Oceans apart?

With the American Bar Association conference in London just six weeks away, we take a look at the relationship between US and UK firms, the different approaches of London and New York law firms, and the experiences of those who journey across the Atlantic

Are City firms making as big an impact in New York as New York firms are in London? Linda Tsang reports

'Over-paid and over here' may be how US lawyers are viewed in London by the English lawyers, but the London-based international firms are bullish about the impact they are making in New York, the home city of most of those well-paid US attorneys, which is still seen as one of the battlegrounds for quality legal work.Freshfields' US managing partner Stephen Revell says: 'Firms like Freshfields, Linklaters & Alliance and Allen & Overy practise US law all over the world as an integral part of the international practice we have developed.

Freshfields has more than half its lawyers outside its London office - it is truly international.

In the US, we practise US law, both domestically and as part of our international business.

We have been expanding rapidly in New York and Washington, and now have a very cosmopolitan mix of both work and lawyers.'He concedes that although they may not be in head-to-head competition with the Wall Street firms, City firms are marking themselves out as distinctive: 'We may not be perceived as having made an impact by the likes of Davis Polk & Wardwell and Sullivan & Cromwell, and are not necessarily on their radar screen.

Although we are very busy, we are not attacking their heartland of mergers and acquisitions - not yet.

Firms like Freshfields combine international experience with in-depth local knowledge, and are truly international firms, unlike many of the premier Wall Street firms.'But the most distinctive move so far has been Clifford Chance merging at the beginning of this year with New York firm Rogers & Wells (and German firm Pnder Volhard Weber & Axster) to form the largest law firm in the world.

However, a partner from one of those premier Wall Street firms says: 'This merger has not made much of an impact on what we do; we do not see them on the deals that we do.

What the Rogers & Wells merger has done is make selling Clifford Chance as a global firm easier outside the US.'Regional managing partner for Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, Larry Cranch, disagrees with that comment, and considers that the firm has been seen as making a 'brilliant move', leap-frogging into a different league.

He predicts that other firms are likely to follow the move - out of necessity.

He adds that it is early days, but since the merger, the New York office has never been busier, and the firm recently recruited Peter Chaffetz and Steven Schwartz, two leading insurance and reinsurance litigators from Chadbourne & Parke, and David M Lindsey, a specialist in international commercial arbitration and litigation, from the Miami office of Steel Hector Davis.He stresses: 'Given how important profitability is to New York firms, it is a huge challenge, to lose current profits to future investment; but to compete you have to be a firm with an international focus.

This firm is truly global, with a full US/UK capability - and the merger is also a reaction to the fact that the market for legal services is becomingly increasingly global, and you have to be a global player.'Freshfields' Stephen Revell agrees that where there is more room for manoeuvre for the London-based international firms is in the wider perspective: 'We are competing in global practice areas such as project finance and structured finance.

We are also expanding into markets such as Latin America, and that would be happening whether or not we had a New York office.'He argues that you have to allow for the fact that the London-based firms are 60 lawyers against New York firms' 600, so the US firms can for the moment be dismissive.

He maintains: 'The world is changing - has changed - and the legal scene in New York will start to change as more and more clients develop a "business without borders".

For example, the investment banks' focus is becoming more completely global.

Some US firms are thinking more internationally, but having 30 lawyers in London only sounds international.

It isn't.

You have to look at a wide range of jurisdictions in Europe, not just England, and you have to focus on the range and calibre of the lawyers within those jurisdictions to properly service the needs of clients.'Whether other firms may follow the merger route to provide that global service is a moot point.

The reactions have ranged from 'so what?' from the major US players to 'there have been very few ripples but wait and see' from the London firms.At Linklaters & Alliance, executive head of the New York office Marianne Rosenberg, formerly with White & Case, is bullish about how firms like Linklaters are doing in New York.

Wall Street firms mirror what the magic circle firms in London say about the US 'interlopers' - that they are not seen in the major deals.

But she argues: 'The London firms are getting noticed.

There is no question that in my area of asset finance, the firm's capability is seen as first-rate, and we are taking business from other firms - that is the objective.'But despite that competition for business, she does not rule out another major transatlantic merger in the next five to ten years: 'Most London and New York firms have a referral relationship, but it is more of a regular date than a serious relationship.

For example, Slaughter and May has its "best friends" policy [with Davis Polk & Wardwell], which is like a regular Saturday night date relationship.'As for the perception that the stumbling block is the difference in profitability, Ms Rosenberg says: 'The difference in profits between US and UK firms is an ingredient in a merger, but it is not the only one - some US firms do not see that they should become more international.'She is not alone in that view.

