Category: Slovenia

  • ODI and Jadek & Pensa Advise on MSIN Group’s Sale of Majority Stake in Keko Varicon to Bourns

    ODI and Jadek & Pensa Advise on MSIN Group’s Sale of Majority Stake in Keko Varicon to Bourns

    ODI has advised Slovenia’s MSIN Group on its sale of a majority stake in Keko Varicon to Bourns Limited. Jadek & Pensa advised Bourns on the deal.

    MSIN was established in 2002 in Ljubljana. Its primary activities include investments in obtaining controlling shares of companies, management of companies in which MSIN holds a substantial or controlling share, real estate management, and management buyout consulting.

    Keko Varicon is a Slovenia-based producer of over-voltage protection and electromagnetic interference suppression components.

    US-based Bourns specializes in developing, manufacturing, and supplying electronic components for a variety of industries.

    The ODI team was led by Partner Suzana Boncina Jamsek and included Partner Tine Misic and Senior Associate Primoz Mikolic.

    The Jadek & Pensa team included Partners Andraz Jadek and Eva Gostisa, Managing Associate Iris Pensa, and Senior Associate Nastja Merlak.

  • Trends in Liability for Defective Products Involving Vaccines

    Pharmaceutical products have been in the spotlight of the Council of the European Union’s Product Liability Directive since its adoption in 1985. Despite the amount of time that has passed, some legal uncertainties remain that strike directly at the notion of defectiveness, as well as the causal link between the defect and the damage (which proved to be even more important in the case of pharmaceutical products). Establishing such causal link in cases involving vaccines is notoriously difficult, especially from the perspective of a lay consumer. This has led some EU member states, such as France, to introduce case law aimed at facilitating the burden of proof in specific sectors.

    The European Court of Justice has, for example in the Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v. S case, limited such potential circumventions of the Product Liability Directive by allowing only those alternative systems that existed prior to the Product Liability Directive. Such a distinction seems to be especially important for Slovenia and Croatia, as both introduced product liability into their legal systems even before the introduction of the Product Liability Directive. 

    National legislators in these countries, however, did not take the additional step of facilitating the burden of proof, which, pursuant to the Product Liability Directive, lies with the consumer. The European Court of Justice held in several landmark cases that the nature of the Product Liability Directive is in full harmonization with national legal systems, preventing the shift of the burden of proof away from the consumer to the producer of a specific product. 

    One relatively recent decision by the European Court of Justice, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v. AOK Sachsen-Anhalt, has led some commentators to conclude that the Court is apparently relativizing its strict position regarding the burden of proof by widening the notion of the defect. Pursuant to the Product Liability Directive, a product is defective when it does not provide the degree of safety which a person is entitled to expect. This has generally been interpreted to mean that the plaintiff must prove that a specific product had a defect, which caused damage. In the Boston Scientific Medizintechnik case, however, the Court held that, if an entire series of products suffers from a defect that increases the risk of damage, there is no need to establish a defect in each individual product pertaining to the same batch. Such reasoning has important consequences for pharmaceutical products as well, since they are generally produced in batches. 

    However, the most recent case law of the European Court of Justice from 2017 does not support the trend of facilitating the consumer’s burden of proof. In this case, a person developed symptoms of multiple sclerosis shortly after being vaccinated against hepatitis B. Following his death in 2011, members of his family brought an action for damages against Sanofi Pasteur, which was the manufacturer of the vaccine. Following the initial success of the plaintiffs, and the subsequent overturning of the decision by an appellate court, the plaintiffs relied on the case law of the French Court of Cassation, according to which the proof of a causal link in the case of pharmaceutical products between the defect and the damage can be derived from serious, specific, and consistent presumptions. 

