Beatrice Leung

A lawsuit filed with the Hong Kong High Court in late December has created a ruckus in the legal community in Asia. A former Latham & Watkins counsel is suing the firm and one of its equity partners for fraudulent misrepresentation. Tingfei Fan claims she was constructively dismissed after raising issues with management over alleged misconduct by partners at the firm. Latham & Watkins has vehemently denied the allegations. Her claim includes assertions that she was led by her supervising partner to believe that she was being put up for promotion to income partner for three years but only later found out from other management-level partners that that never happened. She claims this is despite her bringing in more than$19 million in legal fees and revenue between 2020 to 2024. When I read the statement of claim, my first thought was, “I’m not sure you can sue for that.” Unfortunately, I know plenty of young lawyers who have had the carrot of partnership dangled in their face for years. Many have had to eventually move on to other firms to realize their dreams of making partner. When news of the lawsuit broke last week, several legal recruiters told me they had the same thought. Without commenting on this specific case, many said it’s also common practice for partners to take origination credits from their juniors who don’t have books of businesses yet, which jibes with another one of the plaintiff’s claims—that her supervising partner profited from his juniors by allocating origination credits to himself even though he may not have brought those clients and matters in. But the devil’s also in the details. According to the court documents, the plaintiff, who worked at Latham in Hong Kong for close to a decade, alleged that the equity partner, Ji Liu, who is named as a defendant in the case, disregarded “potential conflict of interests by not generating a client matter file or number or doing so under a different client file or matter and directing those under his supervision to work on such matters without a conflict check.” One partner at a U.S. firm described that particular allegation as “egregious misconduct,” if true. I must add that all these allegations, filed with the Hong Kong court on December 29, 2025, are just that. Latham has refuted the claims in a statement to Law.com International, calling them “baseless” and “meritless” and labelling the case an “employment matter” brought by someone who has not been at the firm for over 18 months. The case is due to be played out in court. Approached for comment on this article, Latham's spokesperson said the firm's position remains the same and declined to comment further. Since last week, I have spoken to about a dozen people in Hong Kong who are familiar with Latham’s operations in the city—some are lawyers currently or formerly at the firm, some are the firm’s clients. All requested anonymity. One lawyer said some allegations regarding credit misappropriation are “not misaligned” to their experience at the firm but hastened to add that it “happens everywhere.” One former Latham partner who had worked in the Hong Kong office for over a decade and is now a regional general counsel at a Fortune 500 company, commented on my LinkedIn post last week about the lawsuit: “Not surprised, not new facts, not new culture.” She did not respond to a request for further comments. Some of the Latham clients I spoke to last week said the U.S. firm’s lawyers who have done work for them “have been excellent” and“ every firm has bad eggs.” Yet two said that they are curious how Latham will deal with the matter internally. Big Law’s Systemic Failures The allegations against Latham illustrate the many systemic failures in the business of law that we have somehow grown resigned to. But common practice is not best practice. What I find most difficult to come to terms with is the fact that a lawyer’s career path and trajectory (or the lack thereof) can hinge on just one supervising partner, who incidentally also needs your subordination to sustain or increase their take each year. Those are clear conflicts of interest; there are intrinsic tensions between those objectives. A U.S.