To the ends of the earth

To the ends of the earth

Law firms are eager to broaden their global reach.

The European Establishment of Lawyers Directive should make this easier when it is implemented later this month, but there are still problems involved - for the firms and the staff who take the plunge and move abroad

The European Establishment of Lawyers Directive will be incorporated into UK law this month.

Bibi Berki reportsThe idea of a foreign lawyer becoming president of the Law Society is as hard to imagine now as the notion of a foreign manager of a leading English football club was 20 years ago.

But it could happen.

From this month the European Establishment of Lawyers Directive will be implemented in the UK.

It gives EU lawyers the right to practise law in any other member state under their home professional title, including host state law.They will have to register with the local professional body and will be subject to disciplinary procedures, but after three years' practice of host state law, they can be admitted to the local profession, and - who knows - run for a Law Society Council seat and ultimately president.The ins and outs of the directive have been well rehearsed in the 20 years it has taken to give birth to this controversial piece of legislation.

So far, only Germany, Italy and Sweden have implemented the directive.

Its UK implementation was hampered by the fact that there are no fewer than six legal professional bodies which had to be taken into account.

Adopted two years ago, it was set to be implemented here on 14 March.

Now the implementation date is 22 May.

Its implementation takes place against a backdrop of growing protectionism by local lawyers in both western and eastern Europe.The UK, traditionally associated with conservatism in the face of European innovation, is in fact leading the field in efforts to free up international legal practice.

June O'Keeffe, Brussels-based head of EU and World Trade Organisation affairs for the Law Society, says England and Wales has the most liberal regime for lawyers from abroad.

She says this could be because lawyers in the UK approach legal practice as a business and not as some ancient and exalted art, as is the case in some European countries.The implementation of the directive will not result in a flood of lawyers entering the UK from other EU countries, says Ms O'Keeffe.

'They've always had that right anyway,' she explains.

'England and Wales has always been an exporter of legal services, while other member states have been importers of legal services.' She maintains that the presence of these foreign lawyers has 'not done much harm to domestic lawyers'.In short, the directive gives all EU nationals the right to practise law (including host state law) on a permanent basis in any other member state under their home professional title.

There are two salient Articles in the directive:X Article 3 says nationals must register with the appropriate 'competent authority' and must comply with with the local profession's rules of conduct; andX Article 10 gives EU nationals the right after three years' practice of host state law in the host state to be admitted to the local profession.

In some cases, they can earn this right after three years' practice in the host state but without practising host state law for all of that time.The directive introduces a new term to the profession - the REL, or registered European lawyer.

RELs in England and Wales will have the right, among other things, to: X carry out advocacy and litigation and use court documents, as long as they are instructed together with a solicitor or barrister; X apply and qualify for rights of audience in the higher courts; X carry out legal aid work; and X carry out conveyancing and probate work (unless their home state has a notarial system).They will also be subject to the Solicitors Practice Rules, indemnity and Solicitors Compensation Fund contributions, the jurisdiction of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the courts.The directive applies to lawyers from all other EU member states, except members of separate notarial, judicial or paralegal professions or 'avocats stagiaires' (trainees).Those EU lawyers already practising here will have to register with one of the six UK law societies or Bars, or stop practising.The European Communities (Lawyer's Practice) Regulations 2000, which implement the directive in England and Wales, will amend the Law Society's Royal Charter to allow RELs to become full members of the Society.Similarly, UK lawyers practising in other member states will have to register with the local profession and abide by its rules.

English and Welsh solicitors who work in the Irish Republic will have to register with the Law Society of Ireland.

UK solicitors established in a member state will be allowed to enter into partnerships with the local profession and other lawyers, or to practise in corporate form if these modes of practice are allowed to local lawyers.

But in countries where multi-disciplinary partnerships are allowed, UK solicitors will not be able to join, as the Law Society's Overseas Practice Rules prohibit this.Local rules will govern much of what UK lawyers get up to abroad.

For example, they can only practise in employment as in-house lawyers if this is allowed by the local profession.

Not everyone is happy with the prospect of an EU-wide level playing field.

Luxembourg is challenging the directive in the European Court of Justice, claiming, among other things, that the directive should have been agreed by unanimity and not by qualified majority.

Had it needed to have been agreed by unanimity, Luxembourg would have voted against it.