    The question for the European Court of Justice was, therefore, whether such presumptions under national case law for pharmaceutical products are in line with the Product Liability Directive’s burden of proof, which lies with the consumer. Importantly, the court observed that even if the ambition of the Product Liability Directive is full harmonization, the directive itself does not regulate all matters. For example, procedural aspects, including evidentiary rules, are governed by national legislation, which is bound by the principle of effectiveness. Therefore, national legal systems cannot undermine the total effectiveness of the system of liability introduced by the Product Liability Directive. 

    The court held that only rebuttable presumptions which are based on factual evidence constitute serious, specific, and consistent evidence that there is a defect and a causal link between the defect and the disease. Importantly, the Product Liability Directive precludes evidentiary rules according to which a causal link is proved if medical research neither establishes nor rules out the existence of such a link, and only certain predetermined causation-related factual evidence is presented. 

    Recent case law in product liability confirms that plaintiffs cannot succeed by relying on national evidentiary rules that effectively result in the reversal of the burden of proof. Considering strong objections from the professional public, it remains to be seen whether the anticipated reform of the Product Liability Directive will bring any changes to these issues.

    By Igor Angelovski, Partner / Independent Attorney at Law in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Anticipated Changes in the Regulation of Slovenian Agricultural Land

    Structural changes are being proposed to Slovenia’s agricultural land policy to incentivize young farmers to purchase and lease agricultural land and increase food self-sufficiency. Many companies strongly oppose some of these proposals.

    The Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MAFF) recently proposed amendments to three interconnected acts in the area of Agricultural Land Policy. We will focus on the most important of these proposed changes, some of which have encountered strong opposition.

    MAFF is proposing an increase in the amount of compensation due to any change in the purpose of agricultural land by 100% from what is currently required. It is also proposing to extend the obligation to pay compensation to categories of agricultural land previously exempt from this obligation. As a result, if the proposal is adopted, building on agricultural land will cost more than it does now, and the obligation will apply to more kinds of agricultural land than now.

    MAFF is also proposing to change the Policy of Agricultural Land by improving the ability of young farmers to lease state-owned agricultural land by offering them areas gradually taken away from large leaseholders (i.e. those who lease more than 100 hectares) at the expiration of the lease. First, they would take 5%, in ten years they would take an additional 7%, and in the next ten years another 10% of the surface. For large leaseholders (mainly agricultural companies) this of course means a land loss. For example, a company leasing 500 hectares would lose a total of approximately 100 hectares. 

    Legal limitations apply to sale and lease transactions of agricultural land with a number of pre-emptive beneficiaries. The proposed changes also relate to the order of the pre-emptive beneficiaries, both for lease and for purchase of agricultural land, with special attention paid to young farmers, who are now placed higher in the chain. The changes proposed by MAFF are designed to encourage the generational renovation of farms, as young farmers are, in many cases, currently unable to obtain agricultural land due to restrictive legislation. 

    Unsurprisingly, some of MAFF’s proposals face strong opposition from agricultural companies, which oppose the planned limitation of lease of state-owned agricultural land to a maximum of 100 hectares (1 square km). They also oppose the gradual withdrawal of land, which is likely to affect their individual business activities. The limitations being proposed could thus limit the business development of large and mid-size agricultural companies.

    The draft act is currently in public discussion until the end of May, with the public able to comment and propose amendments. A number of responses are expected. MAFF will be expected to find a compromise between the requests of small farmers who expect better access to agricultural land, and agricultural companies which expect legislation that will not impede their business development

    By Andrej Kirm, Partner, and Sara Mauser, Legal Associate, Kirm Perpar

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • ODI Advises MSIN on Sale of Majority Stake in Keko Varicon to Bourns

    ODI Advises MSIN on Sale of Majority Stake in Keko Varicon to Bourns

    ODI has advised Slovenia’s MSIN Group on its sale of a majority stake in Keko Varicon to Bourns Limited. Jadek & Pensa advised the buyer on the deal.

    Keko Varicon is a Slovenia-based producer of over-voltage protection and electromagnetic interference suppression components.

