Sarah Pritchard Director National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) at the National Crime Agency (NCA) invited us in to talk about Fraud. In what has been an unprecedented year for law enforcement we wanted to understand how the NECC had risen to the challenge of Covid-19.

Sarah has an MA in History from Cambridge, she worked in government for several years before moving to Dechert where she specialised in dispute resolution, after three years in private practice she moved back into government as an investigations lawyer. In 2013 she joined HSBC and was the Global Head of Anti-Bribery/Corruption & Global Head Reputation Risk/Client selection. In 2015 she moved to the National Crime Agency first as the Deputy Legal Director before becoming the General Counsel and led on the Transformational People Programme. In June 2019 Sarah became the Director of the National Economic Crime Centre.

Part 1) About the National Economic Crime Centre

What is the National Economic Crime Centre?

The National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) is a relatively new entity launched Oct 2018 and is part of the National Crime Agency (NCA). It is a multi-agency partnership housed within the NCA.

‘Our main responsibility is to deliver a step change in the response to economic crime. What is unique is it brings together regulators, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and the private sector.’

The core partners are the NCA, Financial Crime Authority (FCA), HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Crown Prosecution Service and the City of London Police (who have the policing responsibility for fraud). The private sector engagement comes via the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Task Force which is house within the NECC. The NECC is made up of just over 100 people.

In addition to her duties as a Director at the NECC, Sarah is also responsible for the UK financial intelligence unit which is run alongside the NECC. The reason being that the NECC learns a lot about the emerging risks through Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR’s) and part of the ongoing approach to tackling Economic Crime is ongoing intelligence gathering and SARs.

What is the current Strategy for tackling Economic Crime?

‘The NECC was set up in response to a recognition that the system in the UK was overly complex which resulted in poor co-ordination and a limited understanding of the threats. The multi-partnership approach to addressing economic crime represents a step change in the approach to tackling Economic Crime in the UK.’

‘It was recognised that we are not as well known yet as we would like to be. We are building really good relationships in order to raise the profile of the organisation.’

The four priorities that underpin the NECC are:

1. To understand the threat of economic crime

• Ensure that there is an effective and proportional response to the threat, the four key areas to this holistic approach are:
  • Prevent
  • Pursue
  • Protect
  • Prepare

• The NECC is also there to act as the collective voice of the operational community into the government in order to help tackle economic crime. Home office and the Treasury have the primary policy responsibility on economic crime, the NECC operates independently but works closely with Government partners to ensure an effective response.

‘An example is supporting the companies house consultation which was published recently and focused on issues of transparency and risks attributed to newly incorporated companies.’ The NECC contributed to the consultation on behalf of its operational partners.

• Understanding the capabilities that exist across the whole of the community. This includes drawing in a range of resources from those ‘partners’ that the NECC is working with.

July 2019, the Economic Crime Plan 2019-2022 was launched by government, which is relatively unique. A public private action plan including 52 actions signed by the Chancellor, Home Secretary, CEOs of the Banking community and other sectors such as Legal and Accountancy. The key is to work collaboratively across this range of partners and industry as well as public sector players.

The NECC features in a number of the 52 primary action points. Progress is tracked which has introduced a significant layer of accountability across both the Public and Private sector.

‘We have worked on public / private threat assessments in order to understand the scale of the threat. We have developed more specific threat areas and we have looked collectively at the threats from money service bureaus and trust and company service providers. These assessments are then shared out across the partners.’

What is the scale of the threat and how well are we doing?

‘The scale of the threat is significant, 3.8 million instances of fraud per year, we estimate that £100s of billions are laundered in the UK per year. Per family serious and organised crime is estimated to cost £2,000 per year. Economic Crime is viewed by some as a victimless crime but when you consider the cost of serious and organised crime on a per family basis that really brings it home.’

Between July 2015 and June 2020 the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce (JMLIT) shared information on  750 cases; resulting in £56m in asset seizure or restraint; 210 arrests and over 5,000 suspect accounts linked to money laundering activity identified by JMLIT members that were not previously known to law enforcement (leading to closures of 3400 accounts by financial institutions).

How hard has it been to establish a working public / private partnership?

Multi agency partnerships are difficult to set up because of the mechanics owing to information access. The NECC was set up at a phenomenal speed as there was a recognition that there was a drive across government to get this going. It has worked really well in terms of the multi-agency partnership, there is buy-in from all of the partners which manifests itself on a number of levels both government and at a people level.

Most of the people within the NECC are from the NCA but we also have people from all of our partners – CPS, FCA, HMRC, City of London Police, SFO which shows the level of collaboration. Importantly we have a wide range of team leaders sourced from the various partners that make up the NECC.

Through people, you can establish a partnership and you can create relationships which enables you to learn. It is however really important that you understand what you can most effectively do and what you cannot do with the resources you have. This is fundamental in law enforcement.  

Part 2) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in relation to economic crime and the challenges it presented.

Moving forward there is a recognition that there needs to be an effective law enforcement outcome, as well as an opportunity for partners to manage these risks effectively. This draws us back to our strategy which is to Prevent, Pursue, Protect, Prepare.

If you cast your mind back to March 2020, the UK civil servants were sent home about two weeks after the private sector. There was a two-week period where government carried on but adapted to interacting with the private sector remotely. This has kickstarted a period of transformational change and has laid the foundations for a more Agile and Real Time approach to tackling Economic Crime.

What did you do to combat the potential risks associated with Economic Crime in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic?

We had to make sure that we were agile enough and that we could understand how threats were changing. Criminals will adapt to any scenario. Often the private sector will see changes in activity before law enforcement, that is why having an agile and real time relationship with the private sector is so important.