The signs are that the challenge will fail - the pre-hearing advocate-general's report recently came out strongly in favour of the directive - but if Luxembourg were to win, the whole thing would fall apart.

France is using this as a reason not to implement the directive until a final ruling is made.The Establishment Directive only applies to EU member states and those countries hoping to join it.

But according to the Law Society's international director, Jonathan Goldsmith, it has wider global uses.

As bodies such as the International Bar Association struggle with laying down guidelines for cross-border practice, the directive could be the template that others adopt once it is in place and is shown to work.

It is, after all, the first concerted international attempt to lay down such guidelines.'We would be happy for the establishment directive to be implemented worldwide,' Mr Goldsmith says.

But in the absence of such an agreement, it is still handy.

The fact is that the directive gives more rights than many English law firms want when they open overseas offices.

English lawyers in Brazil, for example, have little interest in practising Brazilian law, except perhaps where it is relevant to the huge financial deals that are their bread and butter.

For that, they prefer to employ local lawyers anyway.

And they have even less interest in becoming leading lights in the Brazilian Bar.The right to open and practise as solicitors, as well as employing and going into partnership with local lawyers, are the key demands of English firms abroad and this is central to the directive.

So when he travels around the world, negotiating with this restrictive Bar and that conservative law society, Mr Goldsmith is quick to point to the directive.

It is vital that he can show that what English law firms want is nothing more than what foreign firms can get in England.

'It's a very good tool to take abroad and say, "this is how we do things in Europe".'Going global can cause major headaches for UK law firms, so is it worth all the bother? Bibi Berki and Neil Rose take a look To the UK commercial lawyer, the rest of the world is ripe for domination.

Unfortunately the rest of the world does not quite see it this way.Foreign markets are often as hard to penetrate as they are tantalising.

It is no good searching for a slice of the potential work in a central European country, for example, if that country then refuses to let you practise there.The situation is particularly galling to the Law Society of England and Wales, which presides over one of the most open legal market places in the world.It monitors the situation around the world on behalf of its members and steps in when things get unbearable.

In the end, though, it is greater pressures - such as through the European Establishment of Lawyers Directive and the World Trade Organisation - that are likely to have the greatest effect on opening up foreign markets.The situation is far from clear-cut.

The US, which prides itself on commercial freedom and opportunity, makes things notoriously hard not just for foreign lawyers but for its own lawyers wanting to move from state to state.

On the other hand, Poland, surrounded by intransigent, former Eastern Bloc states, is working at making its legal market place fairer to outsiders.Nor is it simply a case of a local law associations getting a bit hot under the collar over foreign lawyers' familiarity with their new market.

Several countries have proved their bite is just as bad as their bark by hauling foreign practitioners before the authorities.

Only last week, the Slovak Bar warned two UK firms, three US firms and an Austrian practice to cool down their marketing or face criminal prosecution.In the Greek port of Piraeus, 12 English law firms are staring criminal prosecution in the face over what the Piraeus Bar calls illegal practice.

Ashurst Morris Crisp, the only English firm in India, faces two pending law suits alleging that it is practising illegally.

But there has been little action on prosecuting these cases in the past year or so.Back in 1996, an English solicitor who had retired to the Costa Brava but had a practice advising expatriates, was arrested by Spanish police, fingerprinted, photographed and kept in a police station before the hearing on a charge that he was practising illegally.

After anintervention by the Spanish Bar - prompted by the Law Society - the judge later dismissed the case on the grounds that Graham Consitt's client knew he was not a Spanish lawyer.Jonathan Goldsmith, the Law Society's director of international, says increasingglobalisation means solicitors are becoming interested in newer markets abroad, such as Korea, Brazil and Slovakia.But they are also coming across serious attempts by local law societies and Bars to stop these new markets being exploited.

Mr Goldsmith adds that the protectionist approach of some countries isconfused.'Most countries stop foreign lawyers coming in because they are afraid that the really juicy international work will automatically go to foreign lawyers, and they feel their profession is not ready to compete with international firms,' he says.

'That's understandable, but it's wrong.'Stephen Denyer, Allen & Overy's regional managing partner for Europe, says that when his firm enters a market, the first step is to build a relationship and to educate the local profession on how foreign firms will benefit them.

'It's fair to say that in most jurisdictions, Bars are conservative and tend to be dominated by domestic practitioners,' he explains.'Often they have very little awareness of the international legal scene and why firms want to be multi-jurisdictional.

