Shoosmiths has placed litigation, corporate and technology at the centre of its ambitions for London. For Hannah Field, who leads the firm’s London office while advising on complex disputes, that strategy is closely connected to what clients need when pressure is highest. Field discusses how geopolitical uncertainty and sophisticated corporate structures are reshaping disputes, why funding must remain subordinate to litigation strategy, and how businesses should respond to emerging AI liabilities. She also explains why calm judgment, collaboration and a human understanding of clients remain indispensable.
How do you balance managing a high-stakes litigation caseload with leading the strategic growth of Shoosmiths’ London office?
The two elements of my role are closely linked. Litigation is one of our core pillars and a major part of the firm’s 2030 growth strategy. Being active on high-stakes disputes gives me a clear view of what clients need: commerciality, speed and the ability to bring the right expertise together quickly across sectors.
Our strategy in London, and more widely, is to build a platform that supports exactly those types of complex, high-stakes mandates, whether in disputes, corporate, real estate or elsewhere. Put simply, the growth of the London office goes hand in hand with the work we are doing for clients in practice.
Balancing the two comes down to focus and teamwork. On the client side, it is important to stay close to the strategy and maintain strong relationships. On the leadership side, it is about creating the conditions for Shoosmiths’ people to succeed by investing in the right areas, backing our people and fostering the collaborative culture that sets us apart. When an office is growing, bringing partners, associates and the wider team together in the same direction is key. That is what keeps me motivated and helps me balance the roles.
At Shoosmiths, what is your long-term vision for expanding the London hub’s corporate and technology offerings?
Corporate is one of Shoosmiths’ core pillars, alongside litigation and real estate, while technology is one of our five priority sectors. Both are therefore at the heart of the firm’s long-term growth strategy.
The vision for London is to continue building a stronger platform around high-value, complex mandates for our clients across corporate and technology. For corporate, that means strengthening our ability to support clients on strategically important deals. For technology, it means building deeper sector capability across the firm and ensuring that expertise is connected to the wider Shoosmiths platform.
We are already seeing the impact in the quality of work, the depth of our client relationships and the mandates we are trusted to deliver. It is also why we continue to invest significantly in talent. Recent London appointments have included Wei Wu and Kurt Ma in corporate, and Sarah Reynolds in technology. Those lateral hires reflect the firm’s strategic direction in London, and we expect further investment and growth as part of the 2030 strategy.
Having handled landmark boardroom battles, what unique tactical challenges do these highly personal disputes present?
In these types of boardroom or shareholder battles, particularly where high-net-worth individuals are involved, both emotional intelligence and legal intelligence are needed. The emotional intelligence element really comes into play because the legal issues are rarely the whole story.
These disputes often involve individuals who have worked together or invested in businesses together for years. Personal relationships, reputations and control of the business are at stake alongside the legal claims, and that creates unique tactical challenges. Decisions are not always driven purely by economics; emotions can become a significant factor.
As advisers, we need to understand not only the legal and evidential position, but also the broader commercial and personal dynamics at play, including what the individuals involved really want to achieve. Is the objective economic compensation, control of the board or the shares, preservation of value, or an exit?
The key is to remain focused on the client’s ultimate objective. A successful strategy requires an understanding of the human factors alongside the legal issues. That is true of all disputes. You may be advising a client during the most stressful moment of their career, so the human element is very important in high-value matters.
What dispute risks are you seeing most frequently in the current market for private equity and corporate clients?
We have been through a prolonged period of uncertainty. During the Covid-19 period, deals were being completed in a highly competitive market, often at speed and with relatively limited due diligence. That was followed by a somewhat calmer period, but we now have a range of geopolitical issues in play.
As a result, we are seeing disputes arising from transactions completed under very different market conditions, particularly around earn-out valuations, warranty claims and deferred consideration. For private equity clients, the focus is often on protecting value and managing risk across portfolios. One recurring issue is disagreement over the value of an asset: what it is worth now, what was paid for it and how market uncertainty has altered its value over time.
More broadly, businesses are operating in an environment shaped by geopolitical uncertainty, regulatory change and technological disruption, all of which can generate disputes. Clients are therefore increasingly focused on identifying issues earlier and taking proactive steps before matters become contentious. We are also seeing an uptick in the use of insurance products as clients seek greater protection.
Following your work on major collapses such as Lehman Brothers, how are current global shifts altering your strategy for international asset tracing?
We are in a period of economic uncertainty, but we have experienced market cycles before. The fundamental principles of asset tracing have not changed: you need to move quickly, establish the facts and follow the assets wherever they may be. What has changed is the complexity of the environment in which that work takes place.
Assets are often held through highly sophisticated international structures spanning multiple jurisdictions. At the same time, sanctions regimes, regulatory divergence and increasing geopolitical tensions create additional layers of complexity when trying to recover assets in different jurisdictions.
