Talk:King & Wood Mallesons

KWM Europe financial difficulties

As at mid-November 2016 there are multiple reports in the legal press that the European arm of KWM is close to failing - see e.g. https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online-november-2016/exclusive-dewey-administration-adviser-drafted-kwm-rescue-deal/ or http://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/8185-kwm-global-head-fuller-to-stand-down-as-european-arm-closes-in-on-recapitalisation-deal . Not sure how this should be reflected in the article, which at the moment is just the usual law firm marketing blurb. Honcho426 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Verein structure

Query how we should deal with law firms organised as Vereins. At the moment this is unsatisfactory. The introductory text suggests this is one firm, with one set of revenue. The later text explains that the downfall of KWM EMEA won't impact the rest of KWM because they are in fact managed and financed separately. This seems inconsistent. Honcho426 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is necessarily any inconsistency. When people speak of law firms they typically include Vereins, and use the overall Verein when discussing figures. However, the statement about the impact on the other aspects of the firm is quite specific and effectively says they are financially quarantined from the KWM Europe impact. -Auscorporatelawyer (talk)

The failure of KWM EMEA means all the figures in the article need to be re-verified. "6th largest law firm in the world" will not be right, given that £100m+ of KWM EMEA revenues will have largely vanished. "Largest law firm headquartered in Asia" and "top 30" may or may not be correct - a source would be required which is up to date. On the wider question of how Vereins are treated, there is a longstanding controversy in the legal press (see [1]) and occasionally the general press ([2]). The point is highlighted by the statement in the article that the separate firms are financially quarantined - if you look to the source (Bloomberg law) you see the actual quote is "As you know the firms are not really merged. It’s a Verein. The Australians and Chinese will just carry on.”. So I do think there is a wider question as to how Vereins should be treated, albeit this is not really the place to resolve it - we should, however, make sure that the article reflects KWM as it is today, not KWM in 2015. Honcho426 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You could just use date refs until you get some more figures. That's what I've added. See what you think.-— LawArticles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Note though that the administration has not yet begun.

As for how vereins are treated, I agree this is probably not the best place to resolve it. But my opinion, for what its worth, is based in part on the fact that, as far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of publications use total verein figures. For example: Legal Business; The American Lawyer; Legal Week (Revenue; Headcount); Chambers Asia Pacific; Australian Legal Business. That is also the method used in List of largest law firms by revenue.

As far as I know (and I stand to be corrected), no other publication has taken a different approach. On my reading, the ABA Journal piece Honcho426 cited, authored by a freelance journalist, does not really support a "long-standing controversy" about how vereins are treated as an identity, but more discusses the practical and ethical issues that can arise in those structures. It also contains a single quote from the then chairman of K&L Gates complaining about using verein figures in rankings, but that doesn't really go anywhere. The same for The Economist article.

For Wikipedia purposes, I think provided the article makes sufficiently clear that the firm is a verein this should not cause confusion. Vereins are also increasingly common. If you disregard overall verein structures you would need to disregard figures used for Hogan Lovells, Baker & McKenzie, DLA Piper, and Norton Rose Fulbright, among others. I would probably not take the same approach simply for mere "alliances", which is pure branding and nothing else.-Auscorporatelawyer (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King & Wood Mallesons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814053049/http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/mallesons-chinas-king-wood-plan-alliance/530805.aspx to http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/Mallesons-Chinas-King-Wood-plan-alliance/530805.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King & Wood Mallesons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130330150655/http://www.asklegal.com.au/ to http://asklegal.com.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)