Editor's Comment: Shooting the messenger

Mayer without Maher won't change course

Seven years on from the merger between Mayer Brown & Platt and Rowe & Maw seems long enough to resolve an identity crisis. But while this month's governance shake-up at Mayer Brown in isolation looks sensible - and less unwieldy than the three-leader structure it replaces - it only serves to reinforce doubts as to the firm's positioning and strategy. For years this confusion used to manifest itself in an obsessive concern that Mayer Brown was seen as a global firm, not a US law firm and certainly not a Chicago firm. And, to be fair, the Rowe & Maw guard, in particular the droll but highly-driven Paul Maher, were helping to usher in a more commercially-minded approach at the firm as a whole. By common consent this was needed. Mayer Brown's elevated position in Chicago's legal establishment meant the firm had a reputation for turning out accomplished technical lawyers but business nous was in short supply. But perhaps its biggest problem a decade ago was more basic: too many US partners thought the firm was better than it was.

Despite a solid rather than spectacular period following the Rowe & Maw union, progress appeared to be coming when Maher in 2006 stepped up take the new vice chairman role alongside fellow vice chair Kenneth Geller and chair James Holzhauer, both US litigators. This was widely viewed as signalling a more performance-driven approach, a sense reinforced when this gentlemanly law firm announced in 2007 that 45 partners would be leaving as part of a restructuring designed to improve profits and reshape the business. Many assumed Maher was now heir apparent.

Instead, it now seems that this restructuring further strained relations between Maher and the Chicago patricians to the point where Maher, who had wearied in recent years of preaching to the unconverted, didn't even pursue the chairman's role. Maher, undoubtedly still the firm's top UK corporate partner with a book of business reportedly in excess of £5m, is now considering career options outside the firm (though plenty of colleagues hope he stays). Still, it is unlikely, as some contend, that this signals some half-baked retreat back to Mayer Brown's Chicago roots. The governance shake-up gives London a decent voice in firm-wide management. And even if its global credibility hasn't been helped by an unsettled New York arm, last year's tie-up with Johnson Stokes & Master gave the firm real clout in Asia. The London practice has also been a more than respectable performer in recent years, and senior hires such as Clare Canning in disputes and William Charnley in corporate are also seen as delivering. It seems Mayer Brown had grown weary of the messenger, even if has no alternative to the message. But Maher, at least, can get a sympathetic hearing elsewhere.

Sign up for legalweek.com job alerts