User:BunnyDust/Herbert Smith

Notes on this page

The Herbert Smith page is currently under dispute. Currently two profiles of the firm exist on the page; I feel that one is too heavily biased towards the firm, while the other contains some material inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. My text below is an attempt to provide a neutral mid-ground; I hope that it can be used to produce a text acceptable by all to be moved to the Herbert Smith page.

My text below uses the current Profile 1 as a template, edited as I felt appropriate. If you want an explanation for any particular changes I have made, please ask.

Please note that work needs to be done on:

• Links to external sources (where I say "source from P1" I am referring to the source from the current Profile 1 or Profile 2). Done
• Links to other Wikipedia pages. Done

I accept that my current draft might need some editing. Please use the Comments section below to make your comments, explaining why you feel any changes need to be made (please do not edit the current draft directly).

Edits to 'Current draft'

I have made the following edits to the current draft, from its original form, either to improve the links (see above) or to implement others' comments:

• 6th January 8.31am - italicised my comments and reasoning on the draft.
• 6th January 8.46am - added links to replace my placeholders.
• 8th January 9.47pm - added internal links.
• 13th January 12.49pm - added references section, added titles to external links, and removed my italicised comments on the draft.
• 13th January 17.50pm - edited 5th paragraph on the firm's reputation as a litigation firm.
• 21st January 9.33am - changed References section to have two columns.

Current draft

Herbert Smith LLP is a London-based law firm, with a sizeable Asian practice, plus limited offices and representation throughout Europe. The firm was founded in the City of London in 1882 by Norman Herbert Smith and today has 230 partners and 1,200 fee-earners.

The firm has offices in London, Brussels, Paris, Moscow, Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, Singapore, Tokyo, Abu Dhabi and Bangkok, with an associated office in Jakarta. The firm also has an India practice which operates out of its international offices. Current clients include: BAA, BP, BSkyB, Coca Cola, Eurotunnel, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, the Tata Group, Time Warner, and Vodafone. In September 2008, the firm is principal or joint corporate adviser to 19 of the UK's FTSE 100 companies and is positioned 7th in the total market.

The firm has a formal alliance with German law firm Gleiss Lutz and Benelux law firm Stibbe. The firm also works closely with a number of US firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. In Saudi Arabia the firm has a formal alliance with local firm [Al Ghazzawi Professional Association]] (GPA). None of these alliances represent a formal "one firm approach", as championed by the likes of Linklaters, Freshfields, Allen and Overy, and Clifford Chance.

After initial specialisation in the early part of the 20th century in company flotations and advising mining companies, the firm's more recent reputation rests on a combination of its litigation and its corporate capability (M&A and equity capital markets in particular). Other practices it has include finance, real estate, energy, and competition.

The firm has previously been considered the UK's leading litigation practice. In 2007 The Lawyer named it 'Litigation Team of the Year'. It is now considered by some to have been matched or overtaken by others, such as Clifford Chance and Freshfields. In November 2008, The Lawyer reported that Herbert Smith was 35th in the top 50 transatlantic litigation firms, beaten by rivals such as DLA, Clifford Chance, and Freshfields (based on revenue). Other commentators maintain that, in terms of quality, Herbert Smith remains one of the most reputable litigation firms.

Herbert Smith is considered to fall just below the “Magic Circle”, a group of leading Anglo-Saxon law firms. Despite previous impressions, Legal Week magazine does not consider Herbert Smith a member of the Magic Circle, describing it instead as a member of the “chasing pack” (suggestions that Legal Week considers Herbert Smith as a member of this elite should be treated with scepticism).

The firm's revenue in 2007 was £334 million, making it the 9th largest firm by fee income in the UK. In 2008 revenues rose 25% to £422 million and profits-per-equity partner rose by a similar proportion to break the £1 million level for the first time. In 2007, The Lawyer awarded Herbert Smith Corporate Team of the Year and Litigation Team of the Year.

The firm experienced mixed fortunes in 2008. While the firm continues to be able to boast of a tremendous track record, the firm's work on one of its major cases of the year has been criticised. The firm's half-year revenue target was missed by 2%, and the second half of the year has seen the firm back-track on a tax scheme for partners because of the anticipated drop off in profits for the full financial year.

The firm is generally viewed as providing a positive working environment and offers a pension, healthcare, and a range of other benefits. It has, however, lost at least one employment tribunal case in recent years and was dogged by racism allegations in 2008, with the firm being forced to apologise for its actions.