Her former firm, White & Case, has recently had abortive talks with US firm Brown & Wood, and also with City giant Allen & Overy.

Duane Wall, who took over as managing partner recently at White & Case, cites his own firm's recent acquisition in London of the Weil Gotshal & Manges team headed by Maurice Allen as an indication of how New York and London firms are looking to expand.

He says: 'The move to merge with Brown & Wood to strengthen its capital markets capability did not work out for many reasons, but the firm is still looking to increase that area of practice.'White & Case's strategy has been rare for a US firm, as it has an international network of offices to match the London-based international firms.

Mr Wall says: 'Those magic circle firms may become so profitable with their widespread practices that they will become more attractive as a merger prospect - we are all sitting and waiting for the next one.'Linklaters' Marianne Rosenberg is more sanguine: 'The bottom line is what the global clients want, and they are sophisticated users of legal services.

If they want a premier international firm providing a premier international client with seamless service, whether US/UK or Europe/Asia, then that is the driving force - and that is when you will see either a merger or a cohabitation.

A number of firms are looking for cohabitees, but it is probably too early to talk about a transatlantic shotgun wedding.' Following the Clifford Chance merger, it seems that New York has changed from a battleground to a dating agency.

Linda Tsang is a freelance journalist

Jessica Smerin investigates whether some US firms in London have the right strategy in offering full-service practices

The City's magic circle firms gave their biggest acknowledgement so far to the threat posed by their US rivals last month, when they raised their salaries to match those offered by the London offices of the Americans.In the last two years, the competition has become overt.

Gone are the days when the top end of Wall Street was in bed with their counterparts in London, signing pillow agreements not to poach work.

The opening of the European markets has been the catalyst for raising the stakes, with the biggest London offices of US firms announcing their intentionto compete directly with the magic circle for pan-European dominance.However, the success of US offices in London and Europe is by no means assured.

The partners of US parent firms tend to be cautious when it comes to underwriting the fat pay packets offered by the new offices.

The founding partner of the highly successful London office of Weil Gotshal & Manges, Maurice Allen (now with the London office of US rival White & Case) says: 'There is huge pressure from the parent firm.

Every time a new office opens, someone in America tells you that if you don't produce the money very quickly, it will be your fault.

The decision about which way to go strategically may not be seen as being one which the firm has taken collectively and is happy to support.'The partners of the London office of Sonnenschein discovered this last year, when they were summarily closed after losing money.

Former Sonnenschein partner Rupert Jones, who is now with the London office of Buchanan Inglesoll, says: 'Sonnenschein London was trying to provide a full service using ten lawyers.

Who needs another full-service firm in the City? US law firms have a certain arrogance.

They think that what works in Chicago will work everywhere else.

They don't realise how mature and competitive the London market is.

They think that if they're acting for a bank in New York, they will also be acting for that bank in London.

Then they find the bank is already being serviced by the magic circle.'One of Sonnenschein's major clients in the US is fast food chain McDonald's, but McDonald's has been in England for 25 years and its management had strong ties with a City firm, originally Frere Cholmeley Bischoff, which later split into a merger with Eversheds and a new firm, Forsters.

'Why should they want to change to us?' says Mr Jones.

'We got more work from Kansas City than we did from Chicago, where Sonnenschein is based, because all the Chicago companies had come to London before us, in the mid-1990s.'The demise of Sonnenschein's London office highlights one of the key issues facing US firms hoping to run London offices profitably - whether to offer a full business service to clients or to specialise.

Many US firms do neither.

The majority of the 80-plus US-based London offices consist of a handful of lawyers offering a hand-holdingservice for existing US clients doing European deals, and have strong referral relationships with City firms.Many commercial US firms feel no need to open a London office.

The chair of the American Bar Association's international law and practice section, Rona Meers, explains: 'My firm, Haynes & Boone, has a large international practice, but we have not opened a London office because we have extremely close relationships with UK firms who act for us if we need a presence in London.

We find that's sufficient, and it avoids unnecessary capital expenditure.'Many US firms with substantial London offices of 20-plus lawyers, offer a service only in US legal issues arising in London.

However, the firms which go into London to make big money by practising UK law have two choices: to offer a full service or to build a reputation as specialists in a particular area.

