I have written before about the Big 4 accounting firms and the threat that these firms may pose for U.S. lawyers and law firms.
The response has typically been a bit like that of the first two pigs in the old 3 Little Pigs nursery rhyme who arrogantly believed their houses of straw and twigs would protect them from the Big Bad Wolf. Going into last week’s Legalweek in New York, several legal pundits (and lawyers) made it a point to tell me Big 4 encroachment on U.S. legal can’t happen. That Sarbanes-Oxley won’t allow it. That the Big 4 don’t make enough profits to do it. That they can’t do what U.S. law firms and lawyers do. That the Big 4 isn’t at all interested in the U.S. market. That they certainly have no business or strategic plans pointed in our direction. I was starting to conclude they were right.
The Legalweek Big4 Panel Discussion
But if a panel discussion at ALM’s recent Legalweek is any indication, perhaps these pundits may want to reconsider. The panel was composed of head of EY Legal, Rutger Lambriex, (EY is one of charter members of the Big 4), Jeremy Fudge. a lawyer with the immigration law firm, Barry Applemen Leiden that recently formed an “alliance” with the Big 4 firm Deloitte and Dan Packel, the ALM reporter who early on wrote so articulately about the alliance and its possible impact.
Of these panelists, it was Rutger Lambriex who perhaps offered the most telling—and chilling—comments with respect to the state of the U.S. legal market and the future. If his views are shared by the rest of EY and the Big 4, look out.
Lambriex was, of course, quick (perhaps too quick) to point out that EY is not a threat to
