocked off at 4.00pm).
After the Second World War, the number of overseas trips by
the firm’s partners steadily increased as more deals involved aninternational element. Here is just a selection to give a flavour of
the range of countries and the variety of deals: Harold (George)
Brown to Iran on behalf of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company; John
Gauntlett to Aden, Tokyo and Nairobi (involving oil cargoes);
Raymond Shingles to Burma (to form a joint venture national
mining company, and again 10 years later after the government
nationalised it completely) and to Saudi Arabia (to represent British
Aircraft Corporation in a £150m export order, which was then thelargest the country had ever received); James Sandars to Prague;
John Mayo to Moscow (to advise the government of what was thenthe Soviet Union); Peter Benham and David Pearson to Tokyo (onJapanese fund raisings in London), Ferrier Charlton to South Africa(on behalf of De Beers); Mark Sheldon to the US (for a number ofAmerican banking and corporate clients); and David Caruth toEastern Europe and Latin America (on behalf of the engineering
company Davy).

6 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m ePeter Benham.

OFFICE DATES

seld
Düs

orf

bi
Abu DhaLondon
2012

Milan
New
Yor
k

2010
2008

i
ba
Du

Pa
ri

2006
2004

g
ijin
Be

s

2002

Br
us
se
l

2000

s

1998

Lis
bo
n

1996
1994

ng
Ko
ng
Ho

1992
1990

Bu
da
pe
st

1988
1986

y
Tok

1984

o

1982

Buc
hare
st

1980
1978

apore
Sing

1976
1974
1972

Bratislav
a

1970
1968

Frankfurt

1966
1964
1962

Moscow

Madrid

1838

gko

Was
h

B an

ingto

n, D .

C.

R om e

P au

lo

k
Pe

S ão

St
te r

sb

Sh

Am

s te

rd

am

ur g
an

gh

ne

ai

Lu

xe

Co

m

bo

ur

g

Be

An

twe

rp

Pr ag

Mu

ue
Warsaw

M al m ö

Stock h

ni c

lo

g

r li nhol mTa k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 6 1

James Sandars.

John fforde.

David Caruth.

6 2 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

The establishment of the European Common Market in 1957,
an economic grouping of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium,
Holland and Luxembourg, led some within the firm to wonder
whether the firm should respond. John fforde and John Gauntlett
believed there would be “profit in developing a European presence”.
The supposition was that the UK would join the Common Market,
the forerunner of the European Union. Milan was identified as thebest location for a new office, both because Italy was considered
to be an important European economy and also because anopportunity presented itself (“we met someone whom we thought
we could work with,” Ferrier Charlton later explained).
The Milan office opened in 1963, but, with the benefit ofhindsight, it was not a successful first foray into Europe. President
de Gaulle (famously) turned down the UK’s application to join the
Common Market, the firm found it difficult to get the right people
to manage the office, it did the wrong type of work, mostly advising
English expatriates on small English law matters, and, although
this was not at the time so important a factor, it was loss-making.
John fforde himself described the Milan office as a “red herring
compromise between action and inaction”. It was duly closed,
in 1976, and the office effectively given to David MacFarlane, thesolicitor who had been running it.
Subsequently, following the establishment of Linklaters& Alliance (see Chapter 5), an office was reopened in Milan.
The firm’s first real international push can probably be traced
to 1966, for it was in this year that the firm first became involvedin the Eurobond market. Eurobonds were primarily US dollardenominated bond issues, to take advantage of the estimated
US$3bn held outside the United States. In 1966 Ferrier Charlton
was instructed to advise on three successive Eurobond issues by
S G Warburg. Although Warburgs had instructed Allen & Overy todraft the first ever Eurobond, in 1963, they turned to Linklaters onthese three new issues. That in turn led to the firm being instructedby White Weld, the US investment bank, whom it advised on all its
Eurobond issues. The firm thereby moved into international capital
markets work (see Chapter 2).
The Eurobond market attracted a number of American banks
and securities houses to open in London, a process in which Mark
Sheldon, then principally a tax practitioner but like others involvedin a wider range of work, was closely involved. He saw a market
opportunity, as he explains: “My idea was that we should have apresence in New York, not so much to practise but to act as a sales
office, to get to the American banks before others did, so that when
they came to Europe, we would be first on the list of law firms.”
After some years of urging, Mark Sheldon was finally sent out toopen the New York office in 1972. In so doing, Linklaters became thefirst English firm since the Second World War to open in the city. The
office had to operate under tight restrictions imposed by the New
York Bar. English legal advice could be provided to American law
firms and to in-house counsel, but not to lay individuals. It would bea further 20 years before the office, and the firm, would offer a US law
practice. It is fair to say that the US market remains the most difficult
one for UK law firms to succeed in: entrenched relationships between
US corporates and financial institutions and their Wall Street law

firms, the high costs of running an office and the challenges of building
an office to achieve “critical mass” have all been factors that haveworked against all UK law firms, not just Linklaters.
Meanwhile, in Europe, consideration was given to the possibilityof opening in Paris. There were fact-finding missions, and in 1972a small group of younger partners was asked to present their views
on “internationalism”. Among this group was James Wyness who
argued in favour of opening in Paris. “Paris was a large commercial
market, it was close to us geographically and it was a market inwhich many of our clients shared,” James Wyness relates. “At thesame time, I outlined the ghost of a strategy, which was to follow
our clients, and many of our banking clients were already in Paris.”
Unlike the position 10 years before, when De Gaulle had rejected
the UK’s application to join the Common Market, the UK was due
to join the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973.
That served as justification for also opening an office in Brussels,
where the most important EEC institutions were based. Both
Paris (see page 72) and Brussels were opened in 1973, with James
Wyness as the resident partner in Paris. The Brussels office wasmanaged from London, with Jack Barounos, an associate, in charge
on the ground.
As the Eurobond market continued to develop, international
securities work involved an increasing number of partners. A changeof law in Canada eliminating withholding tax on the interest paidon bonds triggered a multitude of Canadian-issued bonds. Keith
Benham, Peter Benham’s son, recalls visiting Canada 23 times in two
and a half years to handle many of these issues.
The Middle East, too, was proving to be fertile ground for thefirm’s growing international finance practice. In 1974, John Edwards
advised on the first Kuwaiti dinar issue, and, in subsequent years,
the firm advised on a number of other “firsts”. These included thefirst Kuwaiti law domestic bond issue, albeit as legal consultantsbecause the firm did not – and could not – practise local law. The
prospectus was printed in Arabic and the Arabic transliteration of
the firm’s name, when translated back into English, rendered it as“El-Linkletters & Beans”.
Some 18 partners had worked on Middle East, Africa and Indian
sub-continental deals, not just on bond issues, but also shipping,litigation and property work. Charles Pettit and then Robert Finch,
both property partners, advised on some of the first deals involving
a mixture of English law and Sharia’a law. Linklaters was arecognised force in the Middle East, prompting the question
whether it should open an office in the region. John Edwards, asked
to write a report, concluded that the firm should not. He wrote:“We are, for better or worse, an English practice, and will stay so,even though, paradoxically, our international wings are spreading so
dramatically.” He advised that the firm continue to service Middle
Eastern clients from London on the “drop of a hat” principle. Thatturned out to be sound advice, especially with the overthrow of
the Shah in Iran in 1979 and the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war thefollowing year.
It was not until the first decade of the 21st century that the firm
opened in the Middle East, first in Dubai (2006) and then in Abu
Dhabi (2011).

On 1 April 2005, the day a new Bar regulation
was introduced permitting international law
firms to employ Japanese lawyers (bengoshi),
Linklaters established Japan’s first integrated
partnership between Japanese and foreign
lawyers. This was the first international merger
in the history of Japan’s legal services sector.
Two Japanese partners, Mitsuhiro Yasudaand Akihiro Wani, together with 20 associates,
joined the firm. Akihiro Wani also became
joint head of the firm’s Tokyo office, with
Tony Grundy.

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 6 3

For any aspiring international firm, Hong Kong was anotherobvious place in which to have a permanent presence. Hong Konglaw was essentially English law, which made it easy for English
lawyers to practise. Qualifying was routine. Hong Kong, alreadya trading entrepôt, was on the way to becoming an international
financial centre.
After James Wyness had acted on Jardine Matheson’s firstinternational issue in 1971, the company suggested that Linklaters
open in Hong Kong. The idea was raised with the Finance & Policy
Committee but nothing came of it. It was not until an opportunity
presented itself five years later, in the form of a joint venture witha Hong Kong firm, Deacons, that Linklaters would open an officein the territory (then UK sovereign territory). Deacons was wellestablished, had a good reputation and some top clients (alsoincluding Jardines). Office space would be provided, together withsecretarial support. Charles Allen-Jones, who had long enthused
about the merits of opening there, went out as the first Linklaters
partner to start the firm’s presence in late 1975, together with David
Leonard, an assistant solicitor.
The joint venture, which was a convenient but never thehappiest of arrangements, lasted for nine years. It was terminatedin contentious circumstances, following which Linklaters opened
an office in its own name in 1985. It has consistently been one of thefirm’s most successful offices (see page 74).
At the time the firm opened in Hong Kong, China was a closed
market, but that was to change with the launch in 1978 of the open
door policy. China would expand trade with the rest of the world
and actively court inward investment. At that stage, there was noopportunity available to foreign law firms to open, but it was anenticing prospect. John Edwards, despatched by senior partner
John Mayo to find out more, wrote up his findings for the Poly
Law Review. He offered his thoughts on China’s initial attempts toestablish a legal system after the horrors of the Cultural Revolution.
As the market opened, and as foreign law firms were permitted toopen offices (although not to practise local law), Linklaters openedin Shanghai in 1998, and in Beijing four years later.
John Edwards was also a prime mover behind the initiative toopen in Tokyo. The Japanese market for Eurobond work picked up
with the collapse of the Middle Eastern market at the end of the
1970s. For close on two decades, Japanese corporates borrowed on
the international markets, first corporate bonds, then convertible
bonds, then bonds with warrants attached (giving an option to buy
shares). There was plenty of work for international lawyers, not justthose from Linklaters. The ritual was for lawyers to fly to Tokyo via
Anchorage in Alaska on the JAL Saturday afternoon flight, spend
up to a week negotiating and finalising the documents and returnthe following weekend. The “Big Bear Club” was formed among
those who took this regular trip, in honour of a stuffed polar bear on
display in Anchorage airport which was given a special Linklaters
commendation (see The Big Bear Club, page 66).
In 1986, no fewer than 90 separate trips to Japan were taken
by Linklaters lawyers. It was excellent business: the Japan deals
accounted for about a quarter of all the work being done bywhat came to be known as the International Finance Section,

6 4 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

Following the Iranianrevolution in 1979,
in which the Shah was
overthrown and replaced
by Ayatollah Khomeini,
Linklaters was one of anumber of firms involvedin tense negotiations torelease deposits held by
Iranian banks in London
in exchange for American
citizens held hostage
in Iran. Linklaters
represented one of thebanks, Bankers Trust.

IFS Four
An Englishman, a South African, a(Northern) Irishman and a (half ) Swisswere largely responsible for creating thepractice area that marked the firm out for
the first time as truly international andset it on a different path from its principal
rival, Slaughter and May. That practice area
was international finance, and was perhaps
the defining change that happened within
Linklaters within the past half century.
Their practice area became known as theInternational Finance Section, more usuallyknown by its initials, IFS. Jim Watkins, David
Barnard, Terence Kyle and John Edwards,
in the same order as the nationalities listed
in the first sentence, were of course notthe only lawyers involved in international
financial work, but they were certainly at
the forefront. “Ferrier Charlton was the
godfather of the International Finance
Section,” says John Edwards. “He was thefirst to become involved in Eurobonds inthe 1960s and saw the huge potential of themarket for the firm.”
What marked out the four was theirunorthodox backgrounds and their lackof convention, which appealed to thoseof a similar disposition in the merchantbanks. “In the 1960s, the merchant banks

in London were formal, conventional andbureaucratic,” remembers Jim Watkins.
“But, within them, there was a new breedof bankers doing international work, whowere altogether different – less stuffy andwho wanted things done quickly. The fourof us got on well with them, and that reallyhelped the international capital markets
practice to take off.”
Terence Kyle says that the market also
provided an opportunity to demonstrate
innovation. “It was innovative because
we took the classic English law debenture
deed and we adapted it for the international
market. We had to work through thepracticalities as well as the crossjurisdictional elements.” The common
factor was that all the issues were done
under English law.
It was not just the international aspectof the finance work that made the deals
different. Transactions were done muchquicker. The lawyers might also be involved
in several deals at once, as opposed to thecorporate lawyers, who typically would
finish one transaction before moving on to
the next. “The deals on which we worked
within IFS were of a different order to what
had gone before, being done at a faster

speed and involving a distinctive approachto the law,” says David Barnard, who moved
to the New York office in 1982 and took thework to the Latin American continent.
The development of the practice waslargely on individual initiative. The firm
certainly did not discourage them, butneither did the senior management accord
the practice full recognition as a group.
IFS became, notoriously, within the firm
the first “non-group” – that is, they did
everything that other groups did, suchas developing precedents and sharing
knowhow, but without the formal sealof approval. That was until 1983, when, as
senior partner John Mayo acknowledged,
the case against creating an IFS groupbecame “unanswerable” (see Groups andtheir significance, page 28).
In 1995 IFS was reorganised into two
new groups, but shortly thereafter the
IFS categorisation was replaced with its
more specialist business lines (banking,derivatives and debt capital markets).
Today’s practitioners in those areas owe
much to the IFS Four for having theforesight and the willingness to seize theopportunities when they first presented
themselves. The firm has never looked back.

The IFS Four: Watkins, Barnard, Kyle and Edwards.

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 6 5

The Big Bear Club
From 1974 onwards Linklaters’ partners became increasingly activein the growing – and lucrative – market advising Japanese issuers ofEurobonds. In that era of less sophisticated telecommunications, andno office on the ground, that required the partners and sometimes
associates to fly to Japan. The flights from London to Tokyo involved
a stopover in Anchorage, Alaska. There, taking pride of place in theterminal, was a stuffed polar bear, standing fierce, proud and tall (9feet and 4 inches). Next to it was an inscription which read:“This huge bear met his end off Cape Lisbourne in 1965 after
about 20 years of rugged survival on the Arctic Ice Pack; an old malebear of many battles indeed. At the time of his death, he had fought
another huge bear, won, and claimed the stranded whale, long dead,and frozen into the ice. His head is a mass of scar tissue, showing
his aggressive attitude towards his own kind, and others, like theformidable walrus. Only the rifle of man caused his abrupt exit fromlife, and he gave not an inch to our solid front of arms. Whale oil ran
from his cavernous mouth for 20 minutes after his last breath.”
With each visit and in what came to be a ritual, John Edwards
and others would marvel at this splendid beast and be moved by thewords. Gradually, the sign faded as airport visitors rubbed up against
the display case to have their photos taken, and then it disappeared
altogether as the bear was moved to a newly built terminal. Quite
separately, and without knowing that the other was doing it, bothJohn Edwards and Tony Grundy, another frequent traveller to Tokyo,
made a note of the words.
In 1987, John Edwards had the words retypeset (both in English
and in Japanese) and mounted both as a laminated sign and as a“tombstone”, with the help of Williams Lea and Company, the firm
which the firm used for the printing of financial documents. The
initials JE/CD/AJG were typed on the bottom of the sign. He then sent
the sign and the tombstone to Anchorage Airport, with a request thatit be hung up. “It will give us silent pleasure to know that we havepreserved a little bit of your history for posterity,” John Edwards wrote
to the airport director. The bear is still there to this day, but the sign,alas, is not.
To mark this event, John Edwards formed the “Big Bear Club”,
the founding members of which were himself, Tony Grundy, Clive
Deacon of Williams Lea and Gerald Thorburn, also of Linklaters.
Membership remains open to those who ever have reason to passthrough Anchorage and observe the Linklaters ritual of admiring thepolar bear and saluting his bravery.

6 6 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m eand Linklaters acted for the four major players in the JapaneseEuromarket. But it was also tiring for those taking part as well
as being inefficient, in the days before laptops, email and mobile
telecommunications. A solution was at hand, however, when theJapanese Bar relaxed the restrictions on foreign firms opening
offices. The decision was taken to open an office in Tokyo, which
would offer banking (cross-border financing) and corporate(outbound investment) work, as well as capital markets expertise.
Tony Grundy was sent to open the office in 1987, registering as a
gaikokuho jimu bengoshi (a foreign lawyer entitled to practise his
own home country law). Also sent out was another partner, James
Croock, and Jeremy Parr, then a young associate and subsequently
global head of the Corporate practice. The office was required tohave the names of the resident partners, therefore being known as
Grundy Croock Jimu Bengoshi (a name which caused a smile or two
back in London).
The timing of the opening, however, was not ideal. First, there
was the global stock market crash of 19 October 1987. Then theJapanese bubble burst and Japan entered a prolonged economic
depression. Twenty-five years later, Japan has still not recovered:
the Nikkei stock market index in 2012 was about a quarter of thelevel it reached at its peak.
There was further liberalisation of the legal market in 2003,
permitting international law firms to practise local law. Two years
later, Linklaters formed the first law firm joint venture, together
with Mitsui Yasuda. Andrew Carmichael, a partner in Tokyo
between 2009 and 2012, acknowledges that the Japanese market
will continue to be a challenging one in which to practise. “Japan
has always been under-lawyered, so it presents an attractive
opportunity. Yet it remains a closed society, which makes it difficultfor outsiders to crack, even for those who have spent decades
absorbing the culture and learning the language,” he notes.
The network in Asia continued to grow. In 1992, the firm opened
an office in Singapore with the aim of serving the Southeast Asian
region. As with Tokyo, the firm was not at that stage permitted topractise local law. In 2000, Linklaters was one of six foreign law
firms permitted to enter into a joint venture with a local law firm.
The firm already had a relationship with Lucien Wong of Allen &Gledhill (who had been on secondment with the firm) which madethe choice of joint venture partner an easy one. The joint venture,
Linklaters Allen & Gledhill, was formed in the same year andlasted until 2012 when diverging strategic directions brought thearrangement to a close. In February 2013, the firm was awarded alicence to practise Singapore law in its own right.
In 1998, the firm opened an office in Bangkok. It began withthree people, headed by Chris King, who brought with him 20 yearsof experience of practising in Thailand, and Wilailuk Okanurak(still with the firm). As with the Tokyo office, the timing was not the
best, coming in the midst of the Asian currency crisis of 1997/1998
which was precipitated by problems with the Thai currency, thebaht. However, the Thai economy quickly recovered and the officehas prospered.
India is another Asian country in which the firm has long had aninterest. In the 1950s and 1960s, John Gauntlett would travel once

Linklaters andJohn and Yoko

“We used to sit on a large sofa in one of their
Dakota building apartments, overlooking
Central Park and with John’s famous white
piano on which he composed ‘Imagine’ justin front of us.” So, Charles Pettit, then headof the Linklaters New York office, recalls themany times that he advised two of the firm’s
most famous private clients, John Lennon andYoko Ono, in the late 1970s.
The advice mostly centred around thefiendishly complicated commercial and tax
arrangements arising from The Beatles’
company, Apple Corps. As is well known (atleast to those who follow The Beatles), Yoko
Ono was primarily responsible for handling thecouple’s business matters. “John was happy
for Yoko to make the business decisions,”
Charles Pettit remembers. “He would
occasionally liven up our discussions by
doing something silly, like suddenly burstingout from a clothes cupboard or entering theroom on his hands and knees!”Charles Pettit continued to advise Yoko
Ono after John Lennon was murdered in 1980.
“I think some of the more strait-laced partners
in London were uneasy about the firm advisingpeople in ‘show business’, but I felt they werevery good clients.”

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 6 7

John Gauntlett.

a year to Calcutta on behalf of Calcutta Electric Tramways. This
was an English-incorporated company, all of whose business was inIndia. On one famous occasion, the company had a strike while John
Gauntlett was there. In keeping with usual practice when strikes
happened at the company, the board members were barricaded in
the boardroom for the duration (with food and drink supplied). He
lived to tell the tale, and dined off it for many years.
In the early 1980s, James Wyness acted for the French bank,
Banque Nationale Paribas, on a major financing in the state ofOrissa. Initiated by partner Nik Mehta, the firm formed an India
Business Group in 1993, and a Global India Group in 2000, toco-ordinate the firm’s India-related practice. Today, the head of the
India practice (as well as being regional managing partner of thefirm’s Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa (EEMEA) practice,
is Sandeep Katwala.
Foreign firms are not permitted to practise India law, andso to overcome this obstacle Linklaters started a “best friends”
relationship with local law firm, Talwar, Thakore & Associates, in2007. If and when the regulations permit, the firm intends to open
an office in Mumbai, the commercial capital.
With an abundance of natural resources, growing ties with
China and an increasingly outward-facing economy, Australia
became an attractive market in the early part of the 21st century.
Linklaters had explored a possible arrangement with the Australian
law firm Mallesons in 2000, but abandoned the idea when it was
realised that the strategic rationale did not exist. Twelve years
later, in 2012, the rationale was more promising, only this time the

6 8 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

Iain Murray, who hadjoined Linklaters fromthe merchant bank Robert
Fleming, was also for someyears a very successful
finance partner and very
popular with the rest of
the partnership for his
astute investment of thepartners’ tax reserve(money set aside to pay
future tax). He had a sharp
sense of humour, and an
even sharper intellect,
which many could not
follow. “He was very
circumlocutious, and I
could never understand what
he was saying,” recallsJohn Edwards. For a young
Anthony Cann, “Iain Murrayused to send round learned
notes to the partners which
I could not understand andwas much relieved to findothers could not either.”

The Athens airport(non) signing
Projects partner Alan Black was involved in the
project financing of the new international airport
in Athens from 1992. The deal was eventuallyclosed in 1995 but might have been completed
18 months before but for the insistence of the
project sponsors to initial every page of a vast
document. Alan Black explains: “The projectnegotiations had started in 1992. We were on
the point of completing in 1994, when we weretold by the Greek government, who were ourclients, that the government was likely to fall,possibly the next day. If we wanted to get theirsignature, and for the project to proceed, wewould have to sign immediately.”
Hochtief, the German company leading
the winning consortium that was going tobuild, own and operate the airport, arranged
for Alan Black and an articled clerk to be flown
to Athens in a private jet, for the signing.
The Linklaters team arrived in Athens at
10.30pm with all the documentation and wentstraight to the Greek lawyers’ offices. The
documents ran to several thousand pages(as was typical for projects). Alan Black told
them that the deal would have to be signed
quickly, otherwise it might not get through.
However, the consortium insisted on everyone
initialling every single page – 13 signatures per
page – and they stayed up all night signing.
At 7.00am, before the 13 had finished theirinitialling, Alan Black was phoned by the
Greek deputy prime minister to say that the
government had just fallen. The project could
not proceed.
The story has a happy ending, however:negotiations recommenced the following year
and the project for a new airport was finally
signed in 1995, although the financing took
another couple of years. This became thefirst, and probably last, Greek law passed in aforeign language.

firm found another partner (Allens) and entered into a different
arrangement (an integrated alliance, not a merger). The agreement
involves each firm maintaining separate profit pools, but sharing
revenues on individual deals on which they work together. As partof the exclusive alliance the two firms also formed an Asian joint
venture in respect of an Indonesian practice already establishedbetween Allens and its Indonesian joint venture partner, Widyawan& Partners, as well as a joint venture for energy, resources andinfrastructure projects work across Asia.

As the 1990s began, the firm’s main focus was on Europe.
The talk in the partners’ dining room was all of the Allianceof European Lawyers, a grouping of top European law firms
established in 1990. Partly in response, the firm set up the European
Business Unit, within the fold of Group 17. The intention was toco-ordinate European work, both with other London practice areas
and with Linklaters’ European offices and “best friends” firms
in Europe.
As the firm debated – at length, and often heatedly – how totarget the European market, it opened an office in Frankfurt in1992 as an English law-only office, a representative office in Moscow
in the same year (see page 78), started a joint venture with theHamburg-based German firm, Schön Nolte Finkelnburg & Clemm,in 1995, and then, finally, took the plunge by joining forces with theAlliance of European Lawyers in 1998 (see Chapter 5).
In 2000, offices were opened in Budapest, Bucharest andBratislava, following approaches by local lawyers to join forces
with Linklaters. The Alliance offices in Prague and Warsaw were
fully merged the following year to create, together with the Moscow
office, a Central and Eastern European regional offering. Four of
those offices (all bar Warsaw and Moscow) were transferred to
the firm of Kinstellar in 2008, with whom Linklaters maintains a“best friends” relationship. (For the crossword-inclined reader,“Kinstellar” is an anagram of “Linklaters”, a deliberate choice ofname to allow the new firm to build on its legacy in the brand name.)
On the Iberian peninsula, Linklaters opened offices in its own
name in Madrid (1999) and Lisbon (2001), led by Miles Curleyand Jorge Bleck, respectively. Sebastián Albella, currently senior
partner of the Madrid office, was one of those attracted to join thefirm in 2005 after the firm had made the breakthrough into Europe.
As someone with a leading reputation in the market, he had muchdirect experience of working with international firms, mainly incapital markets transactions. Linklaters appealed to him for its
excellence and international ambition – “and Jean-Marc Lefèvre,the regional managing partner, was very persuasive in signing me
up. He convinced me that Linklaters was the best law firm in thegalaxy,” he jokes.
In the next three years the office’s revenues more than doubled,
before entering a period of some turmoil when a number of lawyers
left. “Seen with perspective, it is clear that such a difficult time wasa positive growing experience,” he says. By 2012, the firm had grown
to become one of the leading firms in the local market, with 100 or
so lawyers, and had used its strengths to capitalise on opportunities
arising from major market turmoil.

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 6 9

Each participant attending a Linklaters event held at
Sotheby’s during the International Bar Association conferencein London in 1987 was given this beautifully presented
version of the Magna Carta, the document that serves as thebasis of English law.

Sebastián Albella believes the office has been successful becauseof the high quality and commitment of its lawyers but, above all,because of the willingness of the Madrid partners to be proactive
in seeking new work. “The Spanish legal market is very open andcompetitive. One of the key reasons for our success has been that weare very entrepreneurial.”
Linklaters became the first of the magic circle firms to open
in Portugal and, unusually, opened without an English partner at
the start. Jorge Bleck notes the part that the country’s history has
played in helping to bring about a quick and easy integration into the
Linklaters network. “We Portuguese have always been merchants
and that has made it easier for us to align, and to make us lookabroad. Tony Angel [then managing partner] told me that the mostinternational-minded of the offices were London, Amsterdam andLisbon, which was a legacy of them all being maritime powers, andhaving an outward perspective. There is a lot of truth in that.”
In 2005, the firm was able to offer Dutch law capability in its
Amsterdam office, with the recruitment of Pieter Riemer, since
when the office has expanded and developed.
An office was opened in Düsseldorf in 2008, following an
opportunity to recruit a team led by one of Germany’s leading M&A
lawyers, Ralph Wollburg. This coincided with the contentious
decision to close the Cologne office. “It was an unpopular move at
the time,” admits Simon Davies, the firm’s managing partner, “butit was absolutely necessary. The move transformed our German
corporate practice.”
Neither was the African continent neglected. The firm has longacted for De Beers, the mining company, and in 1977 John Edwards
spent the best part of six months going back and forth to Sudan
on a case involving a Kuwait government investment in Kenana,a giant sugar plantation/mill complex managed by Lonrho. Fromthe 1990s the firm was increasingly engaged in Africa-related deals,
managed from the London and Paris offices. With the opening of the
Lisbon office in 2001, Linklaters became the only international law
firm with direct links to Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone
Africa. Not having an office in Africa, the firm established a networkof local firms to provide local law advice.
In South Africa, Linklaters formed a close association withleading South African law firm, Webber Wentzel. This association
was cemented into an alliance in February 2013. The alliance isintended to capitalise on the emergence of Africa as a growing
economic force – over the five years from 2010 to 2015, seven of theworld’s 10 fastest-growing economies will be in Africa, according
to the IMF – and the rising levels of inward investment, especiallyfrom other emerging markets, particularly China, India, the Middle
East and Brazil.

Linklaters had come to dominate the market for international
capital markets work, advising on issues governed by English
law around the world. It could justifiably claim that its leadinginternational position was unchallenged. That was until the early
1990s, when a change of law in the US in 1990 opened the US capital
markets, far and away the world’s largest, to foreign borrowers. In
that year, an amendment to the 1933 Securities Act – Rule 144A –7 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

New York: Linklaters was the first English law firm since the Second World War to open in New York, in 1972.

enabled foreign companies to raise money from US institutionalbuyers without registering their securities with the US Securities
and Exchange Commission. However, US underwriters required
the protection of a so-called “10b-5 letter” from US counsel toprovide part of a “due diligence” defence to US securities litigationfrom investors.
Without a US law capability, Linklaters would be excluded
from this market. The threat extended beyond this if, as anticipated,
US law firms pitched to European and international borrowers
who might take advantage of the change in the regulations to raisemoney in the US. The issue was not as clear-cut as might
be imagined: there were those in the firm who opposed a moveinto US law on the basis that it would be seen as competing with
US law firms and therefore cause a loss of referral work, practising
US law might expose the firm to claims of liability (always ahigh risk in the notoriously litigious US market), and, in any event,
Linklaters was an English law firm through and through. Rangedon the other side were those who contended that the greater risk
was of losing ground to US law firms in a key area of practice.
New York law and English law were the two major laws ofinternational business: if the firm aspired to be a global law firm,
there was no option but to offer a US law capability. Chief among
the proponents to practise US law was David Barnard, whoheaded the New York office. The advocates in favour of practising
US law prevailed.

Having taken the decision, the firm moved quickly. In December
1994, Ed Fleischman (who had been a commissioner at the US
Securities and Exchange Commission at the time) was taken on
as a consultant in New York, to provide a credible presence andto oversee the recruitment of US lawyers. Steve Thierbach wasrecruited in January 1995 in London as the firm’s first US-qualified
lawyer, and also the first ever laterally hired partner. There wasfurther recruitment of US lawyers in New York, London andHong Kong. The first US law graduates joined the firm in
September 1996. The firm had opened a small office in Washington
in 1992, which it closed 10 years later but then re-opened 10 years
after that.
To capitalise on the New York office’s Latin America-related
capital markets practice, which had grown considerably since 1991,
the decision was made to open a “portakabin” (a temporary officewithout a partner, offering purely English law) in São Paulo in
1997. A more permanent establishment followed, and in 2001 thefirm entered into an association with local firm, Goulart Penteado,
Iervolino e Lefosse (now Lefosse Advogados), adding a Brazilian
law capability. That initiative was led by Caird Forbes-Cockell andChristian Roschmann, both of whom believed that Brazil was on
the cusp of achieving the potential it had promised for so long. The
co-operation lasted until October 2012 when a change of local Bar
regulations made such an arrangement impermissible. However, thetwo firms agreed to continue working on a “best friends” basis. Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 7 1

Paris: 40 years and countingT

his year, Paris celebrates its 40th anniversary. Originallyestablished to provide English law advice in an international
financial centre, the office has grown to become one ofFrance’s leading law firms. Vindication, then, of the decision to
open the office at a time when the firm was essentially a City-based,
domestically focused operation.
The impetus to open stemmed from James Wyness. He wentout to Paris on an exploratory mission in 1972, spending six months
in the offices of Gide Loyrette Nouel, a French law firm, which wasthen a member of the “Club” of law firms of which Linklaters was
also a member. While there, he formed the clear view that the firm’s
English clients preferred to deal with a branch of Linklaters &Paines (as it then was), rather than have to deal with local law firms.
“The law and language were strange to them, and the quality of local
advice often uneven,” he explained at the time. Also, the UK wasabout to join the European Economic Community, and the thinking
was that law firms would be needed to advise on the growing
business that membership would generate.
The Paris office was opened in January 1973, initially in
Gide’s offices. Shortly after, the firm opened its own office, andput some distance between itself and Gide. In those days, too,communications were not as easy as they are today, and each of the“overseas” offices (which also then included Milan, New York andBrussels) were expected to look after themselves. James Wyness
knew it was important to deliver a profit for the firm, so much sothat if the office cash flow was not looking healthy at the end of any
month, he confessed to using his own money once or twice to makeup a cash flow deficiency.
The next significant step in the development of the Paris office –indeed, in the history of Linklaters – was the recruitment of JeanMarc Lefèvre in 1978 and the following year of the dual-qualified
Richard Bain to offer a French law practice. Again, the move was madewithout the express approval of head office. Jean-Marc Lefèvre soon
discovered the Linklaters culture was one in which he was expected tofend for himself. “The first ever file I worked on was the establishmentof BP Chemicals in France. I don’t know how I managed, but I loved
it!” (James Wyness, who led on the deal, was of course not far away.)Jean-Marc Lefèvre was promoted to local partner in 1982
– the firm’s first non-British partner – and achieved full equity
partnership in 1986. Richard Bain, who brought “intellectual rigour
and a delightful, quirky sense of humour to the Paris office”, asJames Wyness puts it, followed a similar path to partnership.