We set up what is known as the ‘Otello Covid-19 Fusion Cell’, which brought together a range of public and private sector members.

The Covid-19 Fusion Cell is chaired by Sarah, it includes representatives from financial institutions, money transfer business, insurance companies and trade bodies. It was set up with over 30 attendees meeting weekly by the 2^nd week of the UK lockdown, which was a significant achievement. Fusion cell met with a view to sharing information between the public and private sector. Key to this was a focus on how the threat of economic crime was changing and looking at what could be done to tackle that threat. They also used that as an opportunity to agree what should be put out in terms of wider communications to support that effort.

What was special about the Fusion Cell?

What was different was that we were much more responsive, meeting weekly and virtually. Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce (JMLIT) is in person and a smaller group. This was larger and more responsive and there was an expectation of two-way information sharing. For it to work it needed to deliver. We brought together fraud, money laundering and looked at the cyber aspects of both.

What is important to understand is that criminals don’t operate in niche environments they commit fraud and then use complex structures to launder that money.

What did you do to identify and tackle risks as they emerged?

Each week had a dashboard which included threats and SARs coming in on a weekly basis. Risk indicators were shared across the cells to help organisations manage their own risk. Case work was then managed on a referral basis to tackle wrongdoing.

What were the key trends?

Initially we saw reports of fraud dropping by 18%, which was unexpected. Over the weeks, Fraud leveled off at usual levels but there was a shift in focus around the type of fraud, online fraud spiked. This was driven in part by where people were using their money. Reports of frauds where people were taking advantage of the Covid situation such as fake testing kits and poor-quality PPE also increased.

The private sector has been instrumental in identifying potential fraud through the Bounce Back Loan Scheme, both through SARs and other engagement. We have worked with the banks to highlight red flags to potential fraud, as well as working with wider law enforcement to identify cases for investigation, this has led to arrests in recent weeks specifically in relation to the Business Bounce Back Loan Scheme.

Has that led to arrests or has there been a ‘Covid gain’ from an enforcement perspective? In terms of money laundering, the initial lockdown was a useful tool in helping organisations to identify suspicious activity. Cash based money laundering in particular continued. Those depositing significant sums were easier to detect as there was little economic activity in certain sectors owing to the restrictions imposed by the government. Fusion Cell members reported this as a useful tool.

‘We saw a continuation in criminal activity throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.’

It has helped partners manage risk internally, where customers where involved in cash-based money laundering, they would have been easier to identify and a range of results can then take place. The key thing is that our partners know what to look for and this is where the fusion cell came in.

By sharing risk indicators from the NECC – there were 2 organisations that introduced enhanced monitoring of around 1000 customers based on the typologies that were shared. They were able to see risk where previously they might not have. It also helped the private sector discount risk. This was valuable because there was a criticism that law enforcement did not traditionally share the threat typology that they were concerned with. Our partners referenced that it is difficult to discount risk because you cannot see whether it breaches a threshold or not. ‘Real time’ information sharing meant that risk could be discounted where previously it might not have.

As a result of the fusion cell, there were 3 cases totaling almost £300m where, because of relationships that the NECC were able to facilitate, risk was discounted, and those frozen sums were freed up.

Were there any challenges with the model?

Information sharing is a challenge. Fusion Cell is meant to be agile and is most effective when we operate in real-time. ‘Real-time’ is still away from the real-time that we would want. There are issues around the culture of sharing and there are political hurdles.

There are challenges in sharing information that would lead to individuals being identified and then action being taken. This is an area that we are working on for the future. What it shows us is that there is real value of bringing together fraud and economic crime.

Within banking we found that banks are siloed, often fraud and anti-money laundering are separate functions. This impacts on the level of information that is shared across the two risk categories. Criminals do not work in silos. We saw significant advantages in bringing fraud and money laundering together in the cell.

It is great to hear about this agile approach to managing emerging risk, are there any key learnings?

There are 3 main learnings:        

Firstly, we need to be more proactive in terms of case identification rather than reacting to cases that we are already aware of. Secondly balancing our resources between prevention as well as responding to threats through law enforcement outcomes, which is key to closing down vulnerabilities. Finally working in a closer too ‘real-time’ model, these are all significant learnings from the fusion cell.

The ambition is to create new governance that incapsulates fraud and money laundering that brings together learnings from the fusion cell and brings together a broader range of partners.

Over 7 months on is the Fusion Cell still going strong?

It was such a success that we have continued to host the meetings. Participation is now changing so we have new contributors including accountancy and legal in the fusion cell which brings a new dynamic.

You have to set the scale of ambition appropriately, Covid-19 has been a real time opportunity to test this form of public/private partnership. You could consider it a pilot. The question we need to ask ourselves now is:

Are we able to be more agile and responsive and can we operate differently to before, in order to create a ‘real-time’ solution?

Tell us about your ambitions for ‘real-time’

The big game changes that could be enabled are where we can harness the fusion cell partnership in ‘real-time’. This is dependent on technology and looking at improved systemic ways of managing data share through partnership and technology.

What could the game changers be:

Working with the private sector is really important. Not just how the threat is changing in terms of typology but also in identifying individuals so that we can facilitate arrests, facilitating arrests is really important. Looking at the quickest way to report that through is key. SARs are a significant contributor.

Last year we received just over 500,000 SARs, the next report will come out shortly, SARs are up to 573,685, an increase of around 73,000 from the previous year. That is a significant number of reports. They are also not all in real time! SARs are important as an intelligence tool and they enable actions to be taken but they are not the answer to real time Fusion that we are looking to drive.

Is that a sign that we have better reporting or has there been an increase in activity?