    MSIN was established in 2002 in Ljubljana. MSIN’s primary activities include investments in obtaining controlling shares of companies, management of companies in which MSIN holds a substantial or controlling share, Real Estate management, and management buyout consulting.

    Bourns is a US-seated multinational corporation that is specialized in developing, manufacturing, and supplying electronic components for a variety of industries, holding manufacturing facilities in over 15 countries.

    The ODI team was led by Partner Suzana Boncina Jamsek, assisted by Partner Tine Misic and Senior Associate Primoz Mikolic.

  • Dentons and Ulcar & Partnerij Advise Slovenia on Placement of Shares and GDRs in Nova Ljubljanska Banka

    Dentons and Ulcar & Partnerij Advise Slovenia on Placement of Shares and GDRs in Nova Ljubljanska Banka

    Dentons has advised Slovenian state-owned Slovenski Drzavni Holding d.d., on the sale, made through private placement to institutional investors via an accelerated bookbuild process, of an aggregate of shares and global depository receipts representing 1,999,999 shares in Nova Ljubljanska Banka d.d.  Ulcar & Partnerij advised the Republic of Slovenia on Slovenian law aspects and Shearman & Sterling reportedly advised the syndicate of banks, including Deutsche Bank as sole global coordinator and joint bookrunner with Citigroup. Wood & Company acted as Co-Lead Manager.

    The sale, which is equal to 10% of Nova Ljubljanska Banka’s share capital minus 1 share, was made at a price of EUR 54.75 per share and EUR 10.95 per GDR, and raised gross proceeds of EUR 109.5 million. It completes the Republic of Slovenia’s privatization of NLB in accordance with the divestment procedure agreed on with the European Commission. The country continues to be the largest shareholder of NLB, however, with a 25% stake plus 1 share. 

    The Dentons UK-based team included Partners Nik Colbridge and Cameron Half and Associate Nicolo Ascione. 

    The Ulcar & Partnerij team included Managing Partner Matjaz Ulcar and Associated Partner Brigita Kraljic.

  • Karanovic & Partners Advise Ionity on First HPC Stations for Electric Cars in Slovenia

    Karanovic & Partners Advise Ionity on First HPC Stations for Electric Cars in Slovenia

    Karanovic & Partners has advised Ionity, a Munich-headquartered joint venture of the BMW Group, Daimler AG, Ford, and the Volkswagen Group with Audi and Porsche, on opening its first 350 kW charging stations in Slovenia.

    The Karanovic & Partners team was led by Senior Associate Ermina Delic Kamencic.

  • Suzana Boncina Jamsek Becomes Partner at ODI

    Suzana Boncina Jamsek Becomes Partner at ODI

    Suzana Boncina Jamsek has been promoted to partner at ODI, making her the firm’s tenth partner across its four offices.

    Boncina Jamsek will continue as ODI’s Head of Banking and Finance, the firm reports, “while staying involved in various M&A processes, particularly complex corporate and capital restructurings, capital markets and other corporate matters.” She is also head of ODI’s German Desk.

    Boncina Jamsek is a graduate of both the Faculty of Law and Faculty of Economics and Business in Maribor, Slovenia, and obtained an LL.M. from the London School of Economics. Before joining ODI, she worked in the Maribor Higher Court, was an adviser for the Slovenian Permanent Representation to the UN in New York, and was an Analyst and Counsel in the Bank of Slovenia.

  • The Buzz in Slovenia: Interview with Marko Ketler of Karanovic & Partners

    The Buzz in Slovenia: Interview with Marko Ketler of Karanovic & Partners

    “It has been busy in the business arena,” says Marko Ketler, Senior Partner and Attorney at Law in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners, citing ongoing consolidation in banking sector with the potential sale of Abanka, the third largest bank in Slovenia, and recent major M&A transactions, including the sale of Intereuropa, the largest Slovenian logistics company, to Posta Slovenije. “We can expect a busy summer with several large M&A deals pending.”