7 2 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m eOthers followed. Malcolm Campbell was the second English
lawyer to move to Paris. John Simpson, another of the growing bandof internationalists within the firm, succeeded James Wyness as headof the Paris office in 1985. Meanwhile, the office was attracting somekey French lawyers with the aim of winning French clients. These
included Gilles Endréo, who joined the firm in a professional support
capacity having taught law for 15 years. He progressed to doing client
work and came to head the office’s capital markets practice.
By the end of 1985 the office comprised eight French lawyers
and a stagiaire (trainee). Linklaters was going head-to-head withthe best local firms in its chosen areas of practice. The objective ofbuilding up a French practice by having lawyers that were capable
intellectually, linguistically and culturally of “straddling the
Channel” could safely be said to have been achieved.
The firm was in at the start of what would become one of thebiggest and longest running transactions on which it had advised:
the Channel Tunnel. A report to the Finance & Policy Committeeof January 1986 noted, with admirable understatement, “it currently
looks as if this [the Channel Tunnel] might be a major source ofwork for some time to come.” In fact, the work continued on andoff for the best part of two decades, taking in the initial financing,
periodic refinancings and restructurings. Bertrand Andriani, acommanding figure in the finance market in Paris and now headof the Paris Banking and Projects department, started his career
working on this instruction.
In 1992, the Bar regulations changed, so that the firm became
a firm of French avocats, requiring most of the 36 lawyers in theoffice to requalify. The office did not have a managing partner,
rather a chef de bureau.
In October 1998, Linklaters pulled off the coup of attracting theleading M&A lawyer in Paris, Thierry Vassogne, and a team of threeothers (including current partners Marc Loy and Arnaud de La
Cotardière). This was significant because, as the Project V proposal
to the partnership put it, “the arrival of V [Thierry Vassogne] and his
team would in one fell swoop provide Linklaters Paris with a premium
takeover capacity as well as making our corporate department one of
the largest and most powerful in the Paris market”.
The timing, a month ahead of the formal launch of Linklaters &Alliance, could not have been better. Anthony Cann believes the two
events are linked. “The Alliance enabled us to look interesting, andprobably helped us to attract Thierry and his team, who then helped
to transform the office.”Lachlan Burn, after being made apartner in 1982, was sent to workin the Paris office. The only problem
was that he did not (at that stage)
speak French. The French phone system,
which was often unreliable, came tohis rescue. If he did not understandwhat he was being told down the phone,he had a solution. “I am afraid I
pretended the phone was playing up,
and hung up! I then got one of myFrench colleagues to phone back.”

Marc Loy recalls one potential stumbling block in thenegotiations. “Our offices at Gide, where we were then all working,were huge, and we were being offered the use of far smaller offices
at Linklaters. This mattered to Thierry, so he made it a condition of
our coming that he be given a car and a chauffeur. He also joined asco-managing partner, with Jean-Marc. Honour was saved!”
Other notable hires were Olivier d’Ormesson and Philippe
Derouin. The additions not only assisted the firm but shook themarket: no other international law firm was able to offer – under
one roof – M&A, finance, competition, litigation and tax.
The Paris office’s enhanced reputation was confirmed in 2004
when Sanofi instructed Linklaters, rather than a local French firm,
to advise it on its takeover of Aventis. Since then, the firm has been
appointed on most of the major transactions in the French market.
As the Paris office marks its 40th anniversary in 2013, it canreflect on its leading position in the market, across all the main
practice areas, with the development of real estate, restructuring
and insolvency and public law departments. The client base hasdeveloped. The office advises at least half of the 40 major French
companies. All the major practices are ranked in the first tier of the
Chambers directory, which no other firm in the French market has

James Wyness.

reached. Linklaters has come to be well regarded throughout the
French business community and by the public sector institutions.
It is the centre of the Francophone Africa practice.
Paul Lignières, a public law specialist and currently managing
partner of the Paris office, is happy with the progress and theposition of the firm in the market: “We have grown over 40 years,
which gives us a stability and a sustainability which you won’t
find at many of our competitors, and it’s something to be proud of.
Our reputation is clearly established. We are a benchmark for ourcompetitors. Our objective is to be widely recognised by clients as
the leading law firm in France. History is in our favour, so I am sure
we will achieve that.” Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 7 3

Hong Kong:the first Linklaters office in Asia

L

inklaters has had a long relationship with Jardine Matheson,
the most venerable of the special administrative region’s“hongs” (local large companies). Today, Jardine Matheson
continues to be a prized client. The group’s current general counsel,
Giles White, is a former partner of Linklaters, as was a predecessor
general counsel, Jim Watkins.
And it was Jardine Matheson who first encouraged Linklaters
to open an office in the territory. The company made the suggestion,
following its first international issue in 1971 (on which James
Wyness advised) and then again the following year, after Linklaters
acted for Dairy Farm when that company was acquired by HongkongLand (an affiliate of Jardine Matheson).
It took a few more years for the idea to come to fruition,
following an approach by the local firm, Deacons (who also
represented Jardine Matheson), with the idea that the two firms
join forces. Charles Allen-Jones, who had been sent out to assess
the viability of this option, concluded it was a good idea. “HongKong was a humdinger of a place, the law was basically English
law and the lawyers in the territory weren’t terribly good, whichmeant, as I saw it, a fantastic opportunity for us.” The other benefitof the joint venture was that it enabled the firm to “get going”
without any start-up costs.
The joint venture started in 1976. A secretary from Deacons,Brenda Yeung (see The Office Manager’s Tale, opposite page), wasseconded to work for Charles Allen-Jones and his assistant, David
Leonard. Two years later, there were two partners and a staff of
10. Other lawyers arrived in turn from London, including Donald
Williams, David Egerton-Smith and David Cheyne (all of whom
headed the office in succession), David Barnes, Nick Eastwell,
John Turnbull and Richard Godden – formidable lawyers all who
helped the firm to establish a top reputation.
Another who arrived was Alan Black, becoming the thirdpartner, and, as he relates, somewhat to his surprise. “I initially said‘no’, only to attend a partners’ meeting at which the senior partner
John Mayo announced to the assembled company that they had
found exactly the right person to go to Hong Kong. Everybody waslooking at me and started clapping. It was, of course, news to me.
John Mayo then followed that up with a note to the partners: ‘I am
delighted to say that our need for a third partner in Hong Kong has
been met by the generous agreement of Alan Black, despite thepersonal problems caused by short notice, to fill the bill.’ That wasvery John Mayo!”

7 4 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m eCharles Allen‑Jones.

The joint venture lasted for nine years. Arguments about profit
share (Linklaters was taking out more from the joint venture thanit was contributing), personality differences, resentment thatclients were choosing Linklaters lawyers over Deacons lawyers
and a general clash of cultures would probably have led to the joint
venture coming to a natural close at some point. But the trigger for
dissolution came in the wake of the collapse of a local company,
Carrian, in 1983, which led to allegations of fraud against a numberof Deacons partners (and to the suicide of the Deacons senior
partner, John Wimbush). That event gave grounds for terminationof the joint venture on Linklaters’ part, but in the end the two sides
reached agreement to go their own ways. They operated as separate
firms, although still based in the same premises, until September
1985 when Linklaters found its own new offices.

The office manager’s tale
Brenda Yeung, the Hong Kong officemanager, started to work for Linklatersin January 1976 and has been with thefirm ever since.
“I was working at Deacons at the time
when the two firms agreed to form a joint
venture. I was one of two secretaries up
for promotion. The more senior secretary
was asked to work for a Deacons partner,
and I was asked to work for the Linklaters
partner, who was Charles Allen-Jones.
All we had then was an office for Charles,
a desk for me and the use of support
services provided by Deacons. When
we officially set up in September 1976,
we had our own telephone switchboard
and a few more offices for otherlawyers’ secretaries.
Although we worked well with the
Deacons lawyers and support team, we werereferred to as the ‘Linklaters people’, but notperhaps in a friendly or complimentary
way. The Deacons lawyers did not much
like it when matters they felt they should
be handling were done by Linklaters.

Charles was never flustered by this.
He got on with the work, and maintained
very good relationships with clients.
He was extremely client-focused andcommercially aware, which is why clients
liked him so much. As I saw it, Charles waswell respected by the Deacons partners andlawyers notwithstanding that there were
cultural differences or other issues fromeach firm’s perspective.
The break with Deacons came at a very
difficult time, following the Carrian crisisand the death of their senior partner. We felt
very sad for them. After the firm set up on
its own in 1985, we had a small office inwhich everyone was always very busy, but
we had a fantastic team spirit. Everyone
got on well with one another. We really felt
we were on a roll. Associates rushed into
partners’ offices to report new deals almost
every day.
The Hong Kong office has been doing
well in making profits, but we did have somedifficult times during the Asia financial
crisis (in 1997/8). The outbreak of the SARS

virus resulted in redundancies and we had
to surrender one whole floor to cut costs.
But overall in my time with the firm
we have grown substantially, and the office
performs a very important role within thefirm, in its own right, supporting the China
offices in certain respects and by virtueof the fact that most of the Asia region
management team is based in Hong Kong.
As office manager of the Hong Kong
office, in addition to overseeing the operations
function as a whole, I am responsible for the
management of secretaries and operations
staff (including front of house, general office,document centre, and the two boat boys). I
am also the line manager of the Greater Chinatranslation team (consisting of members
based in Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai).
I have stayed with the firm for so long
because I enjoy the work but above all becauseof the people. We feel supported, and I havebeen given plenty of opportunity to develop.
We live our values, and we are clear that wewould like to be a leading international law
firm. The time has simply flown by.”

HONG KONG BOAT BOYS
Kam-ming Fung (known as Ming to his
friends and colleagues), left, and Tat-man
Leung (known as Jackie) are the Hong
Kong boat boys – the crew on the firm’s
60-foot boat, Sea Lynx 5. The boat, which
is used by everyone in the firm and toentertain clients, is the firm’s fourth,preceded by Sea Lynx 1, 2 and 3 (thenumber 4 is unlucky in Chinese, which
is why that number was skipped). Ming is
one of the firm’s longest serving employees,
having joined in 1979. (Jackie joined in1991.) Ming has seen many a partner,
associate and business services staff member
in his time, all of whom he has enjoyedmeeting and serving.

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 7 5

Developing
international
relationships

The internationalism found expression inother outlets. On the initiative of senior partner
James Sandars, Linklaters joined The Club in
the early 1970s. This was a grouping of law
firms in different jurisdictions who got together
once a year to compare notes and generally
develop relationships, as well as refer work to
one another. Linklaters continued as a member
through the 1970s until a succeeding senior
partner, John Mayo, decided that it was an
unnecessary expense. The firm then switched
its attention to developing relationships withother law firms through the International Bar
Association (IBA). That, in turn, became lessimportant as the firm opened its own offices.
More recently, the firm has strengthened
relationships with firms in those jurisdictions
in which it does not have an office.

7 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

The split was definitely to Linklaters’ advantage. Jim Watkins,
one of the IFS Four (see page 65), moved to Hong Kong in 1986,
succeeding David Cheyne as head of the office. There were then four
partners and eight assistant solicitors, but within a year the office
had doubled in size.
The firm’s strengths in corporate and international securities
work fed through to the Hong Kong office. Take capital markets:
after Charles Allen-Jones had started and David Cheyne had
developed the capital markets practice, Nick Eastwell took it over.
He estimated that the Hong Kong office was involved in every Hong
Kong-sourced capital markets deal for five years. In conjunction
with Citibank, Linklaters developed the world’s first “revolving notefacility” – a hybrid between a bond and a bank loan – which came tobe widely used as a financial instrument. Litigation was added withthe arrival of Brinsley Nicholson.
Following the global stock market crash of 1987, the firm gained
the Hong Kong Stock Exchange as a client and advised on the firstlisting of a Hong Kong company with a manufacturing facility in
China. In 1988, by which time the office was 57-strong, Linklaters
acted on its first major Chinese project financing, the GuangzhouShenzhen superhighway.
By 1995 the office comprised 11 partners and a total staff of 129.
As well as English law and Hong Kong law, the office had acquired a
US law capability. China was becoming an increasingly important
market in its own right. The firm advised on inward investment
into China, joint ventures and the IPOs of Chinese state-owned
enterprises on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. A new office was
opened in Shanghai in 1998, to which Kevin Wong relocated. The
Hong Kong office managing partner, David Mullarkey, then pulled
off a coup with the recruitment of Zili Shao, a top international but
native Chinese lawyer.
Simon Davies says that Zili Shao’s contribution was significant,even though he left the firm in 2010 to become chairman and CEO of
JP Morgan in China: “Zili was vital for the firm, because of his ability
to bridge China and the outside world. He really helped us attain aleading position in the China market.”
The Asian currency crisis, which began immediately after,
although not caused by the handover of British sovereignty to China
on 1 July 1997, and the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)
epidemic of 2003, had an adverse impact on the fortunes of theHong Kong office. But, like the territory itself, the office has proved
resilient. Today, it is the third largest office in the Linklaters
network: there are 28 partners, 129 associates, 24 trainees and a
163 business services staff, making a total of 344. The current
Greater China managing partner, Marc Harvey, has imbued theoffice with a sense of energy and humour that stands it in goodstead for the future.
There is another reason that people give when citing thesignificance of the Hong Kong office in the firm’s history. The
entrepreneurial spirit, which is soaked up by all those who
spend time in the office, permeates the rest of the firm. Hong Kong: The firm’s first office in Asia and now its third largest in the network.

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 7 7

Getting going in MoscowDominic Sanders, now a partner, was an associate in the early
1990s. He was given the responsibility for opening a new officein Moscow.
“The chance to go to Moscow came as a result of a meeting in
February 1991 at the USSR Academy of the National Economy withCharles Allen-Jones and Adrian Montague, Charles then being headof Corporate and Adrian head of Projects. One of Adrian’s clients,
Clive Hardcastle, had won a job advising Gazprom, then the USSR
Ministry of Gas, and he encouraged us to open an office or at least
to make friends with the Academy.
The Academy said that they would be willing to have someone
from Linklaters on two periods of secondment, each of threemonths. That someone was me, even though I was just six months’
qualified. Off I went in September 1991, two weeks after the failed
Gorbachev putsch.
The Academy had previously been an institution wheremanagers of state enterprises from all over the Soviet Union would
come to study Marxist-Leninist economics, but, with the fall of theWall and perestroika (economic liberalisation), it was changing its
spots and was now a business school. This was also, in theory, the eraof glasnost (political opening), but some things did not change thateasily. If I wanted to call London or send a fax, I had to get special
permission from the foreign relations department to use theirinternational line and fax machine.
It was a fascinating time. The legal environment was changing.
New laws would be published in newspapers, which people would
carefully cut out. No one really spoke English so my Russian
improved in leaps and bounds.
After my first three-month stint, I wrote a report, as I had beenasked to do, concluding that there was not a compelling case for
opening an office. Immediately after that, I was called into a meetingwith Charles Allen-Jones, Adrian Montague, David Egerton-Smith,David Barnes and John Edwards. It was clear that they wanted us toopen an office, whatever my opinion was, and they were keen to do it
quickly, without having to get a full partnership vote. They lit on theidea of a representative office. Charles was particularly keen. He wasan entrepreneur and he thought that the opening of the oil and gas
industry would present us with real opportunities.
By March 1992 the Soviet Union had collapsed and I was back for
my second three months, with instructions to open a representative
office. I had to negotiate the space – which was really just a couple ofrooms – from the Academy. Getting everything done was difficult.

7 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Adrian Montague.

Dominic Sanders (left) and David Egerton-Smith in the diamond processing plant at
Udachny, Sakha-Yakutia.

I signed the lease and went to the office only to find that theoccupants refused to move! After I managed to coax them out, I thenhad to decorate and fit out the office. There were no private firms,
so I had to contract the Academy’s works department. Even getting
hold of paint was difficult.
We officially opened on 26 October 1992, the same day as ourthen Washington representative office. Allocation of telephone lines
was strictly controlled and I was sweating right up to the last minuteon whether our precious two international lines were going to beconnected. Immediately, the work started coming in. The market
was still undeveloped and most of it was not what you might calltypical Linklaters work, but we had to be prepared to do anything.
Other firms had opened with partners on the ground and we were
not practising Russian law.
It was hard-going in the early days with our limited resources
and the great responsibility of representing the firm. I was veryjunior and terrified of letting the firm down. However, in time,
we hired a couple of Russian lawyers and in the summer of 1993
we persuaded some of the Americans who were helping theprivatisation committee to throw us some work, helping the Russian
Securities Commission to draft the new securities law. Paul Nelson,
Simon Firth and I spent just two weeks on this in a windowlessmeeting room in Barrington House but it helped to get us noticed,
and gave us credibility. We also helped draft a joint stock companies
law in 1994.
I was joined by a second lawyer from London, Simon Crofts,
who had made the 2,300-mile journey by pushbike! The first thing
he had to do was to buy a pair of trousers, because all he had was apair of biking shorts.
How we managed to recruit Dmitry Dobatkin and Denis Uvarov,
our first two Russian partners, is also interesting. I used to playtennis with Professor Alexander Kurennoy, head of the law facultyat the Academy, and through him met Andrei Sherstobitov, a law
lecturer at the Moscow State University. After a game of doubles, hementioned that he had a couple of decent students and asked if I wasinterested. I remember Dmitry turning up to his interview wearing
jeans, with his CV typed out on rough Soviet paper. But it was clearthat he was very bright – in fact, he was a brilliant chess player, who
had played Kasparov. What a stroke of luck!
Those early days were hard, but fun. There was anotherattempted political coup and I had to take refuge in a friend’s
flat. I had the thrill of being something of a pioneer, though I was

Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 7 9

Moscow: “a chaotic and difficult market”.

8 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m every young and inexperienced and at times it was pretty stressful.
Charles Allen-Jones would often call to give encouragement. David
Egerton-Smith, who was head of what we called the CIS Desk, wasalso supportive. In April 1993, I dragged David off to see Russia’s
main diamond mine in Sakha-Yakutia; I had got to know the chiefengineer who had been studying at the Academy. This involved two
flights, including a stopover at 3.00am at Krasnoyarsk. The stopover
was meant to be an hour, but when there was no announcement, I
started to get worried. Finally, I asked an airport official and theysaid that our flight had taken off. In fact, it hadn’t, and we weredirected to an exit door which led onto the airfield. A huge number
of Tupelevs were lined up on the tarmac and one was pointed out inthe far distance. I remember running with David across the airport,
as the sun was coming up, thinking my bacon was now well andtruly cooked. There was a magical moment when, through the earlySiberian dawn, I saw the airport stairway wavering and then moving
back towards the aircraft. David had run the marathon the year
before. ‘You’re lucky it wasn’t John Edwards,’ he remarked.
Within a year, we had five lawyers and three secretaries/
administrators. It was not all work and as a foreigner you had
opportunities which you would never have got back home. I had acameo role in a Russian film (occasionally people would come up
to me in the office and say, “I could have sworn I saw you on TV lastnight…”), and I took part in a cricket match in Moscow in 1992 thatwas featured on national television. I married a Russian, and wehave two children.
The representative office lasted for three years before thedecision was made to upgrade it into a branch office. It had its ups
and downs but a key moment was the arrival of Nick Rees as theoffice managing partner in 1996. He did an absolutely fabulous job
and really got things onto a sound footing. A lot of other partners,
associates and business services staff made heroic contributions
in what was a chaotic and difficult market. We worked on the
Russian Federation’s return to the Eurobond markets, the firstissue since before the revolution, and a number of other landmark
deals followed.
We had a brief spell with an office in St Petersburg. The timing
was not the best, with the office opening six weeks before theRussian financial crisis of August 1998. It was an amazing time, withthe entire financial system in total collapse. The economy reverted
to barter and cash payments for several months; the rouble devalued
by a factor of six. It was devastating for our practice. We downsized

POSTSCRIPT
Diana Good remembers a particularly chaotic partners’ meeting
when it was decided to formalise the Moscow office: “Thepartners’ meeting started at 5.30 in the evening. This was sometime in October 1993. We were debating whether the Moscow
office, which Dominic has described, should be upgraded. Therewe were in a closed room shut off from the outside world, withoutphones, BlackBerrys or the other instant forms of communicationthat prevail today, debating the issue back and forth. After fourhours, we decided that, yes, it would be a good idea to upgrade
the Moscow office. We came out of the meeting to discover that
Moscow was in a state of turmoil and that Boris Yeltsin and his
supporters were besieging the Kremlin. All hell had broken loose,but no one knew!”and two years later folded the St Petersburg office back into Moscow.
It was a wrench to leave St Petersburg but by 2001 the good times
were back with a vengeance.
Today, although I am based in London, I still spend much of
my time on Russian-related work. It was an incredible experienceand I was so fortunate to have had the opportunity, the support of avisionary like Charles Allen-Jones, the help of David Egerton-Smithand others and to be surrounded by so many willing and talented
people. I had the luck of the devil to grow up professionally in sucha fascinating market.” Ta k i n g o n t h e w o r l d | 8 1

Sarah Medway, New York Night 1998, oil on linen, 152x152cm

8 2 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

05

Linklaters & alliance:
1998-2001

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 8 3

The advance in EuropeTerence Kyle took the phone call some time late in the morningof Thursday, 13 March 1997. On the other end of the line wasLouis van Lennep, a senior partner of the Dutch firm De Brauw
Blackstone Westbroek. More significantly, Louis van Lennep was amember of the management committee of a group of continental law
firms that called themselves the Alliance of European Lawyers. (Someelements within the alliance had wanted a simpler name, Blackstone,
but that had been rejected.) Would Terence and his colleagues beinterested to meet Louis and his De Brauw partner, Cees de Monchy,
for dinner that evening at the Goring Hotel in London?
Terence Kyle was interested. The firm had been pondering its
European strategy for six years, probably longer, and was looking fora route into Europe at a time when its rivals were forging a clearer
path. Linklaters had a successful and growing office in Paris, and asmall EU law practice in Brussels, but its Frankfurt office (a joint
venture with Schön Nolte) was seen to be ineffective and its Milan
office, which had been closed in the 1970s, had been an aberration.
The Alliance of European Lawyers, for its part, had come to theconclusion that the Alliance would need to expand to include either
a US law firm (ruled out) or a leading UK law firm. The grouping was
diffused and unfocused, and was not making any headway in capital
markets or M&A work. What Terence Kyle did not know was thatLouis van Lennep had met Slaughter and May that morning, who
had turned down the invitation.
That evening, Terence Kyle, together with Tony Angel, who
had written a European strategy paper for the partners’ retreat theprevious November, and Guy Brannan, headed to the Goring Hotel.
It was a productive evening – Louis van Lennep went so far as
to call it historic. Photos were taken. The wide-ranging discussion
lasted several hours. The parties agreed to meet again in Amsterdam
the following month. The men parted with the tantalising possibility
that Linklaters would join forces with the Alliance. Terence Kyle,
Guy Brannan and Tony Angel then, in Linklaters fashion, createda project with a code name, only what should it be called? They
thought about Project Goring (after the name of the hotel), but
realised that if anyone mistakenly placed an umlaut over the “o”,
that would have an unfortunate association with Hermann Göring,
the head of the Luftwaffe in Nazi Germany. So, they lit upon thenearest large open park space with London connotations, and it
became Project Hyde Park.
Both sides had been working up to this position since 1990.
The Alliance of European Lawyers had been formed that year by

8 4 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m efive firms. As well as De Brauw, the Alliance comprised Jeantet& Associés of France, Uría & Menéndez of Spain, De Bandt, vanHecke & Lagae of Belgium, and Boden Oppenhoff Rasor Schneider& Schiedermair of Germany (which became Oppenhoff & Rädler
following a merger in 1995). The firms combined their Brussels
European law practices in 1990, opened offices in London and
New York in 1991 and in Prague in 1992, welcomed in the Swedish
firm of Lagerlöf & Leman in 1993, and had opened a joint Warsaw
office shortly before the Goring Hotel dinner. The Alliance also
had a small representative office in Alicante, the site of theEuropean Patent Office. Within Linklaters, there was recognition
that the move to establish the Alliance changed the market,
or potentially did so. “The game changed,” managing partner
James Wyness told the partnership.
Linklaters was already holding its own debate about how totackle Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the pending
single European market in 1992 lent some added urgency tothe discussion. Diana Good, in the Brussels office, wrote: “Fromthis European viewpoint, I see, more than before, the need for a
strategic foothold somewhere besides Paris and Brussels.” Theissue essentially revolved around which was the best strategy for
Europe. Was it best to serve clients for their corporate requirements
by forming “best friends” relationships with the best firm ineach jurisdiction? Or was it better to start and build from scratch
Linklaters offices in the key European markets (considered to beGermany, The Netherlands, Spain and Italy, as well as France, where
Linklaters had opened an office in 1973)?
To put the case for and against each of these strategies, John
Edwards, head of a European Business Unit formed in November
1989, invited “the two Schneiders”, the grand old men of German
law, to present to the partners’ retreat in Brighton in late 1990. Each
speaking perfect English, Dieter Schneider of Boden Oppenhoffand Hannes Schneider of Mueller Weitzel eloquently made theircase, Dieter arguing in favour of the one-firm approach and Hannes
the “best friends” strategy, what came to be known in Linklaters
terminology as “PUF”, premium unaligned firms.
There were strong views expressed on both sides, as John
Edwards, himself an ardent internationalist who had been one of
the “IFS four” who had taken the firm on its international course,
remembers. “My instinct was international. But somewhat to
my own surprise, my own attitude was that I shied away frominstitutional moves which involved creating offices.”The deal is done: signing ceremony to create Linklaters & Alliance, 22 July 1998, Genval, Belgium. Front row, left to right: Peter Wakkie (chairman, De Brauw Blackstone
Westbroek), Per-Erik Hasselberg (chairman, Lagerlöf & Leman), Charles Allen-Jones (senior partner, Linklaters), Michael Oppenhoff (chairman, Oppenhoff & Rädler),
Johan Verbist (chairman, De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae). Standing, left to right: Ingvar Zander (managing partner, Lagerlöf & Leman), Louis van Lennep (member,management committee, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek), Roel Nieuwdorp (member, management committee, De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae), Michael Abels(member, management committee, Oppenhoff & Rädler), Terence Kyle (managing partner, Linklaters).

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 8 5

Jean-Marc Lefèvre
Jean-Marc Lefèvre has the distinctionof being the first non-English law
qualified lawyer to be recruited to thefirm, the first non-UK law partner,
the first non-English office managing
partner, and the first European
regional managing partner. He wasinstrumental in forging the firm’s
French practice and in promulgating
a European perspective. He was a true
internationalist and Linklaters loyalist.
Fellow partner Nathalie Hobbs
says of him: “Jean-Marc’s enthusiasm,
his love of the firm and loyalty weretransformational both for the Paris
office and for Europe. He enabled
the firm to grow more quickly andsuccessfully than would otherwise have
happened.” Another of his partners
said of him: “Jean-Marc’s frankness
and ability to say what he thinks can bedisorienting, but he was able to push
things through without worrying
about politics.”
These are great achievements in themselves. But what makes
them remarkable was that Jean-Marc did it all with a smile on his
face. He could even tolerate being referred to – with affection – asMonsieur Le Frog by Anthony Cann.
He joined Linklaters in Paris in 1978, after spending six months
on secondment in the London office. For the first two years, heshared an office with James Wyness, the founder of the Paris office,and found himself right from the start working on major deals.

His first file was assisting BP Chemicals
to open in France. James Wyness
and Jean-Marc had a close working
relationship, which survived the cloudof smoke generated by Jean-Marc’s
then chain smoking habit (“not once
did James complain”).
He succeeded Michael Canbyas head of the Paris office in 1995,
becoming the first “local” lawyer tohead a Linklaters office. When hebecame part of the firm’s management,
sitting on the International Board, hewould speak with passion and fervour.
“We have to put emotion into this,”
he would say, in his quest to counterthe increasing business focus thatdeveloped through the first decade of
the 21st century. He regarded himself
as offering the diversity in meetings,
whispering to Jill King, the HR
director, “We are the different people.”He served a record 13 consecutive years
on the firm’s management committee.
But he had his limits. He threatened to leave if Jeantet & Associés
joined Linklaters & Alliance.
He approached everything with great enthusiasm. Even though
he was not a strong proponent of the Alliance, once it had been done,
he worked hard to help integrate the continental law firms and theEuropean offices into the Linklaters set-up. Indeed, being regional
managing partner was the best job of his professional life. “I loved thechallenge of working across cultures, and hiring the right people.”

Over the next five or so years, the advance into Europe stuttered.
An office in Frankfurt was opened in 1992, but only offering English
law, and not with ideal timing as Germany entered recession and thehuge costs of reunification became apparent. It did not get off to thebest start with a misprint on the letterhead: anrufen (to ring up) was
printed as anruten (a somewhat rude expression which non-German
speakers will have to look up).
In the same year, a new office opened in Moscow under the
initiative and wing of Dominic Sanders, even though he wasthen only an associate (see page 78). In December 1995, the firm
signed a joint venture with the Hamburg-based firm, Schön Nolte
Finkelnburg & Clemm, combining forces in Frankfurt. For Schön
Nolte, the venture was a success (according to Eleni Pavlopoulos,
a senior associate and German speaker, who went to the firm on
secondment, the German firm thought it was a “marriage made inheaven”), but for Linklaters there was continuing frustration
at the lack of penetration in the German market.
The senior partner election of 1996 returned a victory forCharles Allen-Jones, who wasted little time in commissioninga report on the firm’s European strategy. The task fell to a teamheaded by Tony Angel, then head of the Tax department but who
would become managing partner two years later. “The time hascome,” he wrote, “to reconsider our approach to the practice of
law in continental Europe. Our present policy is our so-called
PUF policy. There is increasing concern that this approach does
not enable us to achieve our mission of pre-eminence. We [theEuropean Strategy Committee] consider this concern to be justified.
Our present approach will not, in our judgement, prove a successful
basis for Linklaters & Paines in Europe in the 21st century.
We should change it.”

8 6 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

The question was: change it to what? It was thought that theapproach should be governed by five fundamental principles: more
European offices practising local law; Anglo-Saxon/national lawyer
teams; an integrated approach; Linklaters quality standards; andLinklaters branding. The Angel report presented the principal
options (branch, alliance or joint venture) to be discussed at that
November’s retreat but strongly suggested that only a branch (orbranches) or a joint venture were likely to achieve the result. The
option of the Alliance of European Lawyers was omitted since Tony
Angel believed that this option, should it arise, should only be dealt
with once the strategy had been determined.
The prevailing opinion at the retreat was a preference forbranches, but there was a need to be pragmatic should otheroptions arise. There had already been bilateral meetings with twoof the alliance firms (Uría & Menéndez and De Bandt, van Hecke &Lagae) for a couple of months exploring the possibility of closer
co-operation with each; in the case of Uría & Menéndez, there had
even been mention of a joint venture.
In February 1997, Guy Brannan prepared a note for the Finance& Policy Committee, reviewing in greater detail the option of joining
the Alliance of European Lawyers. There were more “cons” than“pros”, but he identified the one major advantage: “in one single
move, we could have a European presence equal to, or better thanthat possessed by any other UK or US law firm. There could beconsiderable “splash” value.”
And so the scene was set for the historic dinner at the Goring Hotel.
Shortly after, in great secrecy, negotiations began forhammering out a “heads of agreement”, the terms on which
Linklaters would join forces with the Alliance of European Lawyers.
For Linklaters, the negotiating team comprised Anthony Cann,
Terence Kyle, Guy Brannan and Peter King (in the role of the lawyer
advising on the negotiations).
It was vital that news did not leak of the discussions. There were
two perfect venues available, away from chance encounters withother law firms and from the media. The first was in offices rented
by Linklaters in St Clements Lane, off Portugal Street behind the
Law Courts, mostly used by the litigation lawyers during breaks in
Court proceedings. Known to the firm as the “Tardis” (after Doctor
Who’s time machine telephone box), the convenience of the location
was not quite matched by the comfort of the rooms themselves.
The second venue was in the offices of De Bandt in Brussels, whichhappened to be in the same building as offices rented by Linklaters.
Linklaters lawyers could come and go without arousing suspicion.
The negotiations were fraught, but fun, recalls Louis van Lennep.
“We all got on very well as individuals, and we really felt we were on tosomething great.” The terms that needed to be agreed were extensive,
covering everything from the sharing of costs, offices and of course
profits, to co-operation on practice areas and tax issues.
It was like European Union negotiations on a smaller scale. The
negotiations inevitably exposed differences of structure, philosophy,
history and culture between the “Anglo-Saxon” model of Linklaters
and the continental approach. The negotiations required of thenegotiators great reserves of patience and willingness to adjust,which in turn exposed personality differences.

