Multinational or Global? US or UK?

Is the Atlantic "pond" bridge-able by Wall Street and Magic Circle firms?  Or are the cultural and financial schisms simply too large?

This provocative Legal Week article argues that the difference in approach and attitude between US and UK firms is essentially insurmountable.  If a merger is your goal, the cultural schism will damn the combined entity to a dysfunctional conglomeration of practice group fiefdoms—at best in non-hostile coexistence, but scarcely with any synergistic advantages.

If merger is not the answer, then the question of interest becomes whether US firms are more successful landing business in the UK or UK firms in the US?  So far, the ex-pat Yanks are winning more than the ex-pat Brits because Americans are simply more willing to talk hard dollars about fees, alternative billing, risk-sharing, and even lateral partner acquisition, while the Brits remain "diffident" about getting in to numbers.  (Evidently "transparency" is a virtue in more contexts than one.)

The Brits have yet to effectively play their trump card in the US, however:  Magic Circle and City firms have a tradition of being truly global for decades, and it's inculcated in how they practice; they instinctively think in terms of continents and regions, not just money centers.  By contrast, as recently as the 1980's, Sullivan & Cromwell actively discouraged local-practice at its overseas outposts and positioned them simply as business-acquisition centers.

So:

• play to your strengths
• do not pretend to be all things to all people
• go high-end, "bet-the-company," or high-volume, compelling value.