We do not yet know what the increase means, it would be interesting to get a view from the regulated sector. Others have previously queried whether there is fair representation from across the spectrum. 80% come from the banking sector, is this reflective of the banking sector holding more risk or is this a reflection that they are better at reporting? We don’t know.

What keeps you up at night?

Mainstreaming the money – from a law enforcement perspective I would like the money aspect to be at the forefront of everyone’s minds, looking at SARs is key if you can cut of the ability for criminals to profit it will act as a significant deterrent.

Serious and organized Crime is estimated to cost the UK £37bn per year, the ability for criminals to cash out is a contributing factor. If we can mainstream the money in terms of investigations. Disrupting people and disrupting their profits – that would be a great outcome.

The SARs system itself, namely the IT platform it is built on, is being updated, we need a first-class tool, we need the law enforcement response to be well resourced.

The second thing is how to drive a genuine partnership most effectively and at pace.

There is nothing like a pandemic to bring people together and ask whether we can do things differently. We can be more effective if we can bring across fraud and money laundering and draw in a range of partners. We then need to communicate what we have done. If we can communicate, we have facilitated X arrests that is key, we need to focus our message on outcomes.

Chief compliance officers within the Cell have commented that bringing together both sides of AML and Fraud has been helpful to them. Signaling via the fusion cell that these need to be brought together has helped organisations to drive activity in their own environment.

Where can people go for more information?

NCA National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime, is published every year and has the whole of the serious and organized crime threat this also includes cyber. There are some good states and it is a useful tool.

For more information on SARs visit:

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/money-laundering-and-illicit-finance/suspicious-activity-reports

For more information on the Economic Crime Plan 2019-2022 visit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economic-crime-plan-2019-to-2022

For more information on global enforcement and public private partnerships, visit Royal United Services Institute Future of Financial Intelligence Sharing (FFIS):

https://www.future-fis.com/thought-leadership-in-partnership-development.html

Having recently posted on the EUIPO and UPC we now turn our attention to analyze and assess lateral moves across the intellectual property market in London. I was also curious to see whether an article I wrote two years accurately predicted the rise of the full-service IP firm.

It has been no secret that patent attorney firms have been making a conscious effort to attract more private practice talent over the past few years. Arguably, this strategy was most successful back in 2014 with Carpmaels & Ransford taking Ian Kirby from Arnold & Porter, which at the time was a game changer across the intellectual property world and proved that moving to an attorney firm actually works and can be a real benefit to existing clients. This created a domino effect that we are still enjoying.

Digging deeper, lets discuss some key trends, notably in London; the common theme is that most hires by private practice law firms peaked in 2016 and 2020. Please find below a snapshot of hires over the last 4-year period. It is interesting to note that not only did seven of these hires happen by July 2020, which is the most hires in any year since 2016, nearly a third of all hires were made by US law firms.

You may have noticed from the selection above, arguably the biggest game changer was Kirkland & Ellis with what was at the time, a very unexpected announcement to build out their IP capability, especially as Allen and Overy hired the team from Simmons & Simmons and were making all the right noises about building their IP capabilities.

There is one move which could be seen as the first real response to attorney firms taking talent from private practice. This is the team move made by Osborne Clarke from Rouse (highlighted in bold)

Now let us see hires made by patent / trademark attorney firms, these hires include, but are not limited to:

Aside from the relatively barren years of 2017 & 2018, we have seen a significant increase in patent experts making the jump from private practice to patent / trademark attorney firms. We will talk about some of the reasons behind this in a future article, however it is the most notable trend we have seen in the Intellectual Property world.

Another trend worth noting is attorney firms hiring sole practitioners. The IP market is rife with individuals who have decided to start up on their own and operate under a consultancy banner. For whatever reason, these sole practitioners have been tempted back into attorney firms. It is interesting to note that they rarely move to a private practice law firm.

A sole practitioner will already have their own clients and obviously, no restrictions to work with these clients when they move, so surely this would be a no brainer for a private practice law firm? Yes, there is the integration point to consider and perhaps a loss in personal autonomy however this type of hire would be relatively risk free. It is somewhat surprising we have not seen too many moves of this nature. Perhaps the pricing differential between a consultant and law firm partner is too great!

Yes, Covid-19 has had an impact on recruitment plans for law firms, however, arguably IP is one area that is actually thriving during this global pandemic, especially across industries such as life sciences, pharmaceutical, biotech and of course, medical devices. It is business as usual as far as the IP world concerned.

Additionally, and slightly off topic as this article is focusing purely on hires within London, we have seen a rise in both private practice law firms and attorney firms adding to their bench strength in Germany and The Netherlands. We will speak about this when we look at European market trends, but it is interesting to note.

So, as you can see from the above, the attorney firms have been very active taking talent from competitors and beyond over the last few years. There are no signs that this will slow down, even during Covid-19 and because of the strategic hires attorney firms have made, they are well positioned to win and take work (and additional talent) from more established private practice offerings and become a true one stop shop for intellectual property matters, which was the prediction I made in my article from 2018.

It would be great to hear from you, do you think that attorney firms have been more successful than private practice law firms in hiring IP talent? Will this strategy start to tail off over the next couple of years? Will private practice firms retaliate? What trends have you seen? Please free to leave thoughts / comments below.

For the purpose of this article, we will focus purely on patent / trademark attorney and private practice hires. There will be a follow up discussion focusing on in-house moves in the intellectual property world. If you would like to receive further details of all the IP moves over the last 4 years, please feel free to get in touch: research@fidessearch.com

The pandemic has had a profound impact on our lives, it has triggered deep emotions, fears of an uncertain future, fears around the potential health implications, fear to meet, greet and interact in a way that seemed so normal only 6 months ago. Many are working from home, many are still in work, many are out of work. There is no level playing field to how the pandemic has impacted us other than being absolutely certain that it has impacted us on a number of levels.