Firm roots
Luxembourg: Loesch & Wolter

In 1896, Adam Loesch, immediately on
being admitted to the Bar, started practising
as a sole practitioner. His two sons, Fernandand Alfred, joined in 1922 and 1924
respectively. After Adam Loesch died, thetwo brothers continued the practice until
1940 when Germany invaded Luxembourg
and imposed German law on the country.
They were debarred and forcibly removed
to Silesia (now Poland).
Alfred Loesch returned to Luxembourg
after the war finished, in April 1945, butleft the firm to take another position.
Fernand Loesch, who survived the Dachau
concentration camp, returned the following
month and reopened the family practice.
Fernand’s son, Jacques Loesch, joined thefirm in 1952.
In 1972, the practice combined with
two other lawyers, Jean Claude Wolter
and Janine Biver, to become Loesch &Wolter. The aim was to take advantage of
Luxembourg’s growing role as a financial
centre. In the following years three ofJacques’ sons, Tom, Marc and Guy, as
well as others, joined the firm.
In 1999 Loesch & Wolter mergedwith De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae,
at the time the largest Belgian law firm
and a member of the Alliance of European
Lawyers. In 2002, De Bandt, van Hecke,
Lagae & Loesch became part of Linklaters.

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 8 7

Firm roots
Germany: Oppenhoff & Partner
The Oppenhoffs have been jurists andlawyers for many generations. In 1929
Walter Oppenhoff joined the practiceof Becker, Ströhmer and Lang, whichstarted in Cologne in 1908. The firm
had international connections fromthe earliest days, but it was Walter
Oppenhoff, having previously
worked for McKennas in London,
who extended those links to theAnglo-American world.
His international practice led toWalter Oppenhoff being appointed as anadministrator of foreign property. In thatcapacity, he was appointed administratorof Coca-Cola, a company he had advisedwhen it opened in Germany. He also
Michael Oppenhoff.
served as administrator for several otherforeign companies.
After the Second World War, Walter Oppenhoff became thefirst lawyer to practise in the American zone in Bavaria, as
well as continuing his practice in Cologne, operating fromoffices in the remaining part of a destroyed building.
Dieter Schneider joined the practice as a clerk in the early
1950s, moved to the United States where he taught law andreturned to the practice at the end of the decade.

8 8 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

Michael Oppenhoff, Walter’s son,joined the practice in 1967.
In 1969, taking advantage of a changeof regulations, the practice adopted
the firm name of Boden Oppenhoff &Schneider.
The firm continued to expand anddevelop an impressive client base ofinternational companies and banks. It
opened a New York office in 1988 andin Brussels the following year. In 1989,
the firm merged with the Frankfurt law
firm, Rasor & Schiedermair, in order tosafeguard its financial practice. Thiswas followed, two years later, by amerger with the Berlin law office Raue
Braeuer Kuhla.
In 1995, the firm completed the lastof its German mergers, joining with the Munich tax and businesslaw firm of Rädler Raupach Bezzenberger, to form Oppenhoff &Rädler. The Rädler merger was challenged by the Notary Bar in
Berlin, but the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the firmin 1997.
In 2008, almost a hundred years after the foundation of theoriginal firm, some of the Oppenhoff partners returned to beinga national partnership in Cologne.

Firm roots
Belgium: De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae

Jean-Pierre de Bandt and Jean-Pierre Blumberg.

De Bandt, named after its founder, Jean-Pierre, was a firm with adifference right from the time it was founded in 1969. For one thing,
it was deliberately created as a firm, rather than as a collection ofindividual practitioners that was the conventional way of organisinglawyers on the continent. The firm operated a lockstep profitsharing system among the partners.
For another, the firm would have a strong international focus,
again right from the start. The internationalism partly derived fromthe founder’s philosophy (“Nationalism, in any of its forms, is oneof the great threats of our contemporary society,” he says), but also
because of the opportunity an international practice offered.
Belgium attracted much inward investment, particularly from
US and Japanese investors. The new law firm would help themwith the legal aspects of investment. Among the firm’s clients wereEsso, General Motors and General Foods, all large US corporates.
Patrick Kelley became the first American to join a Belgian law firmin January 1979.
A third unusual feature of De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae, wasthat, even though it was a Belgian law firm, the working languageof the office was always English. That got around linguistic andregional differences between the Flemish- and French-speaking
members of the firm, as well as making the firm more attractive tothe international community. Even the partnership agreement wasin English.
The firm developed just the way Jean-Pierre de Bandt hoped
it would. It had a strong work ethic, treated its people well (the firm
had full-time associates who were both paid a salary and awarded
a share of the firm’s profits), and made a mark outside the law. In
his own history of the firm, Jean-Pierre de Bandt wrote: “Partners’
contributions [would] not be measured by figures and statistics only.
Contribution to legal science, client relationships, commitment,
team working, social behaviour were considered equally important.”

The firm originally operated from offices in Rue Ducale, close
to the US embassy, but later moved to one of the city’s historicbuildings that had previously belonged to Société Générale deBelgique in Rue Brederode (see page 91).
The firm opened an office in New York, in 1984, and formed
close ties with the Dutch firm, De Brauw. The two firms became
founder members of the Alliance of European Lawyers in 1990,
together with Oppenhoff & Rädler of Germany, Jeantet et
Associés of France and Uría & Menéndez of Spain. The Allianceof European Lawyers joined with Linklaters to form Linklaters &Alliance in 1998, and the following year De Bandt merged with the
Luxembourg firm Loesch & Wolter.
In 2002, De Bandt merged with Linklaters, and after operatingwith their joint names for two years, dropped the name De Bandt.
At the time of the merger, De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae was by far
the largest firm in Belgium, both in terms of revenues and in thenumber of lawyers.
Jean-Pierre Blumberg, who joined De Bandt in 1982 andnegotiated the merger with Linklaters (as well as becoming thefirm’s first regional managing partner from a legacy firm), says
Jean-Pierre de Bandt’s vision for the firm continues to this day.
“Jean-Pierre was ahead of his time for the Belgian legal market andlaid the foundations for the firm’s leading position today.”

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 8 9

Firm roots
Sweden: Lagerlöf & Leman

Jörgen Durban.

The Leman firm was founded in 1849 inGothenburg, making it the oldest Swedish
law firm. Philip Leman was one of thefounders of the Swedish Bar Association.
Erland Lagerlöf founded his law firm in
Stockholm in 1900. Doktor Philip Lemans
Advokatbyrä merged with Advokatfirman
Lagerlöf in 1990, to create Lagerlöf & Leman.

9 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

Remarkably, negotiations proceeded apace, so much so that by
the summer of 1997 the negotiating teams felt ready to sign the deal.
“We came out of Portugal Street one summer’s evening, and it was
all high fives and celebration. But then the senior partners became
involved and everything started to unravel,” remembers Terence
Kyle. Terms that had been agreed were suddenly reviewed. At several
points, it appeared as though the Germans were going to pull out.
The Spanish firm of Uría & Menéndez did just that. On 8 June
1998, Rodrigo Uría interrupted Charles Allen-Jones’ dinner witha phone call to say the Spanish would not be joining. Rodrigo Uría
felt that he could not join the new grouping, among other reasons,for fear of losing Uría’s independence in relation to its Latin
American practice and desire to retain a “federal” concept, as well
as arguments over the proposed Spanish letterhead. But probablyat the root of the collapse was a personality difference between
Terence Kyle’s no-nonsense directness and Rodrigo Uría’s senseof grandeur (he was given occasionally to arriving at meetings ina helicopter). After one heated exchange, Rodrigo Uría turned to
Terence Kyle, the colour in his cheeks rising, and said: “Terence,that is the first time anyone has ever spoken to me in such amanner.” To which Terence Kyle replied: “That, Rodrigo, isprecisely the problem!” With Uría & Menéndez opting out,
the conjecture is that they were anticipating the other firms
within the Alliance of European Lawyers would follow suit.
Meanwhile, the position with Jeantet & Associés, the French
member of the Alliance, was also creating high tension. Jean-Marc
Lefèvre was adamant that, if Linklaters joined the Alliance withJeantet as a member, he would leave Linklaters.
That presented a dilemma, given Jeantet’s key position within the
Alliance (although there had been hints both by the Germans and theDutch that they were not that enamoured of Jeantet). It was left to
Anthony Cann, Linklaters’ chief negotiator, to present Jeantet witha finely pitched proposal that he knew would not be acceptable but
which looked like a genuine offer to the rest of the Alliance members.
There was another casualty. Late in 1997, Linklaters informed
its German joint venture partner, Schön Nolte, that it would
be terminating the arrangement. By joining the Alliance, itwould henceforth be partnering with Oppenhoff & Rädler. The
partners of Schön Nolte were quick to argue that, since this was
not a development of its own choosing, the firm was entitled tocompensation – which they duly received.
At the very last minute, an issue arose as to what should be
the governing law of the agreement. The Alliance members
proposed a neutral law, Dutch law. That was agreed, although inthe final rush – and perhaps because everyone was exhausted by
the process – Linklaters did not take the precaution of consulting a
Dutch lawyer.
By July 1998, more than a year after negotiations started, thedifferent parties reached agreement. “We had overcome formidable
obstacles to get to this point,” says Louis van Lennep. “I believed it
would be a great step forward for all of us, combining the intellectual
power of the continental law firms with the organisation, structure
and worldwide reach of Linklaters. The combination of law andbusiness would be unbeatable.”History and architectural splendour in the Brussels office
Can there be an office in the Linklaters network grander than Rue
Brederode 11-13, in Brussels? De Bandt, which today is Linklaters,
moved into part of the building in 1982 and today occupies theentire building.
The building is an historical landmark in the city, opposite
the back entrance of the King’s town palace and one-time centreof Belgian-Congo trade and business.
The building was erected at the beginning of the 20th century
by the Banque D’Outremer (which means “overseas”), an investment
trust that had global aspirations; a grand company with granddesigns. Jules Brunfaut, the architect, used a neoclassical style withthe outside decorated with balustrades, obelisks and bas reliefs andthe inside dominated by sweeping staircases and marble sculptures.
The principal sculpture is that of the Roman goddess Flora, who is thefirm’s mascot. A painting by Constant Montald, done in 1911, reflects
the building’s historical role as the centre of trade and industry.
That is not the only architectural feature. The office now occupiedby the firm’s founder, Jean-Pierre de Bandt, was designed by therenowned Austrian Jugendstil architect Joseph Hoffman.
Banque D’Outremer was acquired by Société Générale deBelgique (which then controlled 30 per cent of the Belgian economy).
The banking operation later became Fortis Bank.
The building underwent thorough renovation in the early 1990s,
masterminded by architect Aldo Sanguinetti, with new heating,lighting and air conditioning.
The street itself is named after Count Henri de Brederode, who
was beheaded for demanding the abolition of the Inquisition. In the20th century, the street formed the focus of Belgium’s relations with
its colony, the Congo, comprising societies, banks and companies
such as the Railway Company of the Congo.
De Bandt took a lead role in an attempted hostile bid byBenedetti of Italy to take over Société Générale de Belgique in
1987. The deal resulted in the target company being taken overby Compagnie de Suez (today’s GDF Suez). With the reorganisation,
the firm was offered the chance to acquire more space in the building
at a very favourable price.

The Joseph Hoffman-designed office, currently used by Jean-Pierre de Bandt.

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 9 1

Albert Rädler
Albert Rädler was Germany’s most renowned tax expert during his
life. He died in February 2012, aged 78, having continued to advise
companies, governments and international organisations, aswell as individuals, on their tax issues right up to his death.
A business economist by education and training, Albert started
a tax practice together with a professor of tax law, Arndt Raupach, in
Munich in 1971. Rädler Raupach & Partner soon became Germany’s
leading tax firm and was notable for combining tax and corporate
law. In particular, the firm offered tax advice to leading German
and foreign multinationals.
The firm expanded through the following decades, and opened
offices in Frankfurt, Berlin and Leipzig. The merger with Boden
Oppenhoff in 1995, the creation of Linklaters & Alliance and theeventual merger of Oppenhoff & Rädler with Linklaters in 2001
marked successive milestones in Albert’s illustrious career.
His advice, as someone who really understood how governments
should structure their tax systems efficiently, was much sought after.
He advised the German government on the reform of business tax
law, the European Commission on the future of company taxation
within the European Union, and new member states, including
Slovakia, on their tax laws. He was a professor of tax law
in Hamburg.
Such was his reputation that he also developed an enviable
client base of high net worth individuals. After a session with Albert,
they would leave not just having had their problems solved, but also,says Andreas Schaflitzl (who started with Rädler & Raupach and is
now a partner with Linklaters), with “good inner feelings, such was
his skill at making clients feeling comfortable”.
Tax expert and pre-eminent economist, Albert Rädler was alsoa successful businessman. He was a major shareholder in a German
IT company that became big during the dotcom boom of the early
2000s. Yet he was a modest man and certainly never flaunted his
wealth. He reinvested the money in his practice, and joked that
he had bequeathed his firm at least three times to his younger
partners. He shared his clients, including some of Germany’s
leading industrialists, with his partners. Jens Blumenberg,
currently a partner in the Frankfurt office and head of the firm’s
German Commercial division, admits he learnt everything at thefeet of the great man, and inherited some of his legacy.
Throughout his life, Albert developed a formidable network oftax experts across the world. Not the most organised of people, his
secretaries would despair at having to send out 2,000 Christmas
cards well into December each year.

9 2 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

He suffered a severe illness as a child, as a result of which hewalked with a pronounced limp. But he never regarded this as adisability – still less sought sympathy from others. He remembered
everyone with whom he came into contact; interns, who had spentless than two months working in the Munich office, would beastonished that years later he remembered them.
“Albert,” Andreas Schaflitzl would say to him as they worked
together, “you are a tax legend.”
Jens Blumenberg adds: “Everyone who came into contact with
Albert was entranced by him, by his knowledge of his subject and his
love of the law, but also by his humility. His legacy continues in all of
us who learned from him.”

Terence Kyle was appointed chief executive, a board set up
and practice area heads appointed. Into the agreement was written
the clause that the firms would work towards merger to create a
unified full-service international firm within five years. Linklaters &Alliance comprised:> UK: Linklaters & Paines> Holland: De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek> Belgium: De Bandt, van Hecke & Lagae> Luxembourg: Loesch & Wolter> Sweden: Lagerlöf & Leman> Germany: Oppenhoff & RädlerThe Alliance brought together 480 partners, 1,450 other lawyers
and a total staff of 4,100 working in 28 offices. “Our clients will haveaccess to our combined technical excellence, breadth and depth ofexpertise and a strong tradition of delivering a high-quality service
which will be delivered consistently by just one provider,” the official
announcement said.
Formidable obstacles had been overcome, both sides had
achieved their objective of joining forces. That, however, was justthe beginning, as Tony Angel, who had written the 1996 paper
advocating expansion into Europe and would become managing
partner in 1998, says. “Alliances are not, and we knew were not, along-term viable strategy. We undertook and agreed to merge, but
merging law firms on this scale across Europe had never been done
before. We did not appreciate quite what was involved.”A

mid great fanfare, the six member firms signed an agreement
to create Linklaters & Alliance in Genval in Belgium on
22 July 1998. The agreement was due to come into effect inNovember. It was a co-operation agreement, but expressly stated“with a view to merger”.
It was intended that the process towards merger would be a
gradual one over a period of five years, but by the time of a meetingof the firms’ management committees the following April (also in
Genval), the feeling was that progress needed to be faster, that acommittee should be set up to start the process and that each firm
would designate a two-person negotiating team. For Linklaters,that team was Anthony Cann and Richard Holden. The committee
decided, first of all, that it needed some external assistance. The
consultants, Bain & Co, were appointed, with one Bain consultant
assigned to each of the six firms.
Bain helped the firms and the committee to articulate thepotential benefits of merger and the vision and strategic objectivesof a merged firm. By the time of a partners’ meeting of all partners inEuro Disney outside Paris in November 1999, the merger committee
was able to present the results of the combined discussions in ashow of unified thinking. All did not, however, quite go to plan:
only one member of the German two-man negotiating team turnedup (Michael Lappe), the other officially maintaining that he wassnowed in at Munich airport but, in reality, on the point ofleaving Oppenhoff & Rädler. He was replaced, at short notice,
by Klaus Saffenreuther.

Song for the Alliance(1)[To the tune of Funicoli Funicola]
If I were Freshfields, Clifford Chanceor Slaughters
I’d ask myself: Are we alright?
Is what we’re doing fine or simply stupid?
I’d worry every day and nightWill future young recruits find us attractive
Or will they find us a big bore?
Will they fall for those gorgeous continentals
Those Dutch and Swedish girls and…more?
Yes! I would be scared out of my pants
That we’d lose our very best clientsTo those fantastic and majestic intellects
at L&AWho in the spate of seconds would reduce
us to purée!
Good lawyers, you may find them theworld overThat’s plain to see, we all agree
They’re mostly brilliant, mega ego trippers
Who take themselves quite seriously
But when a client with a big transaction
Needs legal help, who will he see?
Who will provide him seamless satisfaction“Almost for free”, who will that be?
We’re the greatest, yes, we are the best
We are far ahead of all the rest
We are so clever, we are seamless
We are charming and we’re smart
And miles and miles ahead before
the others even start!
(So, if you need top notch assistance,
come and see us any day
We’re Linklaters & Alliance or, in short,
we’re L&A!)
Words by Louis van Lennep

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 9 3

Jim Watkins, who headed theHong Kong office in thelate 1980s, was well known
as a bon viveur. One year,
when the International
Bar Association held aconference in Hong Kong,
Linklaters hosted an event
at Gaddi’s restaurant in
the Peninsula Hotel, oneof the territory’s finest.
Linklaters had alreadygained a reputation forthrowing the best parties
at International Bar
Association events, but
this was exceptional.
Jeremy Skinner, head of
the Linklaters delegation,
congratulated Jim Watkins
on arranging such a
wonderful event. “It musthave cost a fortune,”Jeremy Skinner apparently
said, to which Jim Watkins
replied, “Don’t worry about
the cost. It is all on the
Hong Kong budget, and you
will never find it!”

9 4 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

By early 2000, it became apparent that multilateral negotiations
were too unwieldy. The path to mergers would only be successful on
a bilateral basis. Each was complicated enough: among the issues
that needed to be addressed were: the size, shape and compositionof practice areas; what types of clients any merged firm would focus
on; differences in firm cultures; and, above all, profitability, and how
profits would be shared between the partners.
Germany was the top priority. Things were changing fast in themarket. Freshfields and the German firms of Bruckhaus Westrick
Heller Loeber and Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund werein the process of merging (which concluded in August 2000).
Oppenhoff & Rädler, with just over 100 partners to Linklaters’ then
200-plus, was also the second biggest of the Linklaters & Alliancefirms, and therefore likely to require more time.
As the firms’ negotiators met through the first months of 2000,
the talks proceeded and many of the issues were resolved. However,some obstacles remained, including the number of German partners
that would be brought into the merged firm. Linklaters offered to
put up a fund to assist with the departure of certain of the German
partners. This was clearly a sensitive issue which, together withsome other major bones of contention, required the interventionof Michael Oppenhoff, as senior partner on the German side.
In the summer, Michael Oppenhoff met Anthony Cann at
Düsseldorf airport (Anthony Cann wearing the hat of acting senior
partner, filling in for Charles Allen-Jones who was having an
operation). A two-hour planned meeting turned into six, during
which most of the issues were resolved. This meeting was followed
up by a further meeting of the negotiators (this time at Frankfurt
airport) to seal the deal. It was a close-run thing. As Michael
Oppenhoff remembers: “Had it not been for a one-to-one meeting
between Anthony Cann and myself, when we put the derailed
negotiations back on track, their success would have been
seriously endangered.”Richard Holden agrees the process had stalled and that Michael
Oppenhoff’s role had been crucial: “Michael, who had until thencarefully kept himself above the negotiations, showed courage
putting his authority behind a proposal to the German firm, which
would necessarily involve many German partners being excluded
from the merged firm. He did insist on running the process himself,
which may well have been politically necessary, but left us with alarger restructuring task after the merger.”
The merger agreement was signed in November 2000, and tookeffect on 15 January 2001. It should have been 1 January, but there
was a last-minute hiccup involving the tax arrangements.
Having reached agreement with the Germans (which was
not to say that it was plain sailing within the merged firm, andthe challenges of integration proved to be just as difficult as thenegotiations), attention then turned to the other firms. Negotiations
between Linklaters and Lagerlöf & Leman started in earnest in early
2001. The Swedish negotiating team was headed by Jörgen Durban,
who, with the backing of Per-Erik Hasselberg (the senior partner),
had the unenviable task of persuading his Swedish partners to go
along with the prospect of merger. It brought out the differences
between those in Stockholm (by and large in favour of the merger)and those in Gothenberg and Malmö (almost all against the merger),
who had in any event been forced together by the earlier merger of
the two component parts of the firm. “For me, it was imperative that
we did the deal. But the negotiations were made that much easierby the ease of the relationship between us and Linklaters and thedeliberately constructive approach to them that we took,” Jörgen
Durban remembers.
The agreement was signed in June 2001. As the glasses wereabout to be raised in celebration, it was noticed that one of theSwedish partners had not signed (the Swedes had insisted on allpartners putting their names to the document). It then transpiredthat Sigvard Jarvin was on the way to the airport to catch a flightto Paris. Ingvar Zander thereupon drove to the airport (we imagine
without particular notice of the speed limit), forced his way
through security at the airport, tracked down his fellow
Swedish partner, secured his signature and returned in triumph
to the celebrations.
What about the Benelux countries? Negotiations with the
Belgian firm of De Bandt hit an early problem. Following theestablishment of Linklaters & Alliance, De Bandt’s negotiating team
was led by Roel Nieuwdorp. He had been in favour of the decision
to expand the Alliance of European Lawyers to include a UK firm,then to include Linklaters, and then to merge with Linklaters postLinklaters & Alliance. However, in June 2000 he announced, to theamazement and consternation of his Belgian colleagues, that he was
stepping down from the negotiations. The English, he said, could not
be trusted.
Into the breach stepped Jean-Pierre Blumberg, Roel
Nieuwdorp’s protégé. It turned out for the better: Jean-Pierre
Blumberg and Terence Kyle, who led the Linklaters negotiatingteam for Belgium and Luxembourg, were well suited. “Terence could
be difficult, but he was always direct. That is the way we continentals
prefer,” Jean-Pierre Blumberg remembers of the discussions.
De Bandt and De Brauw had long had a close relationship,
which was further cemented by a good working relationshipbetween Jean-Pierre Blumberg and Peter Wakkie, De Brauw’s
senior partner and chief negotiator. Late in 2000, Jean-Pierre
Blumberg proposed that the two firms negotiate jointly with
Linklaters. That process lasted for some six months before it wasrecognised that such an approach was not going to work. “Werealised that our respective partnerships had a different vision.
In March 2001 we decided – with some regret – to continue thenegotiations bilaterally,” remembers Jean-Pierre Blumberg.
The bilateral discussions with the Dutch did not get muchfurther. Both sides fairly soon concluded that because of culturaland strategic differences it was not in their interests to merge,
certainly not on the terms that Linklaters was proposing, which
would involve only about half of De Brauw’s 80 partners being
included in any merged firm. Officially, it was announced that
Linklaters and De Brauw had “amicably agreed to discontinue”
their merger discussions, although they would continue to work
closely together. By September 2001 a deal was reached with De
Bandt of Belgium and Loesch & Wolter of Luxembourg (the two
firms having themselves merged in 1999).

AND THAT’s NOT ALL…
You might be forgiven for thinking that the
Alliance negotiations and machinations were
the only thing that was happening in the worldof Linklaters in 1997/1998. But a snapshotof that year shows a whole succession ofdevelopments. Among them were:> the opening of the new IT and back-up
premises in Colchester> new office in Bangkok> completion of the fit-out of One Silk Street> new office in São Paulo> celebration of the Hong Kong office’s 21stand the Tokyo office’s 10th anniversaries> formal opening of One Silk Street> rebranding of the name of the firm> move of the New York office to 6th Avenue> receipt of licence to open an office in Shanghai> new office in St Petersburg

Brochure introducing Linklaters & Alliance.

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 9 5

When Bass, the brewing company and client of Linklaters,bought the Belgian beer maker Lamot in the early 1970s,
completion was complicated by the fact that there were
two groups of shareholders in Lamot who refused to
speak to one another. Each accused the other of being
collaborators with the Nazis during the war. To get all
the shareholders to sign the agreement for selling theshares to Bass required the two sets of shareholders to
be in different rooms, and then to file separately andalternately into the room where the documents were being
signed so that they would not meet one another.

That the mergers did proceed in Germany, Sweden andBelgium and Luxembourg is due in large measure to the invaluablerole played by the negotiating teams within the European firms.
“Michael Lappe, supported by Klaus Saffenreuther, Jörgen Durban,
backed by Per-Erik Hasselberg, and Jean-Pierre Blumberg,
supported by De Bandt’s chairman Jean-Marie Nelissen Gradeand Freddy Brausch from Loesch & Wolter, went out of their way
to support the mergers and, at great personal cost, were preparedto take the flak from their partners for proposing in each case thatfewer than all partners would be carried over,” says Richard Holden.
This was not the only Alliance activity. In 2000, Linklaters had
merged with firms in Warsaw and Prague, each of which had been
local operations with whom the Alliance had run joint projects andseconded lawyers. In the case of Warsaw, the added complication
was that two Linklaters partners (Nick Eastwell and Peter Farren,
himself half-Polish) had simultaneously been in preliminary
discussions with a top Polish law firm. It came as a surprise to themwhen a deal was then struck with the Alliance-approved firm.
Linklaters & Alliance had been joined in 1999 by Gianni,
Origoni, a leading Italian law firm, and, on the face of it, an excellent
new member for the Alliance. However, the relationship didn’t go
the way of the other Alliance firms, and cultural incompatibility,
client conflicts and what Sarosh Mewawalla, who was sent to Italy
in 2003 to help develop a joint banking practice, describes as“lack of alignment of commercial objectives” meant that a merger
would never be realised. Anthony Cann signalled the end of the
co-operation in 2004.
Technically, the departure of the Italians marked the formal endof Linklaters & Alliance. It had been seven exhausting years for all
those involved. The question is: was it worth it?
Miles Curley, who was involved in early discussions with Uría &Menéndez before the formation of Linklaters & Alliance and then

9 6 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m ehelped to set up the Linklaters office in Madrid, has no doubt thatthe very fact of entering the Alliance helped the firm to become
established in Spain. “Linklaters & Alliance demonstrated to themarket that we were serious about creating a top firm in Europe, andthat attracted top people to come and work for us in Spain. It gave us
credibility, with ambitions to be a firm at the top of the market.”Thierry Vassogne, who joined the Paris office in October 1998,
cited the creation of Linklaters & Alliance as a compelling reason
why he decided to come on board.
Terence Kyle, who saw the Alliance at closer quarters thananyone as chief executive, believes the move marked a definingchange in the firm’s development. “There was no blueprint for what
we were trying to do. Inevitably, a lot of things had to be done on thehoof. But it was transformational and a huge achievement in thespace of just five years. It gave impetus to our European expansion
and set the foundations for what have now become leading practices
across Europe.”
Tony Angel notes: “We knew, intellectually, before embarking
on the Alliance that there would be a trade-off: the Alliancewould catapult us into Europe on a bigger scale but at the cost of
maintaining our cohesive culture once we brought in continental
law firms whose traditions were very different from ours. The
big thought behind the Alliance was that we would leapfrog
everyone else, and then sort it out afterwards. It is just that weunderestimated the amount of work, time and money for building acohesive, integrated firm.”
Anthony Cann is also clear that, without the Alliance, themergers with the separate firms would have been very difficult toachieve. “The Alliance was a means to an end, and definitely the bestroute then available for us into Europe.”
The last word, however, goes to Jean-Marc Lefèvre: “TheAlliance was a shambles, but, at the same time, it was a miracle!”Cover of publication celebrating the Brederode building architecture.

Song for the Alliance (2) [To the tune of “Oh What a Beautiful Morning”]
British lawyers like charging high prices
For transactional work and advices
They know how to market,
they know how to sell
In fact everything that they do,they do well!
Chorus:Look at the lives of us lawyers
Most of our lives are a mess
Slaves of our mobiles and E-mails
And constantly suffering from stress
Belgian lawyers are truly exciting
They will bend any rule and love fighting
No laws and no rules they take seriously
Except for the rules of deontology
ChorusGerman lawyers resist domination
By the English or any old nation
And this is the reason, they’ll always repeat
That London shall never be L&A’s seat!
ChorusAll Dutch lawyers just love to be teaching
Though to some it seems much more
like preaching
In all the league tables,
they’re first and by much
Which is hardly surprising:
the tests are in Dutch!
ChorusEvery lawyer who is Italiano
Wants to practise in Rome or Milano

For all brilliant talent the best place to be
Is, without doubt, Gianni Origoni
ChorusFinally, for all lawyers in Sweden
This is really the garden of Eden
In winter their “day” runs frommidday to three
And in summer they simply allseem to be free!
Chorus
We like our own jurisdictions
None of us would like to switch
We share the same aims and convictions:
To maximise profits, get rich!
Words by Louis van Lennep

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 9 7

Linklaters: Paths to Alliances and Mergers


1849
Aron Philipson
founds a law
practice in
Gothenburg.

1800

1810

1820

1830


1822
George Allen
establishes law
firm in Sydney.

Linklaters
Mitsui, Yasuda, Wani & Maeda

Japan

De Bandt Van Hecke & Lagae

Belgium
Oppenhoff & Rädler

Germany
Loesch & Wolter

LuxembourgLagerlöf & Leman

Sweden
AllensAustraliaWebber Wentzel

South Africa

9 8 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

1840

1850


1846
Robert Little
establishes
legal practice inQueensland.


1872

1868
Edward Solomon
Philip Leman
starts law practice takes overlaw practice.
in Eastern Cape.

1860

1870


1863
Henry Hedderwick
establishes
partnership withCharles Palmer
in Melbourne.


1900
Erland Lagerlöf
founds law firmin Stockholm.

1880


1876
Hedderwick& Palmerjoin Crisp &Lewis.

1890

1900


1894
Allen Allen & Hemsley
firm created fromoriginal practice ofGeorge Allen.


1896
Adam Loesch
starts a practicein Luxembourg.

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 9 9


1904
Edward Solomon goes into
partnership with Henry
Hull, Walter Webber andCharles Wentzel.


1918
Webber & Wentzel
amalgamates with
Hudson & Frames tobecome Webber Wentzel
Solomon & Friel.


1908
Becker, Ströhmer
and Lang foundedfirm in Cologne.

1910


1929
Walter Oppenhoff
joins Becker,
Ströhmer and Lang.

1920

1930


1914
ArthurRobinson &Co founded in
Melbourne.

1910
Hedderwick
Fookes &Alston merger.

Linklaters
Mitsui, Yasuda, Wani & Maeda

Japan

De Bandt Van Hecke & Lagae

Belgium
Oppenhoff & Rädler

Germany
1925
Feez Ruthning& Co successor
to Robert Little.


Loesch & Wolter

LuxembourgLagerlöf & Leman

Sweden
AllensAustraliaWebber Wentzel

South Africa

1 0 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

1940

1950

1960


1994

2001
Webber Wentzel
Mergers in Czech Republic and Poland.
merges with Bowen,
Sessel & Goudvis
Co-operation agreement in Brazil toto become Webber
create Goulart Penteado, lervolino e
Wentzel Bowens.
Lefosse in association with Linklaters.

1972
Webber Wentzel Hofmeyr
Turnbull and Co merges
with Dumat Pitts & Blaine.


1969Firm becomes
Boden Oppenhoff& Schneider.

1969
J P De Bandt
formed inBrussels.


2004
Linklaters’ agreementwith Gianni, Origoni
in Italy ends.
1988
Mitsui, Yasuda,
Wani & Maeda
founded in Japan.


1998
Linklaters & Paines forms Linklaters &Alliance with De Bandt, van Hecke, Lagae& Loesch; De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek;
Lagerlöf & Leman; and Oppenhoff & Rädler.

1999

2002
De Bandt, Van
Merger with
Hecke & Lagae
Linklaters creating
merges with
Linklaters De Bandt
Loesch & Wolter.
in Belgium and
Linklaters Loesch in
Luxembourg.

1976
De Bandt expands
to become De
Bandt, van Hecke& Lagae.


1971
Rädler Raupach
founded.

1970


1990

1995
RädlerBoden Oppenhoff Rasor
merges with
Raue merges with Rädler
Bezzenberger Raupach Bezzenberger toMock &
form Oppenhoff & Rädler.
Partners.
1980


1972
Loesch becomes
Loesch & Wolter.

1990


2007
Linklaters enters bestfriends agreementwith Talwar, Thakore &Associates (TT&A) in India.

2000

1991
Oppenhoffmerges with
Berlin law office
Raue Braeuer
Kuhla.


1989
Oppenhoffmerges withFrankfurt
firm Rasor &Schiedermai.


1990
Lagerlöf andLeman merge.


1984
Arthur Robinson & Co
and Hedderwicks Fookes& Alston merge to form
Arthur Robinson &Hedderwicks.

2010


2013
Linklaters
forms
alliance with
WebberWentzel.

2013


2001
Merger creating Linklaters
Oppenhoff & Rädler.

2000
Linklaters enters joint venturewith Allen & Gledhill in Singapore.

1999
Loesch & Wolter
merges with De Bandt,
Van Hecke & Lagae.

1999
Gianni, Origoni& Partners join
Linklaters &Alliance.

2001
Merger creating
Linklaters Lagerlöf.


1996
Feez Ruthningmerges into Allen,
Allen & Hemsley.


2008
Webber Wentzel
Bowens merges
with Cape Town
firm, Mallinicks, tobecome Webber
Wentzel.


2005
Linklaters merges
with practices of
Yasuda and Wani.


2001
Allens Arthur Robinson
formed by merger of
Arthur Robinson &Hedderwicks with Allen
Allen & Hemsley.


2013
WebberWentzel forms
alliance with
Linklaters.
2012
Linklaters andAllens form
alliance.
Linklaters ends
joint venture with
Allen & Gledhillin Singapore.
Linklaters ends
association
with Lefosse
Advogados in
Brazil.


