… on behalf of one of our clients.
Our guess is that client is Herbert Smith. Or Freehills. Or both. And we’re not alone. Way back on 2 December 2011, our good friends at Roll on Friday reported that:
The prospective merger between Mallesons and King & Wood has sent Freehills into “in envious panic” about its own future and especially its own Chinese alliance partner which our source claims is dissatisfied with its Australian best mate. And so Freehills is rumoured to be looking for a tie up with Herbies – a firm which may well be on the rebound after being publicly rejected by its European alliance partners last week.
A source informing RoF posed the following question to the site:
Herbies is the last thing left on the dancefloor which Freehills has a chance of getting off with…which begs the question – can two ugly parents have a good looking child?
If the child is to be good looking, we suggest that “Herbert Smith Freehills” be aborted forthwith in preference for Freebies – a logical union between Freehills and Herbies and a name that will inspire curiosity in clients and mirth in employees. Heck, it could be good for business!
But here is where things get interesting. Upon learning of the purchase of the Herbert Smith Freehills domain name, we sent the head of communications at Freehills the following edited email:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Request for Comment
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:48:58 -0500
From: news@firmspy.com
To: <name@freehills.com>
Cc: <name@freehills.com>Dear [Name],
We’re back online and will soon be getting the ball rolling with new material… This year we’re very keen to continue where we left off last year in terms of our relationship with firms. Our aim is to continue to provide a bit of a lighthearted take on the industry, while at the same time acting as a kind of accountability mechanism (well, we think so anyway).
This year we expect to contact you more often for comment on general industry issues, rather than just for comment on issues directly affecting Freehills.
Having said that, today we would like a comment on the noise regarding Herbert Smith & Freehills. We have been supplied with something that we would regard as a form of evidence that a merger is proceeding between the firms, or at least that it will soon be put to a partnership vote. We are hoping that we might be able to work with you to achieve, in our first post of 2012, our first bona fide scoop. As you know, in the past we have only reported rumours, many of which have ultimately been proven true, but we’re hoping to change that this year, ideally in our first post. Part of our ambition in 2012 is to mature into a more legitimate legal media source and this obviously requires more input from the firms we profile, including Freehills.
Tell us if we’re dreaming, but is Freehills able to provide us with a comment on the precise state of merger-related negotiations with Herbert Smith?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Regards,
FS
Well, it turns out we were dreaming! About 24 hours went by without a whimper from Freehills, so we decided to Google “Herbert Smith Freehills” and immediately landed on an article published by Legal Week some 10 minutes prior. The article provided:
Herbert Smith is in talks to tie up with Australia’s Freehills,.. the two firms are currently holding exploratory discussions… Herbert Smith partners received an internal note in recent weeks detailing the firm’s plans in Australia, which are still at an early stage and are not yet close to going to a vote of the partnership… Senior Australian lawyers have told Legal Week that Freehills held a vote at the close of last year canvassing partners on whether the firm should pursue discussions over a deal.
Senior Australian lawyers?… Which ones, exactly? We sent a follow-up email to Freehills:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Request for Comment
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:38:05 -0500
From: name@freehills.com
To: name@freehills.comJust saw the Legal Week article. We’re pretty disappointed about it (we’ve jumped to the conclusion that our scoop might have been handed to them by you). Do you think we could secure an official comment on either the legal week article or merger negotiations? Was there a vote late last year?
Regards,
FS
A gruff “we don’t respond to speculation” was all we received in reply. So there you have it – a funny coincidence or evidence that by putting firms on notice of our stories in seeking to secure a comment, we may be forced to sit back and watch the scoop being thrown to friendlier media. Should we just roll with the gossip of yesteryear and leave the proper stuff to journos, or do you want more bang for your buck this year?
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
I just cant see the firms treating you in the same way they treat the traditional legal press. Just look at the way lawyers weekly does puff pieces for firms who use their products (lexis, pclaw etc). You can’t compete with that two-way promotion street.
Stick with the gossip.
Seeing you guys all work at AFR shouldn’t you be using these ‘scoops’ for you day job?
First Links, then Transasia, now Herbies… Is the plan to just keep throwing shit and hope something will stick?
I remember all the way back to 2 December 2012. Those were the days.
What’s it with 2 December 2012 in your second paragraph?
An obsequious return to legal navel gazing FS. Your fawning email to FH for comment alone is enough to make one sick. Where’s the gall you showed when it was Blake Dawson’s cock on the merger block.
How about some sizing up of the merger partners; questioning of corporate strategy; a proffering of white knights; and moreover, a consideration of the implications for young lawyers and prospective graduates.
The above reads like a ‘speech about writing a speech’.
“Part of our ambition in 2012 is to mature into a more legitimate legal media source …”.
Why? You’re a gossip house. There are enough ‘legitimate’ media sources.
If this is your ambition FS, might I recommend you take a swig of the old Dutch Courage and attach your names to what you write. You can’t have it both ways. Any legitimate media outlet doesn’t take shelter behind anonymity.
It might help those advertising dollars you’ve been touting for.
Anyway, the cat’s out of the bag. As Smoke Screen says, your AFR links are obvious.
Really? Abortion related humour? This is how you kick off 2012? Poor form
I’ve heard some partners at a top law firm are helping fund FS behind closed doors. Maybe that’s why you’ve gone soft.
I guess it’s hard to maintain the rage when you need the bucks.
It seems FS got too excited at the possibility of a scoop. Why didn’t you Google “Herbert Smith Freehills” BEFORE you sent the email to Freehills? Pathetic.
What firm Toady?
FS, judging from the above you’ve either annoyed a few people, or you’ve annoyed one person with a lot of socks.
Firm Spy – this is so bad. Back to the old stuff please.