Leaders are conscious of the risks to their business, but so are employees, leaders are concerned about the health and wellbeing of their employees, but so are employees, we have all raised our conscious understanding of the new found risk that we now live with on a daily basis. Wellbeing remains my primary concern, it is no small thing, expecting people to completely upend their daily habits and adjust to a new way of working for an unknown period of time. Well-being is so important that if organisations do not prioritise wellbeing they may not recover from the pandemic. A leader of a global law firm said to me that this is a health crisis, but the real crisis will hit if we cannot prioritise the wellbeing of our employees. I really took that to heart.

Now we are embarking on a return to normality, children back in the classroom, many office workers returning to work, the easing of social restrictions and mixed emotions!

What have we been seeing?

There are too many variables to provide a comprehensive answer, we work with domestic and international corporates, domestic and international law firms and we work across multiple jurisdictions. The honest answer is that we have seen such a variety of reactions to the pandemic that the most accurate statement is that the impact is not a level playing field.

Let’s look at the financial performance of law firms, the Magic Circle have been resilient, as have UK firms such as Mishcon De Reya, international firms such as Eversheds Sutherland have produced solid results. The lawyer  has the top 20 UK firms (by revenue) having all increased their revenue. Of the top 20, 10 achieved revenue growth of over 5%, interestingly 6 of the top 20 also achieved PEP growth, a further 4 do not disclose their PEP figures but all achieved between 4.5% and 11% revenue growth as such you would expect that PEP has moved in a positive direction. Given the unprecedented nature of the lockdown this points to resilience across the largest employers within the law firm market.

Yet our in-house clients have not all fared as well, some of the major financial institutions have reported poor financial performance, sectors such as hospitality, leisure, travel, retail have been decimated by the domestic and international restrictions imposed by governments. Equally if we look at sectors such as technology the pandemic has had less of an impact, in fact across many businesses we have seen mass adoption of their products/solutions. What does need to be said though is that the government stimulus and the retention schemes have had a profoundly positive impact. Never before have we witnessed such rapid and comprehensive stimulus. This perhaps points to the severity of the situation.

On balance we have found that work in Europe has remained ‘steady’. In particular the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Dublin have been and continue to be competitive markets for legal and compliance talent. We have found clients to be consistent in their attitudes towards growth, we have also seen new relationships emerge on the continent that look promising, where they have bold and forward looking leadership teams and appetite for strategic growth.  

What is the impact on hiring?

Some clients have pulled out of hiring processes – this includes both strategic and what we would call ‘nice to have’ additions. Some of those processes made sense to pull out of, many you would argue were driven by the perception that a business unable to pay its existing employees their full wage ought not to be expanding. This is a sentiment worth sharing as it points to the response of leaders prioritising their existing employee’s wellbeing. We have seen new processes emerge and indeed hiring in areas that strengthened as a direct result of the pandemics impact, I won’t name them all, but labour law, insolvency & restructuring, corporate lending and litigation are front and centre. We have seen fewer in-house roles at the senior/leadership level, but we noticed a drop off in Q1 hiring amongst our in-house client base prior to the Pandemic. Issues such as the US vs China trade war, unrest in HK, the US presidential elections and Brexit were regularly sited as reasons for reduced hiring activity by clients.  

Never before have we received as many in-house and compliance candidates or recommendations of candidates. This is driven by two main themes a fear that their business may not be future proof, or they have unfortunately been ‘let go’. The terms of those being asked to leave are a mixed bag, some are favourable but we have equally been astonished by the brutality with which some organisations have treated their people in particular those that have been with the organisation for a short period of time. This is not localised to legal and compliance but is consistent with what we have been told by colleagues across a range of sectors. We are being contact by some truly exceptional candidates the likes of which you as a consultant cannot fathom how they would end up in this position, then the inbox pings and another comes through. These are truly strange times.

As an organisation our thoughts have naturally switched towards trying to help people, this could be providing a connection or introduction, helping them with their CV (something that they may not even have updated for 10 years), counselling them on the fact that this will change and that markets will improve. We have to be honest that GOOD QUALITY individuals may be on the market for some time, possibly a few months, possibly 6, this doesn’t however detract from their calibre and we should all look at such individuals as if we are looking into a mirror, they are just unfortunate to have been in the right place but at the wrong time.

Our Approach

Our approach is relatively simple, firstly let’s look at technology, our phone systems are VOIP, for those that don’t use a VOIP system, I would urge you to look into it, you can take the phone anywhere on the planet, you can even use it through your laptop, you just need a connection to the internet. It has enabled us, from one day to the next, ‘plug and play’ and stay connected over the. We use Microsoft Teams, there are many good providers out there, but I would say teams is easy to use. The features have made us more efficient and better organised; it is easy to connect with your team and for presentations the screen sharing is just ideal. Our clients use different tools so we have all of the commonly used apps installed on our smart phone devices (Blue Jeans, Zoom, Ring etc) that means we can easily jump between platforms and use whatever our clients or candidates prefer.

We travel regularly and we have traditionally preferred to meet people in person (and still do). The pandemic has not just meant that there are new rules around social distancing, what venues can be open and the kind of travel that is permitted. There are additional variables to manage such as airlines cancelling or changing flights which can impact on the efficiency of a trip and there is a risk that travel would need to be cancelled at short notice should travel restrictions be imposed. Although this is an inconvenience for us, we are more concerned that it could reflect on our clients if we were to schedule meetings only to cancel at short notice. Often, we are approaching candidates on behalf of our clients but acting as an extension of their business as such that first interaction is key and we have chosen for now to continue to maintain the status quo and pause on international travel.