The firm has appointed 47 partners in the past three years. 32 were internal promotions from associate level, while 15 were lateral hires from other firms; only five of the new partners were women.

References:

Comments

The only thing I would change is the tone of the paragraph on the firm's standing as a litigation firm. Although the Lawyer did rank the firm 35th by revenue, this reflects only one year's turnover and profits, and comes from what is essentially a legal magazine (no more authoritative than Roll on Friday, the website which is regarded across the legal industry as its own form of 'Private Eye' magazine). The Chambers Guide for 2009 notes that "[Herbert Smith] has consistently been ranked as the leading UK and Asian firm for commercial litigation." (afraid I only have the paper copy here (it's on page 1335), but an online copy of this entry may be available somewhere). Given that Chambers speaks with considerably more authority, it seems only fair to change the tone of that paragraph to note that Herbert Smith is very widely regarded as the leading litigation firm, though with some publications suggesting that it may be losing this lead. Other sources of lesser standing (Roll on Friday, Legal Week, The Times Legal Guide) agree with this view. Otherwise the article all seems factual and balanced.

Afraid I don't agree with the unsigned comment above. The figures from The Lawyer are objective. Chambers commentary is subjective and therefore should be treated with a degree of scepticism. In addition, 'Commercial Litigation' is only one field of litigation - Banking litigation, etc, are equally as important, and it would be very difficult to argue that Herbert Smith is ahead of rival such as A&O either in that one specialism, or for litigation/dispute resolution more generally. The figures published by the Lawyer offer a good objective view.--90.192.188.202 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)--90.192.188.202 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from discussion page: This profile is better than either of the two existing ones. Good work. --Yobabyyo (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Herbert Smith discussion page: I'm also in agreement that your revised version is more suitable than either of the other two. I think it may need less work than you fear. Good work. --Yobabyyo (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Herbert Smith discussion page: I think that the revised entry is very good, in terms of neutrality. I am starting at the firm next year and decided to have a look at the Wiki entry out of interest. I was quite shocked when just viewing the present page. Glad to see the final paragraph about women toned down; this site is not meant to offer career advice based on subjective criticisms about sexism. Silenceuk (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that wikepedia would ever claim to give career advice. It's not the purpose of this site. Please don't expect it to. I do agree however that the proportion of women in a senior role seems to be low, but I have no idea what to compare it to. I suppose that 50% should be women, but there may be reasons why they are not (childbirth, etc). Also, I can't see how anyone has suggested sexism by pointing out the raw data. I'd be very intersted to know how the proportion of women partners at Herbert smith compares to tfe wider world. I would also be intersted to know how many black partners they have in the UK. Is this info easy to come by? ------90.192.188.202 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To compare Herbert Smith to other firms, you could use the source from the article at http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=128752 to look at the statistics on female partners. You could look at Clifford Chance, Freshfields, Allen & Overy etc. (all mentioned in the article, these are fairly similar firms to Herbert Smith). I'm not sure where to find information on race. BunnyDust (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your comments above. Sometime today (within a few hours) I will make a couple of edits to my current draft to take account of what you've said. I'll post here again when I've done so, then will wait a couple of days for any new comments, before hopefully updating Herbert Smith itself. Thanks again for your help. BunnyDust (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I have now updated the paragraph (the 5th) on the firm's reputation as a litigation firm. Hopefully I have achieved a balance between: the firm's traditional reputation as the best litigation firm, some commentators' view that it has been caught up by other firms (including the sources on litigation revenue), and other commentators' view that Herbert Smith remains (one of) the best litigation firms in terms of reputation and quality. Essentially I hope the paragraph reflects the fact that the commentators disagree on this issue, and the possible conflict between the size/revenue of the litigation department and the quality of its work. Obviously the article shouldn't attempt to review the firm or provide advice to potential clients; I have attempted to present the sources as accurately as possible. Any comments would be appreciated. As I said I intend to move the text into Herbert Smith in two or three days so any further comments are welcome. BunnyDust (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I also intend to add the following box to the top of Herbert Smith. Comments on this too, please. Thanks. BunnyDust (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I have now updated Herbert Smith. Any further edits should be made to that page directly from now on (e.g. I intend to introduce sections because the current text is quite long). I've also inserted a warning box, as above, which I intend to remove after a couple of weeks if there are no problems. Thanks for all your help with this. I'll be keeping this page for reference and will check it for any other comments. BunnyDust (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)