We are sometimes asked by people looking to acquire a law firm target if there is a silver bullet that will ensure a successful acquisition, given that most acquisitions fail to deliver the full benefits sought by the acquirer. The honest answer would have to be ‘get lucky’, because there is undoubtedly an element of fortune involved in identifying the right target, negotiating the right deal, paying the right price and delivering the right performance.

Within the next five years the world’s largest law firm won’t have any lawyers. Here’s why: Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba/Amazon, the most valuable/largest retailers, have no shops. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something interesting is happening.

As you work through the disaggregation process, parcelling out pieces of a case or lawsuit left and right, you should come back to a key question: what is the lawyer’s role? Whether the disaggregating entity is a law firm or law department, you must ask what that entity – and more specifically, the lawyers at that entity – should not send out and why.

Stories about law and money are as common as corned beef and cabbage on St Patrick’s Day. They usually chronicle large law firm acquisitions, peripatetic laterals, or practice groups migrating to a firm with a higher profit-per-partner. Recent events involving a US legal service provider, a Chinese law firm, and a UK firm confirm that the law and money story is developing new plot lines emblematic of changes in the global legal services landscape.

Quindell and (the previously unimpeachable) Slater & Gordon are fast becoming shorthand for the anticipated failure of the alternative business structure (ABS) experiment. A blog in Canada’s Financial Post this week suggested that they have doomed the possibility of ABSs being introduced there. So here’s my question. Why?