What about meetings? Well for starters connecting with people starts with a smile and a handshake. We can still offer the smile but behind a mask and a without a handshake. A part of our reading of people, putting people at ease, establishing rapport comes from the basic nuances around meetings. There is also a level of professionalism that goes into those meetings that tells candidates and clients they are working with individuals that conduct themselves in a professional manner. The pandemic has without a doubt impacted on this greatly.

Why do we meet people, the better question is why wouldn’t you meet people? It is very simple, you are giving that person your time, they are doing the same, the desire to be ‘in that room’ means that the interaction is likely to be a good one. You may be meeting for many different reasons but for most, meeting people new and known is a really pleasant experience. On a practical level though our business model depends on this. We met with clients to better understand their business, the culture, their strategy, and most of all them as an individual. We meet with candidates to promote our clients, the opportunity that we are presenting and to assess their fit and propriety. On both sides of the spectrum there is a level of relationship development that lasts, you do not ‘burn through markets’ you establish lasting contacts and simply put prior to March 2020 we were not accustomed to doing this without face to face meetings.

We have had to learnt!!

As mentioned, the technology was there, we just were not using it. March 2020 presented an opportunity to revolutionise how we operate. I am not saying that we will never go back to doing face to face meetings but we now have more options, we can connect in a targeted way with candidates and clients through a new medium and the key thing is just as we have adjusted so have they. It is now possible for us to have a quality meeting with a client in Dubai, an hour later (on the dot) a meeting in Germany, followed by a succession of conversations in London. The benefit of virtual meeting room facilities is that your diary becomes more functional, you can better plan meetings, no longer does a 5-10 minute delay create a bead of sweat. Many of you reading this will have spoken to us from an airport or in a taxi, whilst on the train home or whilst in ‘transit’ between meetings. That was a feature of the world we lived in and I am not saying it is a bad thing to be connected wherever and whenever, but I have to say the quality of those conversations is at best as good as what you are able to have from home. Yes, I accept that the kids running in or factoring home schooling makes things difficult at times but the time gain from not traveling or commuting and not transitioning between meetings is huge!

Peoples availability has improved. Without a doubt it has helped the search and selection industry that people are not in their offices. Now that might alarm some leaders but trust me when I say, if you do your jobs right people will not be leaving in droves and you have nothing to fear. That said it is a real benefit to running a search process that you can connect with candidates without a long lead time. By being able to access candidates whilst at home they convers in a more open fashion, they have fewer distractions (accepting my previous comment about the kiddies bombing the call), there is no ‘let me dive into a meeting room’ or a whisper of ‘we are open plan’. Candidates are also as interested as our clients are in hearing about the market, what is going on, what are we seeing, using us to information gather! This is no bad thing and I think it is one of the absolute pleasures of our role and function that we are asked our opinion, it gives you a huge sense of mutual respect.

Candidate availability has materially improved the pace at which we can turn around the initial screening of potentially suitable candidates but how are candidates behaving?

Caution has creeped into the market in a way that I have not seen before. There is a level of scepticism around candidates looking to move at this point in time. I personally feel that will lead institutions to miss out on some tremendous talent! Everyone has a different reason for looking to make a move you have to understand the candidate, their motivations and make an informed judgment. Candidates themselves are also cautious, wouldn’t you be? Giving up a coveted position, taking a risk on a new employer at this time. Simply put our job has become more complicated, there are more dynamics at play and creating a scenario where there is an expectation match between the candidate and client has got a lot harder. Trust me when I say that this is where your search partners will come to the fore.

Now more than ever is the time where search consultants can add tremendous value to a recruitment process. Our position between the client and candidate means that we can look for those subtle triggers, triggers that enable us to read between the lines and understand the actual thinking, client and candidate side. We are running numerous processes as such that insight gained from working across a number of clients is valuable context to both the candidate and client during an unprecedented time. As such we have tried to make ourselves as ‘available’ as possible to speak to people about ‘the market’. Personally, this is one of the things that I have really enjoyed about the pandemic, spending time discussing the market and exchange views.

 A challenge for us and our industry was:

‘Will a law firm be able to hire an equity partner without them having set foot in the building’.

The short answer is yes of course but be informed. We have now completed a modest number of lateral processes on that basis, so it is possible, but is it ideal and are there risks?

There are always risks in the lateral partner market, we need to acknowledge that both clients and candidates alike need to improve their due diligence. We have seen a significant increase in demand for due diligence services and that will continue. Our clients looking to complete lateral partner processes are increasingly relying on a later stage external due diligence exercises to help stress test the validity of their hires. This is a positive and will grow further through good experiences, we hope that in time this will establish itself as a key ingredient in any successful search process.

What do we look for in a Due Diligence process?

Our Due Diligence function is client focused and provides an analytical and thorough assessment of their potential lateral investment. We believe it is ultimately a leadership tool and provides our clients with a greater level of certainty. We do not seek to block hires, quite the opposite we aim to fully explore the reality of the partner or team, their financial performance, credentials and fit. We also reflect our findings into recommendations that will allow for the successful integration and onboarding of a lateral partner or team.

Shouldn’t the sponsoring partners carry out their own due diligence?

Yes, in short! Partners are good at conducting their own enquiries, but they become invested in the process and outcome focused. Sponsoring partners are trusted by the executive leading a firm, who in turn oversee 10, 15, 20 or more lateral hires. A big challenge is often that the sponsoring partner and the candidate are the two most invested parties in a lateral hire. Good external diligence at this time should not be undervalued.

This Is A Time To Reflect

The pandemic has caused many to pause, to reflect on what is right and wrong and to look deep inside. A client said to me that ‘it is almost impossible not to revaluate things in a time like this’. I actually really value this impact, people should look inside and evaluate their position more, I mean this on every level but naturally the emphasis is on the role and working dynamics.

