HK Local Practices Being Built at US Firms
The growing importance of Hong Kong as not only a gateway to China and Southeast Asia, but also as a regional financial center in its own right, has compelled many foreign firms to add a Hong Kong local practice. For the last two years, Hong Kong has been the world’s leading IPO center (surpassing New York and London) and clients are increasingly seeking one firm to handle both the US and Hong Kong side of the IPO. Even General Motors was reported to have seriously considered a Hong Kong listing along with its planned NYSE/Toronto listings, only to drop the idea in part because of Hong Kong’s more restrictive listing requirements. Hong Kong is already the preferred market for international share offerings by China’s behemoth state-owned enterprises, which previously might have considered listing in Europe or the US.
Not all US firms will see an immediate need to acquire a Hong Kong practice as long as they continue to land major deals because of the participation of their US clients (mainly US-based financial institutions) in Asia-based transactions. Yet, as long as Hong Kong continues to be the world’s IPO leader and Asia continues its financial dominance, there will be pressure on foreign firms to add a Hong Kong arm to their practice.
Furthermore, a US firm adding a Hong Kong practice to an already strong US law practice is a throwing down of the gauntlet, so to speak – a signal to the more-established Magic Circle firms that they are committed to Asia and intend to be “all in” as a major regional player. In response, some British firms in Hong Kong have recently invested heavily in expanding their already strong US practice in Hong Kong, with Allen & Overy being a perfect example.
Increased Practice Complexity
Transactional work will remain many firms’ bread and butter in Asia. As is clear from the associate hiring trends, discussed below, the traditional transactional practices remain where the bulk of the hiring is occurring. But there is a growing belief among international firms that building a more full service offering, including white collar and regulatory compliance, as well as traditional litigation capability in Asia, is crucial to solidifying their long-term presence in the region. In addition to Gibson Dunn’s move to hire Kelly Austin, GE’s regional compliance chief, earlier this summer, Latham & Watkins launched a Hong Kong litigation practice, Skadden Arps last year launched an arbitration practice in Hong Kong, and top Australian firm Mallesons Stephen Jacques recruited a senior Clifford Chance litigation partner to its Hong Kong office. Last year Winston & Strawn also made a major move in the litigation practice, hiring partner David Hall-Jones from Heller Ehrman. Due to the local nature of litigation practices, opportunities for non-Hong Kong qualified litigators in Hong Kong are rare, but the trend is nevertheless a relevant indicator of general law firm strategy.
Hiring, Salaries and Popular Practices
Asian offices of foreign firms have historically been drawn to the region to take advantage of its importance as a regional financial center (especially in the case of Hong Kong) and the increased volume of inbound/outbound M&A/FDI as well as intra-Asia transactions. While certain regions might have a slightly shifted focus – for example, there is more project finance and energy work out of Singapore, more FDI work out of mainland China, and more capital markets work out of Hong Kong – the backbone of an Asia practice for a foreign law firm practicing in Asia is traditionally transactions-focused. One of the best indications of work flow has traditionally been the lateral associate hiring demand and compensation trends in law firms.
Most Desired Skill Sets for Associates
The most sought-after associates in Asia are those with strong capital markets and M&A skills. Commonwealth-qualified associates with capital markets, project finance, fund formation, acquisition finance, general corporate, real estate and even litigation skill sets can readily find open positions in Asia, whereas US-qualified associates who practice something other than capital markets or M&A might find it difficult to land in a US practice of an Asia firm.
The reason for this discrepancy is twofold: (1) the demand for a US-specific skill set is most often found in capital markets offerings where Asia-based issuers seek to avail themselves of US capital without triggering SEC registration requirements and (2) many transaction documents are governed by the laws of Hong Kong or England & Wales, not the laws of New York or another state in the United States, thus the demand for Commonwealth-qualified and Hong Kong-qualified lawyers is much higher in non-capital markets practice groups.