2012
Allens Arthur
Robinson, now
called Allens,
forms alliancewith Linklaters.

L i n k l at e r s & a l l i an c e : 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 1 | 1 0 1

1 0 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

06culture matters

Maurice Cockrill, Black Skein 2 2009, oil on canvas, 25x30cm

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 0 3

culture mattersThe Linklaters of 2013 bears virtually no relation to thesolicitor’s practice that John Linklater joined some time in
1838. How could it? We can imagine that was a dark, austere,candlelit office just off The Strand in London from where John
Linklater’s principal, Julius Maitland Dods, ran his legal practice.
Papers, books and files would be stacked high on the floor. Clerks
would scratch on parchment with their ink quill pens. The office washeated by a coal fire, which would have provided little warmth in the
exceptional cold winter of that year which caused both the Thames
and the Serpentine to freeze solid.
Today, Linklaters is a firm of more than 450 partners, some
4,500 people in total across 27 offices in 20 countries. It is oneof the world’s largest global law firms by revenue (well in excessof £1bn a year). You still find plenty of books and filing cabinets,
although, in the modern-day firm, the lawyers will be working on

Partners and staff dinner, 1939.

1 0 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

desktop computers, laptops and iPads. In 1838, the telephone
had not been invented; in 2013, the mobile phone andBlackBerry dominates.
And yet, perhaps in one important respect, there is a similarity
between the Dods & Linklater of 1838 and the Linklaters of 2013:
the culture of the firm. John Linklater was an ambitious, hardworking, highly able lawyer whose practice concentrated onproviding excellent legal advice to the prominent businesses of
the time. The same could be said of Thomas Paine when he went
into practice a short while later. That philosophy and approach hasserved the firm well over the course of its history.
There are many dimensions to culture, and this chapter will
endeavour to round up as many of them as possible. Inevitably,
they may be disconnected, but taken together they may help topaint a picture of the type of firm Linklaters is.

First and foremost, the ethos of the firm is that it operates tothe very highest standards. It is a top law firm, with top-quality
people, and everything follows from that. Linklaters aspires to benothing less than the leading global law firm.
Excellence is one of the core values (see Chapter 7), and thatpermeates the firm from top to bottom. As Derek Willoughby,a legal executive, writes (see page 25): “I regarded [my job, as
an outdoor clerk] as part of the service the firm was giving to
its clients. I always felt that Linklaters was the best firm, and I
intended to keep it that way.” The quest to achieve is a further
hallmark of the firm, combining intelligence with ambition. For
a period in the early 2000s, the firm considered giving itself thetagline “Achieving the Unachievable” as being a fair representationof what it stood for. (It was rejected by the more down-to-earth
members of the partnership who felt it was unwise to promote
something that was technically impossible.)
The firm certainly expects its people to work hard. In the
19th century, solicitors and clerks worked 10-hour days, six daysa week. The work ethos was set by the partners, who would nearly
all take work home. Throughout history, you find examples ofdedication, combined with a passion for the work, which suggeststhat enjoyment is a further characteristic of Linklaters lawyers
and Linklaters people.
Hard-working, but understated: it was not the style toshow off. Linklaters people go about their business with quiet
professionalism. There have been a few partners who havebeen the exception to the rule, notably Raymond Shingles in the
post-Second World War years who, from time to time, would turnup to work in his Bentley, and Thierry Vassogne, who joined theParis office in the late 1990s and who insisted on the firm providing
him with a chauffeur.
The culture has been one in which people have been wellrewarded. This can be dated back to January 1921, shortly after themerger between Linklaters and Paines. In a move that was aheadof its time and regarded as being highly innovative, the firm started
a profit-sharing scheme. Ten per cent of the firm’s total wages andovertime payments were paid into a staff participation account. Up toa certain amount would be paid as bonuses to the staff, at the partners’
discretion, and the rest paid into a newly established pension fund.
Articled clerks (trainees) were not paid until 1960, but thenneither did the firm insist on articled clerks paying a premium fordoing their articles with the firm (as happened in many law firms).

Partners and staff dinner, 1957.

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 0 5

The Linklaters rugby team (in dark-green and white stripes) and their opponents, the All-Ireland Solicitors Apprentices, taken during the team’s first rugby tour, December 1994.

The office working environment, and the facilities, have also
made for an exceptional firm. Talk to anyone, from those whostarted in the firm after the Second World War to those working
for the firm today, and all without exception will comment on how
good the partners have been to their staff in making sure that they
have access to the best facilities. Silks, the staff restaurant in One
Silk Street, must surely rank as one of the best staff canteens of any
business, not just law firms.
The firm has a long history of organising top-quality social
events for its staff. There is a photo of a dinner for partners andstaff held in 1908 (see page 3), and it is possible that the dinners
were held before them. We know that there was a concert for staff
and clients in 1925. Thereafter, there were annual dinner dances
for the whole firm, until the firm became so big that this was notlogistically feasible. The last firmwide dinner dance was held in 1987
to mark the firm’s 150th anniversary (see page 125). There wereboat trips in the summer. In Barrington House (into which the firm
moved in 1956), “sherry parties” were laid on every few months in
the restaurant in the basement of the building. More recently, as
the firm has grown in size, the social events have revolved aroundpractice areas, groups and offices or become part and parcel ofoffsite discussions and awaydays.

1 0 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Sport has been another important part of office life. The firm
has had a cricket team since the 1920s. When the firm worked on
Saturday mornings (up until the 1950s), there would often follow
a cricket game (in the summer) or football game (in the winter) on
the Saturday afternoon. It was, for a while, the tradition that thepartners vs staff match would take place on a Sunday, at or nearby
the country house of one of the partners, with families invited onwhat would be a real firm social occasion. Cricket games would
also be played against clients, and even short tours arranged (seeOn the Cricket Pitch, opposite). Social change, greater pressure ofwork and competing interests mean that the cricket match is now a
20-20 game on a weekday evening.
Other main sports, and for which the firm provided teams toplay in competitions and on tours, were football and rugby. There
have been internal, international football tournaments: men’s andwomen’s teams compete for the grandly named “Global Football
Cup”. A highlight of the rugby season is the Law Society’s Sevens
Tournament, in which the Linklaters team triumphed in 2008
and 2010. Netball, softball and volleyball have attracted a lot of
participation. There have been golf days, and, for many years,
Linklaters took on Slaughter and May in a “friendly” golf matchcompeting for the Peter Marriage Trophy (named after the seniorOn the cricket pitch
Simon Clark, real estate partner and keen cricketer, recalls somepriceless moments on and off the pitch.
“Cricket goes back a long way in the firm. Look at the first history,
and there are references, and photos, of teams going back to the 1920s.
In my time, which dates back to the 1980s, there was a lot of cricket
played: partners vs staff matches, inter-firm games (particularly needle
matches against Slaughter and May), and cricket tours.
With the firm that much smaller than it is now, and moreconcentrated in London, the mid-week cricket games were a good
opportunity for people in the firm to get together. The cricket in
Linklaters has always been a good way of bringing people together.
Martin Elliott, Charlie Jacobs and Miles Curley were among those who
made their presence felt as articled clerks and are now senior andsuccessful partners. Terence Kyle was a regular. There were sometalented cricketers among us: Robin Human, a Cambridge blue,
was still able to produce immaculate cover drives well into his fifties.
Gideon Moore, now head of Global Banking, always seemed to dowell with bat and ball.
In one match against Slaughter and May, played at South
Hampstead CC’s ground, several last-minute withdrawals meant that
I was asked to open the bowling. For the cricket-minded readers, I
should explain that I bowl – or used to bowl – gentle leg breaks. The
opening batsman for Slaughters was a ringer doing work experience
who played minor counties cricket. My first three overs went for 50

runs. Stephen Edlmann, standing on the boundary, could only watch
the balls flying over his head. He subsequently had to put up with anirate householder, who lived in a house adjoining the pitch, berating
him for the danger she felt to her person and property.
The tours were memorable. In one tour of Yorkshire, we stayed
the night at a particular pub in the centre of Ilkley. We were warned
by our opponents, Bolton Abbey, that this might not be such a good
choice. The Bolton Abbey cricketers explained that the clientele
were very rough and they suggested that we stayed away until afterchucking-out time. The price was £8 for bed and breakfast, and,
when you understand that the breakfast alone was worth probably£10, that tells you something about how much the beds were worth.
We would also play against clients, which, of course, was a mixed
blessing: it was very good to have an opportunity to mix with clients,
to ‘deepen’ the relationship, but you always wanted the result to go
the right way, so as not to upset them. That was a tricky balance. One
year, probably 1990 or 1991, we were invited to the ground of Royal
Insurance, the Property practice’s most valued client. Their chief
surveyor, who was the source of many of our instructions, was a goodand keen club cricketer. He strode to the crease with an air of quiet
confidence, looking forward to a long innings. He was then bowled firstball by Xavier Hunter, an articled clerk and now head of our Real Estatepractice in Moscow. I will never forget the appalled silence that followed.
Our umpire did not even have the presence of mind to call a ‘no ball’.”David Foster left the firmin 1972, after being apartner for eight years,
to become a writer and thenactor (using the stage nameDavid Forest). In order tosupport himself, he becamea tour guide and a taxi
driver and would often
collect his former partners
from the office.

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 0 7

partner of Slaughter and May and also the father of Jeremy, latera partner of Linklaters). People have run marathons, done bikerides, climbed mountains, often for charity, but with the supportof the firm.
Other clubs have come (and sometimes gone) for those lesssports-inclined: bridge, chess, darts, among them. For many years,
the firm ran an arts and crafts competition, following the gift bypartner Anthony Whinney on his retirement of a David Backhousebronze sculpture. The winning entries in different categories(including ones for children) were displayed in the open spacenear the reception in Barrington House. The competition lapsed
for a few years, but was revived after the move to Silk Street andconnected to donations to LinkAid, the firm’s charity fundraisingprogramme. The Backhouse bronze, called “Hand and Eye”,
would be awarded to the overall winner, who would get to keep the
sculpture for a year. The winner’s names were also inscribed on
the sculpture until it was discovered that had the effect of seriously
diminishing the sculpture’s value.
If you had stepped inside the offices of the two separate firmsof Linklaters and Paines at any point in the 19th century, one thing
would have struck you: the complete absence of women. Aroundabout a hundred years ago, the first woman was employed, Miss
Butcher, the telephone operator. After the First World War, thefirm took on more women, perhaps more out of necessity thanchoice in the wake of the war, though we cannot be sure. At thattime, all of the typists were men and it was not until the 1930s
that women were hired as typists. In the bias against women thatprevailed, the men were known as “short-hand typists” and thewomen as “secretaries”, the inference being that secretaries wereof a lesser status. In the 1950s, secretaries were not allowed to talkto one another. Partners addressed them as “Miss” or, in rare cases
where it applied, as “Mrs”.
Any woman employee who got married was not expected
to come back but could do so if she wanted. However, those
who became pregnant were expected to work in a back room,so as not to be seen (and presumably discouraging other female
staff members from following suit). There was no such thing as
maternity leave, certainly up until the 1960s.
The first female articled clerk was not taken on until the late
1950s, Celia Wannan. On qualification, she chose not to go into
practice, but opted instead to become a secretary. That may have set
back recruitment of female lawyers by a decade because it was not
until the early 1970s that female articled clerks started to be hiredin earnest. Three women were taken on in 1971, one of whom, Sue
Ball, went on to become the firm’s first female partner 10 years later.
Diana Good, who herself became a partner in 1988, remembers Sue
Ball as being “unbelievably clever and charmingly eccentric”: as anarticled clerk, she would sit on the floor to do her work, while when apartner she often sat cross-legged in her swivel chair. Not so unusual
now, perhaps, but certainly out of the mould for those times.
Another of the 1971 intake was Margaret Hillier, whose arrival
stirred another cultural change. She had been at university with, andwas engaged to be married to, another of the articled clerks taken onthat year, Rob Williams. When he was offered articles, Rob Williams
told Henry Pickthorn (the partner responsible for recruitment) of
their intention to get married (“before we had even told our parents”,

Hope out of tragedy
Late on 12 January 2006, Tom ap Rhys Pryce, anassociate in the Litigation department and thenon secondment to the bank RBS, was robbed andmurdered outside his home. The murder was all themore senseless because he had very little on him thatwas worth stealing.
Tom’s parents, John and Estella, fiancée Adele Eastman, friends
and work colleagues resolved that Tom’s memory should be honoured
and, if possible, some hope should come out of tragedy with theestablishment of a trust that would fund charities and projects
supporting disadvantaged youth. The initiative was supported by The
Evening Standard. Nigel Reid, a Linklaters partner, set up the trust
within 48 hours. The goal was to raise £1m.
Tom’s Trust aims to prevent young people expressing theiranger and frustration destructively by providing them with expert
educational assistance as well as positive opportunities for theirdevelopment in various fields, such as sport, media and music. Tom
was a beneficiary of educational funding (for which he was always
grateful), and another of Tom’s Trust’s goals is to provide educational

1 0 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

and vocational training opportunities to individuals who might nototherwise have access to them, in the hope that they too can achieve
their potential and lead rewarding lives. A third goal is to help tackle
the root causes of violent gang culture and violent street crime.
Since its establishment, Tom’s Trust has raised £1.75m, which
has been paid out to many charitable organisations and youth groups.
Linklaters has contributed a substantial donation and there have been
many individual contributions from partners and staff. The firm offers
pro bono assistance to the trust, including administrative support by two
secretaries in their own time, space for Trust meetings and, in future,
volunteers who will work with the Trust’s partner organisations. Two
current Linklaters partners (Alan Walls and Andrew Hughes) and one
former Linklaters partner (Michael Firth) are trustees, together with Adele
Eastman, Callum McGeoch (a school friend of Tom’s) and Tom’s parents.
Alan Walls says: “We still miss Tom very much. He was awonderful, lively and engaging person whom everybody liked. It is
hard to come to terms with what happened. His memory lives on
through the trust, and we hope as much good as possible comes outof his tragic death.”

The Linklaters shooting team and client opponents, Savills. The Hubert Lobster
Trophy (for which the teams competed) began as a snooker match at the Reform
Club where Savills presented the winner with a live lobster.

CULTURE M ATTERS | 1 0 9

Olympic gold medallist

Philipp Zeller, a corporate legal assistant in
the firm’s Düsseldorf office, is the first and so
far only Linklaters Olympian. He is a double
Olympic gold medallist, having twice been amember of the winning German field hockey
team, in Beijing in 2008 and London 2012.
Furthermore, Philipp was in the victorious
teams in the world championship in 2006
and the European championship in 2003 and2011. Having finished his sporting career on awinning note, he is now turning his attention toqualifying as a lawyer in Germany.
Linklaters has another – equine –connection with the Olympics. ‘Lionheart’,
one of the horses ridden by the British
silver medal-winning equestrian teams in the
London Olympics, is owned by former partner
Jeremy Skinner.

1 1 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Rob Williams recalls). That was not considered to be a problem, andboth were taken on as articled clerks. They were married the following
year, possibly making them the first ever married couple within thefirm. However, Margaret Williams was later told that she would not
be offered a job on qualification, because the firm was not preparedto employ a married couple as solicitors. Why is not absolutely clear,but it may have had something to do with the fact that it was somehow
unprofessional to have a married couple working together.
The decision did not go down well. Such was the controversy(Rob Williams himself nearly left the firm as a result) that it caused
the firm’s management body, the Finance & Policy Committee, todebate the issue and arrive at a policy. Marriage would henceforth
be permitted but not between partners and associates. There was a
happy outcome for the Williamses: both were taken on by Charles
Allen-Jones in the Hong Kong office later in the decade.
Matthew Middleditch recounts what happened when, in theearly 1980s, it emerged that he was going to marry an articled clerk:“John fforde came to my room, shut the door and rather seriously
told me that he was delighted by the news and he just wanted to tellme that it was ‘absolutely not a problem’. The implication was that
I should probably have asked permission, or at the very least told
someone that that was what I was planning to do!”Times moved on. Women were recruited in ever greaternumbers. Today, the trainee intake divides equally between womenand men, and three-quarters of the business services support staff
are women. But the issue of work-life balance remains a difficult
one for the firm, ensuring that people are able to combine therequirements of a high-performing, demanding work environment
with a satisfactory home life. Diana Good, who was the first female
partner to take formal three months’ maternity leave (the only
previous woman partner to have had a child took two weeks off ),was instrumental in introducing flexible working into the firmin 1996. The policy was the first of its kind among City law firms.
Since then, the policy has undergone refinements. There are otherinitiatives in place, such as the Women’s Leadership Programme,
which are designed to develop and retain the firm’s talented
women. The aim is to increase the number of women who become
partners and for current women partners to act as role models andmentors for future generations.
In more recent years, the firm has made significant strides tomake the firm one with a diverse and inclusive culture, recruitingfrom all sections of society. As it has become more international,
so the changes in composition have happened naturally, but theimpetus for change has also come down from policy initiatives.
There was a conscious attempt to move the firm away from being
dominated by white, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated men –certainly among the lawyers. There are more people of different
ethnicities (although the percentages are still small) and ofdifferent faiths and sexual orientation. Linklaters is a member ofPrime, an organisation that endeavours to attract young people
from socially disadvantaged classes to become lawyers.
Stretching back to Thomas Paine’s time, the partnershiphas long shown an admirable commitment to making a wider
contribution to society beyond the business. Thomas Paine

Henry Pickthorn
Henry Pickthorn had as great an influence on Linklaters as anyone.
Not that you would ever know that on meeting him. Quiet, modest,
unassuming, in his time a consummate professional lawyer, Henry
would never say that of himself. Yet, as the partner in charge of therecruitment of articled clerks for many years, he brought in a wholegeneration of the very best people who came to define the characterand reputation of the firm.
Henry Pickthorn had an instinct for knowing who was right.
He would take it as read that anyone he interviewed was intelligent
and able. He was greatly assisted by university tutors, for example
at Cambridge by John Collier of Trinity Hall and John Hopkins ofDowning and at Oxford by Teddy Burn of Christ Church, who sent
many bright pupils to Linklaters.
Speak to anyone who was interviewed by Henry to join thefirm as an articled clerk and they will either say they were not evenaware they were being interviewed, or that the interview covered
every subject but the law. With Nick Eastwell, the sole topic ofconversation was the difference between Graham Greene’s books
and entertainment, for Richard Godden, the implications of thefirm’s client Kerry Packer’s cricket tournament (over which one
Linklaters partner, an MCC member, allegedly threatened to resign)and the Reformation in England. Any prospective candidate who
was too pleased with himself might be deflated with a question about
the English Civil War.
Henry Pickthorn did not take notes; he relied on his judgement,
which was invariably right. Successful students going back totheir university colleges after a series of interviews would finda letter awaiting them offering articles at Linklaters. His record
is remarkable. At one point, you could count half the Linklaters
partnership as those whom he had chosen.
His choice of Linklaters’ trainees is far from his only
achievement. He was an effective corporate lawyer, who advised on
countless listings and mergers and acquisitions and bond issues.
Henry Pickthorn was happier to concentrate on delivering a top
service for his clients and less, it is fair to say, on the administrative
aspects. One of his clients was presented with two years’ worth ofbills when he retired in 1990. However, they never complained,
either about the lateness of the billing or the amount charged.
“Although,” he notes, “I was told by the secretary of one clientcompany that he always had to sit down before opening my bill.”
He was not concerned with his own status or career. Mark
Sheldon, an exact contemporary, recalls the time they were both
summoned in to see the then senior partner, Sam Brown. “I was
expecting to be told off, because there had been a mix-up on a client
matter for which I was being blamed. I was therefore somewhat
surprised to see Henry coming in with me, and wondered what hemight have done to upset Sir Sam. Instead, much to the surpriseof both of us, we were both offered partnership. That was the
only time I ever heard Henry swear. As we came out of the senior
partner’s room, he uttered a profanity in his clipped Old Etonian
accent.” (Horror of being summoned to the senior partner seems to

be a recurring theme. When Jeremy Skinner, later head of the Tax
department, was told that the senior partner Andrew Knox wanted
to see him, his first reaction was to put his head in his hands and ask
himself, “What have I done wrong?” He didn’t need to worry, either:
he was offered a partnership.)Henry Pickthorn was a stickler for the correct use of language,
with a dislike for such and such “impacted upon” the situation rather
than “affected”, to “head up” a team rather than just “head” andthinking things “through” rather than “out”. “We used to talk about‘selecting’ a person for a job, or ‘spotting’ a problem, or ‘finding’ ananswer to a problem. Now the universal verb is to ‘identify’,” he wrote
in an article for the firm newsletter on his retirement.
His natural professional habitat was the City of London,
although he recognised that the firm needed to expand and change
to adapt to global forces. “I viewed growth as inevitable,” he says
today. “We had to grow to stay competitive. It was left to the Young
Turks to drive us forward into new markets.” He joined the firm in1951 and retired just under 40 years later.
He recalls when seeking articles himself more than 60 years ago
someone remarking that Linklaters’ stock-in-trade was company
law. He prefers to look on the stock-in-trade (or the hallmark) of thefirm as being straight as a die.

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 1 1

Diana Good
When Diana Good applied to join Linklaters as a trainee in 1976,
women lawyers were definitely in the minority. Her father advised her,when applying, to dress as much like a man as she could, in case being
a woman counted against her. Diana picks up the story: “Good is mymarried name, and my maiden name was Hope. When the receptionist
at Barrington House called out, ‘Mr Hope, Mr Pickthorn [Henry
Pickthorn, the interviewing partner] will see you now.’ I thought, I’min, they think I’m a man!” The story is followed by a characteristic laughthat many a colleague will have heard over the years.
Her acting ability may have helped. She once consideredswapping law for treading the boards, and acted in her youth bothwith Rowan Atkinson (well known to international audiences as
Mr Bean) and Rik Mayall.
As it happens, the firm was not set against hiring women. The
first female articled clerk was taken on in the 1950s. Diana Good
was one of two women taken on in 1976. What impressed her toapply to Linklaters was the advertisement for prospective articledclerks, which read: “Please do not waste our time or yours unless
you consider yourself to be of outstanding ability”. She started her
articles in 1979.
Diana Good went on to become a litigation partner, the firstwoman resident partner of an office outside London (in Brussels),
the first female partner to have maternity leave, the first female
group leader (of what was then Group 32), the first woman on thefirm’s management Finance & Policy Committee in 1993, and thenon the newly created International Board in 2002. She devised
and recommended changes that led to the firm offering a flexible
working policy.
She became a partner in 1988, the sixth woman to be madepartner in the firm and the second to come from the litigation sideof the practice.

She qualified into the Litigation department, what was thenregarded as an “oddity” within the firm, although that was beingchanged under the department’s head, Bill Park, supported by
Brinsley Nicholson and Chris James (who died tragically early).
Later, she specialised in regulatory investigation, EU law andanti-trust litigation.
The department was an oddity in several ways. Bill Park cancertainly claim to be the most unusual practitioner in the City, andone of the most unusual people in the firm’s history (see page 23).
Brinsley Nicholson and Chris James would like to practise their golfswings and ski exercises while talking through cases; Bill Park oncecompared the size of his stomach with Alan Walls’ pregnant wife
while negotiating on the loudspeaker phone with Freddie Laker inthe celebrated BA-Laker Airways dispute.
After being made partner, Diana Good moved to Brussels tohead the Linklaters office and becoming the first resident partner.
Previously, it had been run by another partner, Tony Morris, but
he had never lived in the city. In 1998, she stood in the election for
managing partner, but lost to Tony Angel (“I was disappointed, but
subsequently relieved,” she says).
A part-time judge for 11 years, she has now moved into theinternational development sector. She became closely involved in
the charity Camfed, with which Linklaters formed an associationin 1997. Camfed (the Campaign for Female Education) aims tofight poverty and AIDS through the education of young womenin Sub-Saharan Africa. Camfed has the mission of delivering
girls’ education and the empowerment of young women as theroute to lasting social change. She has since become one of fourcommissioners on the Independent Commission for Aid Impact
which reports to Parliament on the effectiveness of UK government
spending on international aid and development.

On 23 September 1994, the FT carried a short item that
Linklaters was now permitting female members of staff towear trousers. This created a media storm, with followup interviews and articles appearing in the Evening
Standard, The Daily Telegraph, Today, the Asian Age,
Frankfurter Algemeiner Zeitung and The Irish Times. One
headline ran, “Last bastion falls to women in trousers”.

1 1 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

was one of three presidents of the Law Society that have been
provided by the firm (the other two being Joseph Addison andMark Sheldon). Linklaters has also furnished a Lord Mayor (SirRobert Finch), members of the Bank of England, the International
Bar Association and many members of professional associations,specialist committees, advisory panels and other expert bodies.
Others have served as school governors or as trustees on charities.
Added to that, over the years many lawyers have offered theirservices free to those who have need of legal advice but cannot
afford to pay. This “pro bono” advice (the Latin term persists),
however, was generally done by individuals in their own time andnot at the behest of the firm.
As the firm became bigger and better managed, so its
charitable, pro bono and community activities were given a clearer
structure and purpose. The first step was the establishment, in
1991, of a Corporate Good Citizenship Committee. The committee
co-ordinated the firm’s donations, such as those to the City
Solicitors Educational Trust, The Citizenship Foundation and
the Solicitors Benevolent Association, and sponsorship, which
included sponsorship of the Tate Gallery, Royal Academy, andthe Royal Opera House. (There was another link to the Royal
Opera House: over a period of more than a decade from the mid1990s, Linklaters advised on the modernisation and commercial
development of the UK’s most prestigious opera venue.)
The firm also joined the Per Cent Club. The members of thisgroup give one per cent of pre-tax profits to charity or to thecommunity, half in cash and half in kind.
By the mid-1990s, the firm’s lawyers and trainees wereparticipating in and advising at a number of law centres, including
the Toynbee Hall Legal Advice Centre, Newham Advice Centre andthe Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau (which helps
litigants in person), and advising the Disability Law Service, anorganisation providing legal advice to disabled people.
In 1996, James Wyness, the senior partner, asked property
partner Christopher Coombe and litigation partner Alan Walls
to propose a structure that would bring together in a moreco-ordinated way the firm’s various charitable activities. That
resulted in a group of partners , also including Jane Murphy, Lucy
Fergusson, Ian Karet and Nigel Reid, as well as John Ledlie, thepartnership secretary, creating a strategy for the firm’s donations
and charitable efforts. The group initiated a programme to match
donations more closely with the projects the firm supports throughvolunteering and pro bono legal work and to lead this work more
directly through partners and a community investment team, forwhich Caroline Knighton was hired as the first manager in 1997.
After an approach by the headmaster of a school near to the
London office (Thomas Fairchild School in Hackney), a reading
programme was started. Members of staff visit the school during
their lunch hours to read to children who have fallen behind in theirlearning. The scheme has since extended to more schools and has
involved many hundreds of staff members.
Another good example of a long-term project is the firm’s
support for the Mary Ward Legal Centre. As well as providing
core funding (and donations of second-hand equipment) andDavid Lloyd’s prized
singing voice

David Lloyd is best known within Linklaters for
his long career as a property lawyer with thefirm. He was head of the Property department
from 1984 to 1996. But he is also a prizewinning singer. A baritone, David sang The
Count’s Aria from Mozart’s The Marriage of
Figaro to win the Open Operatic prize at the
Welsh National Musical Festival (Eisteddfod)
in 1982, and Renato’s Aria from Verdi’s The
Masked Ball and Aros mae’r mynddau mawr
(The Great Hills Remain) to win the Blue
Riband Prize (which he is wearing in thephoto) at the same festival in 1988.

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 1 3

The Printer’s TaleJan Sherwell joined the firm in 1971, in theprint room, and presided over the changes
and expansion of the printing operation until
she left the firm in 2004.
“When I joined the firm in 1971, theprint room was then called “Reproduction”,
which, of course, we thought was hilarious.
Other service departments were on the 5th
floor of Barrington House: they included the
copy typing room, telex and the plan drawing
department, as well as reproduction.
The equipment we used before the daysof the photocopier comprised multilithmachines, small offset printers which
we used to reproduce engrossments.
Engrossments were typed on ‘skins’ by the
girls in the copy room; odd number pages
were printed first and allowed to dry andthen the even numbered pages. No suchthing as doubled-sided in those days!
When the Rank Xerox photocopying
equipment able to copy 120gm engrossment
paper became available in the late 1970s
we developed a good working relationshipwith Xerox, ensuring we always had thebest equipment for the job. We placed
photocopiers all around the building then forothers to use, as well as reproduction.
Years later, I progressed and became
the manager of the renamed print room.
Copying was on the increase as many
documents were reproduced in draft form
before the final engrossment was produced.
This meant we were using tonnes of paper(no on-line amendments like nowadays).
We soon had many photocopiers aroundthe firm, both in London and in our otheroffices. The photocopying costs rocketed.
At some point in the early 1990s, we also
introduced Equitrac, a device on eachphotocopier which enabled us to charge eachclient and matter for the amount of copying.
I remember one partner from the Tax
department calling me to his office and asking
me if I was aware that every time he wanted touse the copier it took him nine seconds to typein details before he could use it. When I told
him how much photocopying he had done onthat matter and how much was charged to theclient, he changed his tune. ‘Why didn’t we dothat sooner, then?’ he asked.

1 1 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

During my time in the print room I
established a print managers’ group withother law firms, so we could share productand technology information and experienceof suppliers. We never talked about pricing,careful that we were not construed as a cartel.
We established a good relationship between
the firms, and in difficult or pressured times,
we would help each other out.
When I became head, I was put incharge of a large budget, half of the service
departments and a staff of 150, which also

Jan Sherwell (left), as sketched by John Clent.

gives an indication of the growth of thebusiness services section of the firm. It was
stimulating work, and I was responsible
for a range of contracts, sourcing paper,
licensing for maps and many other aspects
that I never imagined I would look after
when I joined the firm. That was Linklaters
for me: if you showed aptitude they would
give you responsibility.
Of course, at a time when people would
come up (or down) to the print room, we got
to know many people in the firm, an aspectof the work I really enjoyed. We would get
to know the articled clerks, many of whom

went on to become partners. The partners
would also come into the print room fromtime to time. I particularly remember John
fforde, one of the more senior partners at
the time, working on a particular deal late
one evening. As he waited for the printing to
be done, he lay down on the floor for a rest.
That was an indication of how relaxed he
was – or maybe just very tired.
Sometimes we had contact with theclient. In 1977, we acted for Kerry Packer in
his dispute with the cricket authorities over
his proposal to start a breakaway cricket
series. When the deal was completed hesent me a handwritten thank-you note anda box of chocolates from Harrods. I reallyappreciated that.
One matter we worked on some timein the 1990s was regarding Robert Maxwelland his pension fraud. The 6 o’clock news
was on the radio in the print room sayingthat all his documents had been confiscated.
At that very moment, the post boys werewheeling the very same documents into
the department. They all had to be copied
overnight and returned by the following
morning, which of course we did.
I became the manager of several
operations departments when we moved
to Silk Street. The whole process was
becoming more professional, both tosupport the increasingly multinational
practice needs and with more sophisticatedtechnology. Operations was expanded tomeet the increasing demands of the firm,
and most departments were operating
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
We added departments like HelpLine
and the Service Desk, again in line with thegreater professionalisation of the firm’s
business. We started recruiting graduates
and increased our training and development
for people within our departments. I
held monthly meetings with the business
managers so we could always look to
improve our customer service.
Linklaters was a great place to work,
demanding for sure and with very highexpectations, but it gave me some of the best
times of my life and allowed me to grow. For
that I will always be grateful.”Smoking stories> In the late 1960s, the senior partner was James Sandars (moreusually known as “Whispering Jim” because he spoke so quietly thatpeople could barely hear what he said). He was, like most lawyers, asmoker, and would smoke in the office. His then articled clerks had
to be on the lookout for his wastepaper basket catching fire fromdiscarded, but still-lit matches. He was evidently unfazed by thispossibility: the story goes that he calmly asked his then articled clerk,
Robin Human, who later went on to head the Trust department, to
put out a fire that had been sparked, while he continued to dictate tohis secretary. In another version of this same story, in A Life of Three
Strands, another former partner David Caruth records it as happening
when one of the managing clerks was in James Sandars’ room.
“Mr Thomas,” he is reported to have said, “would you please throw
the wastepaper basket out of the window?”> Until smoking was finally banned by the firm in 1992, there wereregular warnings in the office newsletter (which started in 1969) not
to throw away lit cigarettes into litter bins.

partner, asked Henry James who had the responsibility for choosing
this particular brand, the reply was that they were chosen by Agnes,
the lady who served the partners their lunches. And the reason? She
knew someone who worked for Fribourg & Treyer.
> Adrian Montague, head of the Projects group, was renowned forsmoking large cigars (for which he earned the nickname “007”from his assistants). Eleni Pavlopoulos, then an associate, recallsa lunch to which she was invited by Adrian Montague and Charles
Allen-Jones, both of whom were endeavouring to persuade her
to join their groups. The cigars came out after lunch, in the small
confines of a client dining room in Barrington House. The cigar
smoke that filled the room made it difficult for her to choose, so she
opted instead for Litigation.
> When smoking was finally banned, The Daily Telegraphcalled Linklaters “health fascists”.