Alan Hodgart of legal management consultancy Hildebrandt believes specialisation is the way forward: 'A lot of people are doing the full service approach, but increasingly they are realising it's not a good way to make money.

When US clients move into the UK, they may initially use the London office.

Then, they realise that there are only two lawyers in the corporate group, and that it can't handle big deals.

They hear about London firms with much higher reputations in the field, and they turn to them.

This makes it very hard to keep the work.

After three years, the partners in the States, who didn't agree with opening the office to start with, begin asking questions.

The specialisation route is ideal, because you can build on existing expertise in the States and the firm's reputation will allow you to recruit good lawyers quickly and achieve a critical mass, so that you can present yourself as comparable to City firms.'When the London office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges opened in 1996, Mr Allen took the specialisation strategy a step further by focusing on banking and capital markets work, despite the fact that the parent firm in the US had built its reputation in bankruptcy, mergers and acquisitions, and litigation.

Mr Allen says: 'It was an unusual strategy, but we saw a definite gap in the London market and Weils in the States were pleased because we were developing new clients for the firm - clients like JP Morgan - so we were more interesting to them than if we'd just been using their existing clients.

This built a good interactive connection with the parent firm.

Although there were a lot of Americans firms in London in 1996, very few had a practice in UK law.

They felt that it was difficult to break in, because London was a mature market and there was an oversupply.

This was a misunderstanding.

The reality was that the magic circle firmsdominated the market and there was no serious competition to them.

When you looked atbanking, there were only two or three top firms that were widely used, and the banks really needed more choice than just those firms.'However, some firms have not lost faith in the approach of competing with the magic circle firms in all departments by offering a full service.

McDermott Will & Emery opened its UK office in October 1998 - the last of the top-20 US firms to do so - with the intention of recruiting 50 lawyers by the end of the first year, 100 by the end of the second and 250 by the end of the fifth.

So far, it is on target.

Partner William Charnley says: 'We aim to be a quality full-service law firm, and one of the global leaders.

Our growth strategy is about competing directly with the magic circle.'Increasingly, US firms are hoping not only to get business from US companies which are moving into the UK and Europe for the first time, but to lure major clients away from magic circle firms.

Mr Allen believes they are well placed to do so: 'US institutions are used to a particular type of lawyering, in which they hand over responsibility to their lawyers and expect them to run the deal.

They're looking for firms who've got a handle on their needs for doing business in Europe.

American lawyers are better than English ones at exporting client relationships, and when they come to do business in Europe, they'll carry relationships across the Atlantic.' And he adds: 'The Americans are coming into London because it's the gateway to Europe.

Everything in Europe comes back to having contacts in London; all the banks are sourcing their work out of London.'However, it is in the competition for European dominance that many predict the magic circle firms will have an edge over their Wall Street competition.

UK firms have business mentalities which are willing to accept short-term losses in favour of long-term investment.

For example, Allen & Overy's New York office, now highly successful, is widely believed to have made a loss for its first ten years of business.US firms tend to place a greater priority on seeing immediate cash returns for their investment in a London office.

Commentators says that the US firms' conservative global business strategies, which focus on the bottom line hampers long-term vision, is one reason why UK firms are likely to do better in Europe and even in south east Asia.

Mr Allen says: 'UK firms take a better attitude to building ahead of business.

Historically, US firms have been reluctant to make the investment.' However, he is quick to point out that White & Case, the firm to which he moved last week, has adopted a UK-style approach to expansion.

He adds: 'We want to compete with the magic circle firms and we are very well placed to do that.'The London offices of US firms may be setting the pace on salaries, but this is not a sure sign that they will be able to win the race for European legal business.

Jessica Smerin is a freelance journalist

Will Clifford Chance's merger with US firm Rogers & Wells be the first of many? Jon Robins tests the transatlantic waters

'We're leading the way - others will have tofollow,' proclaimed Keith Clark, the seniorpartner at Clifford Chance, when the news broke of his firm's merger with New York's Roger & Wells and the German firm Pnder Volhard Weber & Axster.

Of course, it was the New York connection that set the legal markets buzzing on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr Clark's words might have sounded smug but, as the deal clinched Clifford Chance's status as the largest law firm in the world, few would deny the basic truth.

City firms with global aspirations would have to break into the New York market to attract and keep the biggest international clients, and Clifford Chance were blazing the trail.According to Ward Bower, a partner at US-based legal consultants Altman Weil, the merger sees Clifford Chance emerge as a significant capital markets player on both sides of the Atlantic.

