Bank Conflicts are a Major Factor in Lawyers' Leaps to Smaller Firms
Although the financial crisis has revved up bank-related litigation, BigLaw firms aren’t seeing as much of it as a number of partners would like. Most represent banks and often are either conflicted out of such matters or reluctant to alienate a big client by participating even when no conflict precludes the representation.
Meanwhile, the situation has created opportunities for midsize national firms and litigation boutiques and some partners at larger law partnerships are leaping to take advantage of them, reports the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.).
Among those who have moved to avoid such conflicts is Hugh Ray, who concluded his 40-year practice at 400-attorney Andrews Kurth last year to join 125-attorney McKool Smith, a Texas firm without bank clients. “I came over because my phone was ringing with big-case opportunities, but it kept raising conflicts,” says Ray, who is 67.
Partner Michael Carlinsky of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan says not representing any bank clients in corporate matters is a key ingredient of the 400-lawyer firm’s success. Recently, it took on a lawsuit for Washington Mutual Inc. against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., after Weil Gotshal & Manges was conflicted out, he says. The Quinn firm put 10 lawyers to work on the case.
