Peter Bert refers in his excellent Dispute Resolution in Germany blog to a lecture of Mathias Reimann with the title “Why Americans make better global lawyers.” The lecture is scheduled for November 5, 2012. Peter does not further comment on the topic but invites his readers to do so and promises that he tries to follow-up in due course.
The concept is well-known: Invent a provocative title and people will start questioning and discussing it. Seems to work with me. I followed Peter’s invitation and listed below six reasons, why Europeans make better international lawyers. I am aware that such statement is too general to be taken seriously. However, I consider it a legitimate approach to discuss the increasing globalization of in-house legal departments and how legal departments shall approach this challenge (Reimann probably has complete different approach, given his specialization in the areas of comparative law, private international law and legal history).
Why Europeans make better international lawyersGlobal is more than just the common law world How does Reimann define "global?" It seems obvious that global should mean all continents, all countries of this world. I have often the impression that US lawyers (and law firms) very much confine global to primarily US, UK, Australia and maybe some other common law jurisdictions. If defined that narrowly as the common law world, Americans might in fact be better global lawyers (at least compared to non common law lawyers). But if you use a truly global view, the situation looks quite different. Lawyers work internationally, not globallyGlobal implies a one-size fits all approach. This is not untypical for American companies (strong headquarters, centralized decision-making) and lawmakers (extraterritorial US regulations, FCPA, SOX, etc.). Facebook for instance has a global approach: All Facebook users, no matter where in the world, use the same platform ...Zum vollständigen Artikel