|
|
No big law firms have publicly spoken out on the issue so far but top lawyers at several firms are privately considering whether to depart from neutrality because of the effect they believe an exit would have on business. [...]
David Morley, senior partner at Allen & Overy, described Brexit as “the defining issue for the UK, for the economy, if not society as a whole, for a generation”.
“Typically law firms wouldn’t get involved in politics as we have to work with governments and we don’t like to take positions which clients might disagree with but this is different,” he said.
Mr Davies’s group, named “Lawyers — In for Britain”, said its members were acting as individuals and not on behalf of their law firms and that the legal advice they give remains neutral. [...]
“I feel strongly that the UK’s economic future and security is better protected as being part of the European Union, so I took a view before the general election that it is something I ought to take an interest in,” Mr Davies said. “I don’t have a political background, I haven’t been involved in any party.”
Others in the group include Stephen Kon, senior partner at King & Wood Mallesons; Martin Coleman at Norton Rose Fulbright; Rhodri Thompson QC of Matrix Chambers; Andrew Renshaw at Freshfields; Stephen Kinsella at Sidley Austin; and Kevin Coates from the European Commission.
The group had held several meetings, including in November at the office of Norton Rose Fulbright where Sir Mike Rake, chairman of BTGroup; Nick Clegg, former deputy prime minister; and Roland Rudd, the founder of the public relations firm Finsbury, gave their views on Brexit, Mr Davies said. The group is preparing a campaign document it aims to publish in late February. [...]
“About a third of our revenue is in the UK and another third in Europe,” said Mr Morley, of A&O. “We were able to grow because of EU harmonisation and the recognition of professional qualifications, which meant we could go into business with German, French and Dutch lawyers, which then laid the foundation for our global business. Would we still have mutual recognition? Would we still be able to continue in the same way? The biggest issue is the uncertainty.”
“Clifford Chance would never take a stance,” said Simon Gleeson, a financial regulation partner at the firm. “We have clients on both sides of this particular divide. If you want to give proper legal advice on anything, you can’t take a side.”
Still, “the practice of the big law firms would be affected, we would suffer very badly from an exit”, Mr Gleeson admitted. “It’s sort of like being a doctor in the plague, you may be very busy while it’s going on, but it doesn’t bode well for the long-term.”
Full article on Financial Times