We have also learnt to emphasise more with our partners and colleagues and we have collectively raised the bar in terms of our understanding of others personal situation. We think more about our personal situation and the sacrifices we make; we have been forced to look more at the circumstances of our partner and our colleagues, line managers and team members and our clients and service providers as well. We have been able to say, ‘this is my situation, can we do this at that time because I have to do this’. People have become more tolerant and understanding. We make more of an effort to communicate with each other at Fides Search, we are no longer like ships passing in the night roaming between meetings, we make ourselves available to speak to each other and we better understand the environment we are each in. Our culture has actually grown through this, for the better.

We should really look at this through a much more focused lens, lets stereotype for a moment. Diversity and Inclusion remains a challenging subject, frankly, is there any excuse not to encourage home working yet alone facilitate home working. If it enables high calibre people to do their job well whilst not compromising or making difficult their living dynamic, then surly the pandemic has been the proof some needed.

Let us be very clear though, any employer not considering the virtues of home working right now is not likely to be an employer or certainly not in a leadership position for long. Yes we thrive on connectivity but let’s be more bespoke! Let us actually provide a work environment that maximises output whilst also accepting individuals can work well from a range of different locations including the kitchen table, bedroom, living room, garden, garage, basement or office. It is all possible, what is key is trusting your people to do a good job and creating an inclusive environment. We do need to make sure however that for new talent entering into the business at all levels that they benefit from being part of a connected, integrated and collaborative work environment and many leaders have flagged this as a concern moving forward. Allen and Over have reacted to this in a fantastic way, if you haven’t watched it already, definitely watch this piece by Karen Seward https://www.thelawyer.com/allen-overy-karen-seward-litigation-video/.    

Update on Fides Search

As a business we have seen this time as an opportunity to invest in people, we have two fantastic new additions to the team Mathew who is specialising in TMT and takes the lead on privacy and cyber security and Chris who is our Head of IP and Patents. We hope to continue to strengthen the team and attract likeminded client focused consultants into the Fides family. We have also just secured a new lease on some fantastic office space, whilst we will retain our meeting rooms on 60 Gresham Street, we are moving the office location to Curtain Road which is just North of Liverpool Street and across from Old Street, we felt that the area mirrored our dynamic culture and that it would physically align ourselves between our legal, financial services technology sector clients. We officially open the office from 1 October and look forward to hosting you there in due course!!  

What does the future hold?

The key thing for us all to understand is that despite the current upheaval things will change, the pandemic resulted in governments taking drastic steps to save lives and stop the spread of Covid-19 but the tide will turn and we will come through this challenging period. In our world clients continue to think about the future shape of their business, this will create the need for hires, we will see some consolidation and as is often the case, mergers, potentially a collapse maybe more than one, we will also see some success stories. People will find a way, businesses will find a way, families will find a way but let’s continue to embrace technology and new ways of doing things, lets enjoy the fact that we are in this together, working through unprecedented times.

One thing is for sure we will not forget the Covid-19 pandemic and it will leave a lasting imprint on our minds and our behaviours, but hopefully for the better.

Lastly I want to thank the conditions that Covid-19 created for teaching me what is important, for giving me more time with my family, there is no greater gift and if I didn’t realise it before I certainly do now. My 9 year old Max, 5 year old Annabelle and 2 year old Lillian have kept my spirits up and made sure that despite the monotony of lockdown that no day was without laughter and sunshine and my wife Charlotte for being all that she is and more. What a time to be alive.

Thanks for reading and stay well!

Chris Excell, Head of IP & Patents

Dovetailing with a previous article on the EUIPO (and its choice of location) it is only right to comment on the “other side” of the Intellectual Property world; Patents, and the Unified Patent Court.

A brief history on this, The Unified Patent Court agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 in Brussels by 25 Member States (except Spain, Poland, and Croatia). It is due to be implemented by the end of 2021. Its main purpose is to create an international court to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European Patents. Its rulings will apply in all Member States that have ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC Agreement).

We will explore the ratification process in more detail later. We could talk about every member state’s ratification progress, however we will focus purely on the UK for this discussion. With that being said, it is important to note the three mandatory ratifiers were/are the UK, France and Germany. Whilst no longer in the EU, the UK did ratify the agreement at one point in time…

The UK ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in April 2018, despite the UK’s plans to leave the EU. This was viewed as surprising because the consensus was that non-EU members could not participate in the new UPC system. Even more surprising that the UK ratified the UPC after the national referendum on Brexit (which is a topic that needs more than one line to discuss). We would however welcome your comments on this point!!

Fast forward to July 2020, The UK officially confirms it is pulling out of the UPC, it could be argued that this never should have got this far given the Brexit implications, however we now know the stance the UK has taken.

After speaking with many IP specialists across Europe, there seems to be a split consensus about the future of the UPC. There are some who are unsure if the UPC can still happen, and there are those of the mindset that even with the UK pulling out of the agreement, the UPC can and will go ahead. Which is quite interesting because of the three mandatory ratifiers needed, as previously said, only France and Germany remain part of the EU. (There is also the issue of Germany and their ratification being overturn by the Federal Constitutional Court, however a new draft bill has been submitted which looks like it will finally ratify the UPC)

Arguably, there is no precedent that we can draw on to see how this will play out, but we do have existing International Treaty laws. The question is where do we go from here, as opposed to where does this leave the UPC?

If the UPC can’t go ahead due to the ratification process, then the obvious decision would be to leave things the way they were pre the UPC agreement- yes, this will be seen as counter intuitive, especially considering the amount of time and resources invested to the UPC: 7 years and counting. However, it would be the simplest thing to do, considering the current situation and the potentially conflicting interests of the remaining member states. If this were to happen, much of the existing framework could be ‘reused’ and potentially contentious areas re-negotiated to make the terms more acceptable, potentially drawing in the three original detractors (Spain, Poland and Croatia).