Language Skills
Relevant Asian language skills, particularly Mandarin Chinese, are almost a necessity for practicing within the region. It is currently very difficult to crack the legal markets in mainland China without Mandarin fluency, whereas as recently as 2008 it was not uncommon for English-only speakers to land at some top US firms in the mainland. Today, native speakers of Mandarin are much preferred to fluent Mandarin speakers with a different mother tongue. Many firms have grown in China in recent years with heavy-hitting transactional partners who do not speak Mandarin, but these partners desperately need associate assistance from those who do speak excellent Mandarin and can read Chinese. Thus, while Mandarin is arguably unnecessary for many transactions out of Hong Kong (for example, transactions with entities based in India or Southeast Asia), many employers are making Mandarin fluency a “preferred” criterion.
Further, even when US transactional practices in Hong Kong and China have an opening where Mandarin fluency is not a strong preference, the high number of very qualified US associate candidates on the market today with Mandarin skills makes it difficult for non Mandarin speaking candidates to get noticed at many firms. There are exceptions, where some groups in Hong Kong will make hires of English-only candidates and put no significant degree of importance on Mandarin skills, but firms operating that way are currently a small minority.
Due to the restrictive attorney licensing regime in Korea, US and UK firms remain unable to open offices there. However, UK firms expect to be in Seoul soon, as ratification of the recently agreed EU – Korea Fair Trade Agreement nears. It is uncertain when the US will ratify a fair trade agreement with Korea.
Hong Kong is the headquarters for most of the top international Korea practices, and so Korean language skills are also in demand in Hong Kong, especially with Korean biglaw associates based in Hong Kong typically spending a lot of time on the ground in Korea. The demand for Korean speakers waxes and wanes in accordance with the volume of work at the Korean practices in Hong Kong, as well as the volume of Korea-related work coming to Hong Kong firms without a Korea practice group.
Cantonese language skills are rarely sought after, and few foreign firms have ever, in our experience, sought out Cantonese skills among their foreign attorneys specifically.
In Japan, the biglaw lateral market has not been as hot as in other parts of Asia the past couple of years, due to the recent recession in Japan and also due to Japan relatively well developed market for foreign firms, relative to China. Things have picked up this year and firms are hiring, but Japanese language skills are now a requirement far more often than before the global recession. Firms seeking US associates with Japanese fluency have a much harder time finding good candidates than those seeking Mandarin fluent US associates. Thus, it is an extremely competitive hiring market for the handful of Japanese fluent mid-level to senior US associates coming from top 20 international firms.
In Singapore, few international law firm employers will specify language skills, but occasionally many will ask for an attorney who is barred in multiple jurisdictions – often one Western jurisdiction (New York or England & Wales) as well as India or one Southeast Asian jurisdiction. Because the environment (and client base) in Singapore is so multicultural, it is not unusual for hiring inquiries to include culture-specific “preferred” criteria. A firm which needs to make a hire for its India capital markets practice will often choose an Indian national even though the job does not require any Indian-specific language skills or legal qualification.
Asia’s “Biglaw” Lateral Market Has Become Much More Competitive Recently
In 2006 and 2007, US and UK law firms in Asia were hiring at the same pace as today, if not more quickly, but at the time there was a significant shortage of qualified US associate candidates on the market. Today, there are many more qualified US associates on the market than there are positions available and thus firms do not have to make very quick hiring decisions like they did a few years ago. There are several main reasons for this. First, the relatively stagnant economies in the US and EU since 2008 have caused associates with Asian backgrounds to consider Hong Kong and other Asia markets earlier than they had planned or to consider them as alternatives to New York or London for their long-term careers when previously they had intended to remain in the West indefinitely. Second, relatively early moves by young associates with Asian background during the hiring boom of ’06 through early ‘08, generally with positive results in terms of deal-flow and experience, have set a precedent. US associates with Asian background, especially Chinese, are today more confident than ever that they can have the same or better long-term career opportunities, in biglaw and in-house, in Asia as they can have in New York, London and other major Western markets. Other associates with similar backgrounds are considering such moves earlier as well. Third, although the “biglaw” lateral market in Asia is very competitive, it is still easier for an associate with Chinese background from New York or other major Western markets to lateral to a peer firm in Hong Kong or China today than it is for them to make a similar lateral move within their current markets.