An initial strong conservative reaction is not surprising.'Mr Goldsmith contends that the effect of an open market place for legal services is beneficial to host countries.

'What foreign law firms do is a transfer of know-how.' English firms opening overseas do not simply people their new offices with lawyers from back home, but employ professionals from their host country - at least where they can; in many countries, foreign firms cannot employ or go into partnership with local lawyers.In the countries where foreign law firms are allowed to employ and go into partnership with local lawyers, you would think that contact with the local Bar would be easier and more productive.

But this is not necessarily the case, says Mr Denyer: 'They're seen as having sold out.'Mr Goldsmith says that in countries that allow this mix, host country lawyers 'learn how to do business in an Anglo-Saxon, international way', and this is increasingly important in the current market with the predominance of English and New York law.

The presence of foreign law firms also raises standards of pay among local firms, he says, so 'overall it's a good thing and not a bad thing'.

Although the situation for foreign lawyers has deteriorated in some countries, on the whole, the prognosis is good, says Mr Goldsmith.

All EU members were meant to have implemented the European Establishment of Lawyers Directive by 14 March this year (although most have not yet), while aspirant EU members must bring their laws into line with it.

This is a boon to the Law Society in its battle to open up the global market to English lawyers.Mr Denyer agrees, saying that the pressure brought to bear via the European Commission on countries in central and eastern Europe has been the 'decisive factor'.

He goes on: 'There is no political mileage in being nice to foreign law firms.

But there is political necessity in getting on with the European Union.

The Law Society has been at the forefront of making [lawyers' practice rights] a European issue.' Mr Denyer concedes that employing such tactics makes the preferred strategy of dealing with local Bars in a 'softly, softly' manner more difficult.

'It's a delicate balance.'The same effect is experienced when countries wish to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

China's desire to join the WTO means the country will have to be more open to business from foreign lawyers in the future - good news for the many City law firms which have been lobbying for a more liberal approach from the Chinese authorities.Mr Goldsmith says: 'When countries want to join the international trade bodies, that's a time for maximum leverage because they are forced to open up their markets in order to join the club.' In the last two years, China has gradually dropped a host of planned restrictions on foreign lawyers, although it is still insisting on some which firms resist.One important tool in the Law Society's arsenal is the simple fact that England and Wales are world leaders in legal market freedom.

The fact that foreign lawyers can come to England and Wales, open up shop with little fuss and advise on all areas expect the few reserved activities, gives the Law Society the moral high ground when trying to convince other countries to follow its example.But Mr Denyer says that in some countries, where the prospects of, say, a Slovakian law firm opening in London are negligible, this is only a theoretical argument.

'A more powerful argument is showing how London has developed as a centre of legal expertise by allowing people to come and set up.'Another aspect of efforts to open up countries is the unparalleled level of co-operation between otherwise competing law firms.

From Japan to Slovakia, English and US firms work together in lobbying the local Bar and government, as they usually have the same objective.

There is also often the view that there is more than enough work to go round.

A rare example of where this broke down was in Hungary, where Allen & Overy had something of a disagreement with Clifford Chance and CMS Cameron McKenna, the other two English firms there, over tactics.

But Mr Denyer says this was the exception to the rule.

'Our aim is to have a common approach.

Normally it's not that difficult.'Ultimately, moving into new overseas markets is a long-term game.

The way international trade is going, the barriers are only going to keep falling, some quicker than others.

'We just have to assume that however hard we try, each time foreign law firms start going into a country, there are going to be problems with the Bar,' says Mr Denyer.

'It is unwise to assume otherwise.' On the flip side though is the business benefits of being one of the first to plant your flag in a new market where your clients have work.

And that, confirms Mr Denyer, is what make it worth all the bother.Working abroad may sound romantic, but is it? Jon Robins finds outNo doubt there has been many a bright young lawyer seduced into a career with a City firm on the promise of a spell in the sun at the firm's Madrid office, or maybe a couple of years living it up in New York.But the glamour soon wears off.

Or does it? Martyn Plaskett is a partner at City firm Beaumont & Son and runs its Rio office.

Four years ago he told the Gazette, in a statement designed to extract maximum envy from City-bound colleagues, that the best thing about being in Rio was being stuck in a traffic jam and admiring Copacabana beach on the way to work.Little has changed in the intervening years, with the exception that the traffic has improved, he reports.

