Norton Rose Fulbright

Norton Rose Fulbright is an international law firm. It is the second largest law firm in the United States and one of the ten largest in the world, by both lawyers and revenue. In 2017/18, Norton Rose Fulbright had total revenue of US$2.1 billion.

Norton Rose Fulbright
No. of offices50+
No. of lawyers4,000
Key peoplePeter Martyr[1]
Global Chief Executive
Walied Soliman[2]
Global Chair
Date founded1794[3]
WebsiteNorton Rose Fulbright

It has more than 4000 lawyers and other legal staff based in Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa and the Middle East.[4]

The firm was formed by the merger of UK-based Norton Rose and US-based Fulbright & Jaworski in June 2013.[5] Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc are separate legal entities, all of which are members of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein.

History

The origin of Norton Rose dates back to 1794 when the sole practitioner Robert Charsley opened for business. In 1821, Charsley formed a partnership with William Barker, creating Charsley & Barker. Later that century, Phillip Rose (later Sir Philip Rose) joined the firm, creating Barker & Rose. In the years that followed, a new partnership between Phillip Rose and Henry Elland Norton was formed under the name Barker, Rose & Norton. By the turn of the 20th century, the firm was called Norton, Rose, Norton & Co., and had maintained its position as a powerful force in the City of London for six decades.

In 1960, the firm, by then re-named Norton, Rose & Co., amalgamated with specialist shipping firm Botterell & Roche (founded 1861) to form Norton, Rose, Botterell & Roche. With its expertise in shipping, the firm benefited from the growth of the international shipping market in the early 1960s, and was involved in the nationalization of British Steel and the after-arrangement of its subsidiary companies.

The firm continued to grow, and in 1976 established its first international office in Hong Kong, followed by Bahrain in 1979 and Singapore in 1982. By 1988, the firm had shortened its name and over the next ten years Norton Rose commenced a programme of international expansion, with the establishment of offices across Asia, Europe and the Middle East, taking the firm’s international operations to 22 offices. In 2007, Norton Rose converted to a Limited Liability Partnership.

With a vision to become one of the world’s top global legal brands, Norton Rose embarked on the first phase of rapid expansion when it combined with Australian firm Deacons in 2010, adding to the strength and size of the firm across the Asia-Pacific region. In early 2011, Norton Rose Australia announced an association with a firm in Indonesia.

By June 2011, Norton Rose had combined with Canadian law firm Ogilvy Renault and South African firm Deneys Reitz, creating a top 10 global legal practice with 38 offices and 2500 legal staff, totaling more than 5000 people worldwide. The combination was followed by the opening of new offices in Europe and Africa.

In January 2012, a combination with Canadian firm Macleod Dixon made Norton Rose Group one of the largest law firms in Canada.

On 3 June 2013, Norton Rose combined with Fulbright & Jaworski to become Norton Rose Fulbright, establishing a market leading presence in the United States and a global law firm with 3800 lawyers and legal staff, and a worldwide headcount of more than 7000 people.

In January 2017, Norton Rose Fulbright combined with leading Vancouver firm, Bull Housser.[6]

In June 2017 Norton Rose Fulbright combined with Chadbourne & Parke, strengthening its market leading presence in the United States and growing the global firm to more than 4000 lawyers.

In December 2017, Norton Rose Fulbright combined with leading Australian firm, Henry Davis York.

In August 2018 the High Court of Justice in London criticized Norton Rose of unfair and misleading presentation a case of the Fundo Soberano de Angola: "The breaches of duty are sufficiently serious and culpable to warrant discharging the WFO and not granting fresh relief, irrespective of the other grounds of challenge".[7]

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.