A crisis of considerable magnitude is unfolding in Thailand and at the risk of making light of it, we wanted to comment today on the scarcity of information concerning AAR and the welfare of the staffers it alleges to have in its Bangkok office.
First, some comments we received from an AAR spy on the weekend:If Allens really still has a Bangkok office, why have they not been providing any updates at all on the status of their office? At of this morning (Saturday), there is no flooding in the vicinity of the building where their office is supposed to be so operations would not be affected but it’s odd that they choose not to even let their clients know this (unless the office is a ghost office…).
Before we investigate the “ghost” office claim, let’s look at the location of this mysterious AAR Thai office. If you look at the map above, the “J” in the photo is the location of The Offices at Central World – the building where AAR states on its website that its Bangkok office is located.
Before any AAR staffers hyperventilate, we’ve located an up-to-date map of the flooded parts of Bangkok.
The sections covered in blue (obviously) on the map to the below-right are currently underwater.
So, to all the loved ones of AAR staff members based at the firm’s Bangkok office, waiting by the phone for news, rest easy – it looks like everyone’s dry and it’s business as usual.
Now that we’ve gotten that critical news out of the way, let’s take a closer look at this mysterious Bangkok office. Does it truly exist? Certainly, the AAR website says it does, but can we be sure?
Well, last year we reported a rumour that AAR would close its offices in Phnom Penh and Bangkok before 31 December 2010 (read the full scoop here). Possibly to spite us, AAR nevertheless states on its website that the Bangkok office remains open. However, if you follow the link to the “contacts” at the firm’s Bangkok office webpage, it directs you to a list of contacts variously based in Singapore and Sydney. None are in Thailand.
In fact, no matter how hard we searched, we couldn’t find any evidence of an AAR employee who is based in the firm’s Thai office. We speculate the reason might be because the firm doesn’t actually have an office in Thailand. Rather, the firm appears to have some sort of relationship with Siam Premier, an actual law firm in Thailand. Perhaps they’re renting a desk?
Indeed, the address of AAR’s Thai “office” causes some ambiguity:
Siam Premier International Law Office Limited
26th Floor, The Offices at Central World
999/9 Rama I Road,
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330
THAILAND
Right. Got it. Allens Arthur Robinson’s Thai office is actually another firm altogether – Siam Premier – a Thai law firm. It all sounds a bit silly to us. Allens stating it has an office in Thailand, but then directing the visitor to another law firm altogether. What the? Imagine Clayton Utz – a firm that is notorious for having only one office outside Australia (in Hong Kong) – all of a sudden deciding one day that it needs a bigger global footprint. If it were to follow AAR’s lead with Siam Premier, it could simply update its website with the particulars of another firm in another country and claim it as its own. It might say, “we have an office in Singapore” on its webpage, but then provide the following address:
Freehills Lawyers
10 Collyer Quay
#15-08 Ocean Financial Centre
Singapore 049315
Phone +65 6236 9939
Fax +65 6538 2575
Of course, we’ve seen that law firms occasionally rent a “ghost” office so as to appear bigger and better than they actually are. It’s a small price to pay: a few grand each month in tenancy costs for, say, one office on the floor of a huge building in exchange for a “presence” in some far flung jurisdiction. Tenancy fees on average comprise 6 – 10% of a law firm’s overheads, but if you spread that across up to a dozen floors across up to a dozen offices, paying a little bit more in order to boast an “office” in another country is not a bad deal.
But it all gets a bit ridiculous when there is a catastophic natural disaster unfolding and the firm forgets about its ghost office and forgets to update actual living, breathing employees about the welfare of the ghosts populating the ghost office.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!


Loading...










Where does Clutz claim to have a Singapore office FS?
And what’s with the bunched up undies – did Clutz not offer you a grad job?
It’s a joke – Clutz has no office in SIngapore, but if it followed AAR’s lead, it could just use Freehills’ office there and claim a SIngaporean presence
Hey! Some imposter is using my nickname. Nick off!
That is all.
haha, every chance they get to rag on Clutz. The article wasn’t even about them. lame.
How BAD are the articles on here lately?
Bitter and lame.
http://www.claytonutz.com/about/clayton_utz_offices.page
where’s the Singapore office?
Sure they have the Hong Kong ‘office’ – but where’s the Singapore one?
To all the people complaining about the reference to Clayton Utz, FS was not saying that Clayton Utz is claiming to have a Singapore office. They were saying that an Australian law firm listing an overseas law firm’s office as its own overseas office is as ridiculous as it would be IF (I repeat IF) Clayton Utz claimed that Freehill’s Singapore office was its own Singapore office (not that Clayton Utz does that).
The Clutz example is a hypothetical…
The clutz example is bad writing…
@ Anon – the article was edited since the original comments
Yes – the article has been updated. Doesn’t make it any less pointless though.