On Thursday, after visiting the Martin Luther King memorial, we had a great diner in the beautiful Sequoia restaurant on the top of the Potomac River. On Friday morning, I just took the time to see the White House, the Capitole, the Lincoln and the Second world war memorials’ before taking my flight for going back to NY. Washington is a really nice city but I was missing my “big apple”.

Congratulations to the Jackson Lewis firm for this amazing and impressive event and thank you to Steve Baderian and Bill Manning for, once again, invited me. Only one month left in New York and I hope a lot of things to live…

Stephan Swinkels, Executive Director of L&E Global, says, “May is shaping up to be an exciting month for L&E Global. Not only are we welcoming one of the most prominent law firms in Europe to our Alliance, but we have acquired a seasoned international employment law
resource from one of the largest corporations in the world. Both developments add ‘bench strength’ to our group and expand our ability to offer truly integrated solutions in the global marketplace.”

Described by Chambers & Partners as a “fixture at the top of the Austrian legal market,” Gerlach Rechtsanwälte’s competence incorporates all aspects of employment law. Partner Roland Gerlach has successfully built a portfolio of corporate clients and advises them on long-term
strategy, as well as day-to-day employment matters, and represents them in court, when necessary. He is widely admired by competitors as one of the leaders in the field and is further described in Chambers & Partners as, “…always having his clients’ interests at heart and to cut sensible deals.”

John Sander joins L&E Global member firm Jackson Lewis from Merck & Co. Inc. where, as Vice President and Associate General Counsel, he managed all employment and labor matters outside the U.S. after its merger with Schering Plough in 2009. While at Schering Plough, he managed the group for employment, labor, and immigration law within the U.S. and globally. John will play a prominent role in the L&E Global organization.

Each of L&E Global’s fourteen member firms concentrates its practice on employment law, employee benefits, labor relations, workplace privacy, and immigration, and each firm is recognized by clients and legal organizations as a leader in these fields. Including Gerlach Rechtsanwälte, the other member firms of the L&E Global alliance are (Canada) Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti; (France) Flichy Grange Avocats; (Australia) Harmers Workplace Lawyers; (United States) Jackson Lewis LLP; (Italy) Studio Legale Failla Rotondi & Partners (LABLAW);

(Mexico) Natividad Abogados; (Netherlands) Palthe Oberman; (Germany) Pusch Wahlig Legal; (Poland) A. Sobczyk & Współpracownicy; (Spain) Bufete Suárez de Vivero, S.L.; (New Zealand) Swarbrick Beck Mackinnon; (Norway) Storeng, Beck & Due; and (Belgium) Van Olmen | Wynant.

About L&E Global:

L&E Global, an international integrated alliance of premier labor and employment law boutiques, exclusively focuses on providing counsel on cross-border labor and employment issues. The alliance operates in Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific region. Founded in 2011, they have rapidly gained prominence in the international employment law arena and were designated the “Cross Border Law Firm of the Year” by Lawyer Monthly. In March 2012, the Alliance was named Leading Employment Law Network in Chamber & Partners Spotlight and commended as, “…The firms are recognized as premier exponents in the market and offer a worldwide service in more than 50 offices across the globe.”

L&E Global member firms offer deep experience in a broad array of sectors and markets, including financial and insurance services, high tech, pharmaceutical, telecommunications and information services, luxury goods, retail and energy.

Filip has over ten years of experience as a lawyer specialising in employment law, five of them in a global law firm. From 2010 he was a partner at Janson Baugniet. Filip regularly advises national and international clients on a variety of Change Management issues such as post transfer harmonisation, collective bargaining, M&A, company closures & collective dismissals, outsourcing, BPO etc. Filip has also built up specific expertise in international employment and immigration. In line with Van Olmen & Wynant’s strengths, he has outstanding skills in pleading and negotiating.

This year Filip completed his Executive MBA studies at Cambridge University. With his arrival and the rapid development of L&E Global, Van Olmen & Wynant continues on its path of renewal and innovation.