He only makes it to the beach two or three times a year, but he says that when you live in a place surrounded by beaches and with sunshine all the year round, you just learn to ignore it.

It must be tough.But Mr Plaskett is the first to admit there are downsides to his adopted home in Brazil.

'It remains a wonderful city,' he says.

'But it has its problems with violence and the infrastructure is not anywhere near the US or England.' But he is happy and still has no plans to return home.There are around 2,500 solicitors currently practising overseas, in spite of an increasing trend for City firms to grow offices from the local talent.

City firm Denton Wilde Sapte has about 25 of its London lawyers based outside the UK, compared to 80 other lawyers recruited locally for those offices.David Moroney, Dentons' international managing partner, explains the firm's rationale.

'We're in for the long haul,' he says.

'We never adopt a policy of going into a place and pulling out at the first sign of trouble, as some of our competitors do.' He says that hiring local lawyers is an integral part of that service.It is a strategy that is being adopted elsewhere.

Hugh Owen moved to Bratislava in Slovakia last month to set up an office for City firm Allen & Overy.

He is out there to put the Allen & Overy stamp on the operation.'When people pick up the phone and choose Allen & Overy, they choose it for the reason that there is a consistency of service with every office they use,' he says.

He has been with the firm since 1994 and claims to be steeped in the firm's culture.

'I've been sent here to make sure every single piece of work that is sent out is of an Allen & Overy standard,' he says.

So far, there are ten people working in the office and all have been recruited locally.Mr Owen maintains he might be the only UK solicitor resident in Bratislava.

Prior to that, he was in the firm's Prague office in the Czech Republic for two and a half years.

His verdict so far is a cautious 'much better than expected'.

The shops and restaurants are 'not particularly good' and life without meat is 'tough'.

But on the positive side, his money goes further and he has better accommodation than he did in London.

Of course, escaping the pollution of London brings its own advantages.

'I can cycle 15 minutes from the centre and I'm in the countryside cycling by the Danube,' he says.Slovakia is going through the same process of dramatic economic growth that was taking place in Prague when he first arrived there in 1995.

As a result, he says that there is plenty of new business flowing from the privatisations and re-financing projects taking place in the country.

'People are sniffing around more than they were even a few months ago,' he says.He expects to be based in Bratislava for at least two years.

The life of the overseas lawyer suits him, but he admits to missing friends.

'There are moments in life when you need to give people a call,' he says.

'And you get on the phone to people in London and not the people in Prague.' To ease solicitors into life abroad, law firms will pay substantial sums for relocations.

Mr Owen will not give details of his relocation package other than to comment that he is very happy with it.Jonathan Hill, a manager in Freshfields' human resources department, says there are different packages depending where the firm's lawyers are sent.

For example, Asian secondees are given the local salary but on top of that there is a relocation package at the beginning of their secondment which varies from 2,000 to 3,000 according to seniority.

Lawyers are provided with other benefits, such as flights home.Lawyers seeking to escape the hard grind of the long hours culture in the City might be in for a surprise.

Nick White has been based in Trowers & Hamlins' Dubai office since September 1998 and before that he worked in other offices in the Middle East for a number of years.

If anything, his work hours have increased since the move.

At the end of the Dubai day, London is still on the go and US clients are just waking up, he says.Business is done very differently in the Middle East, where much greater importance is placed on the personal touch.

'You cannot sit at your desk and rely on the work coming in.

You need to show your presence out and about in the market,' he says.

The solicitor is not just the 'faceless chap' at the end of the fax line and the client is always there.

'You can bump into him anywhere - in the supermarket and at the beach'.Philip Quirk is a partner in Denton Wilde Sapte's Tokyo office and has represented the firm there since 1989.

He is an enthusiastic advocate for the Japanese way of life, both on a personal and professional basis.

'Japan is an incredibly conservative culture, but the business environment is very exciting and dynamic because it attracts all the people at the top of the market in their own fields,' he says.He first came to the country to work on his judo technique after university, but his interest now extends beyond martial arts.

He speaks the language and has a Japanese wife.

'It's her country and she feels very comfortable and that makes me feel very comfortable,' he says.

But he admits that there are frustrations.

'Communication is more than just words or knowing the vocabulary,' he says.

