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.”