Mayer Brown Merges with Hong Kongs JSM
Law Firm News
US-based international law firm Mayer Brown and Hong Kong’s Johnson, Stokes and Master are merging in a move that will create the world’s tenth-largest law firm by revenue.
The rare trans-pacific merger reflects the increasingly global operations of large businesses. It brings together two firms founded in the 19th century which are both largely focused on commercial transactions and litigation.
The combined entity, which will be known in Asia as Mayer Brown JSM, will have an annual revenue of $1.3bn and around 1800 lawyers. Jim Holzhauer, Mayer Brown chairman, will chair the global firm’s central policy and planning committee, and Elaine Lo, chairwoman of JSM’s partnership board, will head the combined entity’s Asia board.
The firms expect to grow substantially after the merger. Mr Holzhauer projects annual revenue to hit $2bn ”very quickly” and Ms Lo predicts earnings of $4bn within two to three years. ”This kind of growth cannot be obtained by just organic growth alone,” said Ms Lo.
Up to now, Mayer Brown’s Asia presence has been limited to one office in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing. JSM, whose clients include HSBC, Bank of China and Cathay Pacific, has 200 lawyers in mainland China, but none outside Asia.
That has meant that both firms had to find outside partners when handling cases that involve elements outside the firms’ home regions, such as cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
”The synergies will come from the clients,” said Paul Maher, Mayer Brown vice-chairman. ”Many of the major banks or industries we represent have transactions that will have both a European and Asian component, for example, and we will soon be able to do both within one firm.”
The merger comes nearly six years after the trans-atlantic tie-up between the US’s Mayer, Brown & Platt and the UK firm of Rowe & Maw to create Mayer Brown. The firm has suffered a tumultuous year, most recently with partner Joseph Collins being indicted in Manhattan on fraud charges related to the collapse of trading firm Refco in 2005. Mr Collins has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Ms Lo said the merger brings together JSM’s knowledge of the Chinese market with Mayer Brown’s global reach and experience in sophisticated commercial transactions. ”The world is becoming more globalised,” she said. ”Chinese companies are encouraged by the central government to expand overseas and they are just poised to grow out of China.”
Related listings
-
Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love Being Sued
Law Firm News 12/12/2007An Oklahoma oil and gas company has filed a $16 million lawsuit against a Charleston law firm and two of its attorneys for legal malpractice and for breach of contract. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP and attorneys Charles B. Dollison and Ju...
-
Mathys & Schneid File Charges over Infant Death
Law Firm News 12/12/2007LAW OFFICES OF MATHYS & SCHNEID today (Wednesday, December 12, 2007) filed a lawsuit (Case No. 2007 L 13860) against Jewel Food Stores, Johnson & Johnson, McNeil-PPC, Inc., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others for the death of a six ...
-
Portland Firm Fires Partner for Alleged Theft
Law Firm News 12/12/2007A longtime partner in one of Maine's most prominent law firms has been fired for allegedly stealing money from clients and the firm. Portland-based Verrill Dana sent a letter of apology to clients of John Duncan and notified them that i...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.