Salaries and Expat Packages
One constant in legal hiring is this: law firms who want to be perceived as “top” law firms will seek to hire the best possible candidate of all those they are able to interview for any given position. If the number of possible interviewees increases, as it did in the past year as hiring of associates began anew in Asia, the standards applied to applicants will be dialed up as necessary to make the decision regarding whom to hire difficult and competitive. Since this is the case, there is rarely an opportunity to lower salaries and benefits for firms that wish to be competitive. The 2008-2009 downturn was no exception. The few firms able to hire at all in Asia then (mostly top 20 US firms and UK magic circle firms) wanted only to consider the very best candidates on the market. These firms had some of the highest salaries and expat packages and were competing for the top candidates coming from top five New York firms, each of whom expected those expat packages to continue. Further, these firms, already understaffed in some cases (mostly in their capital markets groups in Hong Kong and China), could not afford to lose their own US associates.
As a result, most top US and UK firms continue to offer expat packages in Asia. Of the firms that offer expat packages in Hong Kong, the range offered for US-qualified associates has been anywhere from US$30,000/year to US$90,000/year, with what is considered “competitive” expat packages being at US$60,000/year and above. Expat packages are not quite as prevalent in mainland China, but are offered there by the majority of US and UK firms, as well as all of the firms that pay competitive packages in Hong Kong. “Competitive” in the mainland is $45,000 and above and can be as high as $80,000. Expat packages are at the moment almost nonexistent in Singapore, but we expect that to change in the future. In Tokyo, the “competitive” range is $90,000 all the way up to $130,000. Keep in mind that all of the numbers mentioned above are for associates with no children, as some (but not all) firms do add to their expat package significantly for associates with children, especially school-aged children.
US associates will typically receive expat / COLA allowances in Asia regardless of their country of citizenship and whether they are liable for US federal income taxes. Some firms have tax equalization policies in Hong Kong and Singapore, but the trend for several years has been to do away with tax equalization in order to be more competitive in recruiting native Chinese and other top associates who are not US citizens or residents.
One of the most striking trends in 2010 regarding salary packages has been a shift toward paying New York-level base salaries to non-US qualified associates in Hong Kong. Traditionally, US-qualified associates have been paid about 20-30% more than their Commonwealth-qualified counterparts, and have gotten a much larger expat / COLA package as well. While an Australian-qualified associate might see a US$20,000/year expat package, her New York-qualified counterpart at the same firm could receive a US$65,000/year expat package, for example. Typically HK qualified associates have not received any expat / COLA package. These days, when a Hong Kong qualified junior to mid-level associate comes to us wanting to leave his or her current firm for another firm in Hong Kong, compensation considerations are usually a motivating factor. Of course, it is easier for a US firm building a new HK corporate practice to offer NYC top market base salaries to their few new HK qualified associate hires than it is for a well established and large HK practice to raise the salaries of their many HK practice associates.
As a result of rising expat packages, some mid-tier firms have begun specifying that they want to hire only non-US citizens for their open positions in order to save some portion of the expected expatriate compensation bonus. In view of the current trend to pay expat packages to even Commonwealth-qualified associates at many firms, this tactic seems to be losing its potency to reduce costs. Increasingly, the most qualified associates are all being tempted by potential expatriate benefits regardless of their country of origin.
While there was little change in expat allowances among the most highly regarded firms in Hong Kong during the global recession and hiring freezes, many among the less competitive firms dramatically lowered their allowances during ’09 and early ‘10, in many cases erroneously assuming that the top of the market were dramatically lowering theirs. Some of the firms that tried this were highly ranked US and UK firms. That trend (fortunately for associates) has reversed recently, with most firms that lowered their expat allowances now bringing those allowances back up to, and in some cases surpassing, the 2007 and 2008 levels.