-based law firm partner told me that such issues are rare in bigger offices of U.S. firms, as it is unlikely that junior lawyers would report to just one mentor partner. “They will have different partners they can work for or build relationships with, so in some ways, they can choose their sponsors,” the New York-based partner said. In Asia, however, it’s a prevalent problem. Foreign practices in the region, particularly American firms that have pulled back from the Greater China market, just aren’t large enough for young lawyers to have a pick of sponsors. One Hong Kong counsel at a New York firm, who had been promised a promotion back in 2022 but has been passed over ever since, texted me when news of the Latham lawsuit broke. “I feel so seen,” he wrote. When I asked him how he was, he replied, “Grin and bear, grin and bear.” I sometimes wonder if lawyers aspiring to make partner suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. One senior partner at another U.S. firm chalked it up to paying one's dues. The younger generation serves the firm in the guise of training until they are deemed worthy of partnership. But what if Fan’s claims are true? Where are the checks and balances in place to ensure that all associates and counsel are given due consideration so that no one is forsaken in their pursuit of partnership, even if ultimately they don’t succeed? Are there processes in place to ensure no one in the lower ranks is being held down or left behind? Are office managing partners and regional leaders taking charge and resolving such intractable conflicts? The Money Involved While no amount of financial incentives or perks will keep talent around if they have no prospects at the place they serve, it is worth considering the substantial sums that form part of this stay-or-go equation. According to three lawyers who used to work at Latham in Hong Kong, counsel can make anywhere from $600,000 to $800,000 a year, plus bonus, depending on their proliferation credits, which record how many hours they clock in the execution of matters. They also said that income partners can sometimes make less than counsel because they are starting to build their books and are therefore diverting their efforts into building clientele. Their proliferation logs will therefore naturally take a hit. According to a legal recruiter and two former Latham lawyers, equity partners in the Hong Kong office typically draw about $2 million a year, plus profits, and each is expected to have collections of no less than $7 million a year. Strong equity partners in the firm’s Hong Kong office bring in upwards of $12 million in fees. One Hong Kong partner had a “super strong year” and brought in almost $40 million in collections, one of the former Latham lawyers said. Latham declined to comment on the firm’s compensation schemes for its lawyers as well as its protocols and processes in place for partner promotions. With such large numbers involved, it is understandable that firms are choosy about who they add to the partnership. To invite an income partner into the coterie of the equity elite means instant profit dilution if the new equity partner isn’t going to immediately add to the firm’s profitability. And that, the lawyer said,is unpalatable to most, if not all. “This is not a just a Latham thing,” the lawyer added. Still, making partner isn’t just about the financial metrics. It’s also about who “backs you,” one Latham lawyer said. “It’s also about personal brand, contribution to the firm and soft skills, and most importantly—the business case, the prospects of your practice,” the lawyer explained. Yet, there is no transparency or standardized criteria. The fact that the opacity of the process is still so widely accepted is surprising. At some of the law firms I’ve worked at, young lawyers are given the opportunity to submit their business cases for partnership. Of course, how much of that business case is taken into consideration is debatable but at least they feel that they can exercise some level of control over their destiny at the firm. Last week, I reached out to a retired law firm partner who was based in Hong Kong and used to work at Latham. He declined to comment on Latham’s current predicament or his experience at the firm, but he did share one insight gleaned from his 30-plus years in private practice. “Remember, it’s not about what you know, it’s about who you know,” he said. “Unless, of course, the what you know is about the who you know.”