On a practical level, he finds the excessive bureaucracy occasionally annoying.

But on the whole, life in Tokyo is 'immensely satisfying'.

He has no need for the big expatriate community but when new colleagues come over he encourages them to join in.

'Some of them want to have a pint of Guinness at the end of the day just like they did back in London,' he says.Recently his father died in the UK, and for him the greatest problem with working abroad is being so far from home and the family.

The 'recurring nightmare' is that something happens to family or friends and you are not on hand to help, he says.

'No matter how well your business is going, no matter how successful everything is, they have to take priority'.As for what he misses from back home, the Merseyside-born solicitor says Liverpool Football Club.

Like many of his colleagues working in foreign climes, it is the people that he misses.

But after a short pause, he adds that mainly he just misses the northerners.The International Bar Association is the largest legal organisation in the world.

Neil Rose asks whether it fulfils its potentialFounded in 1947, the International Bar Association (IBA) is composed of more than 16,000 individual lawyer members in 183 countries, and 178 law societies and Bar associations which together represent more than 2.5 million lawyers.

And yet at a time of globalisation, cross-border practice and converging legal systems, some are saying that the IBA has gone into its shell.

If ever the legal profession needed a global voice, it is now, but the IBA decided last year that it is predominantly a networking and conference organisation.These are two things that are key to the IBA and that it achieves very successfully.

After the American Bar Association's conferences, IBA get-togethers are the best attended legal conferences in the world.

And from an English perspective, the IBA is far more important.

While only a handful of solicitors fly out to the US each year, hundreds of solicitors from the top City law firms make their way to the main IBA conference, where they jockey for position to hold the most lavish and gossip-worthy receptions.When the IBA met in India in 1997 - a market many of the top practices are keenly interested in - guests could happily make their way from the Allen & Overy reception to the Herbert Smith reception, stopping briefly for the Eversheds reception, before finishing off at the Cameron McKenna reception.

Many lawyers march around these events, spraying out business cards like Michael Schumacher does champagne, but views are mixed as to whether much genuinely useful networking can be achieved through such chance meetings.

For lawyers from smaller countries, this and the IBA in general can be especially useful, and the IBA does a lot to support them.Perhaps this refocusing of activity reflects the problems the IBA has had in trying to grapple with the major global practice issues, such as rights to practice cross-border and multi-disciplinary partnerships.

It is almost axiomatic for an organisation as large and diverse as the IBA that it is nearly impossible to get a meaningful consensus.

The proposals that its ruling council passes are often too watered down to have a major impact, although they do indicate the way international thinking is going.

This is particularly the case with multi-disciplinary partnerships, where the first sign of the recent hardening of attitudes towards allowing them appeared at the IBA business law section's conference last September.IBA vice-president Dianna Kempe QC, an English-born Bermudan lawyer, contends that five years ago, it would not have been possible to pass any resolution.

'There is a realisation worldwide that a consensus has to be reached.'President Klaus Bhlhoff concedes that 'it is of course difficult to speak with one voice when you have two and a half million lawyers worldwide who are supposed to be represented by the IBA'.

And, he points out, what the IBA says has no regulatory force.

But Mr Bhlhoff maintains that the resolutions have had an impact in setting down minimum standards.The IBA's major success in recent years has been its human rights institute, which has been seen to do a lot of work for lawyers under threat.

In the last five years, it has produced reports about Japan, Kenya, Pakistan, Peru, Venezuela and Malaysia, intervened on specific urgent issues and sent trial observers where the human rights of those involved could be an issue.

It also arranges human rights training programmes.Mr Bhlhoff considers his work with the institute to be one of the main achievements of his two-year term as president, which comes to an end this September.

He repeatedly returns the conversation to Pakistan, saying that IBA pressure contributed to the creation of a state-funded legal aid system in the country.There have been major questions levelled at the IBA's staff.

Its Regent Street offices in London are seen as an administrative hub, offering little policy direction.

Given the disparate locations of the office holders, all of whom are volunteers, it is particularly important for the IBA to have a strong central leadership, but some say this has been lacking in recent years.

It should not be a case of a poor organisation not being able to attract the top people because, by all accounts, the IBA is a cash-rich body sitting on bulging bank accounts full of money made from its conferences.But this leadership issue might soon be addressed as executive director Paul Hoddinott, a non-lawyer, is retiring later this year.