>T he partners’ dining room table on the 6th floor of Barrington House
would have arranged, at intervals of about every four spaces, a standon which were placed a box of tall panatellas (cigars), two boxes ofsmaller panatellas, plain and filter-tipped cigarettes and matches.
Ashtrays were also provided at regular intervals. The panatellas
were supplied by Fribourg & Treyer. When Len Berkowitz, as a new

When the Document Centre started and word processing
came in, there was a strict minimum of 10 pages,
otherwise they would not do it, so the trick was
to send down a two-page document, allowing spacefor eight pages of appendices, and then at the last
moment, when the document had been finalised, toinform the Document Centre that it had been decided
not to have any appendices.

CULTURE M ATTERS | 1 1 5

Linklaters received the Big Society award in 2012 in recognition of the firm’s Learn for Work programme. Accepting the award from Prime Minister David Cameron were(from left) Robert Elliott (senior partner), Rae Potter (deputy head teacher at Clapton Girls’ Academy), Matt Sparkes (global head of corporate responsibility), Sarah Wiggins(partner), Tom Shropshire (partner) and Hasnan Ahmed-Khan (assistant associate head teacher at Clapton Girls’ Academy). The Learn for Work programme includes
debating, interview experience and advocacy training as well as work experience, careers events and enterprise projects to help raise the skills, aspirations and experience of
those who might not otherwise think of a career in law.

1 1 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Buggins’ turnSince 1991, the senior partner has been selected by a process of
consultation and, where there has been more than one suitable
candidate, by election. It was not always so: indeed, for most of thefirm’s history who became senior partner was simply a question ofseniority. On the retirement (or, in a number of cases, death) of thesenior partner, the next person on the list of partners would (usually)
automatically fill that role. This process was known, with the usual
Linklaters abhorrence of anything that smacked of individual selfaggrandisement, as “Buggins’ turn”.
Buggins’ turn had, for the most part, delivered the right people todo the job. But there was little choice in the matter. If you were next on
the list, you had to become senior partner whether you wanted to or not.
There were exceptions to this rule, Henry Pickthorn being one of them.
Becoming senior partner was, of course, a great honour but
it brought with it a heavy burden, especially as the firm grew insize. Many a senior partner tried to combine the management
responsibilities that came with the role with continuing client work,and ended up doing neither to their satisfaction. Peter Benham did
little client work, John Field none at all, and, in 1982, John Mayo, oneof the firm’s top corporate lawyers with a formidable reputation, wasable to devote just 15 per cent of his recorded time to client work.
The opportunity to review Buggins’ turn came during the senior
partnership of John Mayo, in the early 1980s. The next person inseniority who would take over was Ferrier Charlton, who was an obvious
successor in every respect – a huge figure within the firm, admired byclients, adored by staff, revered by his partners, and widely respected

several generations of advice centre volunteers, Linklaters has
provided secondees and pro bono property and corporate advice
for the organisation which has given the centre safe, secure,accessible and affordable new premises. Diana Good (seeProfile, page 112) is chair of the board and a trustee of the legal
centre. The holistic support for the centre has won the firm
recognition for its imaginative community involvement andearned it awards.
The community programme has expanded significantly in theyears since. All staff are encouraged, although not compelled, totake part in voluntary activities or community programmes. The
activities are firmwide and co-ordinated on a global basis to makefor consistency. There are four full-time staff based in London
dealing with the firm’s community investment across its offices, aswell as many people part-time in other offices. One in three of the
London office staff and partners, and at least a quarter of the staff
in every one of the firm’s offices, take part in voluntary, charitableor community activity.
The firm takes its responsibility to the environment seriously,
and has put in place measures to reduce its carbon output, toincrease energy efficiency and to make sure that it sourcesin the City. If the review decided there should be elections, then FerrierCharlton would have been a shoo-in. By reviewing the process, a new
system could be introduced without the risk of an unwanted result.
A group of three partners, headed by John Mayo, wrote a report
recommending that Buggins’ turn be abolished. “The days when thesenior partner’s role was essentially that of leadership with occasional
touches on the tiller are long past. Looking into the future, thatrole cannot but become even more important. We expect that theparticular qualities required of the senior partner may not always befound in the partner who would be identified by Buggins’ turn. We
have to exercise a conscious decision and select for ourselves thepartner who we believe is best suited to become senior partner.”
The report offered three choices: selection by committee, selection
by consultation, and selection by election. The debate that followed
was heated. Buggins’ turn was simple and left no room for doubt, it
avoided divisiveness that elections would create, and it invested theposition with natural authority, the supporters for keeping it argued. It
was out of sync with the way that other law firms were appointing senior
partners, it did not lead to the best people doing the job, and change
was inevitable was the gist of those calling for change.
Ferrier Charlton became the last Buggins, although he would
rather have been given a mandate. Mark Sheldon, his successor, wasappointed after a consultation, and James Wyness, who succeeded
him in 1991, was the first senior partner to be elected. There havebeen four elected senior partners since then, and Buggins was givena decent burial.

from suppliers who themselves behave in an environmentally
responsible way.
There has been an evolution of the firm’s support ofcommunities outside its work, from donations to charity
and unsystematic pro bono contributions to well structured
community investment programmes and to the position today
where Linklaters can rightly claim to have corporate responsibility
engrained into its culture and operation.

There is one word that is often used to describe the Linklaters
culture: meritocracy. That remains as true today as in the past.
Two examples (although there could be many more) illustratethis. Arnold Lloyd left school at 14 in the First World War to work
as an office boy, joined Linklaters as a managing clerk in 1942, wasoffered articles by Sam Brown, qualified in 1954 and was rewarded
with partnership at the age of 50 the following year. When it wasannounced to the office that he was being offered partnership,
the whole office applauded. Ben Coleman, a qualified Australianlawyer, joined Linklaters as a secretary in 2006, became a paralegal,
qualified as an English lawyer and joined as an associate in April
2008. This was recognition of hard work and commitment, and,CULTURE M ATTERS | 1 1 7

The Cooks’ Tale
Jaci Godman-Irvine and Harriet Meade-Fetherstonhaugh were thepartners’ cooks between 1968 and 1972 when Laetitia (Tish) Olney,
already a friend of Jaci, took over from Harriet. Jaci left in 1976,
succeeded by Nemmy Elliott, who, in turn, left when she was expecting
a baby in 1981. From then onwards until 1991 many cooks came towork in the kitchen, including Pippa Stephens, Lydia Brownlow,
Antonia Dudgeon, Caroline Marson and Rosie Weston. In 1991,
catering was provided by outside caterers.
Jaci: “In 1966 I did the year course at the Cordon Bleu andbecame good friends with Harriet, who was also on the course.
Harriet met David Caruth, then a Linklaters partner, at a cocktail
party, and discovered that Linklaters were considering having
Cordon Bleu cooks for their partners’ dining room. She suggested
that she and I might be perfect for the position: we went for aninterview and were offered the job at a salary of £800 a year,
which was a big step up for me as I was only earning £10 a week atthe time.
Before I arrived, the firm had a butler called Robbie who wasalso the cook, helped by a splendid tea lady, Agnes, who was also thewaitress. Robbie originally worked in the general office. Having had
experience as a cook in the RAF, he offered to cook for the partners.
I was told he had to make do with an electric grill and a primus stove,
before it was decided to convert one of the rooms on the 6th floor ofBarrington House into a proper kitchen, which is where wetook over.
The partners’ dining room was a large room opposite the
kitchen, and had a small ante room at the end which could become,when needed, a private dining room. The partners would meet up,
some more often than others, in the ante room before lunch if they
had time for a glass of sherry or wine, and here one could often find‘eminence grise’ in the shape of John Gauntlett who would entertain
us with matching socks and braces, and Raymond Shingles. These
two colourful characters would often appear a few minutes before
lunch, having called into the kitchen earlier to make sure all the‘girls’ were behaving themselves.
We started off cooking for up to 20 partners, the maximum
number then allowed in a partnership, and by the time I left eight
years later they were up to 50. There was no particular budget, andwe did try not to be wasteful. However, the partners’ lunch bookwhere everyone booked themselves in or out, was not very reliable,
as people would be unexpectedly delayed, or meetings would becancelled, and occasionally one might cook for 50 with only 20
people turning up, or vice-versa, which was a much worse problem.
If there was any food left over that could not be reused, we wereallowed to take it home, and I was known for giving some of the best
dinner parties in London.
In those days there was no menu choice, and we would record
the menu each day in order not to repeat things. We were very muchleft to our own devices except occasionally we would get requests
such as John fforde asking if we could cut down on calories as hehadn’t the strength of will to resist our cooking.

1 1 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Harriet left in 1972 as she was expecting a baby. I knew Tish
had trained at Winkfield, and suggested that she would be a good
replacement for Harriet. She came in for an interview with Robin
Human, who was the partner looking after catering arrangements
at the time, and was offered the job. I was incredibly lucky withboth Harriet and Tish in that I have no patience in doing the ‘fiddly
things’ that catering sometimes demands. They were both brilliant
at that kind of thing so they both made an ideal partnership with me.
I decided after eight years at Linklaters a change was necessary
and left to go to America, where among other things I had a cooking
school, a catering company, ran a gourmet retail store and organised
some of Ronald Reagan’s inaugural parties. As a leaving gift from the
Linklaters partners I was given a beautiful gold bracelet that I stilltreasure and enjoy wearing.”
Tish: “When I arrived in 1972 there were 32 partners. Jaci and I
would start at 9.30am, and we would cook for about 20 people eachday. We had someone to help wash up, and a small team of waitresses
led by Agnes, who looked after the lunch room. There was also
Minnie who helped with cleaning in the dining room before goingto look after the partners’ flat. Two of the firm’s secretaries (andfriends), Laura Fraser and Valerie Byford, were of invaluable help,
alternately typing the menu for us – depending on whose office wasclosest to the kitchen at the time – and even doing a bit of cooking inan emergency.
By the time Jaci left to go travelling the number of partners wassteadily increasing. However, by then we had excellent help fromsome Jamaican girls, first of all Joyce, and then also Wilhelmina,
who were a wonderful help with food preparation and washing up.
Cooking at Linklaters was never dull. I am not sure exactly when
Keith Benham had the dubious pleasure of taking over supervisionof the kitchen and dining room. But around this time, the whole
set‑up had a makeover, and the resulting new kitchen equipment
was vastly superior. We had use of a magimix and microwave, afabulous steamer and a brat-pan capable of making up a chicken
korma for 100 people. This was a fantastic help on the one day amonth when people selected from all departments of the firm wereinvited by the partners to a buffet lunch in the dining room, andthere could be a gathering of at least 100 or more.
From then on, because of ever-increasing numbers of partners,
it was decided it would be a good idea to have both a hot and cold
menu, and we cooks much enjoyed consulting our extensive
collection of cookery books. In those days, Raymond Blanc was
our particular idol, and I think and hope the partners enjoyed
our latter ventures in haute cuisine. There were days when wewere particularly inspired and the choices on the menu might be
between fillet of beef with truffles and lobster salad. One person wesadly rather neglected in those days was Tony Angel. He was the
only vegetarian at the time and was very long-suffering because
somehow, on the days we had made a big effort to do something
special for him, he was unavoidably delayed, and in the end he quite
often had to survive on omelettes with salad.

Although generally the partners were far too busy to worry
about the choice of menu as long as it was delicious, Nemmy canremember one occasion when I was not so popular. Having been to ahealth farm over the weekend, I had the bright idea that the partners
might enjoy the sort of food I had been given there, which was anextensive array of wonderfully colourful vegetables beautifully
prepared to create a selection of different salads, displayed withcheeses and fruits. Several partners sent messages afterwards asking
to be advised in advance of any such menu in the future so that they
could make arrangements to be out!
There was also one funny incident with Peter Benham. I was
always very careful about washing salad but, for some reason,
one day I was told to hurry up and just serve. The worst happened:a beetle leapt out of some watercress straight onto the egg
mousse that Peter Benham was eating. Fortunately, he took it all
in good spirit.
Looking back, I feel we were all incredibly fortunate, as weall very much enjoyed our work. I was particularly grateful as myparents were ill for many years needing nursing help, and whenever
there was a problem, provided I could find a good replacement, I wasallowed to take unpaid leave. Without this flexibility it would havebeen very hard for me to hold down a job.
When made redundant in 1991 I spent three weeks and some of
my redundancy money at a cookery course at the Ritz Hotel in Paris,
which was a great way to start off my own small freelance cooking
business, which I have been continuing with ever since.”

On his second day of work,
the firm’s chauffeur, Ted
Unwin, was driving backto Barrington House. On
Wormwood Street, a mansuddenly stepped off thepavement in front of thecar. Ted Unwin jammed on
the brakes, but not enoughto prevent the car fromjust clipping the man on
the back of his legs andknocking him to the ground.
Ted Unwin leapt out of the
car to make sure the man
was alright, to learn that
he was fine and that it
was his own fault for not
looking. The firm’s newchauffeur returned to theoffice and was relating
the story to Mac, thehead of the general office,when who should walk down
the corridor but the man
whom Ted Unwin had knocked
down. It was the partner
Iain Murray.

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 1 9

The Fairy Queen

To mark the firm’s 150th anniversary, Linklaters
took the decision to sponsor two performancesof Purcell’s The Fairy Queen, performed by
the Guildhall School of Music and the Royal
Amsterdam Academy of Music. Mark Sheldon,
who, together with David Lloyd, had begun
the firm’s support for and sponsorship of thearts, was at first anxious about the choice ofthe conductor, William Christie. He relaxed,
however, when he met him: “He looked justlike a City solicitor”, was his comment.

Raymond Shingles, a partnerin the post-war era of
Linklaters, reared ducks
at his country house. He
would sell them to thestaff, having brought themup to the firm’s offices
in Barrington House in theboot of his Bentley.

1 2 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

he says, a reflection of no barriers to his progress “in spite of theuniqueness of my situation”. And it was always the meritocracythat John Collier, the Cambridge tutor who put many a graduate
Linklaters’ way, would single out as being the firm’s distinguishing
characteristic (see photo, page 150).
Terence Kyle expresses it this way: “If you were a good lawyer,energetic, open-minded, prepared to work hard, then the firm
would grab you with both hands. It really didn’t matter where youcame from.” Such a view is echoed by Len Berkowitz, who wasvery surprised that as a South African lawyer in the 1960s the firm
found space for him, and enabled him to do articles and qualify
as an English lawyer while continuing as a partner with a South
African firm. “It was an unconventional arrangement for what I
had believed to be a conventional firm.” In fact, there have been anumber of South African lawyers who have joined the firm over theyears. Charlie Jacobs, one of the firm’s high fliers, notes that at one
time the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa was the third
most represented university among Linklaters’ lawyers.
In his note of June 2000 to the German partners of Oppenhoff& Rädler in what he called “an attempt to describe the prevailing
ethos amongst the partners of the firm”, Charles Allen-Jones
wrote: “The partners of Linklaters are a diffuse collection ofindividuals. We have always prided ourselves in our capacity
to welcome partners of different backgrounds and cultures.
Individual initiative is not stifled, but encouraged (of course,
within reason).”
There have, of course, been many contentious issues withwhich the partnership has had to grapple. But it remains the casethat – mostly – the arguments have been conducted with great
decorum. Ralph Aldwinckle, who joined the firm at the beginningof the 1960s, puts it this way: “It was a harmonious and democratic
partnership. We never had any of these fractious arguments that
other firms seemed to have.” John Edwards, of a slightly later
generation, agrees. “My latter years were coloured by the debate
over Europe. Everybody felt that it should not be a dispute about
personalities, although sometimes the nature of personalities had
a bearing on which way the argument went.” Jeremy Marriage,
another partner, expressed it best of all: “Let’s discuss thisrationally, not rudely.”
Above all, the firm prides itself on its collegiality, which might
be described as the sort of environment where everyone is madeto feel welcome and believes they are part of something more
inclusive than a mere place of work. The collegiality is probably
the most enduring legacy from the time when the firm wasdominated by family members. The partners put the interest of thepartnership above their own self-interest, even though technicallyeach one is self-employed albeit bound together by the partnershipdeed. There is perhaps no better example of this than the partners’
effective gift to the firm of the long lease John Mayo and FerrierCharlton had secured on Barrington House in 1956. This wasachieved by “sale and leasebacks” of the lease, which realised thevalue of the lease (negotiated at a fixed rent over 35 years) as themarket value of the lease went up. The proceeds of the sales were
invested in the firm, rather than being distributed to the partners

Coping with the unexpected
11 September 2001. A date that will be etched onto everyone’s
minds, as the date of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in
New York.
It also happened to be the very date that had been chosen,months in advance, for farewell parties for the outgoing senior
partner, Charles Allen-Jones. There were two events planned for thatday: a surprise lunch onboard one of the “pods” on the London Eyeand a much higher-profile (obviously) client event at the Orangery,in Kensington Palace.
Sue Fowler, then Sue Verey, relates what happened: “At the time,the events team were based in CityPoint (near Moorgate). We were
there in that building on 11 September, in the course of finalising thatevening’s event.
“Everyone was evacuated from CityPoint because it was a highglass building, and we were on the 13th floor. At about 3.00pm, justfour crucial hours before the event was due to start, the team had toleave the building in a matter of minutes. However, they managed totake all the table plans, menus, papers relating to the event, and theirevening dresses, although many accessories, including shoes to beworn with the dresses, didn’t make it.

of the time. Unlike most partnerships, new partners did not haveto contribute towards goodwill, and neither were retiring partners
repaid for their contribution to goodwill. The emphasis has –broadly speaking – been on working together, rather than working
separately, sharing clients rather than keeping them to themselves.

T

he bedrock of the collegiality is the firm’s method of
distributing profits among the partners: the so-called“lockstep”. This is the system of sharing profits between
partners based on shares (“parts”) that each partner holds. The
focus is on the distribution of profits rather than on individual
contributions, as opposed to the “eat what you kill” system foundin some of competitor US and other firms, which is the obverse. In
the Linklaters lockstep, the “ladder” extends over 10 years, froma partner holding 10 parts to a plateau of 25 parts. Differentials
exist for “country factors” to take into account those jurisdictions
where the market does not reward the firm’s work at a level thatjustifies the full lockstep. But the abiding principle is that lockstep
underpins the core value of the firm, which places the collective
ahead of the individual.
In his introduction to Clear Blue Water, written in 2004
(see Chapter 8), Tony Angel gave as good an explanation of
the rationale for lockstep as one might have: “Lockstep isa bet that the benefit we derive from removing barriers to
teamwork and co-operation across practices and offices
will be more effective over time than incentivisingparticular individual behaviours with financial rewards
under some alternative system.”“A small meeting was quickly convened in Charles’ office
to decide what to do. We managed to get Terence [Kyle] on the
speaker phone. We all agreed that the event should proceed. We
booked a load of taxis, which became in effect our offices. We
phoned the caterers and florists to make sure they turned up.”
While this was happening, Anita Parsley was busy organising ahamper lunch at the London Eye. “This was a group farewell lunch forCharles. We managed to keep it secret from him, which in itself was amiracle because Charles had a habit of finding out about anything andeverything. We only realised when we got back to the office just what
had happened in New York. That afternoon, the London Eye closed.”
Sue Fowler continues: “The Palace allowed us to go ahead. We
got hold of everyone to tell them they had to bring their invite forsecurity purposes. The atmosphere was electric. Jeremy Marriage
delivered a moving tribute to those who had been killed in the attack,including many from Warburgs whose offices were in one of the Twin
Towers, and then to Charles. Charles also gave a brilliant speech.
“Ours was one of the few, if not the only major event to have
happened that night. Of all the events in which I was involved for
Linklaters, that was undoubtedly the most memorable.”

In more recent years, that collegiality has been put under strain.
Various factors can explain this: most obviously the increase insize; the firm’s strategic objective of achieving high profitability,
which has led to “under-performing” partners being asked to leave
the partnership; and diminishing loyalty to the firm, as a resultof greater movement of lawyers between firms – what are called“lateral” hires. (That, of course, works both ways: Linklaters has
been successful over the years in recruiting from other law firms.)
Terence Kyle traces the start of the change of attitude to theearly 1990s. “The market was becoming increasingly competitive.
We could no longer count on client loyalty. The environment hadchanged. As never before, we had to go out and win business. Whatthat meant was that we started to address the issue of those partners
who did not pull their weight, we instituted processes for partner
appraisal, and we inculcated a business ethic. That suited most of
the partners, but not all.”John Tucker, an Australian who has helped develop the firm’s
top-tier banking capability, says the tension between the firm as
a professional organisation and as a business is a perennial issue
that will have to be managed. “Part of the evolution of the modern
Linklaters is that these issues about expectation, responsibility
and loyalty get put under strain. The firm used to be more akin to aclub, and we know that it is simply impossible for a firm of our size
and international presence to be a club now. The question is: how
do you combine the best elements of clubbiness with good strong
business practice?”
However, when faced with the choice of whether to replace
lockstep with an alternative system, the overwhelming response has

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 2 1

From amateur to professional: the transformation of business services“Linklaters can only produce the service to which it aspires if it
has people of the highest calibre both in front of the footlights andbehind the scenes. Producers, directors and those responsible forlighting, preparing and setting the scenes, hiring the actors andselling the tickets are just as important to the commercial successof a play as are the actors.”
The analogy, included in the 1998 Strategy Paper written
by Alan Black and others (see Chapter 8), is apt. The firm haslong attached importance to the quality of its business services,
but what it does not convey is the complete transformation of
the support functions. In the post-war years, the lawyers andparalegals were supported by a general office, which was mostly
for the mail, some admin staff, secretaries, the print room, a“butler” who cooked for the partners and that was about it.
Most of the administration was done by the partners themselves.
There was a finance partner, an administration partner, an
articled clerks partner, a PR partner (from 1986 on, when the
Law Society regulations permitted law firms to advertise andmarket) and so on.
As at October 1988, the support services were categorised
as being: general office; print room; office services (maintenance);
records; word processing; examiners; Wang training unit;
and reception.
With the increase in size through the 1980s, and the increasing
administrative burden put on the partners, it became clear that not
only was greater support needed, but that the support functions
should be put in the hands of professionals. The first step was therecruitment in 1983 of Tony Blackett as director of administration,
followed by the arrival of Jim Galbraith as partnership secretary.
The next significant move was the decision to assign to one ofthe partners the role of managing partner. That person was James
Wyness, who became the firm’s first managing partner in 1987. He
set about recruiting more professionals to run different aspects ofthe business (see Chapter 3). They, in turn, started the process ofhiring for and developing support functions.
The firm has backed its commitment to having the best
support services with investment. For example, in the late 1980s
Linklaters became the first law firm to provide everyone with adesktop computer. Some investments were better than others: bycommon agreement, the £30m investment in the NeXT computer
system in the 1990s was an expensive mistake.
Just to take one of the functions: knowledge & learning. The
extent of the firm’s knowhow (as it was then called) in the late1960s was a poorly stocked library. In the mid-1980s, AnthonyCann, recently elected onto the Finance & Policy Committee,
pointed out the inadequacy of the firm’s knowhow and training. He
was asked to recommend improvements, which he did, and thento become the knowhow partner. He, in turn, was supported byanother partner, Steven Turnbull (“who did a huge amount”, notes
Anthony Cann) and in 1986 the firm appointed its first director oftraining and knowhow, Professor Barry Dean.

1 2 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

The result was a co-ordinated effort (following the initiativeof the fast-growing capital markets practice) to write manuals forthe first time, establish precedents, initiate training programmes,
make greater use of technology for searching and indexing andgenerally to establish a far superior capability. In 2008 Michael
Voisin was appointed as the firm’s first global knowledge &learning partner and now the knowledge and learning operation
is as sophisticated and advanced as you would find among any law
firms. Charles Clark, who succeeded Michael Voisin in 2012, says“the responsibility for knowledge and learning is that of everyonein the firm. The clients are entitled to the sum of our collective
knowledge globally. It’s what they pay for.”This is supported by excellent professional support lawyers andknowledge management, information and learning professionals,
a network of knowledge & learning partners across the globe,
a big investment in knowledge management and information
services (both legal and non-legal) and, under the framework of
the Linklaters Law and Business School, extensive global and local
training in both technical and soft skills for everyone in the firm –lawyers, business services staff and secretaries.
At the same time as the London office moved into Silk Street,the firm opened an IT centre in Colchester, east of London, tohouse the main computer servers and as the site for the ISS staff.
They provide IT support for the firm around the clock. So, too,
does the Service Desk in the London office, which manages the
production and printing of documents.
How the firm recruits its graduates serves as anotherillustration of the changing nature of the firm, and in particular the
professionalisation of the process. The system has evolved fromone where people were chosen largely on the recommendation ofuniversity tutors (in particular, John Collier) and on the personal
judgement of the recruitment partner to a rigorous, fair – andglobal – selection process that aims to choose the best and mostsuitable lawyers whatever their background.
While a half-century ago graduates would be drawn
essentially (but not exclusively) from two universities (Oxford andCambridge), currently the firm recruits from many hundreds ofuniversities (50 for the London office alone). Another significant
difference is that the firm casts its net wider to recruit fromamong the less privileged, an integral part of its aim to be a fully
diverse organisation.
Each year some 300 graduates are selected around theworld, chosen from the 5,000 who apply. Of that 300, the largest
number (110) is recruited in London, followed by Germany (40)and the rest of Europe (80), the US (25), Asia (20 or so) and therest in the EEMEA region (Eastern Europe, the Middle East
and Africa).
With so many people applying, recruitment is highly
systemised, involving psychometric testing, day-long assessments,
testing of analytical skills and comprehensive interviews. “Thepurpose behind such an extensive recruitment process is to make

it fair, transparent and, of course, to identify
the most suitable candidates,” says Claire
Cherrington, head of global resourcing. The
process is as much to give an opportunity to thecandidates to learn more about the firm as it is forthe firm to learn about the candidates. “The newgeneration of recruits are more discerning thanthey have ever been, and want to know what wehave to offer. It is a real two-way process.”
At its root, however, recruitment is stillbased around a very simple proposition: recruits
still choose Linklaters because they like thepeople. That has not changed over the past
half-century and, in all likelihood, throughout
the firm’s history.
The support side of the business now covers
a wide range of functions: finance, technology(information support services), administration,
secretarial, executive support, human resources,
knowledge and information learning, training,business development, marketing, public
relations, risk management, environmental
expertise, catering, events management andtravel. As the delivery of legal services has become
more sophisticated, so the support services havedeveloped their own specialisms. Other functions
now include, for example, strategy and planning,business process and shared services.
The increasing sophistication of clients’financial systems operations, the greater
demands of clients (for example, in theirrequirements for information in pitches), theinternationalisation of the firm and greatly
intensified competition are all factors that have
led to the need for law firms’ support services
to be leading operations in their own right.
Furthermore, the firm has had to organise its
support functions not just to work globally but tobe consistent everywhere. Every office has to havethe same access and capability. As Peter Hickman,the chief operating officer, notes, “The Beijing
office, say, has as much to be able to present thecredentials of the Brussels office’s capabilities, as
Brussels itself.”
The success of the operation depends on thelawyers working collaboratively with the businessservices support, he continues. “You have to haveboth sides working together: the professionals,
who understand their specialist support areas
and understand the lawyers, and the lawyers,
who understand clients and the market.”Peter Benham (in white) invites the whole firm to his house for a summer party, 1967.

The Linklaters and Slaughter and May golf teams in the last match for thePeter Marriage Trophy. Fittingly, the match was drawn.

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 2 3Golden Eagle
Richard Stilgoe, a celebrated lyricist, pianist and well-known TV
personality, was the star turn at the firm’s dinner dance in 1981. This
was a coup engineered by partner David Lloyd, whose turn it was
to host the event. The hardest part was persuading John Mayo, thesenior partner, to pay his fee. David Lloyd tipped Richard Stilgoe off
about some of the personalities within the firm. Richard Stilgoe duly
composed a song which he performed at the event. Here are thelyrics (with explanatory footnotes).

High over the City flies a great golden eagle
Picking up lawyers – all perfectly legal
He chains them all up in his Gresham Street1 eyrie
And drops in their beaks the occasional query
On corporate law, or on contracts, or tort
Which golf club to use and which way to pass the port
Or how to get clients to pay on the dot
Who Mayo2 a little or mayo a lot.
Chairman Mayo spends most of this time deep in thought
Let’s hope his wife never turns up in Court
The other Chairman Mao’s wife3 screamed – then wouldn’t budge
Which wouldn’t impress the average judge
Now Pickthorn4 and Paine5 say “The firm needs new blood Let’s enrol James6 and Marriage7 at Bretherton’s8 stud.”
Murray9, meanwhile, has been checking the audit
And is telling one partner, “We cannot f-forde10 it.”Gresham Street – Linklaters’ Barrington House officeJohn Mayo – senior partner3 	Jiang Qing – the wife of Chairman Mao Zedong, who was then appearingin Court on charges of treason
4 	Henry Pickthorn – corporate partner, and responsible for recruiting manyof Linklaters’ partners over the years
5	
Hugh Paine – real estate partner, and great grandson of one of the firm’s
founders, Thomas Paine
6
Chris James – litigation partner, who died early in 1992
7 	
Jeremy Marriage – corporate partner, whose father was senior partner at
Slaughter and May
8 	
Derrick Bretherton – real estate partner, whose wife ran a stud for Arab horses
9 	
Iain Murray – the finance partner, who was apt to give regular direwarnings about the state of the firm’s finances
10 	John fforde – corporate partner, and son of Sir Arthur fforde
11 	Charles Pettit – property partner, who was based in the New York office.
He flew on the first scheduled Concorde flight from New York12 	James Wyness – senior partner, first managing partner, and partner who
opened the Paris office13 	Charles Allen-Jones – senior partner, and partner who opened the Hong
Kong office14 	Bill Park – litigation partner, who practically commuted from London to
New York on a case involving BA and Laker Airways
1

The eagle has eyries elsewhere – don’t forget it
For instance, to New York by Concorde goes Pettit11
While Wyness12, no shyness, in Paris displays(He went there 10 years ago just for two days)
In Hong Kong they greet Allen-Jones13 like a brother(An hour after one Hong Kong case, you want another)
While Mr Park14 simply stays up in the air
He’s always too busy to park anywhere.
One Mayday the eagle was out for the day
So the partners decided they’d run away
They said – since they couldn’t remove all their chains “We’ll cut the Linklater till then bear the Paines”
So they jumped from the nest. But, alas, way up highAnother golden eagle saw them from the sky
And it picked them all up. The event, to this day,Is known in the City as the “Slaughter in May”.

