9th Annual Representing Corporate Asia & Middle East Survey, including Firms of the Year, 2015

Jump to:
– Regional & Common In-House Concerns
– In-House Community Issues and concerns by Jurisdiction
– The In-House Community Firms of the Year

The most-represented industry classification in this year’s survey of the community is Financial Services, worked in by 16.7 percent of participants. Manufacturing saw the second-highest amount of representatives at 14.9 percent, while Technology, Media and Telecommunications had slightly less with 13.9 percent. Meanwhile, 10.4 percent of respondents classified themselves as working in Energy/Natural Resources, placing it fourth. (Figure 2)

The predominant assumption is that teams will remain the same size over the coming year, thought by 62 percent of those surveyed. Of the remaining, 34.6 percent expected their teams to grow and just 3.4 percent anticipated their teams getting smaller. Though this seems optimistic, last year’s survey had even fewer (1.9 percent) saying they expected their teams to shrink, as well as 43.6 percent expecting in-house team expansion, suggesting that growing the in-house team may be becoming less popular, in some cases in favour of seeking external help from traditional or alternative legal service providers. (Figure 4)

Recruitment
Those looking to hire more in-house counsel will mainly be doing so via legal recruiters according to our survey, with 51.4 percent preferring this means. Placing of job advertisements, which gained the most votes in some jurisdictions, came second overall, as 29.9 percent of respondents use this method most. Referrals from other in-house lawyers are also seen as persuasive, with 23.3 percent stating that this is one of the most common ways in which in-house counsel is found. Job websites are used by 18.7 percent, narrowly edging out referrals from others within the company (18.3 percent). (Figure 5)

From a regulatory perspective, Anti-Money Laundering legislation, Data Privacy laws and the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) were mentioned by many across the region. For those with cross-border responsibilities, dealing with “ambiguous regulations” especially, but not necessarily, in developing markets, complicated by “unpredictable enforcement” is an everyday issue.

For counsel based in or covering the relevant jurisdictions, the impact of the forthcoming ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) economic integration was on the minds of many earlier this year, though recent economic developments may have moved the focus of some.

A growing number of counsel also cited cyber-security across the region as an area they needed to pay attention to.

As ever, “Maintaining regulatory compliance with insufficient headcount” and “Keeping up-to-date with legal developments and continuing our professional development” are among the ever-present demands for lawyers wherever they are, and, as one senior counsel in Indonesia put it: “The challenge for in-house counsel will always be how to accommodate business needs in a legally-compliant manner”. In the words of a Malaysia-based counsel, the constant role of in-house lawyers was “to educate the business people of the legal and regulatory requirements impacting the business, and implement risk control effectively”. Others though, see the in-house role as encompassing more than just advising on the law, as in the words of one Singapore based GC: “Legal counsel need to be commercially savvy and not behave like lawyers all the time. Business leaders want legal counsel to be business enablers and leaders in their own right, rather than [just] lawyers”: not a view shared by all.

Working with external counsel
Across our surveyed jurisdictions, 56.8 percent intend to use external counsel to the same extent as they have previously, with many noting that they would only use them more than intended should unexpected litigations arise. Slightly down from last year, when 38.1 percent expected to use them more, this year only 34.3 percent are planning to increase reliance on law firms, often due to new legislation and a higher workload. The 8.9 percent who expect to use external counsel less, scarcely more than the 7.5 percent in this bracket last year, overwhelmingly decided to cut back in order to save money, often by doing the work in-house or outsourcing the work to an alternative legal service provider. (Figure 6)

Expertise in a specific area is, by a long way, the most important factor when the community chooses external counsel, with 71.9 percent saying it is a must. Other key considerations include fees (47.5 percent), responsiveness (43.7 percent) and reputation of a law firm (37.6 percent). Reputation of an individual lawyer, too, crosses the minds of many when shopping for legal services, as 24.7 percent contemplate this. (Figure 7)

When dealing with external counsel over the past 12 months, excessive fees have been the number one concern, with 44 percent of respondents ticking that box. Some have also experienced law firms failing to completely understand their business (28.3 percent) and a lack of updates (24.1 percent). Timing has been an issue for almost as many (23.4 percent), with many law firms seemingly dragging their feet. (Figure 8)

Where appropriate, both a ‘local firm’ (i.e. a firm which originated in that jurisdiction) and an ‘international firm’ have been honoured. Honourable Mentions have also been awarded to the many firms who received a high number of votes and strong recommendations in certain practice areas.

Click Here for a full rundown of this year’s winners.