    Dispute resolution is another busy area, with the continued filing of lawsuits against banks by consumers who took loans denominated in CHF a few years ago, Ketler says. 

    There are two major legislative changes being considered, Ketler reports. The first is a new Companies Act, which is currently in its first reading and which is expected to be introduced in the next few months. Among the most significant changes contained in the law, Ketler says, is the requirement that all owners of shares in joint stock companies disclose their identity, which “might potentially force some owners to sell their shares.” The law will also impose further limits on the establishment of companies in Slovenia.

    The second changes Ketler cites are related to the introduction of a new Attorney Act. In the past few weeks, a first draft of the act was circulated among lawyers across the country for recommendations and feedback. The law was prepared by the Slovenian Bar Association and the Faculties of Law in Ljubljana and Maribor. 

    On a political front, Slovenia seems to be passive, says Ketler, who describes a general indifference in the country towards the EU parliamentary elections. “Slovenia has only eight seats and the people in general are not enthusiastic to vote,” he says. In fact, the turnout for the EU parliamentary elections in Slovenia on May 24, 2019, was only 28% across the country, preserving the eight seats

  • A Consideration of Foreign Law Firms in Slovenia

    Resentment by domestic law firms in CEE markets against the international and regional firms that have moved in on their once exclusive domain is a common, though perhaps diminishing, refrain. How do domestic law firms in Slovenia feel about the foreign firms that have opened up shop next door?

    The Early Days

    The Slovenian market was, for several years after the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, purely domestic, with top level commercial legal services provided by solo practitioners and a small but skilled set of firms, including Jadek & Pensa (which traces its origins back to 1958); Selih & Partners (1961); Miro Senica & Attorneys (1986); and Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & Partners (1989), all of which of course frequently received work from regional and international firms based outside the country (“Foreign Firms”).

    The nature of the legal market changed in June 2001, however, when Austria’s Schoenherr opened its Ljubljana office, followed by fellow Austrians Wolf Theiss in 2003 and CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz in 2008. Most recently, Belgrade-based Karanovic & Partners became active in the country in 2015 as well. In addition, of course, the Big 4 are present in Slovenia, several (including Deloitte Legal, since 2013, and PWC Legal, since 2017) with dedicated legal arms.

    The Foreign Firms 

    At least anecdotally, it appears the Foreign Firms were not initially greeted with open arms.

    Many of the lawyers at the Foreign Firms in Slovenia recall some opposition from their local competition in their early days in the country, although their recollections are mainly anecdotal and second-hand. According to a partner of one Foreign Firm in Slovenia (let’s call him “Foreign Partner”), who chose to remain anonymous, “a few years ago there was some kind of a glitch between domestic firms and international firms about the business model. I think basically it all comes from their insecurity. They saw how much of the market share [the Foreign Firms] could have.” He refers to a whispering campaign waged both by the Bar Association and local competitors against the Foreign Firms. “I’m not sure who was involved, but it came from the Bar Association. There were some notes and letters a few years ago. And there were rumors spread to clients, who would come to us and report that people were saying nasty things about us.”

    According to Foreign Partner, the resentment grew out of anxiety about the number of offices, lawyers, and even back office staff the Foreign Firms can bring to bear. “They think our advantage is that we’re bigger – and of course they’re right,” he explains. “But if you look at the top ten firms in Slovenia, all three kinds of firms are represented (regional, local firms with foreign offices, and strong local firms with a network). To a certain extent, yes, we have an advantage. But to a certain extent this advantage can be mitigated. We cannot just walk into the office of a large client and get the business.”

    In other words, he insists, he faces the same bottom lines as his domestic counterparts do. “I heard a few people accuse us of coming with really low prices, but this is not true. We need to be profitable as well. I don’t understand that at all. We’re doing business just like they are.” 