1 2 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

2

A very special ball
To celebrate its 150th anniversary, Linklaters booked the Inner
Temple, complete with marquees, to hold its last ever dinner dance.
Anita Parsley recalls a memorable evening which showed the firm
at its best.
“The 150th Anniversary Ball was held on Friday, 24 June 1988 at
the Inner Temple. This was a very special event to mark a very special
occasion in the history of the firm. All current members of staff were
(I believe) invited to the ball. In all, around 1,900 attended, which
made it the largest ever social event that the firm ever organised. It
was the first firmwide dinner dance for some years as the firm hadgrown too large to entertain all staff at a London hotel for a dinner
dance as they had done for many years previously.
It was a superb evening with delicious
food and drink and splendid entertainment,
all laid on in the best Linklaters tradition. It
was a lovely, warm evening, and everybody
was wearing their best – to this day, manyof my female friends at the firm remember
fondly the special dresses they wore forthe occasion.
A fleet of coaches was laid on to takepeople from Barrington House to Inner Temple
and, after the ball, to take them to various
London railway stations. There was a main
marquee and several marquees leading off it, in each of which dining
tables had been laid out. The marquees were decorated with silk
drapes, and the flower arrangements were stunning. Partners andsenior admin managers hosted the tables, with each table being staff
and guests from their group/department. Photographers took ‘official’
photos of each table which many of us still have as a souvenir of theevening. For those in the side marquees there were screens so thatthey could watch the main speeches. The toast
was proposed by Mark Sheldon, then the firm’s
senior partner.
The entertainment was provided by thecabaret act Instant Sunshine (still going strong),
who poked fun at the British way of life in theirhumorous songs. The top-class dance band led by Johnny Howard
ensured that many people took to the dance floor after the dinner.
For those of us who preferred a different type of music, the Ritzy
Roadshow performed in the disco marquee, which had a twinklingnight-time sky effect on its ceiling. The Royal Artillery Band brought
the evening’s events to a close.
We have said it often before, but that really was a great night
to remember.”been to keep it. Indeed, the partnership’s commitment to lockstep
was recently reaffirmed, following a review led by partner
Richard Holden. All that changed were some small enhancements,
with confirmation of flexibility to allow downward movementon the lockstep ladder, as a means of keeping highly valued partners
who are senior or who contributed in ways other than byfee-earning.
Richard Holden believes that lockstep has served the firm well,
despite the challenges that have faced the partnership in the first
decade of the 21st century. “The key ingredients that underpin
lockstep being acceptable to the partnership are that: the firm has to
be in the front rank, that the partners feel they are working on thebest quality deals and that there are acceptable levels of profitability.
At the same time, the partners have necessarily to accept that insuch a system every now and then some partners will be asked toleave, with suitable compensation. Like democracy, lockstep is not
the perfect system, but it is far better than all the others.”
Jeremy Parr, currently head of Corporate, believes it is vitalthat partners play their part to ensure that a firm with such anillustrious history continues to have an equally successful future.
“It is a great privilege to be a partner in this firm, and should neverbe seen as an entitlement. Partners need to never forget that.”
Robert Elliott believes that the strength of the firm’s culture,and in particular lockstep, has not only enabled it to adjust to theseismic changes of the marketplace that have happened in thepast decade with its core intact, but will position the firm all thebetter to take advantage of future opportunities. “Lockstep goesto the heart of the culture of the firm. It is a hard taskmaster, but
it works because it ensures that we accept nothing less than thebest from all of us.” 

c u lt u r e m at t e r s | 1 2 5

Wilhelmina Barns-Graham, Two Circles on Paper 1992, lithograph 48/70, 60x76cm

1 2 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

07
Linklaters:
2002-

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 2 7

Winds of changeAs Linklaters started the new century, the main focus of thefirm continued to be on Europe. It had been agreed that theprocess towards merger with the Alliance firms should beaccelerated, and that mergers would proceed bilaterally. By 2002
mergers with the German, Belgian, Luxembourg and Swedish firms
had been completed, and even though technically the alliance
continued with the presence of the Italian firm Gianni, Origoni, thename Linklaters & Alliance was dropped (much to everyone’s relief:
it had never been popular).
That left a much larger, diverse and disparate firm. As Anthony
Cann succeeded Charles Allen-Jones (who signed off his last
message to the firm with his trademark “Biff on!”) as senior partnerin 2001, he was clear that most of his attention would need to be on
integrating the newly incorporated parts of the firm into one. With
the legacy firms each with their own histories (see pages 88-90) andtheir own cultures, that was always going to be a challenging task.
The first step was to summarise and define what the values of the
combined firm were. What was the cultural “glue” that held the firm
together? Wolff Olins, the brand experts, were brought in to assist(as they were on the firm’s rebranding).

There followed an extensive consultation within the firm,
and also involving some clients, to define and then articulate thefirm’s values. The results were interesting and encouraging: that
Linklaters’ people felt that the firm was different from others andthat it was the firm that went the extra mile in search of challenging
solutions for clients. “What we found out from clients was that,whenever they had a really difficult problem, they would come to
Linklaters,” recalls Anthony Cann. “That was a great reputation tohave, and we wanted to encapsulate that in the values.”
The values and motivations were published in a document“Way Ahead”, which summarised the values as follows:“We share certain characteristics and are motivated by:> getting things done
> being recognised as the best in everything we do> building strong relationships with clients and with one another.
We strive for excellence, value teamwork and encourage imagination.
We are determined – whatever the challenge we will deliver.
We do all this exercising commercial judgement and integrity.
Our values and motivations form the ‘glue’ that keeps the firm
together, creating an environment that:> guarantees we give excellent service to our clients> attracts and retains the best people, who win the best work and thebest clients> is challenging but supportive> gives everybody the opportunity to develop their potential to thefullest extent.”

Following the introduction of Magenta as the firm’s colour, these cards were issued
for guidance.

1 2 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Reflecting on those values now, Anthony Cann says he would
have liked to add “enthusiasm” in the mix.
At around the same time, the firm used the opportunity of thecompletion of the mergers to commission a rebranding (see page134). With a shorter name, a new colour (magenta), a new font and a
new image, Linklaters looked altogether new.
The mergers also provided an opportunity to review the firm’s
governance structure. In 2002, the Finance & Policy Committee,
which had been the firm’s main management body for some 40
years, was replaced by two bodies. Governance and management

The HR Director’s Tale
Jill King was with the firm between 2005 and 2011.
“I joined Linklaters because, to use a football analogy, I wanted
to join a team at the top of the Premiership. It was an exciting but
challenging time. Tony Angel, then managing partner, had set
an ambition of market leadership for the firm. He believed that,
if the firm achieved this goal in every market it operated in,then financial success would follow. I thought that was a reallyinspired approach.
What struck me, as someone who had experience of other law
firms, was the real sense of ambition amongst the partners I met – tobe the best, to get the best mandates – with a clear strategy of how
to achieve those goals. The principles of the strategy were ones I
sensed everyone had signed up to, but the approach was flexible
enough to allow for adaptation in different markets, countries andpractice areas.
Another really strong feature of Linklaters at the time was thequality of business services. Tony Angel regarded business services
as the engine room of the firm: if business services were working
well, those in legal practice were liberated to do what they were bestat. Tony didn’t have any truck with partners who treated businessservices as inferior or subsidiary.
However, when I joined, I didn’t feel that the firm was paying
enough attention to its people, whose energy and enthusiasm are, ofcourse, vital to deliver the strategy. There was real focus on technicalexcellence, practice development, clients, and on IT and premises. I
sensed that people were not seen as the priority they needed to be.
It was my task to rebalance that. I made a presentation early on to
the International Board on a proposed ‘people agenda’, and things
started to change after that, especially once I was invited to join
ExCom (the firm’s executive committee).
It was daunting at first being the only woman on ExCom and I
took my role very seriously as the first human resources director
to be granted this privilege. I was supported in inimitable styleby Jean-Marc Lefèvre who was regional managing partner forcontinental Europe at the time. He made it clear to me that he andI represented diversity on the committee, and with that came a
responsibility to speak out. So I did.

As a director, I was given full partner privileges, and I was
keen to demonstrate my appreciation of that. I attended partners’
meetings, took part in consultation exercises, regularly used thepartners’ dining room and exercised my voting rights. I wanted tounderstand the business like an owner, to build the trust amongst
partners that I would always put the firm’s interests first in thedecisions I took.
I was determined to use the new focus on people to help theprocess of global integration that Anthony Cann, as senior partner,
had initiated following the mergers with various European firms.
It wasn’t always easy. There were suspicions between countries anddifferent perspectives on a range of issues. I saw that HR could playa critical role in bringing about closer integration by introducing a
globally consistent career deal for associates and business services
staff, and by making sure that everyone had access to a world-classtraining and development curriculum. I travelled extensively
around the firm’s offices and built a strong global HR team with
common goals and a shared understanding of the people strategy
and how it could best be implemented across the world. With time,
the barriers broke down, and Linklaters became a truly global firm.
I was very proud to be part of that.
We went through some difficult times of course, particularly
after the collapse of Lehmans in 2008. By then, the firm waswell managed, which enabled it to cope well during the crisis.
It could take tough decisions, if it needed to. I thought the firm
took responsible decisions early on in the crisis and treated its
people with respect throughout a very difficult period.
My approach was always to treat all partners as my clients.
My role was to help them succeed, not to be famous myself. At
times, I challenged them and the status quo, but always with aview to create the conditions where everyone had the opportunity
to develop and achieve their objectives. The partners may notalways have thanked me for it at the time, but I like to believe they
respected and appreciated the difference I could make.
I chose a really interesting time to be part of Linklaters.
I look back on what my team, and the firm, achieved with greatsatisfaction. Linklaters helps you raise your game.”

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 2 9

Tony Angel
When Tony Angel first addressed the rest of his partners as
managing partner at the partners’ retreat of November 1998,
Richard Godden turned to his neighbour and said: “We have
got our first chief executive.” Today, he explains what he meant,“No powers had changed, but Tony just assumed a different roleand the partnership was ready for it.”Simon Clark, who qualified four years behind Tony Angel in the
Tax department, concurs: “Tony had enormous energy and a great
mind. He could inspire the partnership with his presentations. At
partners’ retreats he would always set tough targets but make people
feel great about themselves. That is a real attribute.”
Tony Angel would continue as managing partner until his
retirement nine years later, during which time the firm completed
eight mergers or alliances, opened 10 offices (not counting those thatcame with the Alliance of European Lawyers) and closed three, hadgrown from more than 200 partners to 500 and seen its revenues
increase from under £200m to more than £1bn. He was a prime
mover in the three-year strategy for the firm to achieve market
leadership. At his instigation, the firm invested £25m in a newcomputer system that, for a while, was far more advanced than thatused by the firm’s competitors.
All these things might have happened under his watch, but heis at pains to stress the teamwork involved. “It was a time of hugechange for the firm and you saw the speed at which the firm wastransforming. But what was really transformational was that we had
an amazing executive committee who had the drive to carry throughthe changes that needed doing.” He developed close, if sometimes
fraught, relationships with his senior partners, first Charles AllenJones and then Anthony Cann. “Tony was the outstanding managing
partner of his generation,” Charles Allen-Jones says of him.
Unusually for a lawyer, Tony Angel enjoyed management, if
not more than, then certainly as much as, practising law. He waselected on to the firm’s Finance & Policy Committee (FPC) in
1986, the youngest ever elected member. Strategy was his forte. He
wrote a paper in 1996, in advance of the approach by the Alliance ofEuropean Lawyers, recommending that the firm become a global,
rather than an international firm.
He was fiercely ambitious on behalf of the firm, but recognisedthat this posed challenges and would encounter resistance. He wascriticised for his focus on financial performance, but he argued thatmarket leadership and high profits were two sides of the same coin.
“High profitability makes the firm attractive to the best lawyers, whothen attract the best clients and lead to market leadership.”
Jill King, who was HR director for the latter part of Tony Angel’s
time as managing partner, says his contribution to the firm wasimmense: “Tony had a profound interest in the business and amanager’s mindset. He put Linklaters at the top of the league andhelped the partnership appreciate the value of a well managed firm.”

were separated. The International Board (IB), chaired by the senior
partner, became responsible for governance and setting policy; theExecutive Committee (ExCom), chaired by the managing partner,
became responsible for implementing policy.
The change in governance also gave rise to the establishment of
the Client Committee, the first time that the firm had had a committee
dedicated to clients, potential clients and client review. It was chairedby the senior partner, Anthony Cann, but led by Richard Godden, whosesuggestion it was to form sector groups (see Chapter 2).
Following the mergers, the rebranding and the reorganisationof governance, Linklaters was in some ways unrecognisable fromthe firm it had been just five years previously. It had been an
expensive and time-consuming process, and the first results were
not encouraging, as Tony Angel remembers. “The total cost ofbuilding our international network was somewhere in the regionof between £350m and £500m. Yet just at the time when we hadbuilt an integrated firm to do complex cross-border M&A and otherdeals across Europe that we believed would come from globalisationand the single market, we hit a perfect storm. The post-tech boom
recession hit and those deals disappeared. And partners were
exhausted by the five-year saga of L&A.”
Neither was the process without casualties: a significant
number of partners from the legacy firms had been asked to leave.
Lower than desired profitability cast a spotlight on the more poorly
performing partners. The management agonised over what todo. The collegiality of the firm suggested they should be kept on
and helped to “get back on track”; the harsh commercial reality
dictated otherwise. The truth was the marketplace for legal services,
certainly at the top end, had become far more competitive; businesswon out over sentiment. “Asking partners to leave gave me a lot ofsleepless nights,” remembers Anthony Cann.
What was needed, the senior management felt, was areinvigoration of the firm, and a new strategy. As envisaged by
Tony Angel, this was the Market Leadership strategy, a conscious
attempt to help set the firm on a positive, ambitious course to
be the leading global law firm (see Chapter 8). The strategy set
ambitious targets for improving the client base and the practice andfor growth. It also focused on metrics, in particular for “profits per
partner” (commonly used to measure the performance of law firms),
as better indicators of success.
As Anthony Cann said in a message to the firm in 2004: “We
all need to stretch ourselves to do the best we can and increase thequality of our work and client base. Doing as much of the best workfor the best clients as possible will take the firm to being the leading
global law firm and thus the highest profile. Market leadership willbring high profits.”
In 2006, Anthony Cann was succeeded by David Cheyne, who
had earlier succeeded him as head of the Corporate department.
David Cheyne, one of the firm’s great “rainmakers”, was the right
person to drive the business forward.

1 3 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

The firm’s biggest transaction (and it is continuing…)
7.56am, Monday, 15 September 2008. Room 107, One Silk Street,the offices of Linklaters. At that moment and in that location, an
event occurred that shook the world’s financial markets, indeed
brought the financial system perilously close to meltdown andmarked the start of the largest ever corporate insolvency. It was atthat precise moment that Lehman Brothers, one of the largest US
investment banks, went into administration. The administrators
were PricewaterhouseCoopers who, in turn, instructed Linklaters
as their lawyers.
That was the start of the largest matter on which the firm has
ever advised, involving at its peak 300 lawyers, working across 17
practice areas in 11 countries and covering 82 jurisdictions. Morethan four years later, the work continues. Lehmans in administrationis one of the firm’s largest clients.
The call had come in the previous Friday to Matthew
Middleditch, a corporate partner, from the European general
counsel for Lehmans, warning him to be on standby “just in case”.
He said he expected the group to be sold to Barclays but that one or
two people were getting “a little nervous”. Richard Holden was the
only banking partner available because it so happened that most of
the Banking group were in Monaco that weekend on a departmental
retreat. Matthew Middleditch phoned Robert Elliott, then head ofthat group, and other key partners. Tony Bugg and Richard Holden
were available in London, while David Ereira returned from theretreat and they led the effort that weekend.
The group discovered (on reading the BBC’s Robert Peston’sblog) that Barclays had withdrawn from the process. “It was like the
Titanic after that,” recalls Tony Bugg. “We were heading towards theiceberg of insolvency, and we could only wait for the ship to hit.”More team members arrived on the Sunday night, including
the counsel team of William Trower QC and Daniel Bayfield. They
were working against the clock to ensure that Lehmans went into
administration in as orderly way as possible before the markets
opened the following day. The Hon. Sir Launcelot Henderson,
a judge, was put on standby from midnight. A series of board
meetings was held from 5.00 in the morning, linking up board
members on the telephone and those physically present both in
Silk Street and at Lehmans offices in Canary Wharf. At 6.00am, acourt was set up in Room 107. At 7.30am, the Financial Services
Authority (FSA) and their lawyers were ushered in, along with
the Linklaters team. The administration of Lehman Brothers(International) Europe (LBIE) was effected at 7.56am, four minutes
before the London market opened. At that moment, LBIE held about
US$23bn in client assets.
That was but a mere prelude to the real action. Linklaters
lawyers took over the top floor of 25 Bank Street in Canary Wharf
to create in effect a mini-Linklaters office complete with fully

functioning IT systems. They were to work around the clock forweeks. The lawyers had to review and assess many thousandsof counterparties and trading deals, determine what was clientmoney or client securities, and consider what were the assets of
the insolvent estates. There were numerous court applications
and meetings with the FSA and hedge funds. The full-time teamcomprised 100 lawyers, who were supported by others as the needarose. Within two weeks, part of Lehmans had been sold to Nomura,
the Japanese investment bank, itself a major transaction, under theguidance of Matthew Middleditch.
The insolvency was not just the largest there has ever been (therealisation of assets to date has yielded £12bn), it was also certainly
the most complicated, as Tony Bugg explains. “No one expected
Lehmans to go bust. Much of the terminology in the standard
market contracts covering default was predicated on counterparty
failure, not on the bank failure. The regulatory environment had
not kept up. We had to create our own framework to govern the
distribution of securities.” The insolvency has involved many issuesof construction that have been tested in the Court of Appeal and theSupreme Court.
The Lehmans’ insolvency showed that Linklaters had thebest people in financial regulation, debt “structured” products,
derivatives, capital markets, litigation and corporate, as well as
in banking and restructuring and insolvency, who were able torise to the challenge of advising on a matter of such complexityand enormous market importance. Says Tony Bugg: “The special
ingredient was the intellectual capability and level of collegiate trust
within the firm, and the relationship between Linklaters and PwC
who had worked together on Enron and MG Rover.”After a four-year wait, the first distribution of 25 pence in thepound to creditors was paid out by the end of 2012. Lehmans’ debt,
which was trading in the distressed market at around 25 per centin the months following the insolvency, came to be traded at morethan 100 per cent in late 2012. Who would have thought that would
be the case when Lehmans first went into insolvency, with literallybillions of dollars in trades which were frozen at a point in time?
Linklaters has been centrally involved in a corporate episodethat will have ramifications for decades to come. To coin a phrase,
it was the mother of all bankruptcies. It probably ranks as the mostsignificant transaction on which the firm has ever worked. Tony
Bugg earned the accolade of Lawyer of the Year by Legal Businessin 2009, and Linklaters won many awards for R&I team of the year.
Reflecting on the deal, he comments, “It was tremendously stressful
with many highs and lows, but at the end I feel huge relief that I did
not open the Financial Times on the morning of 15 September 2008
to read that Lehmans had gone bust and another law firm had been
appointed. That, I could not have lived with!”

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 3 1

Managing partner Simon Davies meeting Wen Jiabao, then China’s Prime Minister,during the EU/China Business Summit, Brussels, September 2012. Watching isPeter Hartman, CEO of KLM.

The practice of referring to partners
by their initials was dropped in
2001. Mark Payne, the executive
partner, wrote in The bulletin: “WhenI took on the role, I found myself
baffled at first by the initials
scattered through the notes andpapers I had to read. I am sure those
new to the firm have been through asimilarly frustrating experience.”

1 3 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Over the three-year period from 2004, revenues increased by
50 per cent, while profits doubled. An article in the American Lawyer
at the time pointed out that Linklaters’ revenues, which exceeded£1bn for the first time, were bigger than three leading US law firms(Davis Polk, Cleary Gottlieb and Debevoise) combined. In 2007, thefirm had nearly 550 partners, more than there had ever been, and astaff of nearly 5,500 operating from 30 offices in 23 countries across
21 practice areas.
It seemed as though it was too good to be true. David Cheyne
warned that the boom years were about to finish (“which didn’t
make me popular in the partnership”). Simon Davies, who was about
to succeed Tony Angel as managing partner in that year, also sensed
that the good times might be about to end. When Tony Angel gave
him a gift at his (Tony Angel’s) “lunching out” ceremony, Simon
Davies held it to his ear and said: “Is that a bomb I hear ticking?”(In fact, the gift was a replica of Aladdin’s magic lamp. Tony Angel’s
parting advice to Simon Davies was: “Don’t use up your three wishes
in the first week.”)
The first warning signs of the impending crisis came in thesummer of 2007 with the run on the British bank Northern Rock,which required a government bailout. Trouble was also in store for
RBS, which, as the main component part of a consortium, had bought
the Dutch bank ABN Amro (a huge transaction on which the firm
advised RBS, involving 400 lawyers in 24 offices). But worse was tocome in September 2008, when Lehmans, the giant US investmentbank, failed.
The Lehmans’ insolvency triggered what is now known as theglobal financial crisis and then a global economic downturn. For
Linklaters, the immediate impact of Lehmans was beneficial: thefirm won the prime mandate to advise PricewaterhouseCoopers, theadministrators of Lehman Brothers International Europe (roughly
half the global group), on what has turned out to be the biggest andmost complex corporate insolvency ever (see previous page). The
strategy of building up a banking client base over the previous 15 years
also paid off. In the aftermath of Lehmans, the phones in the firm rang
off the hook.
The Linklaters team was ready: providentially, an exercise had
been conducted in spring 2008 by Simon Davies and a group of 50
partners from across the network to map out possible scenarios in the
global economy. The worst-case scenario was remarkably prescientand involved the demise of an international investment bank. As thefinancial markets collapsed in the days following Lehmans going into
administration, a series of crisis meetings was held between senior
partners of the firm as Simon Davies (literally) drew up on a flip-chart
expected distressed deals that would arise in the crisis. Potential
conflicts checks were carried out in advance. That provided thepriceless advantage of being able to accept or reject mandates withinminutes of requests coming in. In the same year, the firm enjoyed thehighest revenues of any law firm in the world.
The Lehmans crisis tested the firm’s capacity to the full. Huge
deals were done in record time. In addition to the insolvency ofLehmans itself, the firm advised on the sale of Lehmans’ Asianbusinesses, the bailouts of Fortis and Dexia in the Benelux
countries, the recapitalisation state support for RBS and Lloyds TSB

The secretary’s tale
Anita Parsley joined the firm in 1968 and continued for a further 38 years.
“I was recruited by Barry Mayo, then deputy office manager, to work
as secretary for Robin Human, then an assistant solicitor but who became
the partner to start the Trusts department as an offshoot of Tax. His
previous secretary had worked for him for three years and I thought
there was no way I would be there that long. Robin was a really niceman – definitely human by name, human by nature. He was very patientwith me, as someone who was straight out of college learning to bea secretary.
In the early days one of the main features of office life was the coffee
or tea trolley. The tea ladies, Bella, Alice and Lou, would wheel themdown the corridor. I think tea and coffee were free, but you would pay
for Club biscuits, buttered rolls or cheese rolls. Later on, the tea trolleys
were superseded by kitchens/pantry areas on each floor wing. In
Barrington House all areas of the office were described by their location
on any floor. There were four wings (A, B, C & D, with E wing running off
B wing up to 6th floor).
Agnes, another tea lady, would deliver trays of coffee to partners’
offices in the morning. Secretaries made partners’ tea in theafternoon. The partners’ crockery was a make called Beryl, which was avery popular make in a variety of colours; green was the colour used for
the Linklaters partners. That would always be what you saw ontheir desks.
I had worked for Robin Human for a year when he was madea partner. I was convinced I’d be moved sideways to make way forsomeone more senior. No one said anything to me about my own
position in the interim between his partnership being announced
and taking effect – and I certainly wouldn’t have felt able to ask. The
appearance of a partner’s tea tray in my office on Robin’s first day as
a partner was the unspoken confirmation that I’d still got the job andshould just carry on.
We were issued with luncheon vouchers, worth three shillings a day(this was before the currency decimalisation in 1971), with which you
could buy soup and a sandwich at Valsar, the sandwich bar on the cornerof Gresham Street and Wood Street. From 1977, we would buy our lunchin the Buttery, on the 7th floor. The Buttery was quite small and there
were always queues, so another trolley service was introduced selling
pre-packed sandwiches, rolls, crisps and chocolate bars. The shout of“trolley” down the corridors every morning would bring people rushingout of their offices. Subsequently, a smarter and much larger restaurant
was built on the 6th floor. And then, when we moved into Silk Street,
we had the largest of them all – Silks restaurant, with its wide-ranging
menu choices.
In Barrington House partners had a separate dining room on the
6th floor. Once a year, partners’ wives came in to have lunch (presided
over by the senior partner’s wife) in the partners’ dining room. There
was a men’s toilet solely for ‘partners only’ on the 6th floor, but,when the wives came in, the nearest ladies’ toilet would bear a notice‘Reserved for partners’ wives’ – which did cause some other notes tobe put up alongside from female members of staff indicating they feltslighted and annoyed by this.

I worked for Robin Human for 20 years, until 1988. I then moved towork for Barry Mayo and helped him with various tasks, many involving
partnership matters. That was not in Barrington House, but in Streets
House. The lift there was often out of action. When we had a partner
distribution of brown envelopes, we used to lug them in the post-trolley
trays up and down the stairs ourselves!
Jim Galbraith was taken on in the mid-1980s as the firstpartnership secretary, to advise on partnership matters, after him, John
Pestell and, after him, John Ledlie. I worked for both Johns. There were
gaps in between one finishing and another starting, during which time I
stood in as the partnership secretary myself.
Another memorable period was the three-day week, first in1972 and then again in late 1973 and early 1974, caused by electricity
shortages. We were issued with Tilley lamps, and we had candles at
the ready. We would also come into work early to make full use of thewinter daylight hours.
There were also several rail strikes during my time at Linklaters. The
firm organised a series of coaches from various outlying destinations
which called at several pick-up points en route to the office. (I was notaffected personally, as I lived in north London and could come in bybus and tube.) Good friendships and camaraderie were forged on these(sometimes very lengthy and delayed) journeys. Coaches were open
for all – partners, lawyers, secretaries and admin staff. Tony Blackett,as director of administration, was in charge of overseeing the coacharrangements – and it was a pretty thankless task.
All partners, and some admin staff, were known and referred toby their initials. Some turned into (mostly affectionate) nicknames.
So Charles Allen-Jones (initials, CMAJ) became known as ‘Smadge’,Anthony Cann (JWAC) as ‘Jaywack’. The initials persisted, even when
numbers were introduced for people for the purposes of matter codes.
Mark Sheldon, when senior partner, coined a name for me. I was
known as ‘Sergeant Major Parsley’, presumably because of the way I
tried to boss them about and would organise them all when we had lotsof documents to circulate and stuff into brown envelopes. That nameactually fitted as my middle initials are ‘S’ and ‘M’! Mark was always
very good at joining in, and would not worry about being on his knees
surrounded by documents, envelopes and sellotape.
During my time I saw big changes in the typing equipment we used.
I started, fortunately, on an IBM electric typewriter. We moved on to
typewriters which had a correcting ribbon, then typewriters with storage
capacity. The first word processing machines were shared between fourand six secretaries. In the early 1980s, we all used the Wordplex word
processing system, followed by Frame and then we moved on to Wangat the end of that decade. In the early 1990s, the firm invested in NeXT,
which was an all-singing, all-dancing system but swapped for Word in
1999, due, we understood, to concerns that NeXT might not cope with
Millennium issues but in reality because of the incompatibility of NeXT
with our clients’ IT systems, all of whom used Microsoft.
I had a very interesting and enjoyable career at Linklaters, working
with some very good people. I could never have imagined any of it when
I started work there all those years ago.”

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 3 3

Pantone 227 and all that
Linklaters, as a plural, takes its name from the firm’s founder, John
Linklater, and his brother, James. More than 125 years after eitherof them ceased to practise (and none of their children lasted in thefirm), it may seem strange that the firm retains their name to thisday. But the name has endured because of the value that lies in it asa brand (although the brothers Linklater would never have seen it inthose terms).
The name carried through into Linklaters & Paines, following themerger of two firms in 1920. That name continued through the rest of
the century. From the mid-1960s onwards, the firm both inside andoutside was quite often referred to by its initials, L&P. The letters anddesign even became a (much-derided) feature of the firm’s carpets in
Barrington House. The internal newsletter, Office News, changed its
name to L&P News in August 1986.
The abbreviation was certainly easy to say, but did it have any
value in the marketplace? That was one of the questions put to Saatchi& Saatchi, the advertising and design agency, who were commissioned
in 1997 to review the firm’s brand. Linklaters was in the process ofmoving the whole of its London operation to a new office in Silk Street,
and that was seen as a good opportunity to make changes, if needed,
to the name and design. Just as importantly, the imminent move into
Europe (although at that stage it was unclear what shape this wouldtake) also offered a chance to think again about the brand.
In their report, produced in May 1997, Saatchi & Saatchi
recommended shortening and simplifying the firm’s name to
Linklaters. The name was recognised internationally, was more
focused and “potentially more dynamic”, they asserted. By contrast“L&P” was not recognised internationally and the “& Paines” wasregarded as obsolete. They also suggested another reason for
dropping the “Paines” was that it led to mispronunciation by
non-English speakers.
Saatchi & Saatchi also recommended the use of a “mark” inassociation with the name, a mark (not a logo) being an “abstractdevice intended to convey and reflect the image of the firm”. The
mark designed by Saatchis, two wavy shapes in near parallel with one
another, was intended to approximate a star, but came to be known
within the firm as the “flying knickers”, since the mark also resembled
washing hanging on the line.
The other problem with the mark was that name cards wereprinted like a set of postage stamps with the mark covering the wholeset. “When I gave my clients one of the cards only, they were bitterly
disappointed,” remembers Alan Black, a projects partner who waslater to be involved in a further rebrand. “They asked if they could
have the full set.”In 1999, following an extended debate within the full partnership, it
was agreed that the “Paines” should be dropped from the firm’s name.
Henceforth, the firm would be Linklaters, in all its manifestations.

1 3 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

Alan Black’s name cards, displayed to reveal the Linklaters’‘mark’, 1998.

The new Linklaters font and logo for use on name cards, as signed off by Anthony Cann, Michael Oppenhoff and Tony Angel in 2002.

The conclusion of the mergers with European firms in the early
2000s provided yet another opportunity for a rebrand, although this time
involving an extensive review not just of the name but of the positioningof the firm in the market. The rebrand was founded on the basis that,as its core ethos, Linklaters had the will, technical skill, judgement andintegrity required to achieve for its clients that which other firms might
consider unachievable. The consultants, Wolff Olins, introduced as partof the comprehensive rebranding two major innovations: a new typeface(font) and the use of colour.
Both generated controversy. The typeface was a new font
based on the keys used on the original IBM golfball typewriters. The
backward, upside down “l” led to heated arguments. Another point ofcontention was whether or not to deploy a full stop after the name, as in“Linklaters.”. (Later on, after the font had been chosen and was being
used, it was pointed out that the “t” resembled a cross.)
Passions ran high, and rose higher still over the question of
the colour. The use of colour was brilliant, innovative, modern andgroundbreaking, one side argued. It would lead to ruin, countered theopponents. Our competitors will poke fun at us (“Pinklaters”), theyasserted. The American partners said they would refuse to use it; theEuropeans did not understand why it was so important. Finally, colour

won over black and white. The colour chosen was magenta – moreaccurately, Pantone 227, the precise colour from a palette of colours
used in design and industry. “Finally approving that colour was oneof the scariest decisions I ever had to make,” reflects Anthony Cann,
who was senior partner at the time.
In April 2002, Alan Black presented the results of the branding
review to the partnership, including the findings, the recommended
strapline (“Achieving the Unachievable”) and the colour. First
reactions were not good, particularly to the introduction of colour, but,as the meeting progressed, most came around to the idea.
Ten years on, it is hard to see what the fuss was all about. The
brand has been integrated into every aspect of the firm’s activities,
from recruitment through client events to client service. Even the mosthard-nosed of sceptics, the legal press, acknowledged the boldness ofthe move. The lettering and the colour are well established and haveindeed helped the firm to carve out a new image in the marketplace.
Sue Fowler, then Sue Verey, who was head of events management,
said the colour was ideal for the full range of literature and marketing
materials. “The colour just worked. It was like someone had channelled
all this aggression, and it all floated. Pantone 227 launched us into the
new era. It made us stand out in style against our competitors.”

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 3 5

IN VERSE
Keith Johnson, a corporate partner, penned
this poem to sum up his time with the firm.
A blonde eyebrowed lad from Linklaters,
Thought that he would prove wrong, his berators,
He set out for Hong Kong,
Land of malls and mahjong,With a passion for law and wine waiters.
It was here he pursued his career,
Punctuated by whisky and beer,
But a contract a day kept the doctor at bay,
So he knew he had nothing to fear.
Although he was quite a late starter,
The help of his friends made him smarter,
But for outspoken views,
And his poor taste in shoes,
Perhaps he’d have made senior partner.
Yet the future presents him no worry,For you see, he is not in a hurry,
The next mountain to climb,
Surely can’t take the time,That a grand slam just took Andy Murray1.
Andy Murray won the US Tennis Open in
September 20121

1 3 6 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

in the UK, and the merger of Bank of America and Merrill Lynchin the US. As Keith Johnson, a corporate partner, wrote in thefirm’s internal newsletter, The bulletin, “In the face of chaotic
and uniquely challenging circumstances, the true strength of ourpeople and franchise was clear. No other firm could havecommitted the depth of resources and breadth of specialism
these deals required.”
The planning, which partner Olivia McKendrick acknowledges
was a mixture of “luck and judgement”, paid off handsomely. In
the subsequent five years, Linklaters has, by its own reckoning,
advised on two-thirds of all the M&A deals, recapitalisations
and restructurings within the banking sector that have takenplace since the Lehmans’ collapse of September 2008. It is also acomplete vindication of the focus on sectors (see Chapter 2); thefirm’s expertise in the banking sector has never been more valued– and that expertise will continue to be used, as the regulatoryenvironment causes that sector further transformation.
However, there was a downside. The financial institutions
sector, which by now comprised nearly half of the firm’s clients, wasin the thick of the storm. There were seismic changes in the market.
That translated directly into a loss of business. In response, the firm
did something it had never done before in its history. It initiateda programme of redundancies. In all, some 200 lawyers and 200
business support staff were laid off.
It was a very serious step, but in the view of the firm’s
management a necessary one to make the firm as robust as
possible. Neither was Linklaters alone: other law firms had similar
redundancy programmes. Nevertheless, it was a traumatic period.
Simon Davies recounts the draining effect it had on him personally.
“In January 2009, I stood up in front of over 500 staff in Silks
canteen to explain that everyone was put on notice, which I had to
do as a matter of employment law. It was probably the most difficult
thing I have ever had to do. By the end of the day, I was absolutely
shattered. But I was heartened by the comment by a managing
associate who happened to be sharing a lift as we were leaving latethat night. He said, ‘You did a good job’, and that will stay with me. It
showed that people understood that this was not a cold, calculated
move. For the good of our people and the firm, we needed to put
ourselves on a sound footing to move forward.”
Great care had been taken to ensure that Project New World(as the redundancy programme was named) was carried out with“transparency, honesty, quickness” and that people were treated“consistently, fairly and with integrity”. Richard Godden, who wasthen on ExCom, recalls: “It was ghastly because we had never done
anything like it before. Afterwards, a secretary sought me out to saythat the secretaries felt that we had handled the process in the rightway – openly, quickly and fairly.”
The expectation was that this would be a one-off exercise. But
the markets continued to be volatile. The banking crisis was followed
in short order by sovereign debt problems, particularly in Europe,
which then in turn created a crisis in the Eurozone. As the European
economies entered deep recessions (with the exception of Germany),
world trade patterns adjusted. The trend was for greater trade andinvestment between the world’s emerging markets. As a global law firm,Robert Elliott.

