Eight areas, one method.

Most of what companies fight about is a document they already signed. We read the agreement, the drafts of the agreement, and the correspondence around the drafts, and only then decide what the case is about. That order matters: a theory formed before the documents are read is a theory that has to be defended later against the documents.

The work runs from expedited disputes over a single provision to multi-year commercial cases with a full expert record. We take these for claimants and for defendants in roughly equal measure, which keeps us honest about how each side's arguments actually land.

Disclosure disputes, appraisal and transaction challenges, and disagreements between a company and the people who own it. The record in these cases is assembled from documents that already exist — board minutes, models, drafts of the deck — and the outcome usually depends on how carefully those documents are read rather than on how forcefully they are characterised.

We appear for issuers, for funds and for shareholders. In each posture the first question is the same: what did the people making the decision actually know, and when did they know it.

Claims that someone entrusted with another's money or business did not look after it. These cases turn on the relationship as much as on the transaction, and the proof is often circumstantial — assembled out of timing, internal documents and the accounts of the people who were in the room.

We are engaged both by those bringing such claims and by the professionals and fiduciaries defending them, including where a private action runs alongside a regulatory inquiry and the two records have to be kept consistent.

Conduct cases, distribution and exclusivity disputes, and private claims that follow an investigation. The economics matter, but so does the ordinary commercial story — why a contract was written that way, and what the alternatives on the table were at the time.

Our teams work with economists from the first weeks rather than handing them a finished theory to support, and we prepare class and merits questions together because in practice they are argued together.

Litigation inside and around a restructuring: avoidance actions, disputes between creditor groups, objections to a plan, and arguments about what belongs to the estate at all.

The calendar is the defining feature of this work. Hearings are set in days rather than months, and a brief that arrives on time and answers the question the court asked is worth more than the exhaustive one that follows a week later.

Trade secret and confidentiality disputes, licence and royalty disagreements, and cases about what an employee may and may not take with them when they leave.

These matters begin as a preservation and access problem before they become a legal one, so we set the review protocol early and argue about its scope while the record is still small enough to describe in a single hearing.

Dispositive motions, interlocutory applications and appellate briefing, including in matters we did not try. We are often brought in for the single motion that will decide the case while trial counsel keeps the rest of it moving.

The group also works with our trial teams before a complaint is filed, on the view that the issue you would want to argue on appeal ought to shape the way the case is pleaded in the first place.

Internal investigations, responses to investigative demands and subpoenas, and defence of enforcement proceedings, together with the private litigation that tends to follow them.

We keep the investigation team and the litigation team in one room. What a lawyer writes in an interview memorandum in the first month is the thing that gets read aloud in the thirtieth.