He believes that this dual capability is the key to a new breed of global law firm.Firms without a presence in both New York and London will not automatically be shut out of the big cross-border deals, he says.

However, he adds: 'If you have the capability in both jurisdictions, then you have made the shortlist on every one of these deals rather than the ones they have decided to do under English or New York law.'On the international stage, traditionally UK firms have had a head start over their colleagues because of the reputation of the City as a financial centre and the predominance of the English legal system in many parts of the world.

Last year, British Invisibles (BI), a group which promotes UK financial services world-wide, reckoned that earnings from exported legal services rose by more than 50% in the previous three years, from 511 million in 1995 to 791 million in 1998.The report noted that City firms have always been 'early investors' in overseas markets reflecting 'the outward-looking tradition' of London as an international financial centre.

It also noted that the largest firms are now building up their expertise in New York State law to strengthen their position in the international markets.Andrew Ballheimer, resident partner in Allen & Overy's New York office, predicts that five years down the line, a stratum of 'truly global firms for global transactions' will appear.

'Our aim is to be in that small group of truly high-quality global firms which have top-quality practitioners in each of the key jurisdictions,' he says, adding that the most important are London and New York.

He reckons that only English and US securities law are 'truly international' in nature, whereas others are 'domestic products'.

To illustrate the point, he argues that the international offices of continental firms are generally for inward investment.According to the BI report, US firms have not embraced international expansionism in the same way as their London counterparts have, but there was a 'growing expectation' that they would in the wake of the Clifford Chance merger.

Until now, the US internal market is so vast that US firms have been able to keep very busy and exceptionally profitable without having to leave their shores.Of course, there is plenty of evidence of US activity in the UK market.

'Whether you are English or US, any firm that has aspirations to be international or global has to have dual capability to carry out these transactions,' says the London-based executive partner John Bellhouse of US firm White & Case.

It is what the clients want and their expectation are growing, he reckons.There are about 70 fee-earners in White & Case's London office and it is planning tosubstantially increase its English capability.

Earlier in the month, the firm recruited former Clifford Chance partner Maurice Allen, who founded the London office of US firm Weil Gotshal & Manges, and six leading banking and finance partners from the same firm.

Mr Bellhouse anticipates 'considerable' expansion at associate level over the next two years.These US firms are also making inroads into the territory of the magic circle.

A recent survey found that the London office of US firm Sullivan & Cromwell was ranked fourth in a deal table thanks to its expansionist US clients.

Last year, it advised on nine deals worth 167 billion.

By contrast, Linklaters carried out 173 UK-based transactions worth 400 billion, Freshfields and Clifford Chance ranked second and third with deals worth 265 billion and 168.4 billion respectively.However, many New York firms resist the notion of the 'one-stop shop' global law service, preferring instead to use local lawyers on international jobs.

Steven Fogel, senior partner of City firm Titmuss Sainer Dechert, which has a close relationship with leading US firm Dechert Price & Rhoads, argues that New York firms are different to other firms because of the city's reputation as the pre-eminent business capital of the world.

'New York firms can afford to look at doing business through the spectacles of New York,' he says.

'It looks different if you are practising law in London or Europe.'Ward Bower argues that if Clifford Chance emerges as a force to be reckoned with in both the UK and US, that might provide an impetus for change.

He also anticipates that Clifford Chance will strike a second deal with another New York firm soon so that it is in a position to 'credibly compete' in the US market.

'They're going to have bulk themselves up comparable to the significant players in New York,' he adds.The issue for UK firms is how to build their US practices to tap into the market.

Titmuss Sainer Dechert has had a 'joint international enterprise' with Dechert Price & Rhoads since 1994.

The arrangement is more structured than an alliance, according to Steven Fogel.

For example, a payment was made in previous years by one firm, dependent on the relative profitability of both firms.

Last year it was waived and the firms have decided to set up a global fund for joint projects.He believes that alliances do not have a sufficient degree of integration to offer 'a really seamless service' because the lawyers need to be working together on a daily basis.

'The show on the road does not run as slickly as an integrated model,' he says.Mr Fogel does not rule out a merger and the situation is constantly reviewed.

But he ismindful of the logistical nightmare of joining two firms together.

'There comes a point when you decide "to hell with it" and you just merge the firms,' he says.

And when might that be for Titmuss Sainer Dechert? 'We'll know that point when we get to it.'If the Clifford Chance merger is leading the way, who is following? According to Ward Bower, there are a handful of firms from each jurisdiction in merger talks now.

