- LittleLaw
- Posts
- 🤝 HSF + Kramer Levin = a big deal
🤝 HSF + Kramer Levin = a big deal
Table of Contents
If you take just one thing from this email...
Herbert Smith Freehills is joining forces with Kramer Levin to finally crack the US legal market — something UK firms often struggle with. The merger gives HSF instant access to top US lawyers, loyal clients, and more profits, while Kramer Levin gets global reach and a shot at bigger cross-border deals.

EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣
In last week’s newsletter, I asked if a law firm’s political views would affect whether you’d apply there.
We got 433 responses — our highest poll numbers ever!
Here’s how the vote turned out 👇️
🤔 Would a law firm’s response to Trump’s executive orders affect whether you apply there?
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Yes – I care how firms respond to political pressure (325)
⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ No – I’d still apply regardless (44)
🟨⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ Not sure – I’d need to know more first (64)
It’s clear — the way a law firm handles political pressure really matters to you when deciding where to apply.
Here are some of the reasons you shared (I enjoyed reading them):
Yes – I care how firms respond to political pressure:
“Immediate ick if the law firm I’m applying to sells out — especially on an issue like DEI. Most young people like myself would never want to work somewhere that doesn’t reflect our values.”
“As a Black female aspiring lawyer this is scary... If a law firm is willing to cut out diversity policies and regress years of DEI progress to stay on Trump’s good side, it says a lot about them and their true moral stance.”
“Governments come and go. What’s important is whether a firm has the backbone to stand against abuse of power. They have put Trump above the rule of law.”
“Scrapping DEI initiatives is a big pressure point for me... If you can be dissuaded so easily, what else will you agree to in order to stay in political good books? It’s disappointing, and makes me question the validity of these initiatives in the first place.”
No – I’d still apply regardless:
“Desperate times call for desperate measures”
Not sure – I’d need to know more first:
“Not sure if the executive orders are illegal — the government reserves the right to do business with who it wants to”
- Idin

