London and New York are the gravitational centres of the global litigation market, reinforced by the scale of private capital flowing through these landmark cities. But with the NyLon corridor dominated by a small group of global firms, challenging that hierarchy head-on is unrealistic for most. For many UK firms, the more viable route to growth lies in geography — not abandoning the core, but widening the field around it.
For UK firms, a London litigation mandate remains a powerful anchor market, often funding broader growth ambitions. The strategic question is where to expand next to complement that core.
Historically, firms have tended to follow a herd mentality when it comes to office footprints. But the geopolitical turbulence of the 2020s has upended those assumptions. As former Bank of England governor Mark Carney argued in The Economist last November, the world is entering an age of “variable geometry”, in which nations are no longer defined by fixed borders or stable blocs, but by dynamic, overlapping and pragmatic coalitions. In that environment, nostalgia is not a strategy.
Against this backdrop, firms can ill afford to maintain sprawling international office networks simply because they look impressive on paper. Instead, geography is being reassessed through a strategic lens, with emphasis shifting towards corridors of influence that align with capital flows, enforcement risk and geopolitical reality. Forward-thinking leaders understand this shift, which is why office strategy is increasingly being shaped by geostrategy — even as that geostrategy itself remains in flux.
For litigators, this approach creates opportunity. An office strategy informed by geopolitics positions firms to secure mandates in regions where political risk, capital deployment and commercial pressure converge. Singapore, the Gulf states and key Indo-Pacific hubs, for example, are capturing a growing share of high-value disputes, offering access to global mandates without direct confrontation with the most congested parts of the NyLon market.
To understand how the global legal map is being recalibrated, we examined more than 300 office openings and closures by the Top 50 UK firms and leading US City practices since the start of 2020. The data confirms the continued dominance of London and New York as apex litigation hubs. But it also shows that the most aggressive expansion activity is taking place in adjacent and complementary centres, where competition is less saturated and mandates are increasingly flowing.
The Gulf has emerged as the most decisive growth corridor of the past five years. Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Dubai now operate as distinct, purpose-built disputes and capital hubs rather than a single regional market. The volume of openings in Saudi Arabia since 2023 — by firms including A&O Shearman, Linklaters, Quinn Emanuel, King & Spalding, Pinsent Masons, Reed Smith and Stephenson Harwood — reflects both a post-Ukraine pivot away from Moscow and a broader recalibration towards jurisdictions aligned with energy capital, sovereign investment and long-horizon infrastructure disputes.
Asia, meanwhile, is undergoing a rebalancing rather than a retreat. Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong have seen a wave of US firms either withdraw completely or materially downsize, with Dechert, Paul Weiss, Skadden, Reed Smith and Latham & Watkins among those retrenching.
At the same time, Singapore has consolidated its position as the default neutral seat for cross-border disputes, even as some firms reassess the scale of their local presence — Akin and BCLP among them. This is less about withdrawal from Asia and more about adapting to sanctions exposure, enforcement realities and shifting user preferences.
Closer to home, Europe is fragmenting into specialist nodes rather than operating as a single market. Openings in Brussels by firms including Travers Smith, Paul Weiss and Goodwin Procter underline sustained demand for competition and regulatory expertise. Milan has attracted Ropes & Gray, Addleshaw Goddard and Charles Russell Speechlys, while Amsterdam, Munich and Warsaw continue to draw firms targeting private capital, disputes and regulatory work. By contrast, closures in Frankfurt and Geneva — including by Cleary Gottlieb, Goodwin Procter and Orrick — reflect a sharper focus on where scale and differentiation can realistically be achieved.
In the US, the expansion story is no longer coastal. Openings in Texas, Chicago, Miami and Denver by firms including Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, Quinn Emanuel, Willkie Farr and Clyde & Co highlight a shift towards energy, infrastructure, insurance and private capital disputes. These markets are increasingly acting as feeders into global mandates rather than purely domestic outposts.
Carney’s “age of variable geometry” is now clearly visible in the global legal profession. Firms are no longer building rigid, one-size-fits-all international networks. Instead, they are assembling purpose-built corridors of presence that can be flexed. Geography is becoming modular rather than hierarchical, connecting centres of influence when needed, rather than to replicate scale everywhere.
The decline of the traditional global office map may be uncomfortable for some partners. For leaders, it is an opportunity to shed nostalgia. In a world of variable geometry, adaptability is the only sustainable advantage.