But he does not anticipate any dramatic activity in the near future, at least until two firms can manage to - as he puts it - 'reconcile the economics'.

The fundamental problem is the huge disparity in profitability between US firms and their City suitors.Pay is another obvious stumbling block.

Nick Root, of legal consultants Taylor Root, points to the recent speculation about the breakdown of merger talks between Ashurst Morris Crisp and US firm Latham & Watkins.

How would a London office of such a merger work when the UK newly qualifieds are on salaries of 40,000 whereas their US peers are paid in excess of 75,000? There has yet to be a precedent to overcome that problem, he says.

No wonder Clifford Chance has led the way in the recent wave of massive pay hikes for assistants.For the time being, Allen & Overy's approach is to grow its New York office.

Three years ago there were three solicitors, whereas now there are eight UK-qualified staff and 35 US-qualified.

Mergers are high-risk strategies, Mr Ballheimer points out.

There are plenty of prospective partners, but few are of the right calibre for Allen & Overy: 'You bet everything on a merger, but if you mess it up, your firm is dead basically,' he says.

Mergers have to be 'untrumpable', he warns.

Although we often mock, the US litigation system has a lot to teach the UK, argues claimant solicitor Martyn Day

In this country, we have a tendency to sneer at the US litigation system, to laugh at the extraordinary awards that can sometimes be given and to joke about the US litigators whose rhetoric would make even a used car salesman blush.However, having litigated within the British system for some 20 years, having travelled to the US on countless occasions, and having worked closely with US lawyers on many different cases, I am quite clear that, although there are excesses, fundamentally they have a system that works.

Increasingly I am of the view that we do not.In February of this year, I was in Los Angeles to meet with the US lawyers who had suddenly become interested in the plight of the former World War II prisoners of war of the Japanese.

I was joined at the meeting by Isomi Suzuki from Tokyo.

The two of us had been battling for compensation for the former Allied PoWs for eight years.

The US lawyers had only decided to join the fray within the last few months.

What was a real lesson was that despite the experience of Isomi and I in the claims, the Americans were immediately able to effectively take over the show with the two of us only able to look on in admiration.

What they were able to bring to the issue that we had never been able to achieve in either Britain or Japan was a system that worked: a system that gave the claimant a real chance to present their case before a sympathetic arbitrator - that is, a jury - a system that did not frighten the claimants to death regarding the issue of costs, a system that ensured the claimants' lawyers had the wherewithal to fight the cases not just in the courts but to hire political lobbyists to take the issue to Capitol Hill, and to hire PR consultants to raise the issue in the media.For years I had faced impassive Japanese government officials across the court in Tokyo, knowing that to win in front of Japanese judges we had a mountain to climb.

For years I had been meeting with Japanese and British politicians, ambassadors and civil servants, each time thinking I was banging my head against a brick wall.

For the first time, this February, it seemed to me that the tide had turned.

Having worked with US lawyers in the claims against tobacco manufacturers, having seen the pressure that their system could place on the might of the cigarette manufacturers as they sought to put out fire after fire emerging across the country, having worked with the US lawyers in the Nazi slave labour cases, seeing the political and media pressure they could impose on the German government and industry to face their past, it seemed to me clear that the Japanese were facing the real prospect of having to account for what they did during World War II.When I was trawling through the mass of documents that emerged from the tobacco companies on both sides of the Atlantic in the late 1990s, it struck me how many internal US documents described how worried the company executives were about the prospect of the first US claims succeeding and the potential impact that could have on their business.

And yet, by comparison, in the UK documents the issue was hardly mentioned.

Even when it was, the prospect of the UK judicial system causing difficulties for the companies here was almost immediately laughed off.How prophetic those executives were.

In the US, the billions of dollars paid out and the continued haemorrhaging of lost claims as jury after jury finds for the claimants is playing havoc with their share prices as Wall Street becomes increasingly nervous about where it is all leading.

However, in the UK, the court quickly and efficiently saw off the one serious attempt to take on the industry, leaving the prospect of the tobacco companies ever having to account for the millions of deaths theirproducts have caused remote in the extreme.When I was in Los Angeles, I was talking to one lawyer from San Francisco about the way their class action system works for small mass product liability claims.

She described how they had one case where the claim was for only 100 each, being the amount the consumer had been overcharged.