The straight-talking Terence
Kyle once told a client who
was insisting on seeking
tax advice from lawyers
in Luxembourg and Belgium
for the third time in arow on an identical bondissue, after being told thattax would not be payable,“Michael, you are our clientand I will do as instructed.
But I must say that it is acomplete and utter waste ofyour shareholders’ money.”

serving the world’s leading corporations and financial institutions, “wehave to be in those trade flows,” as Simon Davies puts it.
The result was a further realignment of the firm with a reductionin the number of partners but leaving associates untouched. “It wasof course very difficult and we have taken a buffeting,” says Robert
Elliott, who succeeded David Cheyne as senior partner in 2011,“but we needed to rebalance the firm’s capacity to cope with the
new reality.”
He accepts that, coming so soon after previous reductions,morale within the firm was damaged. “Asking partners to leavecertainly challenges and strains the culture, but I took, and take, theview that the culture was strong enough to withstand it. Not to havetaken those steps would have been reckless.”
Robert Elliott became the first senior partner to have succeeded
to that position without having spent all, or nearly all, of his careerwith the firm. (James Sandars, John Mayo, James Wyness andCharles Allen-Jones all joined the firm after doing their training
with other firms but rose up through the ranks thereafter.) It is also
the case that all the senior partners since Ferrier Charlton havespent time in offices outside London, in Robert Elliott’s case witha previous firm. That fact alone sets the firm apart from its closest
rivals, as well as reinforcing the firm’s international perspective.
While financial performance – turnover, and in particularprofitability – remains the key measure by which the firm judges its
performance, in recent years it has sought to broaden the measures
to take into account qualitative as well as quantitative performance.
The measures include tracking progress in such aspects as the firm’s
diversity and inclusion, community investment, engagement ofstaff, and knowledge and learning, as well as the extent to which thefirm’s values are upheld.
Having completed this process in early 2012, the firm was readyto move on. “You can’t just reduce, you have strategically to build.

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 3 7

The Linklaters Tree

Opposite the Bank of England, on the cornerof Princes Street and Lothbury adjacent toGresham Street (on which Barrington Housewas sited), there is a red-twigged lime tree. On
the pavement underneath it, there is a plaque,now slightly fading, which reads “Presented by
Linklaters & Paines, Jubilee Year 1977”. The
gift of the tree to the Corporation of London
was part of the beautification or greening of theCity, for the Queen’s Silver Jubilee.
There was a suggestion, maybe evena complaint, that this gift amounted toadvertising which at that time was forbiddenby the Law Society. Some years later, a similarcomplaint was made that a plaque on the backof a seat in the Barbican also fell foul of theban on advertising.
The complaints were rejected, since inneither case was the firm touting for business(the plaques did not identify the firm assolicitors). In any case, wrote John Mayo to theother partners, “business off the street is thelast thing we want.”

1 3 8 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

The two go together,” is how Simon Davies puts it. The partnershipdeveloped and agreed a five-year strategy, still based around the goalof becoming the world’s leading global law firm, but reassessing its
approach to different markets. Those markets were divided into:
core, secondary and other. The intention was to be present throughLinklaters’ own offices in all the core markets. For the secondary
markets, a range of options from opening offices to entering into
arrangements with leading local firms would be considered.
There was an early vindication of the strategy. In Australia andSouth Africa, both regarded as important but secondary markets,
Linklaters entered into an exclusive alliance with the top Australianfirm, Allens (formerly Allens Arthur Robinson) and the top South
African firm, Webber Wentzel, respectively. However, given
the trials and tribulations associated with the establishment of
Linklaters & Alliance (see Chapter 5), this begs the question of why
the firm chose this form of collaboration again. Richard Godden,
the partner who negotiated the deal with Allens, believes that the
mistakes from the European venture will not be repeated, and thatcollaboration was the best vehicle for the firm. “What were the key
lessons we learned from the Alliance that informed our decision to
go in with Allens? Make sure you are very clear about the end game.
With Allens, we are clear the end game is not merger. Secondly,
make sure the firms share the same culture. I am confident that
Allens is the same type of firm as us. Thirdly, do your due diligenceproperly, and make sure your client base is aligned. There is noquestion that this is the case with Allens, while with Linklaters &Alliance the lack of client alignment meant we had endless conflicts.
And, finally, be honest about the issues. There is a risk in every deal,
but I am absolutely confident we can manage those risks.”
There is one market in particular that is likely to feature highlyin the firm’s priorities in the coming years: China. At the end of 2012,
it was the world’s second largest economy, after the United States.
Having transformed themselves on the back of inward investment
and export-led growth, Chinese businesses have in more recent
years taken to investing in overseas markets. That alone makes the
China market of value to Linklaters. With that expansion comesthe prospect of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, becoming a
global reserve currency and, of possible greater significance still,
the possibility that Chinese law may become a third law of global
business, after English law and New York law.
For Simon Davies, that is an intriguing and exciting prospect
for which the firm is preparing. “We already have a strong China
practice, but we need to build on that, increasing the numberof mainland Chinese practitioners and, over time, ensure they
are present in a number of offices to support the international
expansion of China Inc. We also need to position ourselves for the
potential ascendancy of PRC law as the third governing law forcross-border transactions.” Outside the law
Linklaters encourages entrepreneurialism among its lawyers andbusiness services support staff. It has helped the firm to win newclients and do better by its existing ones. Some of the firm’s people
have taken that spirit with them to new business ventures.
Thibaut Deleval worked in the Paris office between 2000 and
2003, before creating his own internet/charity business, Valioo.
Recently voted one of Spain’s best new businesses, Valioo aims toturn data into funding for not-for-profit concerns. The company’s first
product allows users to review the products and services of Valioo’s
customers via a web- and mobile-based tool.
Helena Boas was a finance lawyer before helping to set up
Bodas, one of the most successful lingerie and nightwear companiesof the last few years. Once described by Management Today as
one of “35 women under 35 with the potential to reach the top of
their chosen careers”, Helena’s ambition is now to add a new
Bodas store in New York to the company’s flagship store in
Notting Hill.
A finance lawyer at Linklaters between 1999 and 2003, Damian
Collier has since moved into the entertainment industry. From basesin London and Los Angeles, he has produced films and promoted
concerts under the banner of Damian Collier Entertainment.
Neil Blair’s professional journey began as a Linklaters litigation
lawyer in London in 1990. He moved to Warner Brothers, where he
was involved in the negotiations by the company to acquire the filmrights to the Harry Potter books, became a partner in the Christopher
Little Literary Agency and has subsequently become literary agent toJ.K. Rowling.
Jane Dodd, a tax lawyer who worked in London and New Yorkbetween 1993 and 1997, became an actress and is writing plays
and film scripts. Although equally comfortable performing on stage
or in front of a camera, Jane’s heart remains with the “endlesspossibilities” of the film industry.
Gillian Holding, who worked in the London and Paris offices
between 1982 and 1990, became an artist, setting up a studio with
East Street Arts in Leeds, and more recently she forged a connection
with Debut Contemporary in London. Her approach to her art isshaped by what she describes as “the oddness of everyday life”.
Neil Midgley, who was a trainee and a litigation lawyer between
1990 and 1994, moved into journalism after leaving the firm witha particular interest in reporting on and about the media. Now
Assistant Editor (Media) at the Daily Telegraph, Neil leads the paper’s
news coverage of the media, as well as writing commentary andinterviewing senior broadcasting executives.
Shamini Mahadevan Flint, who worked as a corporate lawyer
in Singapore between 1997 and 2002, is a writer who has written aseries of successful detective novels. Each is set in a different Asian
country and their success has made Shamini one of just a handful of
Malaysian writers ever to be published abroad.

Gillian Holding, A Portrait of Everyday (Westbourne Grove) 2012 (detail), Digitally drawn diptych, 240cmx60cm, Fuji Crystal Archive DPII print, acrylic glass, edition of 5.

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 3 9

Rising revenues: Fee income, 1881-2012

1881

1940

1930


1920
£112,046

1920


1901
£36,786

1900


1881
£27,139

1940 
£54,215

1 4 0 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

2012 £1,206m

2010

2009 
£1,298m

2000


2001
£506m


1965
£1.01m


1988
£63m

1960

1970

1980

1950

1990


1955
£336,274


1960£563,118


1970
£1.8m


1980
£11.4m


1990
£105m

2007 
£1,119m

L i n k l at e r s : 2 0 0 2 - | 1 4 1

William Johnstone, Untitled 1, ink on paper, 77x57cm

1 4 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

08strategy

S t r at e g y | 1 4 3

What is the strategy?

For most of the firm’s existence, it did not have a strategy, andneither did it need one. With an established reputation as aleading commercial law firm, virtually from the day thatJohn Linklater started in practice, the work flowed in. The partners
got on with the business, in a quiet, understated way delivering a
top-quality service that spoke for itself. Clients came to them; they
did not need to go to the clients. “It was almost as if you put yourhand out of the window and another piece of work flew in,” recalls
Tony Angel. Why bother with strategy?
That, of course, is oversimplifying it; other factors came intoplay. The very busyness of the firm militated against devoting time
to strategising. In 1974 the senior partner, Peter Benham, wrote:“The firm seems to be reasonably competent at dealing with dayto-day problems as they arise, but there never seems to be time tosit down and think about the future.” Another consideration wasthat, before the Law Society changed its rules to allow law firms toadvertise and market, strategy may have been too closely associatedwith marketing. If you couldn’t promote yourselves, there was noneed for a strategy. Finally, and probably most pertinently, the very
idea of a strategy was anathema to those partners (probably mostof them) for whom strategy smacked of business. The law was aprofession, not a business.
Insofar as any consideration was given to the question of what
direction the firm should take, that was left to the individuals.
A strategy review, led by partner Alan Black in 1998, described itin these terms: “The firm had grown not as a result of a rigorous
pursuit of a strategy, rather by bringing into the firm talented
people, allowing them to rise to partner and ‘giving them their heads
to do what they will’. The junior partners look with a mixture ofadmiration and horror at the cavalier way the more senior partners
have developed the firm.”
It is not altogether fair to say that no thought at all was given
to the possible future direction the firm should take. In 1974,
Ferrier Charlton, perceptive as ever, noted that the firm needed tomake a strategic choice – between offering a high-value, premium
service and offering what he called a “mass-produced article” (whatwould today be called “commodity work”). He wrote: “Continued
economic growth in the UK will mean, as it does in America, thatthe handmade article becomes relatively speaking more and more
expensive compared with the mass-produced article. Legal services
will become more and more expensive. We must consider how to getnearer to a mass-produced article.”

1 4 4 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

In 1982, James Wyness, who went on to become managing
partner and senior partner, commented: “We should be spending
more time on analysis of our market, our business and ourcompetitors so as to be in a better position to influence events rather
than be dominated by them.” David Caruth, another partner, wasmore direct. “We should decide what sort of work we are going todo, how we are going to do it, and how much we should charge. We
should also decide whether or not our overseas offices are there to
make a profit or provide a service or to look good in the eyes of theclients. Is there a policy? If so, it’s never been enunciated to me andto the other partners. Surely we should have one.”David Barnard, who had moved to New York in 1982, was yet
another who insisted that more attention be given to strategy. At
his instigation, David Maister, formerly a Harvard Business School
professor, was invited to talk to the partners, initially in 1986 andon two or three further occasions. Drawing on the experience ofUS law firms, he suggested that not only could law firms map out
their future direction and their position in the market, but also theyshould. His contribution marked a real turning point for the firm.
Tony Angel has no doubt that the impact was significant. “We talked
to him for hours, and the discussions really sparked people’s interest
that we could have a strategy.” For Charles Allen-Jones, too: “David
Maister completely opened my eyes to the fact that people inside alaw firm could do things to change the positioning and success ofthe firm.”
The fact was that the firm had to change its approach. Growth insize, internationalisation, greater complexity of work and, above all,fiercer competition meant that it could no longer rest on its laurels.
By the time of the partners’ retreat of 1987, Ferrier Charlton (bythen the senior partner) said that there was general agreement thatthe firm needed a more structured method to manage its affairs. “Wehave to be clear where we wish to go and how we wish to get there, that
we organise ourselves properly and that we can adjust quickly. Workdemands may well change, which increases the importance of the firm
being efficient, effective and adequately profitable – in a word ‘lean’.”
It was in answer to these concerns that Jeremy Skinner, leadinga team of five partners (also including Ted Spencer, James Wyness,
Adrian Montague and Christopher Coombe), was asked to draft astrategy. His paper, written in advance of the October retreat of 1987,
identified the firm’s “principal strategic objectives”. The strategy isworth reproducing in full, firstly, because it is admirably short and,secondly, because the strategy, in large part, holds true 25 years later:

“The Goal
We aim for pre-eminence by reason of our standards of excellenceand practicality across the whole range of our service to clients.
We further aim to be the market leader in significant domestic andinternational fields of practice selected by us. If we achieve theseaims, the firm will be, and be regarded as, the pre-eminent English
law firm and will enjoy revenues sufficient to meet the aspirations ofpartners and staff for high levels of reward.
The Pursuit of the Goal – the elements of the strategy
The goal is to be pursued by setting ourselves five principal strategic
objectives, being:
1.	To provide, across the whole range of our activities, excellent andhighly practical service
2.	To develop a practice offering a full business law service
comprising specialist areas which have the expertise needed tosatisfy the requirements of their specialist users
3.	To build up a few only of these speciality areas (our “bannerareas”) and by promoting their services with particular vigour
establish the firm as the leader in each banner area
4.	To promote to financial and other professionals the transaction
handling expertise of each specialist area
5.	To strengthen the firm’s corporate client base by promoting
the whole range of our specialist services to companies which
are either:> large national or multinational companies, or> dynamic companies with growth potential anddynamic management
These principal strategic objectives are to be:
Pursued recognising:> the firm’s need for a high level of earnings> the challenge to expand the firm at the rate which will enable thefirm’s goal of pre-eminence to be achieved, andPromoted:> by managing the firm so as to achieve the most effective direction
and use of all our resources, and>	by the recruitment, training and motivation of people of thehighest quality
Always recognising that the traditional values of the firm haveenabled us to aim so high.”

The recommendations were followed. Linklaters would neither
be a full-service firm – what was described as a “legal supermarket”
providing all products adequately well across the widest range ofservices – nor a series of specialist “boutiques” delivering thoseservices at the top of the range. The firm would aspire to strike abalance between being a pre-eminent full-service firm for major
corporate clients and being regarded as a top-tier firm in certain
specialist (“banner”) areas, leaving open what those specialties
might be.
Earlier in 1987, the two firms of Clifford Turner and Coward
Chance had merged to form Clifford Chance, to create the largest
law firm in the City. The move set the cat among the pigeons andresulted in not a little panic among Linklaters’ partners that thefirm’s primary position was seriously threatened. Jeremy Skinner
was more sanguine: “We do not see size relative to other law firms as
in itself strategically important,” he wrote in his paper. “We do notbelieve we should always aim to be the biggest, or the next biggest
firm.” That said, he recognised that, inherent in the strategy which
he and his team recommended, there would be a need for morelawyers and business support staff.
Following his appointment as managing partner in 1987, James
Wyness tackled the issue by producing his own annual strategicplan for the partnership to consider (a practice which he continued
as senior partner). David Maister approved the plans twice, as
in another year did John Kay (later of the Financial Times) andEvan Davis (later of the BBC), when they were part of the London
School of Economics. After a few years, James Wyness asked
practice area heads to write plans for their respective practice areasfor presentation to the firm in a full partnership meeting at the
Barbican, which they did with such enthusiasm that the pile stoodhigh on the presentation table.
The establishment of the Norton Rose M5 Group in 1990, which
Linklaters was invited to join, offered a further dimension to apossible change of strategy. The M5 Group aimed to link some of
the main regional city-based firms in the UK, and, through Norton
Rose, offer access to international markets. The option of joining
was explored by the partnership but rejected. “That was kicked into
touch,” recalls Chris Gorman, who would become managing partner
in 1991, “because everybody believed the future lay with larger,
outward-looking clients.”
One issue, however, that was the subject of extensive andprolonged debate was that of the firm’s European strategy.

S t r at e g y | 1 4 5

The Black Book
For many years, anyone who wanted to check whether the firm could
act for a particular company in a deal needed to look in the “BlackBook”. The book dates back to 1970, when John Field (who laterwent on to become senior partner) suggested that there was a needfor a book, not necessarily to check for conflicts but to record thenames of companies for whom the firm did not wish to act.
Before that, resolving conflicts was somewhat ad hoc. Prior tothe (proposed, but aborted) merger between ICI and Courtauld, bothof whom were clients, it was decided that whoever approached thefirm first in the deal would be accepted. That turned out to be ICI, but
resulted in the loss of Courtauld.
The Black Book became a Black Box, complete with index cards,
held in the senior partner’s office, to serve as a conflicts-checking
mechanism. On the cards would be written basic information. Whena partner was instructed by a client or potential client on a takeover
they were supposed to contact the senior partner who would in turnconsult the Black Box and enter brief details about the deal and on
which side they were acting. If the Black Box revealed that anotherpartner was already acting, a discussion would be held about whether
the firm could act on either or both sides. In the event of a dispute,the senior partner had the final decision.
The box was originally held in the senior partner’s office, but thenmoved to the office of the head of Corporate. As it was kept in a locked

drawer, if a question arose over a weekend, the head of Corporate
would have to make a special trip into the office to unlock it.
By the end of the 1990s, the time had come to make the conflictschecking system a little more sophisticated. Donald Williams, former
head of Corporate and then retired, set up a compliance unit to manage
conflicts in the spring of 2001. Eleni Pavlopoulos, a litigation managing
associate, was taken on as head of conflicts in 2001. Ten years later,
38 people were on hand to provide around-the-clock checks.
Setting up an on-line system, for which dedicated software wasdeveloped, involved not just input from the Linklaters partners but
integration of the conflicts checks done by the then Alliance partners.
In 2001, at least 300 people were inputting information, with noconsistency of approach. Project Ajax (named after the cleaning
powder) entailed months of combing through thousands of matters,
before setting guidelines on logging information.
The result was the establishment of the Conflict Checking System(CCS) in 2004. The system has proven well able to handle theconflicts requirements of a global firm. Is it 100 per cent foolproof? No
system is, says Eleni Pavlopoulos: conflicts will always require humanjudgement. It remains a challenge to keep pace with the increase ofregulatory and commercial issues in play and the speed of response
necessary in an era of instant communications. And the Black Book
itself? A relic of a by-gone age.

The firm’s presence in Europe, as defined by having an office, dated
from 1963, when the Milan office was opened, and, more significantly,
from 1973, when both the Paris and Brussels offices were opened.
Linklaters had contacts with European firms, through its membershipof The Club (a network of firms who met once a year to exchange ideas
and who treated one another as “best friends”). But as the European
market became more important, particularly with the prospect ofEuropean Union in 1992, it had become strategically more importantto agree how the firm should approach Europe.
As is covered in Chapter 5, two approaches to the strategic
direction of the firm gained hold. In one camp, led by James Wyness
and John Edwards, were those who believed the correct approach
was to combine having offices in international financial centres(which would include Paris and Frankfurt, as well as London) witha network of “best friends” firms in other European jurisdictions,
who would provide local law advice. (The issue of local law broke
down further still: should the firm offer local law advice as requiredon cross-border, international deals, or offer a local law capability on
domestic matters in different European jurisdictions?)
The view in the other camp, most forcibly articulated by
Charles Allen-Jones but supported by Anthony Cann and Tony

Angel, was an expansionist one. Linklaters should open offices
in more jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, to be able to offer
clients integrated, multijurisdictional advice under one roof.
The recession of the early 1990s gave rise to another strategic
review in 1993, the aim of which was to provide a “co-ordinated setof objectives and actions designed to enable the firm to maintainsignificant advantage over [our] competitors”. The market in which
Linklaters was operating was changing markedly: the volume ofpremium work in the UK was diminishing, as a result of both therecession and increased globalisation; client loyalty could no longer
be guaranteed, while at the same time clients were starting to lookto their legal advisers to deliver more than just legal advice (there
are references for the first time to “adding value”); and, above all,competition was intensifying, which, when combined with anincreasing propensity of top firms to attract partners from theirrivals, made for unfamiliar territory.
Anthony Cann, then a senior corporate partner who would laterhead the department and become senior partner, recalls of thisperiod: “In the period up to the 1990s, work flowed in and it was aquestion of what you might turn away. But, with the recession andthe downturn, the boot was on the other foot. We had to work harder

1 4 6 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

on our big clients, to be more proactive. The way the world wasgoing, there was going to be more competition, and we needed
to get people more acclimatised to winning it.”
The first major strategic review, as opposed to strategy paper,
was the Alan Black-led review of 1998. The review, which took placeover a number of months, analysed the firm’s business in every
detail. The team working on the strategy included David Cheyne,
who, like Anthony Cann, would become head of Corporate andthen senior partner; Christopher Style, who became the firm’s
first Queen’s Counsel in 2006; Casper Lawson; and Giles Pugh, thedirector for strategy. Their report was a model, too, of tight writing,condensed into exactly 100 pages (“so that it could be read on the
train between London and Brussels, where we were holding ourretreat to discuss it”, Alan Black says) and with the conclusions
strategically placed in the middle of the document so that no one
could “cheat” by looking only at the end.
The paper started by expressing what partners liked about
working for the firm. That, it said, was a “combination of buzz,
profitability and congenial surroundings” together with the“kudos of doing the best work” and being known as a partner in the“best” firm. It was the “best work” because it involved “technicalcomplexity, innovation, a great deal of money or a massive or special
resource”. The “congenial surroundings” were characterised by a“generally non-hierarchical, collegiate society, where the corridor isfull of generally like-minded people”.
The principal recommendation of the review was that the firmshould concentrate on advising large corporates and commercial andinvestment banks with a strong international focus; globalisation
was an unstoppable force. The firm should also aim to have a strong
domestic practice in each jurisdiction where it practised.
The review exposed an unwelcome development – falling
profitability. This was despite years of increasing revenues. The review
believed that to increase profitability would require the firm to: focus
on key clients; prioritise certain practice areas; improve working
practices; and manage costs. The report endorsed lockstep as anintegral part of the firm’s culture, but highlighted significant differencesin contribution between the best and the lowest performing partners.
The authors recommended that partners would in future have to havetheir performance reviewed (fairly, “not as some sort of star chamber”).
“In today’s age, with external competition becoming stronger, wecannot hide poor performance behind the veneer of collegiality.”
The focus on profitability was a core component of the next major
strategic review, written in 2004 by Tony Angel, the managing partner.
Originally titled Clear Blue Water, so-called because clear blue water isa term used in rowing and yacht racing signifying the gap between theleading boat and those following, it was renamed Market Leadershipafter someone pointed out that ClearBlue was the name of a pregnancytesting kit. The aim was to achieve market leadership among global
firms within three years by drawing together the newly merged global
firm around a single focus: the most complex and challenging work for
the world’s leading companies, financial institutions and governments,
across boundaries of practices and geography. This would, in concept,
drive profitability up to the levels of the top US firms, something
previously thought unachievable.

Before Andrew Carmichaelwent out to Japan for the
first time in the 1980s,
his Japanese hosts asked
him how tall and how heavy
he was. When he wondered
why this was important, he
was told that one of his
predecessors was 6’4” andweighed 200 pounds. This
had caused embarrassment
to his Japanese hosts
at a dinner because hehad proved too large forthe small chair they had
provided for him. They
wanted to make sure thatthey had the right-sizedchair for Andrew Carmichael
and would not make the same
mistake. And who was thetall, heavy person? Readers
will have to work it out
for themselves, but there
are clues in Chapter 4.

S t r at e g y | 1 4 7

Ferrier Charlton
Ferrier Charlton would often refer to an incident that happened
during the war, in which he served as a decorated fighter pilot, thatshaped his attitude to his subsequent life as a lawyer. While he
was in Maiduguri in Nigeria, the Dakota plane he was piloting was
grounded, awaiting a piston for one of the engines before it could
fly on to join the squadron in India. An aircraft belonging to the US
Air Force was similarly out of action. While the British insisted onfollowing due procedure to order the replacement, the Americans
flew in a spare engine from neighbouring Ghana, fitted it onto thestricken aircraft and flew it out all within 24 hours. While the Brits
had dithered, the Americans got on with it. Disobeying orders,Ferrier Charlton then took the initiative to get himself to Accra in
Ghana, procure a replacement engine, sign for it “on behalf of His
Majesty’s Government” (which he was not authorised to do) andfly back with it to Nigeria. The new engine was duly fitted and theplane able to fly. Nowadays, that would be referred to as a “can-do”
approach that he brought with him to his practice as a lawyer andto the firm of Linklaters.
It may have been for that reason that Ferrier Charlton was
comfortable acting for Americans while some of his other partners
were not. One particular client was White Weld (later Credit Suisse),
for whom he acted during the Eurobond boom of the 1960s onwards.
As the client sought to develop new lines of business, they looked
to Ferrier to provide the legal mechanisms to achieve what theywanted. As he related it, they would tell him, “If something soundscommercially sensible and is not dishonest, there must be alegal way to do it. Now, go and do it.” Sure enough, often while
walking to catch his morning train, the answer would come to him,
and it would be converted into the right legal language when hearrived at work.
Ferrier Charlton was a man brimming with ideas. He would saythat if only 10 per cent of his ideas came to fruition “that was not abad percentage”. He had a love of the law, and became an expert on
corporate law, finance law, VAT, stamp duty and exchange control,
among others. As was usual at the time when he practised (from the
1950s through to the 1980s), he could turn his hand to anything andadvise on any transaction that came his way. He would say to his
partners, colleagues and juniors: “You can’t know everything about
everything, but you should try to know everything about something
and something about everything.”
He became renowned for his expertise in three areas, all ofwhich had a major impact on the fortunes of the firm: property
unit trusts, Eurobonds and privatisation. As he describes it, theEurobond work came about almost by accident, but he seized theopportunity and became a leading figure in that line of work (seeChapter 4). So it was with privatisation (see Chapter 2). He advisedon the British Aerospace and British Telecom privatisations, anddevised the legal structures for privatisation by instalments. He wasawarded the CBE in 1986 for his contribution.

1 4 8 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

His humanity shone through. He abhorred class distinctions(which he said were designed to “divide, not to unify”). He treatedeveryone in the firm with equal respect and courtesy. In the caféin the basement of 118 Old Broad Street (the firm’s offices after thewar), where the partners and staff ate together, he would be seen
doing The Times crossword with his secretary, Edith Sanders. It did
not bother him that she held radical left-wing political views. He
was as much at ease talking with office boys about the latest footballscores (although he preferred cricket) as he was advising chairmenof listed companies or taking phone calls at home from American
investment bankers at a time when such things were not done. He
may even have the distinction of being the first Linklaters partner
to ride a bicycle into work. When living in Pimlico, near Victoria
in London, he rode his bike into Old Broad Street, parking it in thebasement. He was not averse to taking off wet socks and hanging
them on the radiator in his office if he got caught in the rain.
There is a celebrated case when in 1977 he took a phone call out of
the blue from an agitated lady who insisted that she speak only to him.
Rather than putting the phone down (he had no idea who she was), helistened to her complaint. It transpired that she had been dismissedfrom her job selling paint. Then aged 73, she had been on the samewage (£15 a week plus commission for paint sales) since 1956. Aftera lengthy call in which he had calmed her down and explained very
gently that she had no unfair dismissal claim, redundancy rights ordiscrimination claim, simply a claim for breach of a three months’
notice period, some £195 or so, Ferrier Charlton asked, “By the way,
what was your commission?” She then revealed that the previous year
she had earned commission of close to three-quarters of a million
pounds. Linklaters took on the case, and secured a massive settlement
for her. Tony Angel, who was then Ferrier Charlton’s articled clerk
and went on to become the firm’s managing partner, heard the whole
phone call on speakerphone (always referred to as the “squawk box”).
“Had it been anyone else other than Ferrier, it is quite likely that she
would never have been given the chance to make her case,” he says.

F

errier was a great teacher, and taught legions of articled clerks.
When he became senior partner, he invited all his previous
articled clerks, whom he called his “pupils”, to lunch in therestaurant in Barrington House. People came from far and wide
to be there. He insisted that his articled clerks learn to dictate,rather than write documents, a discipline which he believed wasessential for lawyers, as well as being more efficient. What madethe process more unnerving for his articled clerks was that theywould have to learn that craft within Ferrier Charlton’s earshot.
It worked both ways, of course; the articled clerks could learn fromhim, as Matthew Middleditch, now a partner, remembers. “I once
listened to him dictate an agreement, from fresh and without any
mistakes, in its entirety. It was by no means a straightforward deal.
From recollection, we were acting for Gulf Oil, which was sellingbusinesses in exchange for oil deliveries, and involved many difficult
legal issues. I kept that agreement for many years as a reminder of
how it should be done. He was a massive influence on the whole firm,
an extraordinary man, of huge stature and ability.”
Even when confined to bed with illness, he continued towork. During a trip to Sri Lanka he contracted jaundice and wasconfined to hospital on his return. During that time, he reviewed
the government’s first Telecommunications Bill to privatise British
Telecom. He spent a whole day dictating a memo commenting
on the Bill. The reaction of the civil servants in the government
department that had drafted the Bill was not one of gratitude but ofanger that outside lawyers had dared to interfere. “Thereafter, I had
a jaundiced view of government,” Ferrier Charlton told Judy Slinn,
the author of Linklaters & Paines: the first 150 years, no doubt with abroad smile on his face. During that same spell in hospital, he asked
Simon Clark to send over some recent VAT cases that interested
him. He was a real polymath.
His philosophy, which he would repeat endlessly to his partners,
articled clerks and the firm at large, was: “Clients first, staff second,
partners third”. In 1987, when senior partner, he wrote: “Although
far from guiltless, I would like to go back to schooldays and require
any partner heard to use the words ‘my clients’ or even ‘mydepartment’s clients’ to stay behind after school and write 100 lines
reading: ‘Only L&P have clients; I have no clients’.”He was a visionary. He anticipated the use of “electronic” mail,well before email was used. In 1986, he came up with a radical
proposal that the firm should publish its accounts, again well before
the firm converted to a limited liability partnership. The following
year, he suggested that the firm should write an annual review, andwrote a first draft himself. “I attach a draft of the sort of thing which
I have in mind,” he wrote in an accompanying memo, “so that you
can all tear it to pieces.” There was no need: the drafting was a modelof clarity, simplicity and honesty – exactly what annual reviews
should be. He was also ahead of his time in recommending to thefirm that they seek feedback from clients (he preferred to call them“customers”) about the service they were receiving. He was adamantthat the firm’s strategy should not be explicitly to maximise profit;
rather, the firm should choose what practices it wanted to develop,
where and how, and the profit would follow naturally from that.
Outside of work, his interests ranged from politics, literature,music and history to botany. He was an expert gardener, hedger andditcher. When he retired, he became president of the Alpine Garden
Society, not merely as a figurehead but as an authority. He studied
Mozart scores for fun, but liked any music (“even pop music, so longas it is of reasonable volume”).
If there is a slight downside to the story, it was that he did not
enjoy being senior partner – he found it “lonely” and “burdensome”– and, by his own admission, he was indecisive. Many believe thatthe burden was too great, which, coupled with the heavy-duty
requirements imposed by the privatisations, caused his health todeteriorate. He died in 1999, at the age of 75.
Chris Gorman, who was the firm’s second managing partner,reflects: “Ferrier was a remarkable man: a prodigiously good lawyer,
with a wonderfully wide-ranging intellect and with great humanity.
The staff loved him and the partners in many ways idolised him.”
Len Berkowitz says of him: “Ferrier was very humane andincredibly open-minded, as well as being a brilliant lawyer anddraftsman. Whether he was dealing with Lloyds Bank or the Alpine
Garden Society, they got exactly the same treatment from him. So
many people went through his hands and became stars in the firm.”
Ferrier Charlton personified the best of Linklaters, its values,
traditions and culture. He was a key figure in helping the firm makethe transition from a family-led firm to a strong commercial practice.
In his time, Linklaters moved from being a firm of solicitors to alaw firm. He was a pioneering lawyer, whose groundbreaking work
set market standards and kept the firm at the very top of the legal
profession. He was a man of absolute integrity. He wrote: “Trust
rewarded adds more; the stock of mutual trust, once lost, is hard to
replace.” Above all, he set the firm on a path of internationalisation to
become not just a leading law firm but a leading global law firm.
Not that he would ever have accepted this accolade because it was
simply not in his nature, but he deserves it nonetheless: Ferrier Charlton
was the single most important person in the history of Linklaters.