    Ultimately, though, Foreign Partner insists that any real conflict was in the past. “This has stopped now. I don’t see it – I don’t even hear it from my clients.” And the Bar Association is on board as well, he claims. “I feel we have a modern president of the Bar Association. He understands that international law firms are no threat to the Slovenian market.” 

    Though he concludes with a curious note: “I’m not sure I really believe what I said – but I hope that this is the case.”

    Bojan Brezan, the Office Managing Partner in cooperation with Schoenherr, agrees that there was some resentment by local firms in the past. “There were some issues in this respect,” he says. “It’s hard to say where they were coming from. A few years ago there was some negative campaigning going around.” 

    Nonetheless, he says that, “in the last few years the local firms have, to a certain extent, come to terms with the fact that there are several international firms in the market,” and he emphasizes that “I’ve never personally had any bad experience with any local firms.”

    And anyway, Brezan points out, the relationship between the Foreign Firms and the local firms may not be perfect, “but it’s not perfect between local firms either.” According to him, “obviously to the extent you’re losing market share, whether from local firms or other international firms, it’s always sensitive.” And competition for that market share is increasing from a variety of sources, beyond the Foreign Firms. “It’s not just the international firms,” he says. “It’s also a lot of new local firms that have popped up and taken away part of the market share from the national champions. So competition has increased, and it’s a tougher market.”

    The Local Perspective

    Andrej Kirm, Managing Partner at Slovenia’s Kirm Perpar firm (which opened in 2012), knows that, in some CEE markets, there has been open conflict between the local and Foreign Firms. “We have strong partnerships with other law firms in CEE,” he says, “and we are aware that there were severe difficulties with the international law firms, obstacles, which the local firms made for them for the mechanism of operation.” Still, he insists, “in Slovenia I do not see any real issues with those.” Indeed, he says, Schoenherr, CMS, and Wolf Theiss “have been present in the market for decades, so they are well-accepted as market players and we never really had any issues.” In fact, he says, “we worked on certain cases for a client on the same side, in certain cases against these international law firms and my experience has always been good, those firms were always cooperative, I have no negative remarks about the cooperation with them.”

    And Kirm rejects the suggestion that local firms may be at a competitive disadvantage against Foreign Firms. “We have had experience of both winning on requests for proposals, as well as losing against international law firms. I do not think there is any specific advantage or disadvantage in bidding against international law firms compared to a strong local/domestic player.” According to him, “the main competitive advantages that the ILFs have is that, if they are already working for an international client who is looking for a project in Slovenia, or looking to buy a certain company in Slovenia, the ILFs will be the natural choice.” This, however, is outweighed by other, compensating factors. “However, my view is that our strongest card of domestic law firms against ILFs are two key competitive advantages: one is that we can adapt and offer lower rates, and the other is that we can in several cases offer more senior staff, compare to what the ILFs would be able to offer.”

    Focusing on the first point – prices and fees – Kirm rejects the suggestion that Foreign Firms are able to drive prices down. “Generally, this is not a big issue,” he says, “because the ILFs will have strict boundaries in which prices compete, and these prices generally would not vary much between the CEE markets – the hourly rates would not be too different with those in, let’s say, Vienna, Prague, or Ljubljana.” As a result, he says, if anything, it is domestic firms that have the advantage. “Costs of labor in Ljubljana are much lower, and the costs of operating a law firm in Ljubljana are much lower, which is why we do not really have the impression that these international clients would go for such prices, so there are more on the opposite scale.” 

    In fact, he says, to the extent that unfair competition on fees exists, it is not coming from the Foreign Firms. He says it is “more of a problem with certain local law firms which are trying to win cases just for references. With international law firms this has never been the case.” 

    All things considered, Kirm claims, the compelling benefits of independence have led him to reject invitations to tie-up in the past. “We have been approached by ILFs to serve as their formal local partners, so also using their brand names in Slovenia,” he says, “but we haven’t decided for such cooperation. Because we value our independence highly, and it enables us to work with several international law firms which are not present in Slovenia. And this is a strong channel of our work, so we are not tied to one particular player, but cooperate with several international players.”

