The Brief:
DLA Piper is ditching its Swiss verein structure, replacing it with a global holding company to unify strategy and boost partner profits.
DLA’s departure, KWM’s split and Bakers’ restructure all point to the same conclusion: the verein’s days are numbered.
The Swiss Verein was always a fan favourite.
Law firms could merge under one brand, tell clients they were one global firm, and quietly keep profits and liabilities ring-fenced by region.
But the cracks are showing.
What is a Swiss Verein?
The word “verein” means “club” or “association” in German.
The structure has its roots in Swiss civil law, originally designed for sports clubs, charities and voluntary organisations. It was never meant for commercial law firms.
KPMG was the first professional services firm to test it in the early 1990s, using the verein to operate a global brand while keeping member firms legally separate. It abandoned the structure in 2003.
Law firms caught on later.
Baker McKenzie was the first law firm to adopt in 2004. By 2009, a wave of large multinational mergers chose the verein structure.
At its peak, Dentons took the model to its logical extreme, pursuing roughly 40 combinations between 2013 and 2018 to become, by headcount, the world’s largest law firm.
The appeal was straightforward — global scale without global commitment.
Member firms could share a brand, a website and a business development pitch while keeping their own profit pools, own liability and own compensation structures. Mergers that would have taken months of due diligence could be stitched together much faster.
The flexibility of a verein, I think, was ideal for us because we had a number of very well-established firms and trying to bring them together on varying comp structures and varying markets. It gave us the flexibility to put that group together without a significant amount of disturbance.
It worked. Until it didn’t.
What’s happening now?
Now, firms that built their global empires on the verein are walking away from it.
DLA Piper recently announced it would dissolve the verein structure it adopted in 2008 and replace it with a global holding company sitting above its US and International LLPs.
Co-CEO Frank Ryan was blunt about why: “We've never had a single leadership team that together drives the strategic direction of the firm”. The new structure is designed to change that and deliver “greater profitability for the partners.”
DLA is not a firm in trouble. It pulled in $4.2bn in revenue in 2024, with profit per equity partner at $3.4m. That makes the move more telling. When a profitable firm walks away from a structure it has operated for nearly two decades, the message is clear: the verein has become a ceiling, not a scaffold.
Fellow verein firms are following suit:
Baker McKenzie, the first law firm to adopt the verein in 2004, voted in early 2025 to scrap local profit pools across Asia and EMEA under Project Orion.
King & Wood Mallesons’ China and Australia arms will formally split on 31 March 2026, reverting to the Mallesons and King & Wood brands.
Norton Rose Fulbright merged its EMEA and Australian profit pools into a single $1bn business in July 2025. Its US and African operations remain separate.
Why is it not working?
Verein firms chronically lag on partner profits, averaging US$2m (A$2.8m) PEP across the five largest verein firms, while the best-performing firms are paying partners as much as US$9m (A$12.8m).
Referrals are a big part of the problem.
When partners in one region refer work to colleagues in another, they don't share in the fee. That creates a structural disincentive to collaborate across borders. Separate profit pools mean separate incentives.
And then there’s AI.
Verein firms can’t easily consolidate client data or matter history across legally separate member firms. In an AI era, the value of the tools is only as good as the data behind them. A firm that cannot pool matter history across member firms is competing with its hands tied behind its back.
Firms are favouring the fully integrated model.
A&O Shearman, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, and the incoming combination of Perkins Coie with Ashurst all went the full merger route. Single profit pool. Unified governance. Actual integration.
With AI reshaping how firms compete and top talent gravitating toward the highest-paying partnerships, does the verein still make sense?
Source: Bloomberg Law, Legal IT Insider