find the latest legal job
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: Arncliffe NSW 2205
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: Sydney NSW 2000
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
4+ PAE Commercial Lawyer - Contract Role (Maternity cover)
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· 4+ years PAE · End-to-end deal carriage
View details
Partners and Senior Specialist Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Australia
· Earn 70% of billings and fixed referral incentives · Full practice flexibility & freedom
View details
Sorry, Slater and Gordon is not an argument against listed law firms

Sorry, Slater and Gordon is not an argument against listed law firms

Mark Humphery-Jenner

Slater and Gordon (SGH) is the world’s first listed law firm. However, its share price has fallen over 95 per cent from its peak amidst concerns over SGH’s accounting practices and acquisition decisions, writes Mark Humphery-Jenner

Lenders have taken a haircut when onselling their debt to ‘distressed debt’ funds, which are considering a debt-for-equity swap. SGH is planning to mount a $1.1 billion claim for fraud over one of its acquisitions.

Some have asserted that SGH is proof that law firms should not be allowed to list. The basis argument is that listing forces firms to focus on shareholder wealth maximisation, at the expense of their clients, and this can be calamitous. Is there any basis to this argument?

It turns out that SGH is not a case against law firms listing. Its failures arose because it did not maximise shareholder wealth, and this arose due to managerial decision making rather than the firm being listed per se. Nor did listing cause SGH to violate any duties to clients or to the court. Indeed, listing has brought its problems to light and highlights the importance of continuous disclosure obligations imposed on listed firms.

SGH’s failures arose because it did not maximise shareholder wealth. SGH’s accounting issues have been the subject of an ASIC investigation. While ASIC did clear SGH of deliberate accounting falsification, the wisdom of some accounting practices is in question. SGH’s acquisition decisions destroyed shareholder wealth. This manifests in the monumental write-down it took after acquiring Quindell. This destroyed it and placed SGH in its current predicament. So, shareholder wealth maximisation is not the problem.

SGH’s shareholder wealth maximisation is not different from that of other law firms. All law firms seek to maximise profit, either for partners or for shareholders in an unlisted company. Maximising wealth for shareholders of a listed company is no different. This is obvious in the Corporations Act, which makes no relevant distinction in this respect between listed and unlisted companies: directors’ duties to act in shareholders’ best interests are the same in either case.

Being listed does not efface a law firm’s duties to the court or to clients that apply to all law firms. The Corporations Act outlines that directors and officers are subject to other laws, which would include duties to courts and to clients. These duties do not stop because a firm lists. Even if listed firms ignored them, they are not the reason for SGH’s financial woes, which stem from accounting practices and takeover decisions, not ignoring its duties.

The need to satisfy duties to clients and courts is implicit in directors satisfying their duties to shareholders. Directors must manage the firm to continue as a going concern. This includes acting with due care and diligence as relevant to a corporation in “the corporation’s circumstances” (per Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Section 180). If the firm undermines duties to courts or to clients, it can impinge its legal practice, which undermines shareholder wealth.

Being listed also exposes the firm to additional scrutiny, which could in fact be beneficial. A listed firm is subject to ASX continuous disclosure requirements and governance guidelines. It is vulnerable to shareholder class actions, and regulatory discipline, if it allegedly violates these. This is evident from the class action against SGH.

This additional scrutiny brings to light governance concerns and enables shareholders to discipline managers for poor decisions. Unlisted firms need not meet such stringent obligations. Thus, being listed could in fact benefit governance in law firms by enabling outsiders to detect and discipline misconduct.

Together, these factors indicate that listing is not per se a problem for law firms. Listed law firms still owe duties to clients and to the court. Slater & Gordon’s difficulties did not arise because it listed. They reflect managers’ decisions. Being listed allowed shareholders and regulators to scrutinise them. Thus, SGH’s situation does not militate against other law firms listing on the market.

Mark Humphery-Jenner is an associate professor of finance at UNSW Business School. He has PhDs in law and in finance.

Like this story? Read more:

Book commemorates diamond milestone for WA law society

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

Sorry, Slater and Gordon is not an argument against listed law firms
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Scales of Justice
Jan 17 2018
Lawyers lash out over latest Dutton attack
A number of legal bodies have condemned federal home affairs minister Peter Dutton’s latest commen...
Car crash, driverless cars
Jan 17 2018
Driverless cars a privacy car crash in the making
The testing of driverless cars on Australian roads has presented a new challenge, with serious conce...
new role with SA judicial appointment, scales of justice
Jan 15 2018
Worker's comp expert takes on new role with SA judicial appointment
An Adelaide barrister has been appointed deputy president of the South Australian Employment Tribuna...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...