IT will cover the challenging issues that may arise as a result of ineffective or mishandled performance management, inappropriate behaviour or misconduct in the workplace – outlining potential sensitive issues which may give rise to legal liability.

Date: Thursday 19 April 2012
Venue: Swissôtel, 68 Market Street, Sydney
Presentation: 12.30pm (sharp) to 2.00pm
Presenters: Shana Schreier-Joffe, CEO & Senior; Team Leader & Jenny Inness, Senior; Associate & Team Leader
Cost: Complimentary (Gourmet sandwiches will be provided)

Please register online by April 13.

SBDL represents a wide range of Norwegian and international businesses, employers, labor unions, governmental organizations, and municipalities. The firm’s lawyers possess a unique understanding of Norwegian employment law and are recognized as leaders in their field by The Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.

“We could not be more pleased that Storeng Beck is joining our alliance of premier boutique law firms,” says Stephan Swinkels, Executive Director of L&E GLOBAL. “They will make a valuable contribution as all 13 member firms of L&E GLOBAL continue to provide clients with the integrated coverage they need in today’s global economy. To reiterate what The Legal 500 has said about SBDL, the firm is ‘very knowledgeable and more accessible than bigger law firms and SBDL has a substantial employer-side practice with attorneys who are clear about the law.’ Terje Andersen, an SBDL Partner, added, “L&E GLOBAL provides the perfect platform from which we can expand our services to our clients. We are honored to join these distinguished practitioners from around the world.”

Each of L&E GLOBAL’s 13 member firms concentrates its practice on employment law, employee benefits, labor relations, workplace privacy, and immigration, and each firm is recognized by clients and legal organizations as a leader in these fields.

We ask you to please update your diary with our new address details as follows:

LABLAW
Studio Legale
Corso Europa 22
Milan 20122
Italy

LABLAW Milan will retain the same phone and fax numbers, as well as email addresses.

This new location offers 1200 sq. m of office space spread over 4 floors. Integrated into the design are 3 spacious meeting rooms and an auditorium which can accommodate up to 50 people for conferences, seminars and training courses.

“LABLAW has grown phenomenally since launching in January 2006,” says Francesco Rotondi, Founding and Managing Partner of LABLAW. “ In 2009, we welcomed a new LABLAW Rome team and later in 2011 we expanded once again with new LABLAW Padua and LABLAW Pescara teams.”

“At the same time we have also been reinforcing our Milan team, “continues Luca Failla, Founding and Managing Partner of LABLAW. “In 2012 LABLAW will continue to solidify its presence – and not only in Milan, Rome, Padua and Pescara. We expect to announce new office openings in the coming months.”

In this article, Michael Lotito of Jackson Lewis offers a primer on these issues for in-house counsel, setting forth a scaffolding of issues of which in-house counsel should be aware with regard to international labor concerns.

Megan Belcher
Vice President & Chief Employment Counsel, Con Agra Foods, Inc.

Globalization of business enterprises, largely as a result of the technological innovations of the past several decades, has transected political, social, economic and class boundaries. At the same time, the opening of potential foreign markets has generated challenging cross-border questions concerning human rights and labor relations. National laws, regulations and other legal mandates govern corporate actions with respect to domestic human resources to one degree or another, but what other labor relations factors influence the shape-shifting global marketplace? In-house counsel for transnational companies must ask several key questions with respect to labor relations policies and practices:

• What effects do decisions and actions regarding domestic labor relations have on the global level?
• How do foreign enterprises affect the expectations and outcomes of labor relations matters at home?
• Through what means is a workable balance between domestic and global labor relations achieved?

Does a globally recognized labor relations standard for transnational businesses exist?

To what extent US labor relations reflect and comport with international standards is garnering more attention with the continued expansion of transnational business, particularly with regard to management/union relations within US subsidiaries of foreign parent corporations.

