Should DLA Piper be counted as a single firm?
Our report today on DLA Piper is already causing irritation among other firms, which have been quick to point out that DLA never financially integrated following the 2005 merger with Piper Rudnick and Gray Cary. Hence, it shouldn't technically be considered one firm. Hence, it shouldn't be top of Legal Business's Global 50 rankings . . .
Space constraints meant that I couldn't address this in the piece, but I did ask Sir Nigel about integration yesterday. He said that DLA hasn't yet found a way around the regulatory and tax hurdles and that it's "very substantially" integrated in all other aspects of the business so what's all the fuss? Or something to that effect.
Posted by Alex Spence on July 8, 2009 in DLA Piper
| Permalink
If DLA can't solve their own corporate/tax issues, how can anyone else take their corporate practice seriously?
Posted by: Michelin Man | 8 Jul 2009 18:08:52
Morrisons probably has a higher turnover than Fortnum and Mason. I know at which one I'd rather shop.
Posted by: Simon P | 8 Jul 2009 18:25:58
What Knowles told you is rubbish - everyone in the legal industry knows that DLA is not as integrated as it likes to make out. In particular, in non-Western markets, DLA's operations are nothing more than rebranded associations.
Posted by: Political Realist | 9 Jul 2009 13:47:03