FEATURED REPORT 📰
🤝 HSF + Kramer Levin = a big deal

What’s going on here?
Following a vote this week, the partners of Herbert Smith Freehills (🇬🇧) and Kramer Levin (🇺🇸) have agreed to merge.
The new firm will be called HSF Kramer in the US and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer in other countries.
The merger should be final by 1st June 2025.
What’s the background?
Herbert Smith Freehills was formed in 2012 when two firms joined together — Herbert Smith from the UK and Freehills from Australia. Freehills was big in Asia and the Pacific, so the new firm was in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.
But HSF only ever had one US office (in New York).
Kramer Levin, on the other hand, is a well-known US law firm. It’s just outside the top 100 American firms ranked by revenue. The firm is based in New York, and also has offices in Silicon Valley, Washington DC, and Paris (but the Paris office isn’t joining the merger).
What’s in it for Herbert Smith Freehills?
💰 HSF wants in on US profits: The US legal market is a big opportunity. Top US law firms make more than double the profit per partner compared to most UK firms.
But breaking into the US market has been tough. HSF’s New York office lost $5.9 million in 2024 and $5.3 million in 2023.
🫂 Client loyalty runs deep in the US: In the US, corporations and lawyers have long-term relationships. Sullivan & Cromwell’s been with Goldman Sachs for 100+ years. Cravath’s worked with IBM since the 1960s.
That kind of loyalty shuts new players out — especially foreign ones.
🔗 The Kramer Levin deal solves that: Hiring top US lawyers with strong client ties could help. But this would be a slow and expensive way of doing things (UK firms often can’t match the high salaries and bonuses of US firms).
A merger brings them in all at once — and with a respected US brand attached, HSF gets instant credibility.
What’s in it for Kramer Levin?
🌍 A global boost: Kramer Levin’s co-managing partner, Howard T. Spilko, says the merger gives the firm a real edge: more lawyers, wider global reach, and stronger expertise across sectors.
✈️ National to international: Before the merger, Kramer Levin was strong in the US but lacked international scale. Kramer Levin can now tap into global hubs like London, Brussels, Hong Kong, and Sydney — where HSF already has deep roots.
⚖️ A better shot at global deals and disputes: Kramer Levin is known for litigation, while HSF is strong in international disputes and arbitration. Together, they form a powerful team that’s better placed to win major cross-border disputes work.
What will the combined firm’s finances look like?
The two firms look quite different when it comes to money:
Herbert Smith Freehills | Kramer Levin | |
---|---|---|
Annual revenue | $1.6 billion | $500 million |
Profit per partner | $1.6 million | $2.4 million |
Herbert Smith Freehills brings in $1.6 billion a year — triple Kramer Levin’s $500 million.
But Kramer Levin is more profitable: its partners earn $2.4 million each, compared to $1.6 million at HSF.
Why is that?
Well, HSF has 16 offices and 2,600 lawyers. That scale means more revenue, but also higher running costs (like office leases, support staff, and tech systems).
Kramer Levin is much leaner, with just 4 offices and 340 lawyers.
The merged firm will have a single global profit pool. All partners share in earnings worldwide, helping to avoid arguments over who deserves what.
But there’s a risk: if Kramer Levin’s partners end up earning less than before, they might question the deal — even if it’s just a short-term dip.
How can you use this in your applications?
Interviewers want to see that you get how law firms work as businesses.
And a big part of that is knowing how firms grow.
If you say you’re interested in a firm’s global presence (in an interview or application), you want to show you understand the options a firm has — and why they picked one over the others.
Here are three common strategies firms use to expand globally:
🤝 1. Merge with a local firm (e.g. A&O Shearman, HSF Kramer):
Advantage: Instant access to local lawyers, clients, and regulators
Disadvantage: Mergers are complex and can trigger culture clashes (like on profit split)
🌍 2. Open your own offices abroad (e.g. Clifford Chance, Freshfields):
Advantage: Full control over hiring, culture, and brand
Disadvantage: Slow, expensive and have to build trust from scratch with clients
🔗 3. Form partnerships with foreign firms (e.g. Slaughter and May, Cravath):
Advantage: Flexible and easy to manage
Disadvantage: Clients may prefer a ‘one-firm’ solution
Each option comes with trade-offs around control, cost, risk, and speed. So, in your application, go beyond just spotting what a firm did — show them you understand why they did it.

A BIT OF FUN 😄
Fancy seeing you here

IN OTHER NEWS 🗞
🤖 Shoosmiths is offering a £1 million bonus to get staff using AI more. If employees hit one million prompts on Microsoft Copilot in the next year, the firm will add that cash to its bonus pool. That’s doable if everyone uses the tool just four times a day.
🚗 BMW, Ford, Toyota, and Volkswagen are among the big car brands fined £77 million by the CMA. The fine was because they secretly agreed not to advertise if their vehicles were more than 85% recyclable. That’s against competition rules. By staying quiet, they avoided competing on how eco-friendly their cars were, so no one had to spend more on greener materials or recycling.
⚖️ Over 500 law firms have backed Perkins Coie in a legal fight against Trump-era executive orders. These orders aim to block firms from handling sensitive government cases by stripping their security clearance — here’s our Trump vs Big Law explainer. Unlike other firms, Perkins Coie refused a deal to do $100 million in free legal work for Trump’s causes in return for access. The firms say this kind of pressure threatens the rule of law and have filed a legal brief to show their support.
🛋️ Soho House is suing Next for copying its furniture designs. The club says Next has been selling pieces that look a lot like those from its interiors brand, Soho Home — including a £2,795 marble coffee table. Soho’s asking the court to stop Next from selling the lookalikes and to cover costs and damages.

AROUND THE WEB 🌐
🧩 Tricky: Unveil the mystery image one click at a time
🕒 Handy: Easily compare timezones side by side when meeting people from other countries
🐒 Experiment: A real (virtual) version of the infinite monkey experiment — you can even see what each monkey is typing

STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌
📹️ Free application help: If you're applying to commercial law firms, check out my YouTube channel for actionable tips and an insight into the lifestyle of a commercial lawyer in London.
How did you find today's newsletter? |