There are important distinctions between US labor laws and the conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations with 183 member states, including the United States. Under US law, for example, your company’s employees must designate or select a bargaining representative before the union can represent them; once selected, the union is the exclusive representative of all bargaining unit members. Supervisors and managers are distinct from employees for purposes of protected rights and collective bargaining, and you are permitted to hire permanent strike replacements under certain circumstances. Under the IL O’s conventions, on the other hand, employees can establish and join a union of their own choosing without prior authorization, and multiple unions can represent employees within the same bargaining unit. Further, there are no distinctions between supervisors and workers, and the hiring of permanent replacements during strikes is considered incompatible with ILO standards.

Despite these differences, the idea that international labor standards already are part of the US labor relations scheme is explored in depth in a recent article published by Professor Steve Charnovitz of George Washington University Law School. In the article, Professor Charnovitz argues that there already is a body of “international law accepted by the United States for the governance of domestic labor-management relations in the world economy.”1 He calls it the “US International Labor Relations Act (ILRA)” which, in addition to the National Labor Relations Act, he explains, is part ILO rules and part labor obligations of the US government embodied in various free trade agreements (FTAs) with other nations.

As a member of the International Labour Organization, the United States and US entities, including the National Labor Relations Board, are subject to IL O oversight, even though the United States has not ratified the two IL O conventions concerning freedom of association and the right to organize (C.87), and collective bargaining (C.98). In addition, Professor Charnovitz explains that the 1998 Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work applies to all IL O members and imposes on them an obligation to “respect, promote and realize in good faith” the fundamental rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, regardless of whether they have ratified the specific conventions².

Another source of the mandate compelling the United States to abide by the IL O standards — and as such, another component of the US International Labor Relations Act — is our FTAs with various partner nations. As evidence, Professor Charnovitz notes that the trade agreement between the United States and Peru explicitly commits both parties to adhere to and enforce the IL O principles of freedom of association, and the right to organize and bargain collectively through working statutes, regulations and practices. In addition, both countries are obligated to enforce their domestic labor laws and to provide interested persons access to domestic tribunals for enforcing their rights under those laws, Professor Charnovitz explains³.

On Oct. 12, 2011, the US Congress ratified three more FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. All three FTAs contain language similar to the FTA with Peru in stressing the parties’ mutual commitments to the IL O Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and to adopting and enforcing statutes, regulations and public-access tribunals that embody the principal rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

UN “Guiding Principles” on business and human rights

Labor unions and other entities eager to enforce a global labor relations standard may now have additional reasons to cheer. On June 16, 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council officially endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to provide “a global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity.”⁴

Drafted by Harvard University Professor John Ruggie, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Guiding Principles “operationalize” a framework developed by Professor Ruggie and adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2008, known as “Protect, Respect and Remedy.” The framework is intended to act as a focal point for the expectations and actions of States and corporations in the interaction of transnational businesses and human rights.

The “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework rests on three pillars: The first is the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation and adjudication. The second is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means that business enterprises should act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others, and to address adverse impacts with which they are involved. The third is the need for greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and nonjudicial⁵.

The scope of coverage of the Guiding Principles is all-inclusive, reflecting the application of the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework to the conduct of “all States and all business enterprises, both transnational and others, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure.”⁶

Under the “State Duty to Protect,” the Guiding Principles “recommend how governments should provide greater clarity of expectations and consistency of rules for business in relation to human rights.” The “Corporate Responsibility to Respect” principles provide “a blueprint for companies on how to know and show that they are respecting human rights.” The “Access to Remedy” principles focus on “ensuring that where people are harmed by business activities, there is both adequate accountability and effective redress, judicial and nonjudicial.”⁷

How do the “Guiding Principles” impact labor relations for transnational businesses?

Within the sphere of corporate actions, and their effect on people and communities around the world, the concern for human rights encompasses workers’ rights, and therefore, labor relations. In addressing corporate responsibility in that regard, the Guiding Principles speak broadly. “The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations, and does not diminish those obligations. And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.”⁸

The Guiding Principles call for a “statement of policy” that expresses the business enterprise’s commitment, including:

• approval at the senior level;
• internal and/or external expertise;
• expectations of personnel, business partners and others directly linked to the enterprise;
• public availability and communication to all personnel, business partners and relevant parties; and
• incorporation generally in operational policies and procedures.