Jan 13

7 min

U.S. Supreme Court justices pressed Cox Communications on whether internet service providers could ever be liable for their customers' online piracy if it defeated a $1 billion case brought by music companies, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the company's attorney Monday if "selling internet services can ever be culpable conduct." "Is that the position that you're taking?" Justice Jackson asked Joshua Rosenkranz, the Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP attorney arguing on behalf of Cox. "Your Honor, the position we're taking is not that an ISP can never be culpable," Rosenkranz said, "but an ISP can be culpable only if it engages either in clear expression such as inducement or in affirmative acts." Cox is appealing a Fourth Circuit decision that affirmed a Virginia federal jury's verdict in favor of Sony, Capitol Records LLC and other music companies, delivering a $1 billion award after finding Cox liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the contributory infringement verdict, but reversed the jury's vicarious liability finding and ordered the district court to recalculate damages. Cox's position is that ISPs should not be liable for merely providing a service, saying that does not indicate an intent to infringe. Clement & Murphy PLLC partner Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of the music companies, said Cox's position would render the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision "a dead letter." The DMCA's safe harbor protects ISPs from liability if they follow certain rules, including removing infringing content. "If Cox is right on the law, then Cox could take tens of thousands of copyright notices and throw them in the trash, and they can have its employees say 'F the DMCA.' That is in fact what the record says, which is why they're asking you for an extreme rule," Clement said, referring to documents in the trial court record that the music companies argued showed Cox "was openly contemptuous of the statute." The plaintiffs have accused Cox of putting profits over legal compliance by failing to disconnect repeat infringers from the internet. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she was "troubled" by the assertions that Cox "did nothing" to address allegations of infringement. "In fact, counselor, your client's sort of laissez-faire attitude toward the respondents is probably what got the jury upset," Justice Sotomayor told Rosenkranz. The attorney took exception to that description. "The notion that Cox did nothing is absurd," Rosenkranz said, and he contended that the plaintiffs made that assertion for the first time when the case reached the high court. "First, Cox invested its own resources to create the first-of-its-kind anti-infringement program. There was no precedent for that. Second, under that program, Cox sent out hundreds of warnings a day." The government also participated in the arguments, with Malcolm Stewart of the Office of the Solicitor General supporting Cox's position that merely providing a service does not indicate an intent to infringe. "Both in copyright law and more generally, this form of secondary liability is reserved for persons who act for the purpose of facilitating violations of law," he said. "Because Cox simply provided the same generic internet services to infringers and noninfringers alike, there is no basis for inferring such a purpose." Justice Samuel Alito questioned how ISPs could respond to allegations of infringement with accounts that serve thousands of people, including universities, where it would be challenging to identify infringers. "Now, the university then has to try to determine which particular students are engaging in this activity," Justice Alito said. "And let's assume it can even do that, and then it knocks out a thousand students. And then another thousand students are going to pop up doing the same thing. I just don't see how it's workable at all." Cox is represented by E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Christopher J. Cariello, Alexandra Bursak, Gavin McGimpsey, Edward Williams, Abigail Colella and Kamilyn Y. Choi of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Roman Martinez, Sarang V. Damle and Brent T.F. Murphy of Latham & Watkins LLP. The music publishers are represented by Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC, Matthew J. Oppenheim, Scott A. Zebrak and Jeffrey M. Gould of Oppenheim & Zebrak LLP and Catherine E. Stetson, Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar and Michael J. West of Hogan Lovells. The government is represented by Malcolm Stewart of the Office of the Solicitor General. The case is Cox Communications Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., case number 24-171, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dec 1

3 min

Latham & Watkins has advised Intuitive Ventures on its participation in the US$100 million Series A funding round of Amber Therapeutics, a London-based med tech company developing breakthrough adaptive neuromodulation therapy to treat mixed urinary incontinence. The round was led by New Enterprise Associates, with participation from Intuitive Ventures, F-Prime Capital, and Lightstone Ventures, alongside existing investors Oxford Science Enterprises and 8VC. The Latham team was led by London corporate partner Shing Lo and Bay Area partner Jim Morrone, with associate Beatrice Leung.~~