Gaining Value from and Keeping Lateral Hires
In addition to attracting lateral hires through competitive salaries and benefits, firms know that they need to manage their talent so as to gain as much value as possible from their work over as long a period as possible. Whereas established New York and London offices of international firms typically have the size and deal flow predictability to support a full-fledged training program, complete with “mentorship,” “career development” partners, and the like, many Asia offices of law firms are only just beginning to acquire some of these structures. It is more difficult, therefore, for associates to obtain the necessary training. Associates in smaller overseas offices will have to rely on their supervising partner to play a strong mentoring role. Personality fit and partners’ desire and ability to train / mentor associates can thus be a bigger factor to associate retention in overseas offices than it is in large US or London home offices.
Corporate associates at US and UK firms in Asia usually move for one or more of the following reasons: a) compensation (usually having to do with expat / COLA allowances) concerns; b) desire for a more diverse corporate practice (usually due to more cap markets work than they expected; c) personality fit issue with supervising partner; d) concerns about long-term career advancement and security at current firm; e) a desire for more responsibility (every biglaw associate in Asia will know a number of same class year associates in the market that have higher levels of responsibility, based on a particular associate and firm’s circumstances); and f) being in an understaffed group and thus being overworked.
During boom times, the f) factor is the most prevalent reason for associate moves. Associate hires in US and UK based firms in Asia can be much more strategic and important than a typical associate hire in US and UK large home offices, for obvious reasons. Understaffing is a big problem in busy overseas offices, where one or two associates leaving a firm at the wrong time can cause the entire office to be overworked for months (replacement hires can take months, especially if the best candidates come from US or UK). Once a serious understaffing problem occurs, overworked associates will turn into unhappy associates and the firm involved will develop a reputation in the market (whether deserved or not) for being an unpleasant place to work.
Problem: Want of truthful, complete, and accurate education is what causes opinions to become based more on hearsay and faulty conjecture. Over stimulation and mind-altering propaganda coupled with intellectual lethargy cause a want of intellectual power and acuity among "should-be" students, which subsequently leads to the contentment of being spoon-fed your own opinion by others rather than the active, fervent, and diligent search for truth that will truly set most of you free.
Solution: Force yourself, no matter how hard it seems to be, to truly think and cogitate by yourself, without the aid of others. Force yourself to form your own conclusions that are not altered or influenced by social acceptability. Remember, if you come across a nugget of irrefutable truth, and others persecute you for either discovering it, or speaking it, then you should really re-think where their motivation comes from. Darkness HATES the light.
Facts for you all to chew on:
1. It appears to be true that the phrase "sovereign citizen" has been used by individuals and groups who may or may not have "good" or "moral" intentions.
2. It also appears to be true that it is important to certain individuals and groups to ascribe and associate the words "sovereign citizen" and their meanings to individuals and/or groups who have a perceivable negative connotation about them.
3. No one here has asked why that is.
4. In 1913, the federal constitution was illegally and unconstitutionally amended by a de facto congress among highly suspicious circumstances to create the Federal Reserve Banking System. A central bank. An idea, made clear by their own writings to be abhorrent to the founding fathers and in no way by an authority granted by the People through the constitution. The word "bank" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. The writers knew of banks, knew of the word "bank," yet never included it in the constitution.
5. During the 1930s and 40s in particular, the congress, without authority, unconstitutionally granted essentially dictatorial authority and power to president in response to the dire circumstances created by the fraudulently initiated depression.
6. The depression was a direct result of the inflation/deflation caused by the very nature of the new banking system coupled with the market manipulation of the "elite" families of this country and their foreign friends.
7. In the 1930s, the president ordered the closing of banks (bank holiday). Private banks. Then he ordered the American People to surrender their gold, all of it except a very small amount (small jewelry).
