News

Gordon Dadds seals merger with Ince & Co but remains tight-lipped over whether Lord Hain will have role with the new firm

By on
41

Tie-up creates UK’s largest listed legal outfit

Lord Hain lawyers
Lord Hain

London law firm Gordon Dadds and international player Ince & Co have agreed to join forces to create the UK’s largest listed legal outfit — but it’s still unclear whether Lord Hain will be part of the new venture.

The new firm, Ince Gordon Dadds, will have combined revenues of £110 million and 100 partners across nine offices. The deal, estimated to be worth £43 million, is scheduled to go live at the end of December.

Commenting on the tie-up, Adrian Biles, Gordon Dadds’ managing partner, said:

“Ince is a highly successful and well-respected business with an iconic brand and I will be delighted to welcome our new colleagues to the group. The merger will build upon the complementary strengths of the two firms in terms of industry expertise and range of services. Our management model will also allow Ince’s partners and fee earners to focus even more on providing market leading legal advice to a stellar client base.”

News of the deal comes just days after Legal Cheek revealed that Hain, the peer who named Sir Philip Green as the #MeToo scandal businessman, was listed as a “remunerated” adviser to Gordon Dadds, the firm that represented The Telegraph in the well-publicised injunction case. Gordon Dadds declined to comment on Hain’s future at the firm.

In response to our report, the Labour peer stressed he was acting in a “personal capacity” and was “completely unaware” Gordon Dadds represented the newspaper.

Hain’s statement triggered a flurry of tweets from lawyers pointing out that Gordon Dadds’ name appeared in bold on the front page of the High Court judgment.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

41 Comments

Anonymous

First thing they should do is sack this joker

(5)(2)

Anonymous

Hi Phil

(0)(1)

Anonymous

I’m confused about the whole thing.

Did Gordon Dadds tell him to reveal the name? In which case, this was a bit silly. Okay it might be what the client wanted… but it doesn’t make them look very good.

Or did he do it on his own volition in order to bolster his credentials with the firm? And if so that was also a bit silly, as he has made himself look like a moron.

And now why is he denying he knew anything about Gordon Dadds involvement, when it is patently obvious he did?

(6)(5)

Anonymous

I think he chose to conveniently forget his links with the firm. He may have been told by the firm to do it, or it may have been of his own volition

Either way, not good for GD to be linked with someone undermining the rule of law

I find it hard to believe he did not know about GD’s involvement – surely you consult your adviser/s before making such a controversial statement in the Lords?

(1)(3)

Anonymous

I suspect that he hadn’t read the judgment, didn’t know it was a GD case, and was massively embarrassed when he found out.

(9)(0)

Anonymous

I just don’t believe that. Here is a relatively obscure politician who has never done anything scandalous before – one of over a thousand MPs/Lords – and he just happens to do this and is ‘coincidentally’ adviser to the firm acting in favour of revealing the name. Doesn’t wash.

(0)(5)

Anonymous

He isn’t obscure – there is a difference between his (possible) obscurity and your (possible) ignorance

(2)(0)

Anonymous

The Pier is a Lier

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The peer is a Lier

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Pierre is a liar

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Lucky Pierre.

Pierre

Sacre bleu!

Cecil

The queer is a lyer

Anonymous

The Cecil is a lion

Anonymous

If he is to be believed – that he was unaware of his firm’s involvement- then it is troubling that a senior figure lacks knowledge of significant cases the firm is involved in. Even if he is a figurehead role it’s still poor form.

(7)(2)

Anonymous

I’m not so sure. I suspect his role is more about giving them the inside track on matters within his expertise, and doesn’t require him to know what cases they’re running.

(7)(0)

Holiday Banta

GORDON LADDS MORE LIKE

(8)(1)

Anonymous

Sometimes the head must be severed to release the body

(0)(0)

North West PR

In other news – DWF are fuming that Ine didn’t approach them for a buyout.

Looks like Ince sees G’adds as a better firm.

I’m even more news – DWF is already arranging paying its staff in penny shares.

(8)(0)

John Paulson

Someone call my broker and tell him to lever me up for the short.

(4)(0)

Bill Ackman

Funding secured, can’t wait to build my position up.

(1)(0)

Hank Paulson

Count me in – this is gonna be yuge.

(2)(0)

Bumblebee

I’m content to take Lord Hain at his word. However, I am concerned that a peer should take the monumental step of using parliamentary privilege to circumvent an injunction without even having read the judgment.

(22)(2)

Anonymous

I’m sure he’ll be chuffed to bits that you believe him.

(0)(5)

Liberturd Leftie

Why? Because he is a Peer? Therefore any anemic weak excuse he bellows you believe?

If he were a commoner and provided the same excuse in the face of his similar actions, would you believe him? If not why?

(0)(2)

Bumblebee

Get lost loser. No one asked you for an opinion.

(0)(1)

Bumblebee

At the risk of starting an inverted “I’m Spartacus” thread, 11.45pm wasn’t me.

(4)(0)

Liberturd Leftie

Truth hurts huh… hahaha “loser” what are you in primary school?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

“Our management model will also allow Ince’s partners and fee earners to focus even more on providing market leading legal advice to a stellar client base”.

Translation – “Ince partners will be performance managed and will be encouraged to actually get out of the office and generate work by the threat of ejection from the partnership”.

Maybe some turkeys do vote for Christmas…

(3)(0)

Second Year Law Student

I’m currently in the second year of my LLB and applying to a range of law firms – I am avoiding the magic circles of law firms as I am concerned about the hours. Does anyone have any advice on this firm. The emphasis on shipping work, an area which fascinates me, is a real draw. I would love to hear more about the merger.

(1)(3)

Recruiter

Get into the best firm you can in the area(s) you want to work in.

By best – and I’m open to other suggestions – I mean your best off training in a lower tier department in a MC, US, Silver Circle firm, than a high tiered department in a… erm… crap firm.

By crap firm, DWF etc spring to mind.

Good luck! All the best.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

But their float is going to earn them….

One

Trillion

Gazillion

Dollars!!!

(2)(0)

Anonymous

‘Floaters’ come in many guises.

DWF – the firm where the MP trundles around its branches in his Bentley, telling them about redundancies and restructurings.

What a complete and utter narcissistic tosser.

But that’s how they get to the top isn’t it…

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Floater poos!

Like in the Clifford Chance poo[l]!

Anonymous

you’re*

(0)(0)

My father was Ships or Vessels, please, call me Boats.

“shipping… an area that fascinates me”.

How do you know this, one year into an LLB? Don’t pigeonhole yourself too early, maybe think more about whether the asset financing side or litigation side is what draws you to shipping. Just because you like boats does not mean you will enjoy running CP checklists on them.

(3)(0)

Dr. Evil

On hundred billion dollars!

(2)(0)

Second Year Law Student

I know that I want to be a shipping lawyer. I have long been fascinated by, in particular, shipping insurance work.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Which area do you find particularly stimulating? Bills of lading? Lost containers? Collisions? Do you prefer wet or dry matters?

(2)(0)

Legal Rec

In this case, take a look at Holman Fenwick, Clyde & Co, Ince, Kennedys, Hill Dickinson, WFW, Norton Rose and Stephenson Harwood. There are more than this who are good for Shipping Insurance work but I think those are the main ones off the top of my head.

Although to give yourself the best chance I wouldn’t rule any firms out as applying for a TC is very competitive and you should play the probability game.

Best of luck.

(0)(0)

W. Gummidge

Failed City firm, meet failed West End firms.

(2)(1)

Comments are closed.