S t r at e g y | 1 4 9

Senior Partners
Linklaters
James Dods................................................... 1838-1845
John Linklater.............................................. 1845-1870
James Linklater........................................... 1870-1879
William Hackwood.......................................1879-1895
Joseph Addison ( joint)................................1895-1910
Harold Brown ( joint)...................................1895-1910
Harold Addison.............................................1910-1933

John Collier’s magic lads

Paines
Timothy Tyrell............................................. 1849-1857
Thomas Paine................................................1857-1898
William Paine................................................1898-1918
Linklaters & Paines
Harold Addison.............................................1910-1933
Harold George Brown................................. 1933-1935
Gerald Addison............................................. 1935-1956
Sam Brown.....................................................1956-1961
Andrew Knox.................................................1961-1969
James Sandars.............................................. 1969-1972
Peter Benham................................................1972-1976
John Field...................................................... 1976-1980
John Mayo..................................................... 1980-1985
Ferrier Charlton........................................... 1985-1988
Mark Sheldon ( joint 1991-1993)............... 1988-1993
James Wyness ( joint 1991-1993)...............1991-1996
Charles Allen-Jones....................................1996-2001
Linklaters
Anthony Cann............................................. 2001-2006
David Cheyne................................................2006-2011
Robert Elliott......................................................... 2011-

Managing Partners
James Wyness............................................... 1987-1991
Christopher Gorman....................................1991-1995
Terence Kyle................................................. 1995-1998
Tony Angel................................................... 1998-2007
Simon Davies........................................................ 2007-

1 5 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

Definitely deserving of a place in the Linklaters history is
Cambridge law tutor and vice-master of Trinity Hall John Collier,
who pointed many a law student Linklaters’ way – those he called
his “magic lads”. Celebrating John Collier’s 61st birthday in 1994
are left to right (back row): Chris McFadzean, Stephen Boughton,
Richard Godden, John Ellard, Tim Shipton, Guy Brannan, Simon
Clark, Christopher Style, Alan Walls and Jeremy Parr; (front row):
Stephen Edlmann, John Collier, James Wyness (John Collier’s
first “magic lad” dating from his time at Emmanuel College) andNick Eastwell.

Linklaters occupies about a million
and a half square feet around theworld, of which Silk Street comprises
450,000 square feet.

The idea behind the Market Leadership strategy was bothoffensive (to be proactive in changing the firm’s operation and focus
to concentrate on practices which could be market-leading andprofitable) and defensive (to prevent other firms from poachinglawyers or poaching clients). “If we aim to be ‘one of the pack’,” Tony
Angel wrote in the introduction to Clear Blue Water: A Vision for
Linklaters in 2007, “we risk one of our global competitors taking on
the challenge of market leadership and succeeding.”
In terms of its geographic reach, and market coverage, thestrategy envisaged the firm having “strength in depth” in the US,
Japan, Germany, the UK and France, and to have established itself
in Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. It needed to be strong in theemerging markets of Russia and China, and have “regional” strength
in Benelux, the Nordic region, Central and Eastern Europe, North
Asia, Southeast Asia and India.
Setting challenging targets to increase the profits per partner(PPP) was the most contentious element of the strategy. However, as
Tony Angel argues, profitability and market leadership are two sidesof the same coin. “You can only be the best firm by being financiallysuccessful, and you can only be financially successful if you are amarket leader. Partners would get annoyed by my focusing on
PPP as a key metric, but for me that was a key indicator that wewere implementing our strategy, being successful in our business,and getting closer to becoming market leaders, a goal which
everyone shared.”“Alignment” was another principal theme of the strategic
review. The strategy was clear that the firm should align its
practice with the requirements of its clients, as they dealt with theopportunities and challenges presented by globalisation.
The firm aimed to be the premium global law firm, but
the “premium” was dropped after the financial crisis. Instead,the focus changed to relationships with the clients. Now, theobjective is to become the leading global law firm. “Premium
sent the wrong message to the market,” notes Simon Davies.
“It was talking about us, rather than about the clients.” Similarly,
Linklaters no longer makes a big play about how many offices
it has; rather, it projects itself as a firm that can handle its

clients’ requirements wherever in the world they have need of
top‑quality advice.
In 2012, the firm carried out another major strategic review,
mapping out the direction for the following five years until 2017.
The backdrop to the review was a market as challenging as anything
Linklaters had ever faced. The trigger had been the collapse of Lehman
Brothers, the US investment bank, in 2008, which precipitated theglobal financial crisis, economic recessions around the world and acurrency crisis in Europe.
The market for top-end legal services, already undergoingsignificant change, was putting added pressure on the business.
“Disaggregation” of legal work and clients generally wanting “morefor less” were unfamiliar developments that threw into question thewhole business model of the firm, based as it was on billable hours,
gearing and the lockstep compensation structure. It was not all bad
news, though: as noted, Linklaters secured the prized mandate ofrepresenting the administrators in the Lehmans’ insolvency (seepage 131).
The vision to be the world’s leading global law firm was reaffirmed,
even as it was recognised that that goal had yet to be achieved. There
was no need for a fundamental change of strategic direction. The
mantra “Leading with Relationships” remained core to the strategy.
The strategic review identified five key themes to be addressedin different ways if the strategy was to succeed: quality; clients;
coverage; culture; and financial performance. The successfulprosecution of the strategy, said the review, required of the partners
an “unashamedly hardworking environment where everyone
makes an equal contribution”. Pursuing the international strategy
involved identifying primary, secondary and other markets, withthe secondary markets offering scope for alliances and developing
relationships with partner law firms.
As with previous strategic reviews, the 2012 review, titled“Towards 2017: a strategy for the partnership”, stressed the key
importance of profitability. Above all, the review underlined thefirm’s ambition. “When we focus on achieving a shared goal, we
invariably achieve it,” the report said. It is a simple truth that speaksof the firm’s unceasing ambition. 

S t r at e g y | 1 5 1

Senior Partners’ Roundtable
In September 2012, five former senior partners and the current
senior partner, Robert Elliott, met at Silk Street to discuss how
Linklaters has changed and developed during their time at the firm…

Robert Elliott (chair): Mark, you started with the firm before anyof us, in the 1950s. Can you describe the culture of the firm as you
remember it?
Mark Sheldon: It was still then dominated by the families: theBrowns and the Addisons, in particular. But it was starting to moveaway from the families, although the family influence on the culture
was very strong.
James Wyness: At the time I was managing partner, and before,
the culture was very ambitious, very professional and backed up by
standards and values which were extremely high level, cemented
by the family. The partners gave it terrific force. But the family was
becoming less important and the competition was becoming hotter
and hotter. We realised that we had to let some light in, and that iswhen lateral hiring started. We got some real movers and shakers,
but I don’t want to toady up to the present senior partner!
David Cheyne: The fact is, Robert coming in and being willing tocome as an assistant and then get elected to be a partner gave thepartnership an understanding of the merits of sensible lateral hiring.
We realised that, if you hire the right people at the right time, not justin the UK, but in Spain, Italy, other places, you can create a brilliant
business, which you might not be able to create by internal growth.
We would never have had a banking practice had you, Robert, andJohn Tucker not joined us. We might have, but in a very small way.
Anthony Cann: The first partner lateral hires in modern times were
the Americans. I agree, we decided it was something we could do.
Charles Allen-Jones: In the good old days what the firm could
achieve was dependent on who the partners were. But today, if there
is something that the firm wants to achieve and it hasn’t got thepeople to do it, you obviously go outside.
Mark: The addition of laterals, as long as it doesn’t get totally out ofhand, shouldn’t affect the culture. But the bigger the firm becomes
and the more locations it has, the more difficult it is to communicate
the culture.
Anthony: There is another danger in that approach [of hiring
laterals]. That is all good business sense, but I think it has made us

1 5 2 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m eslightly idle – sometimes – in making sure that we are filling thespaces up from the bottom.
Robert: And also encouraging people to be versatile and flexible.
A reaction from those days of being overspecialised, and we are quite
conscious of that.
Charles: I always thought that it was very important that the firm
was tolerant of oddballs, the people who didn’t fit in but who could
actually make a huge difference.
Anthony: There are good oddballs, and not so good oddballs. [laughter]
Mark: There was a fierce loyalty to the firm, a cohesion and aunity that was reinforced by the lockstep system. I don’tknow whether it still applies, but, in my view, lockstep is absolutelyof key importance to how a law firm runs, as distinct fromother businesses.
Robert: We still have lockstep, and it has just been reaffirmed by thepartners, with some flexibility around the edges.
Mark: You have to have flexibility, particularly when new firms
are joining and you’ve got to bring people up to the same stage of
profitability.
James: When I became a partner, the gearing was disproportionately
loaded in favour of the senior partners, I mean quite loaded.
Anthony: When I became a partner in ’78, I was originally offered
five parts, and the top partners were on 33. There was “level
pegging”, with £15,000 to everyone first and then the profit share.
The ladder was 12 years.
James: The even-ing out happened as more partners came in, didn’t it?
David: When I became a partner, John Mayo was senior partner,and he changed the ratio to 3:1. For my generation, the ladder was 11
years and then a year or two later came down to 10 years. Then, theratio went to 2.7:1 and then to 2.5:1.
Robert: Which is where it is now.

“There was a fierce loyalty
to the firm, a cohesion anda unity that was reinforcedby the lockstep system.”

1

2

3

6

4
5

Key
1. Anthony Cann
2. James Wyness
3. David Cheyne
4. Robert Elliott
5. Charles Allen-Jones
6. Mark Sheldon

S t r at e g y | 1 5 3

“If we were going to maintain our leadlevel with Slaughters in the market,
then we had to support our people witha cracking good back office. So we
hired in people from outside to manage
human resources, finance, PR.”David: The senior partner had absolute discretion over lockstep.
He could change lockstep for any individual partner or any groupof partners.
Charles: A big discussion, when James was managing partner,
was whether or not to put figures to the success or otherwise ofindividual partners.
James: The question was: “Can any assistant or partner sell himself
to the market?” From the grassroots, you got a force to begin
to move out people who were not able to perform because they
couldn’t sell themselves to the market.
We evolved a system, didn’t we, Mark, to ask the practiceareas whether anyone was holding them back. That went up to the
Finance & Policy Committee level. We would talk to the person, givehim a chance – or girl, although there weren’t any really at that time
– and we would say: “You’ve got to raise your game.” Very gently,
some people began to leave the firm.
Robert: Was the ethos that the business was common to all,and that therefore the individual components should not
be known?
Anthony: It was felt that, with individual performancemeasurement, collegiality and cohesion would fall down.
Mark: Even group income figures were not released to the rest of the
firm. Every group, in effect, developed its own ethos without looking
at other groups to see what they were making.

1 5 4 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m eDavid: Interestingly, separate accounts were produced for the overseas
offices. We knew exactly how much an office might be making or, in one
case, losing. That changed when the partnership resolved thatthey would like the information. If you wanted to work out where to
expand, it did help to know if you were making money in that area.
Anecdotally, people had their suspicions as to where we made ourmoney and where we didn’t, and it turned out the guesswork was
remarkably accurate.
We kept expanding Property which had been a phenomenalmoney maker, I suspect, in the 1970s. But, with our cost base in the
1980s, the figures showed that it was extraordinarily unprofitable.
Robert: You had the modernisers who wanted to understand thefinancial performance and the antis, who didn’t. What were thearguments in terms of culture and around cohesion?
Anthony: Well, I wasn’t an “anti”, but the concern was that thepartnership would break up if you saw that Mr A was doing so muchbetter than Mr B. It sounds ridiculous nowadays, but that was theconcern at the time.
Charles: The firm was very paternalistic, and, to a large extent, thepublishing [of financial performance information], if it did not
destroy the paternalism, certainly eroded it hugely.
Anthony: The other thing was we started managing the clients anddirecting work. In the early days, clients came to you, and there wasvery little central direction as to who actually would best deal withthe work.

James: The other thing you have to have within the culture – which
we did not have really when I was senior partner – is to find a wayof dealing with those who run out of steam, either by bringing
them back into the practice or by humanely getting rid of them.
Or, as someone who once came to speak to us called it, “proactive
outplacement”, which sent a shudder through the senior people.
Charles: When I started practising, company law was only handled
by a tiny number of firms. We therefore handled the small stuff, as
well as the big stuff. When I was head of Corporate, we had a debate,
believe it or not, as to whether we were going to go for big mattersor small matters. A partner who shall be nameless, who is not roundthis table, said the trouble with big matters, first of all, is that they
are things like awful privatisations, and, secondly, how are we going
to train our young people if we don’t do small matters? Fortunately,
we agreed that big matters were the thing to go for.
Robert: James, would you talk about the professionalisation of the
management of the firm, from your perspective?
James: I don’t know the process by which a managing partner was
decided on and then chosen, but I got landed with the job [in 1987],
slightly reluctantly, because everybody wanted to practise law andnot be a manager. In looking round, it was quite clear to me that theolder retainers who were managing the money, the human resources
and all those areas were wonderful people, but it wouldn’t do, it had
to be changed and quickly. If we were going to maintain our leadlevel with Slaughters in the market, then we had to support ourpeople with a cracking good back office. So we hired in people fromoutside to manage human resources, finance, PR. Earlier, in FerrierCharlton’s time, we brought over an American professor, David
Maister, who spoke to us about management of law firms. That was
the start of it.
Charles: He was a complete revelation. It was a new concept, thatthe firm could be managed at all. He completely opened my eyesto the fact that the people inside the law firm could do things thatwould change the positioning and the success of the law firm. Until
then – and this would have been the end of the 1980s – we were awhole bunch of individuals doing our thing, albeit in a collegiate andpositive way, but there was no sense that the sort of community ofeffort could change things.
David: He had this concept of finders, minders and grinders. But
it went further than that. If you look at the way we operated then,we were completely unable to contemplate controlling our costs.
We hadn’t allowed for the fact that our rent shot up in ’87. After the’87 crash, every other law firm saw their profits go up and ours fell
sharply, despite the fact that our turnover went up. That induced
a certain amount of angst among the partners and a belief that weshould try to start to run ourselves.
Anthony: Just as an aside, with reference to the way things
operated before we professionalised things, up to the early 1970s if
you wanted to work after 7.00 in the evening, you had to give notice.
I remember having given notice once, but still got locked in.
I shoulder-charged the door and smashed it and no one ever cameand asked me what happened!

S t r at e g y | 1 5 5

Robert: Can we talk about the internationalisation of the firm? Whencan we date that internationalisation from? When was the first office?
Mark: James and I opened the Paris and New York offices,
respectively, in January 1973 and November 1972. I was doing a lotof work for American banks, including Merrill Lynch. As they set
up in London, I was helping them to get established on the right
regulatory basis, with the Bank of England, tax and so on. As they
developed their business here, they became clients of the London
office. I also acted for one or two big US corporates, such as Johnson& Johnson. We were also getting quite a lot of work from major New
York law firms. My job, among other things, was to improve relations
with those firms. So I was the guy selected to go to New York,
something I had been pressing to do for five years.
James: So far as Paris was concerned, I was sent out [in 1972] towrite a paper on whether we should open in Paris, and I came to the1 5 6 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m eabsolutely astonishing conclusion that it was a really good thing to do.
My theory was that we should open [offices] where our clients wanted
us – to follow the market. To the financial centres, Paris, New York,
Frankfurt, Hong Kong. Were we already in Hong Kong, Charles?
Charles: No, we opened in January 1976, in a joint venture with
Deacons.
David: The first office, though, was Milan, in 1963.
Charles: We opened in Milan because John Gauntlett had this viewthat we needed to have something in Europe. Other firms werealready in Paris, so I think he thought that Paris was crowded.
He, John Gauntlett, happened to have this pal in Milan, a former
barrister, and so we opened in Milan.
James: It wasn’t a very bad idea, it was just a bad idea!

Charles: Well, the first man in Milan was very good. Then, when
he wanted to move on, we decided that we were going to put two
problems together, to put a thoroughly disappointing man into what
was a disappointing office and see what happened. In due course,
Milan got closed.
Robert: Can we talk about the alternative strategies to expandingin Europe, which were debated in the early 1990s? Which was, inessence, either putting our own people in or using best friends?
James: My own view was that you could have both – our own people
in major centres and best friends in secondary centres.
Charles: As business internationalised, what our clients in London
were telling us was that the service that they got from an English law
firm was much better and much more responsive than that you got
from the local [law firms].
Anthony: They wanted a more joined-up service.
David: Interestingly – although this is taking things forward a bit –clients also gave two completely separate comments as and when we
did have offices in all these countries. They would publicly say “wedo not like going to a one-stop shop” while privately doing just that.
The other thing about best friends, if you were a UK firm, wasit was largely a one-way ticket: we gave them work, we got nothing
back. There was virtually no flow of work that we could identify
that came from any of our best friends. One or two of them actuallyconsciously used to use other firms, because they didn’t have thequality of work or wanted to maintain relationships [with them].

“There was virtually no
flow of work that we could
identify that came from anyof our best friends.”

James: We risk passing over the question of practising local law,which is very important in the context of the development of the
firm. After six months or a year in Paris, it became apparent that
we absolutely had to practise French law if we were going to do
anything there and particularly make any money. So we started
trying to hire a good French lawyer, and failed maybe three or fourtimes before we got Jean-Marc [Lefèvre].
Charles: And Richard Bain.
James: And Richard Bain, who was dual-qualified.
Anthony: Did we approve the move into French law?
James: No, I don’t think so. The way the firm worked is that, if
they didn’t approve of what you’re doing, you soon get told to dosomething else. They knew I was starting to practise French law andnobody came and rapped me over the knuckles, so we got on with it!
Anthony: You did something until someone found out. Look at
how we have ended up with the Moscow office. We sent a chap on
secondment [Dominic Sanders] and suddenly found he created an
office! [laughter]S t r at e g y | 1 5 7

Charles: You are right, James, about the need to practise local law.
When we opened in Frankfurt in the early 1990s, we tried it as an
English law-only office, and of course it was a spectacular failure.
Mark: New York was different, because, when I went out and for 20
years, we were just practising English law. We were not competingin US law.
Anthony: I followed you in New York, Mark. I thought it wasa huge advantage to me to be in New York early in my career,because the New York law firms were a long way ahead in terms ofprofessionalism.
Charles: I agree. I thought the US law firms practised to a muchhigher standard than we did. We learnt from them. I think partly
going into US law, partly the increased competitive environmentand generally just the way we changed meant that we then practised
to a higher standard than the US law firms.
David: Not just the practice. When I first became a partner, theAmerican firms used technology much more efficiently than the
UK firms, but then in the 1980s firms such as ours started to spendmoney on technology. By the middle of the 1990s, it totally switched
and we made better use of technology than they did. Even though
NeXT, the system we introduced in the 1990s, was not one of ourgreat successes!

Robert: We probably invest more in knowledge and learning than they do.
David: Much, much more. The US law firms used to have better
precedents, and there again there has been a switch. When I firststarted, I don’t think we had any precedents, so it used to be aninteresting exercise when you were trying to do a transaction.
Charles: It certainly used to be the case that the US firms would notprovide free knowhow for clients, whereas we at Linklaters and theEnglish firms do a huge amount of that.
Mark: Just coming back to the question about the practice, I spent
the last six months of my time with the firm looking at the questionof whether we should practise US law. I started firmly with theidea that we shouldn’t. Then, after talking to various people, I
came to the conclusion that we should, in order to complete ourinternational finance practice.
Robert: We then hired Steve Thierbach and Ed Fleischman in 1994.
Charles: In my view, one of the absolutely key developmentsin the firm’s internationalisation was the establishment of theinternational finance section in the early 1980s. By virtue of having a
dedicated international finance section, which had some of the best,
most outgoing people of that level in the firm, we moved sharply
ahead of the competition. It was probably that development thatmoved us ahead of Slaughter and May.
Anthony: It forced us to be more international and generated a lot ofgrowth as well.
Charles: The two most effective people in the group – although it
did not become a group until 1981 – were David Barnard and Jim
Watkins. They produced the precedents, were standardising what
they did, were focusing on banks and hugely growing the practice.
David: More specifically, it was really a capital markets practice.
I subsequently spoke to Slaughters on the subject, who told me
they consciously decided to shrink the business because capital
markets was a less profitable line of business. They pulled out from
representing the banks.
One of the weaknesses of the section, from our point of view,which was subsequently cured, was that we didn’t have a strong
banking section.
Another issue was whether we stretched ourselves too
thin. Because some of our most talented lawyers went into theinternational finance section, that may have had an impact on thepulse of our business in terms of not having some of our best lawyers
remain on the company side.
Robert: So, the firm became comfortable with practising law otherthan English law in certain core jurisdictions, but then we went
further in our internationalisation by contemplating mergers.
Charles, would you like to kick that one off?

1 5 8 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

Charles: The Alliance was an immensely time-consuming business,
first to negotiate the Alliance and then the negotiations with theindividual firms. But that whole process changed the mindset of the
firm. One of the most dramatic changes of mindset was that of JeanMarc Lefèvre, who had been very opposed but then came around to
the idea. He then produced this top-notch team from Gide.
Anthony: That is not how it happened. Jeantet were part of the
Alliance, a firm which Jean-Marc didn’t like or want. We managed
skilfully to persuade them that they didn’t want to join [Linklaters& Alliance], but then there was great pressure from the other firms
to beef up the Paris office and to be more domestically focused. I
remember you, Charles, telling me I should see this chap, Thierry
Vassogne, but it [was] obviously no use…
Charles: Did I say that?
Anthony: I came back and said that I think he is going to do the trick.
[laughter]
Mark: This is wonderful, because I am learning so much about what
happened after I left! How did you handle the successive stages thatled from a link with the Alliance to merger?
Charles: In the early 1990s, there was a major debate about thedifference between practising local, international law – in otherwords, local law to support international transactions – andpractising local, local law. Offering local, local law was what drove us
into the [European] Alliance and the mergers.
Examples occurred where we found that we were at a
disadvantage when compared particularly with Clifford Chance andFreshfields for corporate deals. We had a decent EU practice, butthat was it.
The issue was how were we going to expand in Europe. Tony
Angel wrote a paper, in 1996, suggesting that we should move into
Europe and that was followed by a paper written by Guy Brannan,
who recommended a possible link with the Alliance of European
Lawyers. I think we were all agreed that the firm was not configured
to permit a grow-your-own strategy, added to which the mindsetof the individual partners was very conservative. We didn’t havepartners who said, “Give me the opportunity and I will go.” The
opportunity [of the Alliance] was presented to us, and we decided wewould pursue that opportunity.

Robert: The name [Linklaters & Alliance] was awful.
Charles: Yes, but the great thing about that awful name was that we
knew it would change. We were going to export the UK way of doing
things into these continental firms, and they were going to change
their practice.
Anthony: The original agreement with the Alliance did say that it waswith a view to merger. We had a committee with two people from eachfirm. The original idea was that we would have a grand coming together.
But this was never going to work, so we started negotiating bilaterally,
starting with the Germans. The brilliant step was to involve Bain, who
appointed a partner for each firm, and got everyone thinking strategically.
David: Our strategy [of going with the Alliance] was the right one,albeit our implementation may not have been perfect.
Robert: Anthony, you became senior partner around the time themergers were completed. What impact did that have on the senior
partner role?

James: During Mark’s and my time, the Alliance firms were “tacking
to cover”, by which I mean they were happy with their authority
over Europe from very good offices. But, when they could see
Freshfields and Clifford Chance becoming serious competitors, they
had to do more than tack to cover, they had to get into somebody
else’s boat.

Anthony: It meant a huge amount of time trying to make people
feel involved, important, joined in. A lot of work had to be done, notnecessarily by me, in trying to make people see the benefits for us all
through joint clients, joint work, joint marketing. It was crucial thateveryone in the firm, and certainly the clients, could see advantages
through getting a good consistent service.

Anthony: The big prize, which we didn’t think we had any chance of
doing on our own, was Germany.

Charles: Also, the firm’s present committee structure was adopted inyour time. That must have changed things?

S t r at e g y | 1 5 9

Anthony: Part of making everyone feel part of [the change] was that
we needed to change the structures. We created the International
Board and ExCom. All the different offices were represented on theInternational Board. It was a change that was overdue. We separated
out management and governance in a good way.
We also spent a lot of time on the brand, which was an attempt toconsult with everyone to try to establish the values of the new firm.
Actually, they were all quite similar in all the firms. We had themwritten down, to try to re-emphasise that culture. And I think that
was an important thing to have done.
Robert: I remember being a bit of a sceptic about writing down thosevalues until I saw them on the kitchen in our new Beijing office inboth Chinese and English. It illustrated the point why we had to be
expressive about what we are about.
Anthony: That was also done in other offices. A lot of people were
helped by the feeling that there were global values.
So that took up a huge amount of my time, especially whenthe economic climate deteriorated. Everyone says that you havea high after a merger and then about a year later it goes down tothe bottom. Well, that happened just as the financial situation was
getting worse and worse.
Robert: We have looked at the past so far. I could never haveimagined 20 years ago where we would be now. Can we now look atwhere we go from here? David, as the most recent incumbent, would
you like to start off?
David: You’re absolutely right. I could never have predicted
where the market has gone, let alone where Linklaters has gone.

1 6 0 | LI N KL ATERS P a s s i n g t h e f l a m e

We have largely covered the world outside the United States. The
real difficulty for any law firm is whether it will do a successful UK/
US merger. Otherwise, we will just have to wait very patiently for
another 50 years as the US economy slowly declines and ceases to be
relevant, and then Linklaters will reign supreme!
Robert: We are taking a good look at our relationships withinternational US corporates. I was seeing GE only last week in
Stanford. GE now does 60 per cent of its business outside theUnited States. So we’re looking at how we fit the firm’s services to
US international corporates in a much more thorough way thanperhaps we have done.
When we recast our strategy this year, part of that was deciding
which jurisdictions are core, where we will be physically present.
So, we are currently looking to open in Korea, where the local rules
are permitting international law firms to open. Then, we had a lookat “secondary” jurisdictions, and others where we may decide to bephysically present or to establish alliances. Australia came in
as a secondary jurisdiction and we have entered into an alliancewith Allens.
Mark: Where do we stand on China?
Robert: We have offices in Beijing and Shanghai, as well as HongKong. We have elected three Chinese partners this year. One of
the key partner elections this year was a mainlander, Judy Ng
Shortell, a PRC national, and she will help us to form close
relationships with Chinese corporates, whether they’re state-owned
enterprises or in the private sector. We have seen a change ofwork. Before it was foreign direct investment, now it is Chinese
outbound work.

“The Euro is the migraine that
dominates everything at the moment,
and is overhanging world tradein general.”Our strategic approach is to understand all the growthmarkets, not just Asia, but Latin America, Africa as well, andtheir relationships with the mature markets. If you get into thedetail of our strategy, it’s understanding all those flows and client
relationships that make up that.

Robert: I’d like to thank you all hugely for taking part in this discussion.
This is genuinely a unique event, for us as individuals and unique in thehistory of the firm. Any closing remarks from any of you?

Charles: The most important key to China is, in my view, Beijing. It
used to be Shanghai, but it is now Beijing and that is because that iswhere the government is and that is where the head offices of the big
companies are. The investment banks are also moving there.
The second point is that, when China becomes the mosteconomically powerful country in the world, Chinese law is going
to become an important international law – even if that appears
unthinkable at the moment.
China is the biggest challenge for the firm in future.

Mark: I agree. It has been fascinating that the firm has maintained
its culture/ethos over the past 60 years and more to continue as an
absolutely top-rank firm, and that is due largely to you guys aroundthe table.

Mark: What about the Euro?

James (looking at Robert): I think we’ve got the right man. [laughter] Anthony: Keep up the culture.

David: I agree. In the 40-odd years I have been with the firm, thefirm has changed dramatically, but actually, in terms of the way
people behave, the way people talk to each other and operate, itremains remarkably similar.

Robert: The Euro is the migraine that dominates everything at
the moment, and is overhanging world trade in general. At thesame time, you’ve got a financial system that is being restructured
and reformed with changes to Basel, which will run through to2017, 2018. So the whole of the financial sector is going tolook different.
I think this presents the firm with a huge opportunity. We are
now used to working with the Eurozone migraine, as I have described
it. I tell my partners that we are going to play a leading role in thereshaping of the banking system, and the rebalancing of trade.
Charles: My impression is that the firm has got its approach to thebanks in thoroughly good order.

S t r at e g y | 1 6 1

Adrian Heath, Study Pienza 2 1986, oil on board, 32x20cm

1 6 2 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

APPENDIX:
The Art of Linklaters

A P P E N DI X : THE A RT OF LI N KL ATERS | 1 6 3

T

he paintings in this book are a small sample of the works ofart owned by Linklaters. Over the past quarter-century, thecollection has grown to become one of the most interesting andindividual not just among law firms but of any business. The art isintended to reflect the key attributes of the firm: understated quality,
technical excellence, innovation and diversity. We have acquired art
works, not because of an artist’s reputation, but because of the qualityof the individual piece and the contribution it makes. We have thus
built up a group of artworks designed to stimulate and enhance theworking lives of those who work in and visit our buildings.
The original rationale for acquiring the art was pragmatic.
The property partner, Robert Finch, tasked with overseeing therefurbishment of the firm’s then offices in Barrington House,discovered that it was noticeably cheaper to paint walls, insteadof wallpapering them. Rather than simply save the difference,
he proposed, with others, including William Grant, Nigel Reidand Patrick Plant, that the firm start an art collection. The art
would elevate the aesthetic surroundings, creating a culturally
stimulating and creative environment for those working in andvisiting our offices.
It was clear from the outset what type of art the firm would
collect. Linklaters is a modern, forward-thinking law firm; the art
would all be contemporary. Other ground rules were established. All
paintings or works of art would be displayed in common spaces, andnot in partners’ rooms or individual offices.
Linklaters’ art collection now consists of over a thousand
paintings, prints, sculptures and drawings, hung throughout its Silk
Street offices in London. There are works by world-renowned artists
alongside young art graduates. Among the range of artists hung on
our walls, there is a representation of modern British works fromartists such as Barbara Hepworth, Terry Frost and Patrick Heron;from the artists that came in their wake, such as Patrick Caulfield

1 6 4 | LI N KL ATERS P A SSI N G THE FL A ME

and John McLean, and from contemporary artists at a range ofstages within their careers. Non-British artists are also represented,
such as Charles Christopher Hill, an American minimalist painter,and FD Schlemme, a German contemporary artist.
In some areas around the building we have commissioned works
specifically for that space. A large painting by Carl Laubin in the mainfoyer depicts an imaginary view of the city, as though through the eyesof Linklaters and featuring institutions and companies which have alink or relevance to the firm. Sculptures by Anthony Burke are placedon each floor of the Shire Building at Silk Street. A glass bubble withineach sculpture represents the position of the floor within the building.
The key works of the collection are hung in the meeting rooms
across the 1st and 2nd floors. Paintings by young artists such as Eric
Butcher and Mark Pearson hang alongside more established artists
such as Adrian Heath and Sandra Blow. A visitor may pass a painting
by Lawrence Gowing, whose other works hang in the Tate, or sit in a
meeting room featuring an emerging artist whose work was bought
at his or her degree show.
Each piece of art is picked because of its technical excellence,compatibility with the rest of the collection, and the individual
contribution it is perceived to make. The quality of the piece is more
important than the artist’s reputation. We work with art schools,
galleries and individual artists, as well as choosing celebrated piecesof art from the best known artists. The result is an eclectic range ofwork which demonstrates the variety and diversity of attitudes andapproaches evident within the firm.
We continually assess the collection and monitor trends in new
art to make sure our artworks represent a cross-section of ideas tostimulate the people who see them every day.
Catherine Shearn
Art Collection Curator, Linklaters

Lawrence Gowing, Parabolic Perspective 1964, Oil on board, 142x122cm

A P P E N DI X : THE A RT OF LI N KL ATERS | 1 6 5

PARTNERS ON 1 JANUARY 2013
A
B

C

D

E
F
G
H

I
J
K
L

M

N
O
P
Q
R
S

T
U

V
W

Y

Z

The names of the Partners of Linklaters LLP are as shown. The term “Partner” is used to refer to a member of Linklaters LLP and employees or
consultants of Linklaters LLP or its affiliated firms or entities with equivalent standing and qualification.

© Linklaters LLP
linklaters.com
Design and produced by GM Toucari
gmtoucari.com