The statement is intended for application in “whatever means an enterprise employs to set out publicly its responsibilities, commitments and expectations.”⁹ It is meant to be communicated actively to business partners and others with whom the enterprise contracts. In short, the Principles call for the policy statement to be “embedded from the top of the business enterprise through all its functions.”¹⁰

Another operational objective of the Guiding Principles is the enterprise’s obligation to carry out human rights due diligence to “identify, prevent, mitigate and account for” adverse human rights impacts.11 The process is intended to include “assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses and communicating how impacts are addressed.”¹² Here, again, the parameters are broad, including due diligence to assess and address not only actual but potential adverse human rights impacts, beginning with the initial stages of a business relationship or activity, and extending to suppliers, clients and others in the enterprise’s value chain.

Do international labor standards have a real and practical effect on transnational business enterprises?

In-house counsel of transnational companies should pay close attention to the letter and spirit of the standards embodied in what Professor Charnovitz has coined the “US International Labor Relations Act” and the UN Guiding Principles for Businesses and Human Rights, authored by Professor Ruggie, when assessing their labor relations strategy and decisions.

The existence of an international labor relations standard is not speculation. As a member, the United States has implicitly agreed to abide by the International Labour Organization’s standards, even though it has not ratified the conventions on freedom of association and the right to organize and to bargain collectively. As such, domestic enterprises are not exempt from the ILO’s foundational principles specified in the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Furthermore, the UN Guiding Principles specifically incorporate the ILO’s Declaration, as do the FTAs between the United States and Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea, as noted above.

The global reach of an international labor relations standard is already evident. Major transnational corporations have adapted their corporate responsibility statements to reflect the spirit of the IL O and the Guiding Principles. At risk of reputational injury by not doing so, transnationals are becom ing more aggressive in demanding that their vendors, supplier networks and other business partners follow suit. Caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, your company could be compelled to state publicly its commitment to high labor standards, and by so doing, provide the basis for criticism if it cannot fulfill that promise. Further, if a company makes assertions that are contrary to at-will employment principles, these statements could conceivably be used against the company in litigation.

From responsibility statements to policies and practices, in-house counsel will likely come under increasing pressure to ensure their companies comply with the labor relations imperatives of the ILO and Guiding Principles. In addition, labor unions have amassed tremendous leverage in their efforts to organize domestic operations of transnational enterprises. The international standards support organized labor’s objectives of attaining neutrality agreements, card check recognition, unfettered access to employees and speedy first contracts, as do foreign parent corporations accustomed to dealing with greater worker and union rights in business operations.

Although the subject of transnational labor organizing is not specifically addressed in the ILO conventions or the free trade agreements cited by Professor Charnovitz as forming part of the “ILRA,” a number of ongoing union organizing campaigns are using international labor relations standards as a key piece of their corporate campaign strategy. US subsidiaries of foreign parent corporations in a range of businesses — from retail to food distribution to telecommunications — are under pressure from various alliances of domestic and foreign labor unions protesting management opposition to organizing as a violation of those standards.

One example is the ongoing effort by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) to organize US workers of a grocery store chain owned by a parent in the United Kingdom. The US stores’ managers have been accused of refusing to meet with the union to discuss representing their employees. The UFCW uses the parent’s corporate policy statements, reflecting its founding member status of the Ethical Trading Initiative, that specifically pledge allegiance to the ILO’s conventions on freedom of association and the right to organize, and to collective bargaining to indict US management for refusing to meet with the union. Augmenting its US campaign through social media and online channels, the union recently began using highway billboards in areas of California where the corporate campaign is focused.