The claim was won and now some 3,000 claimants had successfully been paid out their 100, less a 25% contingency fee.

Not a major amount, but when compounded for so many people, the company had clearly made hundreds of thousands, if not millions, out of it.

Why should there not be a system that enables claimants to reclaim even these small sums?In this country, we have been working with the Consumers' Association to decide whether it is feasible to take on car manufacturers over the price-fixing issue.

The car price differential is probably, on average, some 2,000, quite a considerable sum for most people.

However, with the claimants having to face the defendants' costs if the case is lost, with a system where the defendants can hire lawyers charging 300 to 400 per hour, with asystem where it is quite impossible to determine beforehand whether those costs would be 100,000 or 10 million, who is likely to want to take on those manufacturers in a case in which the claim is certain but the potential loss is almost infinite? In the tobacco cases, I obtained a quote from insurers who said they would support the case to the tune of 10 million for a premium of 4 million.

The insurers were surprised when I informed them that the 50 claimants were likely to be in some difficulty finding that sort of sum.

In the end, albeit we were still some one year away from trial when the case collapsed, the tobacco companies' costs were already 15 million, so even if the individuals had found the money, the cover would only have been a fraction of the final bill they would have had to meet if they had gone through to trial and then lost.Obviously, in many individual cases, our system incorporating conditional fees and after-the-event insurance does work.

However, where it is woefully inadequate is for those mass tort or product liability claims where the inherent conservatism of our judiciary, our punitive costs system, the prospect of the defendants fighting to the death and thereby throwing costs at the case, the lack of resources in the hands of the claimants lawyers, and the over-burdensome procedural process - all this means there is an ever-increasing likelihood that the next ten years will see the end of these types of claim in Britain unless our system is changed.

Corporate Britain may well cheer at such a prospect, but in terms of the rights of the ordinary citizen, it will be a significant blow.

Hopefully, we will not wait until then before we start learning the lessons that our American cousins could teach us.

Martyn Day is a partner at Leigh Day & Co in London

Requalifying in the US

The legal profession is regulated at state level in the US.

The criteria for admission differs from state to state.

Most US states require the applicant to have a US law degree from an American Bar Association-accredited law school in order to sit the state Bar examination.

Further details may be obtained from the relevant state Bar.

New York State BarThis is the popular Bar for solicitors looking to requalify in the US.

Solicitors must have three years' full-time legal education behind them in order to sit the New York State Bar examination.

Solicitors do not need to be practising in order to sit the examination.Solicitors who have qualified via the Common Professional Examination (CPE) route are not recognised as having an adequate legal qualification in order to sit the New York examination.

CPE applicants must complete the following in order to be admitted to the examinations:X Proof that they have passed the CPE (or its predecessor) or have been awarded a joint honours or mixed degree;X Proof that they have passed the legal practice course (or its predecessor);X Proof that they have successfully completed a training contract (or its predecessor) - a certificate of good service will suffice;X Proof of admission as a solicitor; andX Proof of completion of a minimum of a 20-credit programme of study in professional law subjects, including basic courses in US law, at an approved law school in the US.Full details of the Rules for the Admission of Attorneys in New York can be found on: www.nylj.com/links/part520am.htmlCalifornia State BarSolicitors must be practising in order to sit the California State Bar examination.

Solicitors can sit the examination on the basis of the solicitor qualification alone, regardless of the route to qualification.American Bar course programmes in England and WalesCentral Law Training runs a New York and California Bar course programme, which prepares applicants for the New York and California State Bar examinations.

Tel: Harpinder Toora, 0121 362 7735.Holborn College runs a New York Bar course programme.

It will also be providing a Bar course programme for California State Bar examinations in the near future.

Tel: 020 7385 3377.The Fulbright Commission, which promotes educational and cultural exchange between the UK and the US, runs an education advisory service for people seeking information on law studies in the USA.

Tel: 020 7404 6994.For a list of state Bars, or any other enquiries, contact Ann Frazer at the Law Society, tel: 020 7320 5775.

Ann Frazer is a policy executive in the Law Society's international department

ABA 2000: registration information

ABA 2000 runs from 15 to 20 July.It costs solicitors 235 to register, which gives admission to:X all 24 plenary programmes;X entrance to the opening assembly at the Royal Albert Hall; andX the ABA president's reception at the Tower of London.Solicitors can gain 75% of their continuing professional development credits by attending.There will also be many other social events.For more information, telephone 020 8957 5056 or see www.abanet.org/annual/2000