8. The REAL money that the American People had used (gold & silver) since day one, was confiscated and replaced with FIAT paper money backed by debt/credit, not real valuable materials with inherent and stable value. Effectively and actually what was essentially done was Americans gave everything that gave them economic power, the private ownership of their own money, over to the PRIVATE owners of the "Federal" Reserve Bank. Which by the way is NOT OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The assets (gold, silver, real property, present and future LABOR/productivity) of the American People were pledged to international bankers in return for practically UNLIMITED CREDIT.
9. Around the same time period, the common law (the law UNDER which the constitution was written) was being extinguished and replaced by equity law. (ROMAN CIVIL LAW). Despite the information speard around about the "common law" and despite what attorneys are taught in their 3 years at law school, the common law is the system of law that allows the people of a republic to remain as free as possible. It is inherently an adversarial system that applies "real world" concepts, logic, and reason to issues for resolution or settlement. Equity law is a fictitious law system that is like playing Monopoly and making your own rules, and enforcing those rules your way. Civil law allows government to have power, sometimes more power than the citizens. Common law leaves ALL OF THE POWER in the hands of the People. That is why according to the original constitution, the founding fathers acknowledged the common law as the supreme law and made SURE it was made available through the courts to the people in all cases.
10. The fictitious "law" that equity or civil law is, is a needed tool to make things legal that ought not to be legal. Under the common law, there shall be a remedy for every wrong. Under equity/civil, the government can make murder and theft "legal." And in civil law, if there is no "law" against it, it's not a crime.
11. Under this equity law system, the government been able to make "legal" many unlawful and wrong activities perpetrated by individuals, agencies, corporations, governments, etc. Keep in mind that statutes, codes, and regulations, are called such BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LAWS.
12. The American people existed long before the constitution or the United States. The constitution does NOT create a true nation or country. That is why there is no governor or ruler of the U.S.
13. The constitution creates a trust (corporation). That is why it has a president, vp, secretary, and treasurer, LIKE ALL CORPORATIONS.
13. Logic: according to the constitution of each State (republic/country), the People ordained and established the governments to manage the interstate and international commerce, defense, etc. of and between the states. Does it say "we the citizens" ordain and establish....? Clearly, citizens are a different term and mean something different. The term "citizen of United States" is interestingly not specifically defined as different from the common meaning until the 14th amendment in 1868. They are specifically defined as persons being born or naturalized within the united States, AND subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This is the first time it is seen that the Federal Government has created subjects to itself. The federal government cannot possibly have jurisdiction over the people, because the people created it and are "sovereign" in relation to it. This new "entity" called a citizen of the Unites States was created right at a time coincidentally, when African slaves were now freed by law. The government created this subject entity to be a "status" to put the newly freed slaves into, so the slaves would not have the full freedom and power that the People have enjoyed. While they were at it, it did not take long for the idea to catch on that the elite could also subjugate the People using this system. People consent to it all of the time up to the present day. "Are you a U.S. CITIZEN"......"Yes, of course."
14. The People own the government, created the government, and cannot be subject to government or any acts, or "laws" it passes or propagandizes. That is why, when a crime is committed against another or his property, the government may catch the criminal and bring him/her to the GRAND JURY for indictment and trial, not to a government employee JUDGE. Because the grand jury represents and is comprised of PEOPLE, not citizens. The State and/or Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to , itself, prosecute one of the People. UNLESS YOU CONSENT TO IT. Next time you get a traffic ticket (victimless equity crime) and go to court to fight it, tell me what you see on the docket or caption. It will say, "STATE OF MISSOURI v. JOHN SMITH, defendant." You're listed as the defendant, why is the state not listed as plaintiff? The state will NEVER declare itself as a PLAINTIFF. BECAUSE THE STATE HAS NO STANDING. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST FACTUALLY, AND IT'S NOT SOVEREIGN RELATIVE TO YOU.
