And then there were three.
RBG’s protracted disintegration is set to reduce the number of standalone law firm businesses with a stockmarket listing to fewer than the number of digits on one hand (not counting thumbs). They are Gateley, Knights and Keystone Law. And Keystone is not even a conventional law firm.
The RBG saga (no other word will do) approached its denouement last week, with the suspension of the company’s shares and the rebirth of Rosenblatt as a private practice. Ian Rosenblatt saved the jobs of 40 staff, but their gain is the media’s loss. This was a corporate soap opera that had almost everything.
Inter alia, we’ve reported how the firm Rosenblatt and its former CEO were accused (and cleared) of racial discrimination at an employment tribunal; how the same (sacked) CEO settled an acrimonious contract dispute; how the company launched a personal attack on its biggest shareholder (Ian Rosenblatt) after he tried to oust the board; and how the stock price slumped as losses mounted.
I’ve noted before that the profession has shown little enthusiasm for IPOs since the Clementi report sanctioned non-lawyer ownership 18 years ago. And that’s not just because many potential candidates are doing very nicely, thank you, already.
RBG is not the only cautionary precedent. Others include DWF, reportedly racking up debt and struggling to convert work into cash when it sold up and went private in 2023. Ince, meanwhile, slumped into administration only to be ‘rescued’ (sic) by the firm that became, er, Axiom Ince.
Next month it will be five years since a law firm went public.
Lawyerdom thrives on discretion, sobriety and constancy. It is, or ought to be, anathema for firm owners to run their businesses and play their power games in public. Clients run scared. Yet the transparency requirements of a listing do not permit such circumspection.
Of course, it seems that flotation can still be done right. First-mover Gateley, for example, has seen its shares perform respectably since going public in 2015. Even there, however, the board recently voiced frustration over the way shareholders voted on an AGM motion.
Shareholder democracy is a fine thing. I’m just not sure how well it works in the earnest occupation of legal fee-earning, where continuity and stability are prized above all.
No comments yet