The
Although Bingham denied changing any formal procedure, it is reviewing mandates on a case-by-case basis and its
One Bingham partner told Legal Week: “The main reason for the change is the change in the financial markets in general. The whole culture of lending has changed so there are different types of institutional lenders. I do not think you will be able to have a financial institution litigation practice if you are unwilling to sue financial institutions.”
The fallout from the credit crunch has led to an increase in potential litigation between banks, causing a client dilemma for many top firms.
Many eyes are on A&O, which has until now remained silent on the issue. Tim House, head of the magic circle firm’s banking and finance litigation group (pictured), told Legal Week: “We would never litigate against major banks, with one exception. If a dispute is purely technical, for example where a point of contractual interpretation was in dispute between two banking clients and the market wanted certainty, we would act in the dispute if both clients consented to us doing so.”
Meanwhile, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert — one of the few leading litigation firms that has made a virtue of acting against banks — is known to have taken on a number of mandates from hedge funds which could result in litigation against banks.
Herbert Smith is reviewing its processes in preparation for an upswing in disputes while SJ Berwin has already taken on instructions against banks and other financial institutions.
Additional reporting by Caroline Grimshaw.