However, what is more likely, will be a new agreement which will be less rigid and allow for more flexibility on entry / decisions. If the UPC’s ultimate mantra is to create a global court, then surely this must be lived up to? The current agreement is a comprehensive one, and yes, it is for the purpose of European patents. The uncertainty around the current state of the UPC is a real topic of interest with material consequences depending on what happens next. 

The last alternative, and this is an extreme idea, would be the formation of a new patent court. This is a subject that we will discuss in a future article, however in short – this could be an exciting proposal that would have an impact for generations to come, if, and it is a big if, a new unified patent court idea was to be explored. Failing this, it is difficult to see a future for the UPC in its current form.

It must be stressed that the above thoughts are purely hypothetical, we do not currently know how Britain leaving the UPC and the EU will impact on the UPC and whether it will prevent it going ahead.

How can this go ahead, will it go ahead, will it be renegotiated, will there be an alternative solution? Whatever happens next, is going to be interesting, the developments and ramifications on the Intellectual Property world are not insignificant.

Chris is a Senior Consultant at Fides Search and is Head of IP and Patents. To find out more get in touch with Chris:

Mobile: +44 (0) 7407 895 518 |Direct Dial:+44 (0) 20 3642 1873 | Email: Chris@fidessearch.com

Chris Excell, Head of IP & Patents writing on the EUIPO.

The surreal time we are in promotes both a chance to reflect and refocus on matters that are important to us. As such, I wanted to share a few thoughts on the EUIPO and how it has got to be so significant in the intellectual property world. Also, why Alicante?

The EUIPO, then known as the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was one of six agencies set up under the 1993 Treaty on the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty being founded in 1994).

It was somewhat surprising when it was announced, that the OHIM, would be headquartered in Alicante, Spain. Especially as the European patent office was based in an arguably more business centric location in Munich. The proximity of the German Patent Office at the time and the Deutsches Museum (German Museum) created a “technology triangle”.

One could argue that it would have made more sense for the OHIM to replicate this launch in either the same country, or a more fertile place for businesses?

It took only two years for the surprise to go away.

In April 1996, the first community trade marks were received, these were in vast quantities that surpassed even the most confident projections. In the first month alone, nearly 22,000 trade mark applications were sent to the office. Original predictions had been for 15,000 in the first full year.  In effect, the Office had received more trade mark applications in its first few days of activity than had been anticipated for its first eighteen months.

Interestingly, by the end of 1996, 46,700 trade mark applications had been received. As well as confirming the success of the new EU trade mark system as a valuable tool for business both inside and outside the Union, this also meant that the income the Office earned from fees had surpassed its outgoings, and that the new agency was now fully financially self-sustaining.

As you can deduce, the demand for the new trademark offering was there, and the amount of applications exceeded every expectation. It wasn’t reliant on where the EUIPO was based. So whilst Alicante did seem a surprise choice at first, it turned out to be a master stroke. The EUIPO never intended to choose a location purely on a market/industry hotbed. It was actually concentrating on consolidating itself as an IP office with global reach, confirming the vision of its founding fathers as it became both a motor and a reflection of the EU’s Internal Market. This is why the location didn’t actually matter.

The model used has been replicated by many business today (not just across the legal sector) and has created one, focused international offering. Additionally the vision of being fully sustainable, alongside the technology available to complete the trademark filing process entirely online, has seen the EUIPO evolve into a place that is an eco-friendly (solar panels and wind turbines help provide electricity, rain water is recycled and energy consumption has been significantly lowered) exciting, selfless community. The EUIPO’s  significance goes beyond the intellectual property world. It represents choice and freedoms.

Chris is a Senior Consultant at Fides Search and is Head of IP and Patents. To find out more get in touch with Chris:

Mobile: +44 (0) 7407 895 518 |Direct Dial:+44 (0) 20 3642 1873 | Chris@fidessearch.com

Global conglomerates, tech giants and now nations are implementing block chain technology for a variety of reasons.

Improved transparency leading to gains in trust is an overriding benefit of implementing the blockchain, which offers the potential to re-define some of the user’s key business relationships.

Removing the paper trail and gravitating towards a safer, faster, and more efficient infrastructure are the drivers for many stakeholders looking to use the blockchain platform. IBM is already working on more than 500 projects utilising blockchain technology according to their website.

Arguably the most famous blockchain crypto asset (Bitcoin) has seen a recent increase in acceptance in the mainstream due to a wider understanding of the crypto currency. One of the most endearing stories of Bitcoin so far is not the famous “Pizza Day”. Recently reported by Forbes magazine, a beachside town in El Salvador received an anonymous donation from a grateful visitor. This has led to the creation of a financial ecosystem that evolves almost entirely around the cryptocurrency.

Even with closed borders (due to Covid-19) the town of El Zonte has managed to find their own route forwards especially now that the currency is at an all-time high and is pushing the $11,000 price per coin mark. The transparency of the blockchain network benefits all the stakeholders in the supply chain in the same way, transparent, automated and exceptionally fast.

Global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills LLP have paired with the Australian Government and IBM to further their digital economy. Known as the Australian National Blockchain (ANB) the ANB will soon invite regulators, financial institutions and business to take part in the pilot set to launch by the end of the year according to their website.

Smart legal contracts are exciting and a great legal talking point. The benefit of automation also come with limitations and headache. What happens when they cannot be reversed? There is an inherent lack of flexibility with no undo button to press.