    A Managing Partner at another local firm (let’s call him “Local MP”), who prefers to speak anonymously, agrees that the Foreign Firms have an obvious advantage in serving clients from their home country. “Big international law firms already have major international clients coming from their region. If we have strong German ILFs, for instance, they have majority German clients. And they of course will enter the market with them. This is a normal business advantage, nothing else.” Still, he says, the Foreign Firms have no real advantage in getting the local clients looking for top-level legal counsel. “I do not think [the Foreign Firms] have a business advantage in Slovenia, when they are trying to engage new clients, because 

    local firms are very professional, with very high-level and skilled attorneys, which ILFs do not have in Slovenia, which is a main advantage for domestic firms.”

    Indeed, Local MP says, even the Foreign Firms that are in Slovenia sometimes are forced to turn to local competitors for assistance. “Slovenia is quite small, and none of the ILFs have strong staffs here, so for ordinary legal work, their teams here are suitable, but for complex legal advising and presentation they usually engage domestic experts.”

    Thus, like Kirm, Local MP says that, even if the Foreign Firms do have the advantage of a foreign pipeline, the domestic firms retain a strong advantage of their own. He focuses on market knowledge and experience. “If we have a problem that is domestic and locally-oriented, the advantage is obviously on our side. This is our playground; they cannot compete with us here.” He continues. “The [Foreign Firms] here cannot compete with strong domestic law firms, and also the advantage Slovenians have in the Adriatic region – Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia – they cannot compete with us. We have a history, we know them, we speak their language, we know their laws, and no ILFs can compete with that. They can be stronger, they can be bigger, they can have more resources and bigger clients, but from a professional point of view they cannot compete with that.”

    For Local MP, the key comes down to institutional experience. He says of the Foreign Firms, “their local offices in Slovenia, and also Croatia, and Serbia, they have junior associates, and for a big client that is a problem. Such clients want to have the same level of service as they get from their country of origin, for example if a client is coming from Germany and the firm is from Germany too, they want to have the same service level as in Germany.” As a result, he says, his firm often gets clients who started with the local offices of Foreign Firms before switching. “We have lawyers with more than 25 years of experience – and no one in the ILFs can compete with such expertise in Slovenia. They can compete in Austria or Germany, but not in Slovenia.”

    He continues. “Our law firm has been in Slovenia for more than 30 years – for Slovenia, this is a big number. Slovenia is a young country, and thirty years is quite a tradition, and no international law firms here can give you such tradition.” Accordingly, he says, turning poetic: “If we look at this from a local perspective, definitely, radition is something domestic firms have and international firms do not. They are like the wind, they come and go. When Slovenia is in the transitional period, they are very active here, and when there is nothing happening they go away and come back. They are not permanent here.

    Indeed, a colleague of Local MP’s insists that this advantage is widely-acknowledged across the market. She reports having worked at the firm for ten years, “and I have never thought of being employed by the international firms. Because the reputation of attorneys in strong domestic firms is actually much higher than in international firms; the team is much stronger, in domestic firms, and the knowledge.”

    Of course, not all Foreign Firms are created equal, and Local MP points to a growing threat coming from a different direction. “In recent years is the Big Four firms are starting their own law departments,” he says. “These firms of course have some competition advantages, because of their very strong client base, because their existing client base in tax and audit, of course this is an advantage.” He sighs. “But it is a free market. We have to compete with our service and try to be the best we can be, that is the way the competition works as far as I am concerned.”