The IBA has already advertised for a replacement.

The role is also being redefined: a managing director post has been created and filled internally to concentrate on administrative matters, leaving the executive director to take a much more active policy and public role.Michael Simmons, a partner at London firm Finers Stephens Innocent and chairman of the IBA's practice management committee, sees the appointment as an opportunity for the organisation.

He says that the new director should be a senior lawyer capable of being a spokesman for the IBA.

'That would mean downgrading the role of the president, but that's too bad,' he says, as the continuity offered by an executive director would be a major benefit.

It is understood that the post's job description makes it clear that a lawyer is preferable.Mr Bhlhoff vigorously defends Mr Hoddinott, a former naval officer, saying he has shown 'you can do a wonderful job without a legal training'.

He also says that Mr Hoddinott's diplomatic skills have proved very useful, especially when dealing with human rights issues.

Mr Hoddinott says it is 'fine to talk about strong leadership', but harder to achieve because of the difficulties in reaching consensus.

'Just like at the United Nations, the people at the centre can be as strong as they like, but they have to take the members with them.'Undoubtedly, a loud public voice on behalf of the global profession of lawyering - which all agree the IBA should have - would be welcome.

Last year, it took a major step back from seeking publicity when it made its press officer redundant.

In the subsequent six months, it has issued two press releases where before there could be two a week.

It is even in danger of being usurped by the Union International des Avocats, a smaller Francophone-dominated international legal body which has had new life breathed into it by an energetic US lawyer president.There can certainly be no doubt about the calibre of the lawyers high up in the IBA.

Mr Bhlhoff is a partner at top German firm Hengeler Mueller Weitzel Wirtz; Ms Kempe heads top Bermudan practice Appleby Spurling & Kempe; secretary-general Emilio Cardenas used to be Argentina's ambassador at the United Nations; while treasurer Francis Neate, once a senior partner at City giant Slaughter and May, is now general counsel at merchant bank Schroders.A variable is the character of the IBA president.

Mr Bhlhoff has assumed a low profile, while his predecessor, Sri Lankan Desmond Fernando, was a peripheral figure despite his position.

By contrast, the 1994-96 president and founder of the human rights institute, Scottish lawyer Ross Harper, was more outspoken and outgoing, and professes himself shocked at the decision not to have a press officer.

But he jokes that if the IBA had one extrovert president after another, the organisation 'would collapse under the strain'.

However, he says the IBA should be taking a higher profile.

'It can never do enough,' he says.

'As the law becomes more global, the IBA should play more of a role.'It would seem that this has now been recognised by the powers that be and that last year's decision to concentrate solely on conferencing is being reversed.

In addition to the envisaged public role of the new executive director, Mr Bhlhoff reveals that the IBA's management committee recently resolved that the association's ruling council should be 'the speaker for the legal profession in regulatory matters'.Next week, the IBA council meets in Versailles to decide, in effect, who will be its next president.

Ms Kempe is the strong favourite.

She has had a long battle to move up the greasy pole of an organisation with a reputation as something of an all-boys club.

It also suffers from a major dose of politicking at the top end.

Women are under-represented within the IBA and meetings of its women's interest group - which Ms Kempe set up - are usually characterised by prolonged discussions about how women can rise within the organisation.Like all those involved in the IBA, Ms Kempe maintains it can do more and believes 'absolutely' that it should be a global voice for lawyers.

A starting point for this, she says, is ensuring that the IBA communicates better internally so that everyone knows 'what our goals and objectives are as a group'.But one thing is certain.

Despite its internal problems, the IBA knows how to throw a good conference.

So if for no other reason - and fortunately there are other reasons - the IBA has a long future.

As Ross Harper puts it: 'It's the sort of organisation that if it wasn't there, someone would start it up.'X The IBA's 2000 conference will be held in Amsterdam on 17-22 September.