It’s clear that there is a race to harness the benefits of the blockchain technology, Dubai is aspiring to become the first government to run fully on smart contracts which is fascinating as the speed at which the emirate and country is becoming digitised is commendable.

As always this space will be an exciting one to watch. Many legal opportunities will present themselves, not least regulatory and a compliance related, it will be an interesting watch to say the least.

By Mathew Parker, Consultant at Fides Search. He dedicates his time to working with clients on their key strategic hires within TMT. To find out more get in touch with Mathew:

Mobile: +44 (0) 7391 405 563 | Direct Dial:+44 (0) 20 3642 1874 | mathew@fidessearch.com

Data companies are having to re-asses their operations following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) which has ruled the privacy shield framework as invalid. Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC’s) are still adequate, however questions remain over the longer-term implications.

Now that we as individuals and companies are more than even depending on a globally connected world, companies in the EU will have to consider whether  the host nation of the company they are sharing data with is operating under the same data transfer rules as the EU.

Some feel that this will effectively hamstring European international companies but there is also the potential that this makes having an EU location more valuable than previously assumed.

The concept of the EU becoming a data island was mentioned on the IAPP website and is looking increasingly possible as the decision by the CJEU only related to US data transfers. It could actually have an effect on data transfers anywhere outside of the EU. Data Protection Authorities now have to decide whether to potentially halt all data transfers outside of the EU. Which is a massive undertaking and in turn creates grey areas for data transfer like never seen before.

Will the UK post Brexit create their own framework in the mould of a privacy shield granting licenses for confirming companies or fully align with the EU?

Many questions remain on this topic, the decision is made, and the void is created between that and the solution.

Mathew is a Consultant at Fides Search. He dedicates his time to working with clients on their key strategic hires within TMT. To find out more get in touch with Mathew:

 Mobile: +44 (0) 7391 405 563 | Direct Dial:+44 (0) 20 3642 1874 | mathew@fidessearch.com

IP and Patents specialist joins Fides Search

Fides Search are delighted to welcome Chris Excell to the team. Chris joins us as a Senior Consultant and will be leading our IP & Patents practice. Chris works with Law Firms, Patent Attorneys and a range of in-house clients. He has a particular interest in the TMT sector alongside Pharma and Lifesciences. All of which are a focus for Fides Search.

Chris has worked on searches across EMEA and will be joining colleagues in helping clients secure the best possible talent across our core international markets. Chris will add further depth to our partner search capability whilst also working with our clients on consultancy and due diligence exercises.

Chris joins Fides Search having most recently having been the Head of Search – Private Practice for a legal services focused recruitment business. Chris joins Fides Search during a period of growth, Mathew Parker who also recently joined our TMT sector group, which is part of our ongoing investment.

Edward Parker, Director of Fides Search had this to say:

Chris joins us at truly exciting time as we try to deepen our sector focus and specialist knowledge in key areas. Chris brings some fantastic experience to the table in areas that we feel require a true specialism and focus. We have seen that our clients are increasingly expecting their search consultants to not just understand their business, culture and strategy but that they also need to be genuine experts within their market.

This is a huge opportunity for Fides Search as we naturally gravitate towards consultants with sector and practice specialisms. Chris brings huge energy and determination to his work and the Fides Search team and we very much look forward to working with him.

What Chris had to say:

I am absolutely thrilled to be joining Fides Search, who match my ambition and share the same values of offering a first class service to clients, whilst maintaining integrity and quality, in a consultative manner. The international capabilities of Fides was also a massive draw for me and I am very excited to help build on the excellent platform Fides Search currently has across Europe and beyond.

Chris’s bio can be found here

Chris looks forward to introducing himself in due course but please feel free to reach out to him if you would like to arrange a time to meet. His details are as follows:

Email: Chris@fidessearch.com

Mobile: +44 (0) 7407 895 518

DD: +44 (0) 20 3642 1873

Fides Search are delighted to welcome Mathew Parker to the team. Mathew joins us as a Consultant focusing on TMT, he has a particular interest in the technology sector and will be supporting our professional services and in-house clients with their key strategic hires in this space. Mathew will add further depth to our partner search capability whilst also working with our clients on consultancy and due diligence exercises. Mathew adds to our London based capability, having spent 10 years in the UAE he will also support our clients in the Middle East as well as Europe.

Edward Parker, Director of Fides Search had this to say:

Mathew joins us at an exciting time, our clients are increasingly expecting their search consultants to be genuine experts within their market. This is a huge opportunity for Fides Search as we naturally gravitate towards consultants with sector and practice specialisms. Mathew joins at a time where we have seen increasing demand for legal talent in particular across our Technology client base. We have also been struck in recent months by how resilient this sector have been. Mathew himself brings huge energy, determination and leadership qualities to the Fides Search team and we very much look forward to working with him.

What Mathew had to say:

I am delighted to be joining the team at Fides Search. I look forward to working with clients of the firm, helping to deliver a first class service. I have a real interest in TMT, being able to focus on this sector is hugely appealing and exciting, I also look forward to helping clients in some of the key niche areas of spars talent such as cyber security and data privacy.

Mathew’s bio can be found here

Mathew looks forward to introducing himself in due course but please feel free to reach out to him if you would like to arrange a time to meet. His details are as follows:

D: +44 (0) 20 3642 1873

M: +44 (0) 7391 4055 63

E: mathew@fidessearch.com

Ed Parker

Talks about ‘How to Build Trust in a Search Process’.

He shares his thoughts on our LinkedIn page. Please click the link to watch the segment in full How to Build Trust in a Search process

In this piece Ed Parker talks about:

• How to select your search partner,
• The role your search partner will play in the process,
• And lastly the importance of trust with specific examples around the negotiation of compensation between the client and candidate.

Stay well from the team at Fides Search.