In 2008, the UFCW launched a campaign in the United Kingdom to put public pressure on the com- pany to conform its labor relations policies “at home” and in the United States. Announcing the campaign in Britain, the UFCW said, “The [report] is a damning indictment of how [the company] operates different principles at home and abroad. The report also highlights what UFCW believes are stark contrasts between what [the company] says and what it does.”¹³

In the telecommunications industry, another ongoing corporate campaign has pitted the foreign parent corporation against the efforts of US management lawfully to defend against organizing efforts by the Communications Workers of America.

These examples illustrate some of the ways that international labor relations standards are shaping the growth and conduct of transnational enterprises. They go beyond speculation as to the weight of influence the principles of the ILO and UN are having in the development of a global standard for cross-border human rights and labor relations.

How could you balance the imperatives of international standards with the practicalities of smart management?

As we have seen, the emergence of an international labor relations standard is part of a larger emphasis on ethical and responsible corporate conduct in the global marketplace. There is no doubt that concerns about human rights are and should be hugely important in forging a workable and sustainable model to which transnational enterprises are beholden.

To meet these obligations, and at the same time, to preserve the objectives of management to provide goods and services in a profitable manner, inhouse counsel can take preventive steps within the parameters of US labor law that honor the principles of international standards. Doing so will require the discipline and commitment of corporate leadership, who should keep in mind that US companies are being pressured on an international level to voluntarily relinquish certain rights.

Perhaps the best advice is the simplest: Commit to maintaining a workplace marked by individual respect and dignity, one that is free of discrimination or harassment of any kind. This may help avoid union troubles altogether in the United States, where the number of unionized employees is much lower than in many European countries. When facing a transnational corporate organizing campaign, however, being a “good employer” may not be enough. Where reputation is at risk, even demonstrating full compliance with domestic labor and employment laws may not allow you to bridge the gap between legal sufficiency and perceived injustice fueled by a foreign parent’s pressure tactics for neutrality or card check recognition.

You should also consider preventive labor relations strategies in advance of, or in response to, a corporate organizing campaign, including:

• Educate senior leadership: Top levels of corporate management should understand the nature of a corporate campaign, the particular union and its affiliates, and the campaign’s ultimate goals.
• Conduct a corporate legal/human resources assessment: Identify the areas of corporate actions and omissions most likely to be
  targeted by the union, as well as possible campaign strategies that may be employed (PR, shareholder meetings, public officials, civic and religious leaders, etc.).
• Ensure legal compliance with employment, environmental and securities laws: Review legal compliance in the areas of wage and hour, child labor, health and safety, fair employment practices, pension and benefits, environment, securities, land use, and building codes.
• Train managers and supervisors on fostering issue-free workplaces: Conduct training for first-line supervisors and managers on fair employment practices; diversity; anti-harassment and other conduct policies; lawful responses to employee actions indicating organizing; and what, when and how to report to designated management officials.
• Communicate positive corporate image:Take control of the conversation and define the strengths of the enterprise to its many constituents. Reach across borders to consult with foreign parent entities, centralize messaging, and provide legal and cultural “translations” of the domestic situation for both internal and external publication. Find opportunities to avoid negative messaging when countering union attacks.
• Emphasize inclusion and accountability: Infuse internal and external messaging with the language of international labor relations. Underscore the enterprise’s top-to-bottom commitment to respect human rights, inclusion rather than exclusion, social responsibility and accountability for itself, and relationships with its supply and distribution chain.

As we have seen, the labor relations practices of domestic businesses do affect the global marketplace, just as those of foreign enterprises have an effect on domestic activities. Thus, transnational corporations should maintain a dual perspective and keep in mind that foreign parents may have differing or additional interests, pressure points and key players to involve.

We have also seen what is at stake and why it is important to understand the arguments for compliance in fact and in the spirit of international labor relations standards:

• reputational risk;
• contingent relationships with others with compliance obligations;
• global business community pressures;
• UN Guiding Principles “stamp of approval (or disapproval)”;
• legal compliance with “US International Labor Relations Act”;
• human rights record; and
• global organizing campaigns.

