About the Journal
Bilingual journal for legal academics and professionals working internationally between China and Europe. Discusses international and transnational topics of interest to an audience of European and Chinese international law firms and scholars who analyse both regions.
Parallel publication in English and Mandarin Chinese editions. Published by the Swiss Chinese Law Associaiton.
General coordinator: Zhang Tianze
Editors: Jerry Guo (Chinese), Wei Jianan (Chinese) and David Dahlborn (English)
ISSUE 6 CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Cross-border legal collaboration and operation: Swiss Chinese Law Review issue 6: Deadline 04/07 2022
Welcome to the sixth issue of the Swiss Chinese Law Review. This issue will be dedicated to the benefits and challenges of cross-border legal collaboration and operation in our globalised but fast-changing world.
Contribute your article here.
Today working with colleagues in other countries is something many lawyers and firms take for granted. Huge swaths of the legal industry would not exist without it. But what do these assumptions mean? What have we learnt from the past decades of a globalised legal world? Is this knowledge still a guide to the future? How has collaboration between law firms in different countries changed and what does the future hold? What are the benefits and disadvantages, and, more poignantly, what have they meant? Beyond filling up a scorecard on our work with friends and colleagues across the globe, the SCLA invites you to break down the detail of the past, present, and future implications of working internationally. What is it that you have noticed that everyone else has missed?
The sixth issue of the Swiss Chinese Law Review casts a broad net to catch the pearls of wisdom and experience that will change how and why we collaborate across borders. We want to understand the big-picture theory, but also the everyday details. What is the aggregate of international experience that indicates a general trend? Or which are the individual case studies from your firm’s cross-border that disprove the models and the predictions? How does working across borders mean different things to different people, and at different times?
We cannot wait to read your insights on how, where, and why everything we thought we knew about international collaboration in the legal world needs to be reconsidered, for better or worse. We are looking for analyses of both the global and the quotidian, of high-profile work and of the day-to-day, to help see which way the industry, and the very legal concepts that undergird it, are going.
To submit your contribution, follow this link.
We are looking for original and previously unpublished features and opinion articles:
- Should be up to 2,000 words in length and analyse a specific aspect of cross-border legal collaboration and operations from a critical perspective, highlighting current and relevant problems and solutions along the lines of the questions detailed above.
- Should be shorter, up to 1,000 words, and offer a more opinionated and partisan view on this theme, intended to provoke a conversation or rethinking of existing assumptions.
As always, we also welcome contributions to our regular sections:
International legal outlook
- Items of up to 200 words detailing legal news related to a jurisdiction or global law firm. Law firm ranking-related insight is particularly welcome.
- Expert columns examining the intersection of legal practice and the latest technological developments. Limited to 1,500 words.
Your story, your legal workplace, personal profiles and viewpoints
- Personal memoirs or profiles of lawyers who have inspired you of up to 1,500 words.
- Stories from your legal workplace, especially if your experiences relate to our theme.
- Letters to the editors, short viewpoints, reflections or other items you wish to share.
- The personal and human side of cross-border collaboration: how do they affect you and your business?
To submit your contribution, follow this link.
We look forward to hearing from you and reading your contributions!
PLEASE NOTE (read carefully):
- Only drafts uploaded to our online submissions platform before the deadline will be considered for bilingual print publication, unless you have a prior agreement with the journal.
- Your draft article must be your own original work and must be previously unpublished at the time that our publication is released in print (this includes personal or professional blogs, forum discussions, etc).
- Drafts which require extensive copyediting due to the quality of writing may be turned down.
- We ask that you also inform us if your draft is being considered by another publisher. Permission from any copyright owner must be sought by you if your draft contains material that is not your own copyright.
- We ask that you refrain from including material of a libellous nature.
- We ask that you refrain from infringing on someone else’s copyright. This includes using text copied from a source without attribution, passing someone else’s work off as your own or failing to accurately cite a quotation.
- It is our responsibility to report deliberate plagiarism, if detected, to any relevant academic or professional bodies.
- Direct quotation from a source must be clearly indicated by quotation marks and a reference.
- Where possible, refrain from using footnote references and provide in-text citations.
About the Swiss Chinese Law Review
Our journal aims to link-up legal professionals and academics working in and between China and Europe. The journal will offer a platform for exchanging insights and connections.
As a contributor we hope to be able to introduce you to our international network of legal professionals and scholars with a shared interest in Swiss-Chinese relations and the law.
The Swiss Chinese Law Association is a voluntary association of lawyers and academics aiming to create a more transparent and integrated market between European and Asian countries. We hope to achieve more open and trustworthy international legal service by creating a common standards framework for law firms in Switzerland and China.
See www.scla.world/journal/ for more details.
We search law firm rankings in a quest for clarity but come away from a bewildering array of lists and league tables more confused then we were to begin with. Everyone knows that no ranking table can reveal the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But at the same time everyone falls back on annual lists as a measure of status and achievement. What is actually going on when we read a law firm ranking table? What work went on behind the scenes to produce it? What ideals do we project onto it? What benefits or detriments do professionals and firms derive from where they end up on the list?
The fifth issue of the Swiss Chinese Law Review goes beyond interrogating who benefits from ranking tables or not. We want to understand how this institution affects the international legal industry. How have rankings evolved? What realities do they reflect? How are they gamed? How can they be trusted? How can they be improved? What are the alternatives to ranking tables? How do they differ in Europe and in Asia?