    And of course Slovenian firms are not completely unarmed in their battle for clients against Foreign Firms claiming multi-jurisdictional coverage as a strength. Many domestic firms have, in recent years, joined strong law firm networks across the region specifically to challenge the Foreign Firms’ perceived strength. “Slovenia is a small market,” Local MP says. “All markets in the region are small, but together we are quite big, which is why domestic firms in these markets are connecting and acting as one – that is why there are several regional networks, which are getting stronger, including ours.” And Local MP claims that clients appreciate the structure. “Many clients who came into the region with one of the big international firms, or one of the Big 4, they were not satisfied with the services regionally. In Austria they would get excellent service – but locally and regionally not. A lot of them are now entering the whole region with our team and our network. We believe this is the future for this Adriatic region – not big international firms, but a partnership of the best domestic law firm in each country.”

    Partner Tine Misic of the ODI Law Firm claims not to be concerned about any advantage the Vienna-based firms may have in serving Austrian clients, or the Belgrade-based Karanovic & Partners may have serving Serbian clients. Indeed, he says, “Generally speaking, apart from this obvious pipeline, being in Vienna or Belgrade, I would say the playground is even.” 

    Misic, like others, points to experience as a countervailing advantage for the local firms. “Selih or Jadek & Pensa have been around for 50-60 years. They have been around since forever, they have partners who have been around forever, they know the market better.” Still, he’s not ready to write off the Foreign Firms. “I would not say that the quality provided by Foreign Firms is worse because of that fact, however. There are nuances and differences, but they were involved in big transactions, and for that reason I would not say that their level is worse, per se, just because they are foreign firms. They employ Slovenian lawyers as well.”

    Of course, that’s not to say all is rosy. With now four Foreign Firms on the ground, the Big 4 ramping up their legal operations, and ever-more local competition, the fight for market share is a daily one. “It is a tough market,” Misic says, “because it is saturated – or over-saturated – and it is only getting worse. It is not easy. It is tough. And Slovenia is a small market, so it is a tough ground to play on.”

    Of course, the creation of or entrance into a regional law firm network isn’t the only way for Slovenian firms to compete for foreign clients with both Foreign Firms and other major Slovenian firms. Following the dictum that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” ODI Law has, since opening its doors in 2005, itself become a regional firm, expanding outward from Slovenia to open offices in Serbia, Croatia, and Macedonia. 

    The Bar Association

    For his part, Roman Zavrsek, the current President of the Slovenian Bar Association, insists there have never been any formal barriers to Foreign Firms wanting to open offices on the ground in Slovenia. “Concerning the ILFs in Slovenia, they are more or less regulated by the Domestic Law on Attorneys, which has been more or less unchanged since 2004 when Slovenia entered the EU,” he says. “The regulations are in compliance with EU directives, and they more or less are the same as in Austria or Croatia, and some other countries, so the ILFs can establish branch offices and register with the Slovenian bar association as a foreign legal firm and can employ both local lawyers and foreign ones.” 

    Thus, Zavrsek does not believe the Foreign Firms pose any kind of existential threat to the domestic firms. The Slovenian market is small,” he points out. “We are smaller than Paris, population-wise. There is no real business for the international law firms.”

    Ultimately, Zavrsek says, there are no obstacles for Foreign Firms. He points out that “three of the ILFs are in the top ten law firms in Slovenia, and three out of four in my opinion is quite good in a sense – I would say at least one third of the economic market is shared between the ILFs.” As a result, he says, “I am not aware of any obstacles, and I haven’t heard of any complaints from any ILFs in regard to the branding and names of the firms.”

    The Competitive Spirit

    Ultimately, what almost everyone returns to is an acknowledgement that competition is an inevitable – even a necessary – component of a modern and healthy legal market, regardless of its source. Schoenherr’s Bojan Brezan says, ultimately, “healthy competition is always a good thing.” 

    ODI’s Misic too insists that a rising tide lifts all boats. “Truth be told, competition is always good, and although Slovenia is a small market, having competitors is always good.” 