How individual companies develop policies and practices designed to meet philosophical and operational goals will depend, in part, on how they assess their own risks and rewards. What is certain is that the global community of businesses and enterprises will become even more interconnected and inter dependent in the foreseeable future. Those that achieve a workable balance between domestic and global labor relations not only have the best chance to survive and thrive, but also will be in the best position to lead the way.

Possible Elements for Meeting International Labor Standards

Although every transnational enterprise represents a unique situation, in-house counsel could consider the following, informed by the UN’s Guiding Principles, as part of an overall labor relations strategy that incorporates key elements of the international standards:

• Statement of Policy Reflecting Corporate Commitment and Integration with Corporate Responsibility Statements (GP§§ 11 – 15), echoing the foundational principles, using the language of internationally recognized human rights, and including the duties and means of meeting stated responsibilities.
• Communication of Policy and Commitment (GP§ 16), through external outreach to the public, governmental partners (“multilateral institutions”), supplier networks, vendors, other business partners; within internal operations, including corporate governance, ethics, management hierarchy, employees; and by integration with operational policies and procedures.
• Human Rights Due Diligence Assessment (GP§ 17), framed by “identify, prevent, mitigate and account” to assess “adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships”; assimilate findings; track and communicate actions in response to findings; and perform this as an ongoing process.
• Compliance with Policy and Commitment(GP§§
  18 – 24), demonstrated by identifying and assessing areas of vulnerability and indicators of positive actions; communicating findings and corrective responses across internal functions and processes; training at all levels of workforce and in all locations; tracking effectiveness of corrective programs; providing avenues for grievance and remediation through legitimate processes.

Notes

1. Steve Charnovitz, The US International Labor Relations Act, 26 A.B.A. J. of Labor & Emp. Law 311, 312 (2011).
2. Id. at 317 (citing IL O Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, June 18, 1998, 37 I.L.M. 1233).
3. Id. at 318-20.
4. Press Release, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner, New Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council (June 16, 2011), available at http://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11164&LangID=E.
5. Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31 4 (Mar. 21, 2011), available at http://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/business/A.HRC.17.31.pdf.
6. Id.
7. Press release, supra note 4.
8. Guiding Principles, supra note 5, at p.
9. (emphasis added).
10. Id. at p. 15.
11. Id. at p. 16.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Press Release, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, UFCW Launches Campaign In Britain Against “The Two Faces of Tesco” (June 4, 2008), available at http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=390.

This article was originally published in ACC Docket, April 2012.

I had a very funny lunch with young attorneys from Germany, Luxembourg, India, Albania, UK, and USA. We all realize how the employment laws are different among our countries but we also acknowledge we will need to work together to bring global responses to companies and that it is the key to success.

In this way, I have started to write an article with a Jackson Lewis attorney, Tarek Maheran, comparing the French and the American aspects of the termination process.

These different experiences put into the light that employment law is becoming a fascinating topic because even if it is rooted in the national culture, it is now a transnational issue which requires worldwilde answers.

More information on the conference can be found here.

The newest edition notes,

“L&E Global is an international network of elite boutique employment law firms. Members focus on all aspects of employment law, ranging from benefits to labour relations and immigration. The firms are recognised as premier exponents in the market and offer a worldwide service in more than 50 offices across the globe. Alliance firms have the ability to work together on complex cross-border organisational restructurings, and to deal with trade unions and offer integrated solutions in an international marketplace.”

“We are very pleased with this high honor,” says Stephan Swinkels, Executive Director of L&E Global. “To be recognized in this way is a testament to our innovative strategy of bringing together the premiere labor and employment practitioners from around the world. In the coming months, we will be announcing the addition of other firms to our alliance as we continue the international expansion of L&E Global.”

Chambers & Partners has published legal research directories for over 20 years. They have 130+ full-time researchers who interview thousands of lawyers and their clients around the world. This intensive, continuous research identifies the world’s leading lawyers and law firms – those which perform best according to the criteria most valued by clients. Their outstanding reputation is based on the independence and objectivity of their research.