15. That is also why "arraignment" exists. The people are all sovereign. Therefore, if the government in any way wishes to prosecute you or punish you for breaking one of it's rules, especially one that didn't involve an injured party (adversary), they need to secure your consent (whether you or your attorney know it or not) to proceed in a court NOT OF LAW, but of civil rule. By entering any plea in a court that is not a court of record, (look that term up in Black's 4th) (a court of record is your birth right in this country, and it is what protects you from government oppression and tyranny) you have consented to be prosecuted according to THEIR rules and by THEM. Usually at arraignment, you are asked by a JUDGE, "You are charged with violating section 1410.9 of the California Penal Code and Title 3 section 328 of the California General Statutes, do you plead guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere?" What he is REALLY saying is, "Do you give up your full right to a court of record, and all of your common law rights, and all of your constitutionally secured rights, and your right to NOT be under our jurisdiction by agreeing that the statutes and codes I have cited are VALID by entering a plea of any kind? Or do you object to this star-chamber kangaroo court and wish to be brought to justice in the highest and fairest court in the land?"
16. We live in a REPUBLIC. Not a Democracy. If you plan to argue this, at least look up the legal definitions of each of these terms. My guess is you won't even find the definition of "republican form of government." In a republic (esp. the one to which you pledged your allegiance) the people are free and fully sovereign. The government exists solely as an agency to aid in the affairs of the people and has no legal authority to tread in any way on your rights FOR ANY REASON.
17. A democracy is a society in which either directly or through representation, the majority has all of the rights and power and can do whatever they want, while the minority have no rights but only privileges granted to them by the majority. Individual rights do not truly exist. If the majority thinks you're a waste of air, then you are executed and your property taken. This is half a step away from pure communism.
18. So generally, the common law is the people's only real protection against the government exceeding it's authority. So don't scoff at it. If you only knew what it really was and how to use it, you might shut your trap and begin suing officials and agents who are obviously grossly out of line. They can't get off on technicalities and b .s. in your court. The shift toward Roman Civil Law (Equity/Statutes) represents an effort by the elite to crush your opportunity to protect your rights lawfully, and to bring into existence a system in which fake money, fraud, and unlimited credit can exist "legally." Ever notice "lawful" and "legal" are used together in the same sentence in some of the statutes and codes and other instances. That's because they have different meanings. Find out what they are.
19. As far as this whole "strawman" idea. I can't speak to that very much because I have not tried it or used it. But, the concept is fairly simple, it's just so obvious yet antithetical to everything we all have been led to believe, that it is a hard sell. But again, in terms of fact and logic, an accessible "trust" system must exist in order to facilitate the unlimited credit that the people bought back in 1933/35, and their must be a strawman or other corporate entity attached to you because the simple fact is, that in the equity and fiat money systems, everything is fictitious, and only fictions can interact with fictions. Think of it like playing a board game. You must have a token that represents you and your position in the game. It's all a game.
20. Also, check out the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7806. Read it carefully and look up definitions if you have to. Related, did you ever wonder why it's called a tax "return" when all you seem to be doing is "paying" taxes out?
21. In ending here, I just want to be clear that my only wish is for people to seek the truth and stop arguing and asserting views like schoolchildren. Search for FACTS and use your brain to reach logical conclusions on your own. Then compare those facts with what you believe, and be better off for it. Because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. And "he who slumbers on his rights, has none." (paraphrased)
eric seiger
Pentax K-r mid-level DSLR announced with brief hands-on: Digital <b>...</b>
Pentax Kr mid-level DSLR announced with brief hands-on: Pre-Photokina 2010: Pentax has announced the Kr, its latest mid-level DSLR. Initially sitting above the Kx in the range it offers more angular, K-7-esque styling, 6 fps continuous ...
<b>News</b> of the World hacking: Why Simon Hughes is misguided | Media <b>...</b>
It was a cast-iron certainty that at least one MP would go off at a diversion during the News of the World phone-hacking debate.
Betaworks and The Times Plan a Social <b>News</b> Service - NYTimes.com
Betaworks, a technology incubator in New York, is teaming up with The New York Times to introduce a social news service.
No comments:
Post a Comment