    Foreign MP agrees. “Of course there’s always a battle between competitors,” he says. “And there should be! It’s good for clients – good for everyone. I really don’t think of competitors as someone I need to destroy. I need them to help keep me on my toes, to make me better, and to keep me out of my comfort zone.” 

    He laughs. “Maybe I’m naïve – I probably am.”

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.4 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Guest Editorial: Welcome to the Slovenian Legal Market

    After a few troublesome years during the global financial crisis, it seems like Slovenia is on a positive economic route again. On December 14, 2018, S&P Global Ratings affirmed an “A+/A-1” credit rating for Slovenia with a positive outlook. Slovenian GDP has grown in the last two years between three and four percent annually, with a growth forecast for 2019 of 3.4 percent.

    Growth of the Slovenian Legal Market

    It appears that law firms in Slovenia have taken advantage of the country’s economic growth, as the combined revenue of the top 30 law firms grew by approximately 30 percent, up from EUR 100-110 million in 2012-2014 to EUR 130-140 million in 2015-2017.

    A few years ago, when a large M&A transaction was taking place in Slovenia, only four or five firms would compete to get the job. Today this number is closer to ten, and sometimes even more, which demonstrates that the competition is fiercer, keeping law firms on their toes. There are no large international law firms with offices in Slovenia, which is no surprise as the market – Slovenia has only two million people – is too small for them and they would probably have trouble competing with the strong local and regional firms. 

    However, in developing their business models, the law firms that are in Slovenia see the bigger picture and look across the borders. Among the top ten law firms in Slovenia in terms of revenues, you can hardly find a firm that is not either an integrated regional CEE/SEE firm or part of a network of law firms covering the countries of former Yugoslavia. Hardly a week passes without us receiving an inquiry referring to at least two countries of former Yugoslavia. This is no surprise, as clients see this territory, with more than 20 million inhabitants, as a single market, and they are keen to receive integrated legal services. It only makes sense for law firms to try to accommodate such clients and provide cross-border advice in different practice areas. 

    Sophisticated Work and Big Clients 

    The work done by law firms today is ever more sophisticated and complex. Clients are demanding, and only the smartest (and quickest) minds will survive this battle. It is interesting to see how the very nature of the legal work has changed in the past few years and how closely it follows the condition of the economy. Between 2013 and 2015, firms were busy with large financial and corporate restructurings, followed by non-performing loan portfolio sales in the years after. And in the last year or so, we have seen a lot of M&A and Real Estate deals in the market. Economic growth brought along a good inflow of investors making greenfield investments (including Magna Steyr, Yaskawa, and IKEA, among others), as well as vast interests from strategic investors and private equity firms (such as Apollo, HPS Investment Partners, York Capital Management, and KKR) for Slovenian companies.   

    Market Disruptors

    Revenue growth is no guarantee of a good night sleep, of course. The Big 4 firms are trying to penetrate the legal market, so far with only mixed success. They definitely have a good platform of clients and financial resources, but they have not (yet) been able to attract the best lawyers in Slovenia to join them in building their legal arms. However, they have the potential to be a serious source of disruption on the Slovenian legal market in the long-term.  

    We have also seen a few spin-offs from largest Slovenian firms in past few years, either in the form of boutique firms or solo practitioners. Both are counting on their reputation and expertise and are taking their pieces of the pie. 

    Look to the Future

    It is said that “clients will always need lawyers; only the nature of work changes.” Law firms in Slovenia have shown their ability to adapt through the turbulent times of the Slovenian economy and to demonstrate constant revenue growth. 

    As the Slovenian legal market is quite developed, one of the biggest challenges law firms may face in the future will be to attract, develop, and retain talented lawyers. Firms will need to demonstrate their ability to further develop viable career paths for young lawyers. The new generation of lawyers is less enthusiastic about starting their legal careers at the bottom and slowly make their way to the top. They want immediate action and quick progress. 

    By Marko Ketler, Senior Partner / Attorney at Law in Cooperation with Karanovic & Partners

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.4 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.