For more details, telephone 020 7629 1206, or see www.ibanet.org

The key countries where solicitors are finding it tough

USANumber of English firms: 11Main problems: In around half the states, foreign lawyers may not work under their home title and must requalify as US lawyers.Importance: ImportantProspects for reform: Low

HUNGARYNumber of English firms: 4Main problems: Foreign firms must enter co-operation agreements with Hungarian firms; cannot advise on Hungarian law.Importance: HighProspects for reform: Good

CZECH REPUBLICNumber of English firms: 5Main problems: Foreign firms cannot advise on Czech law; foreign lawyers have to pass a test.Importance: ReasonableProspects for reform: Good

ALBANIANumber of English firms: 0Main problems: Only Albanian citizens can be lawyers; foreign firms have to incorporate as legal consultants.Importance: LowProspects for reform: Unclear

SLOVAK REPUBLICNumber of English firms: 2Main problems: Local Bar says foreign firms cannot open and provide legal advice in the country and is threatening firms with criminal prosecutions.Importance: ReasonableProspects for reform: Good

TURKEYNumber of English firms: 1Main problems: Foreign firms operate as consultancies due to doubt that they can advise on law; no employment of or partnership with Turkish lawyers.Importance: Fairly lowProspects for reform: Unclear

POLANDNumber of English firms: 4Main problems: Foreign firms must form limited liability companies and must have Polish shareholders.Importance: HighProspects for reform: Good

RUSSIANumber of English firms: 10Main problems: There is no regulation at all; while firms can operate now, there is no right enshrined in law.Importance: HighProspects for reform: Unclear

ROMANIANumber of English firms: 3Main problems: foreign firms must form associations with local firms; can only advise on commercial matters.Importance: ReasonableProspects for reform: Reasonable

MACEDONIANumber of English firms: 0Main problems: Only Macedonian citizens can be lawyers; foreign firms not allowed to open.Importance: LowProspects for reform: Unclear

BRAZILNumber of English firms: 4Main problems: Only Brazilian citizens can advise on local law; questions over how foreign firms should structure their operations.Importance: GrowingProspects for reform: Fair

SOUTH AFRICANumber of English firms: 0Main problems: No partnership with South African attorneys; difficult requalification requirements.Importance: GrowingProspects for reform: Good

INDIANumber of English firms: 1Main problems: Only Indian citizens can be lawyers; foreign firms need licences to operate 'liaison' office; cannot advise on any law, even own.Importance: VitalProspects for reform: Good

MALAYSIANumber of English firms: 0Main problems: Very limited circumstances under which foreign lawyers can practise; no employment of or partnership with Malaysian lawyers.Importance: GrowingProspects for reform: Poor

THAILANDNumber of English firms: 5Main problems: Foreign lawyers must act as business consultants, not lawyers; foreign firms must incorporate Thai practices, which must be majority Thai-owned.Importance: Growing fastProspects for reform: Uncertain

TAIWANNumber of English firms: 0Main problems: Solicitors need government approval to practise under home title; no advice on Taiwanese law; no employment of or partnership with Taiwanese lawyers; prior practice requirements for foreign lawyers.Importance: GrowingProspects for reform: Reasonable

VIETNAMNumber of English firms: 2Main problems: Foreign firms can only have two branches in Vietnam and have five-year licenses; no employment of or partnership with Vietnamese lawyers; prior practice requirements for foreign lawyers.Importance: VariableProspects for reform: Unclear

INDONESIANumber of English firms: 3Main problems: Cannot open offices - firms must form associations with local law firms; no employment of or partnership with Indonesian lawyers.Importance: GrowingProspects for reform: Unclear

PHILIPPINESNumber of English firms: 0Main problems: Only Filipino citizens can be lawyers; no employment of or partnership with Filipino lawyers.Importance: LowProspects for reform: Uncertain

SINGAPORENumber of English firms: 16Main problems: No partnership with Singaporean lawyers; restrictions on advising on Singaporean law.Importance: VitalProspects for reform: Good

CHINANumber of English firms: 11Main problems: No employment of or partnership with Chinese lawyers; prior practice requirements for foreign lawyers.Importance: VitalProspects for reform: Very good

HONG KONGNumber of English firms: 22Main problems: Foreign firms have to qualify and register as local law firms to have Hong Kong law capability and employ Hong Kong lawyers; foreign firms can only form associations with local firms employing at least as many lawyers.Importance: VitalProspects for reform: Low

JAPANNumber of English firms: 8Main problems: No employment of or partnership with Japanese lawyers; no advice on third country law.Importance: HighProspects for reform: Slow but sure

SOUTH KOREANumber of English firms: 0Main problems: Foreign lawyers must requalify as Korean lawyers to practise; no employment of or partnership with Korean lawyers.Importance: GrowingProspects for reform: Good