Jun 25

1 min

The Trump administration weighed in Monday on Duke Energy's bid to duck a rival's claims accusing the power giant of squeezing it out of the North Carolina market, telling the U.S. Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit rightly revived the allegations by refusing to view them only "in isolation." Filing an amicus brief at the justices' invitation, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission argued that nothing about the Fourth Circuit ruling requires high court intervention. The Trump administration instead called the case a "poor vehicle" to bar courts from looking at a series of allegedly anticompetitive acts in the aggregate, something antitrust officials said is permitted by high court precedent. "When a monopolist engages in a coordinated campaign to squelch competition, no circuit holds that each discrete aspect of the defendant's conduct must be analyzed in isolation. Instead, courts uniformly agree, consistent with this court's precedent, that a holistic analysis is appropriate in circumstances like these. The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied," the administration said. Those monopolization allegations, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, come from NTE Energy. The company hit back with counterclaims for contract and antitrust violations against Duke's 2019 lawsuit accusing NTE of missing payments for a deal that allowed it to connect its power plants to Duke Energy's electric lines. The parties eventually settled the contract claims. That left NTE's claims that Duke saw NTE's cheaper, more efficient power generation as a threat and sought to block NTE from the "anchor" client, the city of Fayetteville, North Carolina, that it needed to sign in order to justify building a new plant in Reidsville, North Carolina. According to court filings, Duke allegedly offered Fayetteville a steep one-time discount and a four-fold increase in what it paid for excess power from the city to keep its government from switching providers, costs Duke allegedly planned to recoup through future price hikes on both Fayetteville and other customers. Duke also allegedly sabotaged its transmission arrangement with NTE in order to torpedo the Reidsville project, including through a "sham" lawsuit. A district court granted Duke summary judgment against the claims, concluding that the antitrust allegations were targeting "instances of lawful conduct" that can't add up to something illegal. The Fourth Circuit reversed, in a decision the Trump administration said Monday the high court should leave untouched. "The court below held that petitioner's campaign was made up of various acts that a reasonable jury could find to be anticompetitive. And while petitioner may disagree with those subsidiary holdings, it has not sought review of those highly fact-bound and case-specific determinations," antitrust officials said. The government's brief criticized Duke for failing to "precisely articulate the anti-aggregation rule that it wants this court to adopt." Duke's complaint, officials said, isn't with the rule but rather how it was applied. Targeted conduct, they said, needn't be all "different iterations of the same kind of anticompetitive conduct." According to the brief, there's no circuit split warranting review because "circuits broadly agree about whether and how a court adjudicating a Section 2 claim may aggregate the discrete constituent parts of a defendant's overall course of conduct." And the cases Duke cites declined to look at collective effects "for case-specific reasons." "More fundamentally, petitioner misunderstands why courts have rejected aggregation-based arguments in particular cases. Courts have regularly held that disconnected acts should not be added up like fractions in an effort to cross some nebulous antitrust threshold," the administration said. "But petitioner is wrong to extend that limit on aggregation to situations where the defendant has devised a scheme through which separate acts are intended to work together. In that circumstance, courts consider those actions' 'synergistic effect.'" Duke is also wrong, according to the brief, to argue the high court's 2009 decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications Inc. stopped courts from concluding that the "overall course of anticompetitive conduct can incorporate multifarious combinations of these diverse exclusionary acts." According to the filing, linkLine was decided on its specific facts, with no broad condemnation of "holistic analysis" when "a scheme consists of multiple anticompetitive parts that do have such synergistic effects." Counsel for NTE declined comment. Representatives for Duke and the DOJ did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment. The government is represented by D. John Sauer, Malcolm L. Stewart and Harry S. Graver of the DOJ's Office of the Solicitor General, Abigail A. Slater, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nickolai G. Levin and Peter M. Bozzo of the DOJ's Antitrust Division and Lucas Croslow of the FTC. NTE Energy is represented by Derek T. Ho, Christopher C. Goodnow, Matthew J. Wilkins, Caroline A. Schechinger and Jonathan I. Liebman of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC. Duke Energy is represented by Jason D. Evans of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP and Jeffrey B. Wall, Morgan L. Ratner and Daniel J. Richardson of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. The case is Duke Energy Carolinas LLC et al. v. NTE Carolinas II LLC et al., case number 24-917, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dec 2

4 min

Latham & Watkins has advised Darktrace plc (LSE: DARK), a global leader in cybersecurity artificial intelligence, on its recommended takeover offer by Thoma Bravo. The acquisition values Darktrace's entire issued, and to be issued, ordinary share capital at approximately US$5.3 billion. It is intended that the acquisition will be implemented by way of a Court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement under English law. The Latham team was led by London M&A partner Richard Butterwick and associates Chris Ramsey, Will Temple-Smith, Beatrice Leung, and Aslihan Alparslan. Advice was provided on capital markets matters by London partners James Inness and Anna Ngo; on employment and benefits matters by London partner Kendall Burnett and Bay Area partner Ashley Wagner; and on regulatory matters by London partner Jonathan Parker and associate James Mathieson.~~

Apr 26

1 min