REPRESENTATION IN CHINA
One of the most commonly cited barriers to doing business
effectively in China is the sheer size of the country. IP strategies that work in a large metropolis may be of little value in a rural backwater, while approaches that please one court may not be as welcome in another. Knowing the legal market is crucial to ensure you have the right representation. WIPR takes a look.
While rankings of law firms in China are helpful as far as they go (and WIPR may do them in the future), the diversity, number and strengths of the various operators in the country limit how comprehensive they can really be. Tere are certainly firms that can provide an exhaustive service whatever the IP issue, but others should not be overlooked just because their strengths lie in more specific areas.
Tere’s also the nationality question. Tere are, broadly speaking, three types of intellectual property firms in China. Tere are the local firms, the internationals and the local firms with clear, fixed international links. Tey all have roles to play in providing legal advice to clients, but those roles are evolving rapidly. In 10 years’ time, the situation may be quite different.
International
International law firms face two major obstacles in China. Firstly, there is the small matter of not being allowed to represent clients in Chinese proceedings. Effectively, foreign firms are prevented from offering full services in China to their clients—they aren’t licensed to practice and so are obliged to engage local practitioners to do some of the work they would no doubt like to do. And secondly, there is the language issue. International law firms can find themselves stuck between competing wants—native English speakers to liaise with international clients are essential, but so too are native Chinese speakers. Not everything can be done in translation.
Despite these obstacles, however, it is clear that the most successful international firms with presences in China provide an excellent service to their clients, albeit at higher rates than local law firms charge.
Baker & McKenzie is one of the best established. Its Asia practice is headquartered in Hong Kong, but the firm also boasts offices in Beijing and Shanghai. Its large team is headed by Loke-Khoon Tan and has a range of international clients, including Abbott laboratories and Nokia.
Tan says that the firm’s strength lies in the depth of its practice, and the ability to cross the cultural divide between Western ways of doing business and the realities on the ground in China. And that doesn’t just go for the lawyers based in China and Hong Kong. Te firm runs a secondment programme, bringing lawyers from other international offices over to gain experience of Chinese legal practice, the better to serve international clients elsewhere. While Baker & McKenzie is far from the only firm to have such a programme, Tan cites it as a major tool to maintain standards in the future.
Tese days, many US law firms maintain Chinese and Hong Kong practices, but opinion is divided as to whether that will continue in the long term. Te consensus view is that the restrictions on foreign law firms in China will remain for the foreseeable future. As Linda Chang, head of Rouse’s China group, puts it, “the government wants to protect this
market...it’s still a big issue for foreign law firms”.
At the moment, international law firms bring things to the table that local firms cannot: long- established, international client relationships, the ability to communicate with clients effectively whatever their native language and, perhaps most importantly, reputation. A multinational headquartered in the US knows, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that standards at a US law firm are predictable and their methods of working are largely unchanging. Tat is not to say that local Chinese firms can’t meet similarly high standards, but rather that in this case, familiarity breeds contentment. But as international firms do more and more business in China, and as enforcement systems become more transparent and user-friendly, it’s possible that, in time, companies will become more familiar with the local law firms and will start going direct to them for lower-cost, cradle-to-grave work on IP matters, cutting out the traditional big players. And while there remains a gulf between the ability of some local law firms to provide the kind of service required and that provided by international firms, the situation seems to be changing. More and more, the best local firms are staffed with lawyers brought up in a more business-friendly environment. Some firms have international offices (CCPIT Patent and Trademark is present to some degree in New York, Tokyo and Munich), and others are making efforts to employ staff with international experience and solid foreign language skills.
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2011
21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84