1. Meeting Clients’ International Expectations WORLD SERVICES GROUP STOCKHOLM 8 JUNE

2. 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 2 Client attitudes Client polarisation regarding international firms –‘converts’ and ‘advocates’ –‘antis’ and ‘ambivalents’ Former see value in international offering Regard as essential for certain work that requires multi- jurisdictional capability –complex highest value transactions –multi-jurisdictional finance, capital markets and litigation Regard as highly advantageous for other work –work does not ‘necessitate’ it –client perceives distinct benefits from instructing international firm

3. International expansion – US firms DMxx © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 3 The number of foreign offices has more than tripled The number of lawyers has increased almost 10-fold

4. Leading UK firms also building internationally 5 of 6 largest Global 100 have UK ‘origins’ –Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Freshfields, DLA Piper and Allen & Overy 20 most international UK firms have in excess of 12,500 overseas lawyers 6 with c.1000+ overseas lawyers In total have 50 overseas offices with 75+ lawyers –10 in Germany –8 in China –6 in France –5 in each of Italy, Netherlands and US 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 4

5. Need to meet underlying expectations Consistent performance –level of service, style of advice and overall approach Cross-jurisdiction relationship management –introductions, transactions, commitment, championing Integrated delivery –relationship partner ensures delivery across jurisdictions –team delivers as integrated entity –management of costs away from home jurisdiction / co-ordinated billing and admin 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 5 Deliver value over and above competitor offerings – without this no rationale to instruct

6. Highly competitive landscape Around 80 firms with significant international capability / commitment –of almost 200 firms with some international presence Many long established / well integrated –strong focus on improving capability, developing ‘One-Firm-Firm’ Clear strategic focus apparent for some firms –account for c.40 Other 40 leading international firms vary in size, aims and focus –some will no doubt succeed –with others failing In addition there are other international networks –plus firms that have developed their own ‘best-friends’ 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 6

7. Internationalisation of Law Firms 7 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 0510152025303540 No. of Int'l Jurisdictions Total International Lawyers DLA Piper White & Case Linklaters Clifford Chance Allen & Overy Salans Lovells Freshfields Gide Norton Rose Squire Sanders Simmons Jones Day Bakers Loyens & Loeff Hogan & Hartson CMS Bureau Francis Shearman Dewey & LeBoeuf Ashurst Skadden Arps Clyde & Co Latham Mayer Brown 125 Firms

8. Different growth routes adopted Global Client Local Client Multi-nationalists Low High Integrationalists Low High International presence and expertise with integrated and consistent services & operations Local strength in depth and expertise plus high quality supporting services Slow build Offices in a small number of jurisdictions with highly integrated and consistent services & operations Fast build Offices in many jurisdictions with limited operational and client service integration 8 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010

9. Integrationalists Building consistent levels of breadth / depth of capability –focused on highest value multi-jurisdictional, transactional, capital markets and litigation work Different models adopted –UK ‘Global Quartet’: network of integrated offices –Slaughter and May: best friends –Wall Street: close but non-exclusive relationships Aim to provide integrated advice, synthesised opinions and seamless service delivery –frequently to extraordinarily demanding timescales Managed process –selection of key clients and client partners –underlying ethos ‘Key client anywhere is key client everywhere’ –client partners able to ‘command resources’ 9 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010

10. Multi-nationalists Prime focus on providing services on jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis – multi-local –complemented by mid-market cross-border work –in main not considered credible, capable, competitive for most complex matters Attractions to clients beyond work requirements –single point of contact –minimising number of advisors –brand re-assurance –value –in line with move to ‘global suppliers’ Consistency in approach and delivery important –otherwise limited client benefit Some more focused others fuller service 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 10

11. International clients unforgiving Judge firms in both absolute and relative terms –relative to competitors within each market –relative to other practices and offices within firm Not always forthcoming in communicating shortcomings –give advisers benefit of doubt initially –work around weakness –become more selective with instructions But damage cumulative and will leave eventually to firm that can provide what they desire –competition provides increasing choice 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 11

12. World Services Group 3 potential drivers – not mutually exclusive 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 12 1.Act for domestic clients On behalf of domestic clients undertake transactions and further their interests in foreign jurisdictions 2.Attract foreign clients Act on behalf of clients from foreign jurisdictions in domestic jurisdiction 3.Achieve ‘network’ effect Combination of firms working together on international matters as well as acting as a conduit for in- and out-bound work Can be in part offensive and in part defensive

13. Closing comments Key to recognise extent of choice clients have –ranging from firms with strong integrated offerings –to those who deliver through effective relationships of independent firms Reputation, credibility and market recognition are increasingly important factors –tending to strengthen positions of established, larger firms –particularly on higher value matters Delivering value over and above competitors’ offerings critical –without this no rationale to instruct 2243195 © Hildebrandt Baker Robbins 2010 13