“We are a taylor-made boutique of legal services. Our business model: provide, coordinate and audit your legal requirements.”
After experiencing the practice of law in large firms in North America and France, we made the choice of driving a business that would supply legal services both directly and indirectly: directly in some legal spheres of activities for which we are the best one, indirectly as supervisors and auditors of other legal services that we do not directly perform.
We defy anybody in our main spheres of activity. Indeed, we are just the best in mining law, environment, administrative law, company law, franchising, mergers and acquisitions, commercial and European and international law. We are as well competent in the usual spheres of activity that are family law, business criminal law, labor law and civil law.
Our strategy was therefore based on founding a performing and reactive law firm that would not pretend to deliver competent services in all and any area. This strategic choice was sustained by the obvious conclusion that nobody can really pretend to efficiently satisfy you by providing competent services in all fields of practice. Specialties exist in law as in any other area of economic activity.
It would never come to somebody to think that a shoes manufacturer is competent to manufacture airplanes. Why one would believe that this is possible in legal services?