International asset tracing is therefore increasingly multidisciplinary. It requires close coordination between lawyers, investigators, forensic experts and local counsel. Success depends on having a genuinely global strategy from the outset rather than approaching each jurisdiction in isolation.
You need to identify early the jurisdictions through which you are likely to proceed. For each one, consider the obstacles and how the strategy should move from one jurisdiction to another. The individual steps may be local, but they must form part of one coherent plan.
How are complex corporate structures and funding arrangements changing the way clients approach high-stakes financial litigation?
Corporate structures and funding models have become more sophisticated, and more options are available. One consequence is that litigation may involve a greater number of interested stakeholders who need to be considered and kept informed. Everyone involved needs to have the same agreed objective in mind.
That can mean speaking and reporting to more people who are invested or involved in the litigation, but the key is not to lose sight of the right legal strategy. The existence of a more complex structure, or a larger number of stakeholders, should not cause the client and its advisers to lose sight of the core objective and the strategy for achieving it. Funding arrangements must not be allowed to drive the litigation strategy.
What new categories of liability should commercial clients be preparing for as artificial intelligence disrupts traditional business models?
The key question is not whether businesses should embrace AI. I believe everyone should. The question is how to do so responsibly while maintaining appropriate controls and preserving trust. AI presents enormous opportunities, but it also creates categories of risk with which organisations need to get to grips.
Governance and accountability are central. Organisations are increasingly using and relying on AI-assisted decision-making and research. There will inevitably be questions about who is responsible when those systems produce inaccurate results, introduce bias or cause some form of loss. Businesses need clear internal frameworks governing oversight, decision-making and accountability, as well as how AI is used responsibly.
We are also seeing growing risks around intellectual property, data rights and contractual liability as AI begins to feature in litigation and disputes. Significant disputes will inevitably arise from technology and AI outcomes.
The organisations best placed to manage this transition will be those that use AI and make the most of it, but understand that it is not simply a technology opportunity; it is also a governance issue. Robust governance is needed to ensure AI is used responsibly, appropriate controls are in place and trust in its use and outcomes can be maintained.
How do you view the evolving landscape of third-party litigation funding in the UK, and how does it influence your tactical advice?
Litigation funding has become an established and important part of the UK disputes market. It gives clients more options for managing litigation risk, but the key is to ensure that the funding strategy supports the litigation strategy, rather than the other way around.
From a tactical perspective, funding is not the starting point. The first question should always be: what outcome are you trying to achieve? Once that is clear, we can consider whether third-party funding, insurance products or other risk-management tools can support those objectives.
The availability of funding can be highly valuable, but it should never displace the core analysis of the client’s objectives and the most appropriate legal strategy for reaching them.
When an urgent corporate crisis hits, what is the first piece of pragmatic advice you give a client to protect its position?
Our first role is to calm the situation and prevent a panicked response. Do not sacrifice strategy for speed. The businesses that emerge strongest are usually those that pause, even if only momentarily, to understand the facts before deciding what to do next.
You still need to move with real speed in a crisis, but the priorities are to remain calm, gather the facts quickly and make disciplined decisions based on evidence rather than assumptions. Getting control of the narrative starts with getting control of the facts.
In the immediate aftermath, there is often pressure to act, make public statements or reach conclusions before the facts are known. The most important first step is to establish what has happened. From there, you can assess the legal, commercial and reputational implications and develop a coordinated strategy.
Clients sometimes assume that the biggest risk is the underlying issue itself. It can be, but it is often the response to that issue that determines the outcome. The strategy must also remain adaptable. In a fast-moving crisis, particularly one attracting media attention, the apparent facts can change rapidly. You have to be agile while maintaining calm through what may be a high-stakes and highly pressured situation.
What essential mindset must the next generation of commercial litigators cultivate early on to succeed in today’s legal market?
Curiosity and passion are essential. My advice is always to choose an area that genuinely fascinates you, because that is what will keep you learning, developing and asking better questions. That matters more than ever in the age of AI. The legal and commercial landscapes are changing quickly, and the next generation of litigators will need to remain open-minded and agile.
Technical excellence, judgment and attention to detail will always be the foundations of good litigation. Lawyers also need to understand how technology is changing client risks and the delivery of legal services. We have to accept that AI is here and engage with it from the client and business perspective: what will it mean for people, what risks will it create, and what opportunities can it bring? AI is often discussed as a threat to legal roles, but it can also amplify what lawyers do.
Emotional intelligence and the human element remain essential. Take a general counsel who is trying to understand the risks created by employees using AI across the business. A good lawyer should put themselves in that general counsel’s shoes and consider what they would need to do to protect the business. That means going beyond the immediate question. You may have been asked to advise on one issue, but the client may also need to consider several connected issues that have not yet been raised.
AI may be able to produce a list of matters a general counsel should consider. What it cannot easily replicate is the human conversation: sitting down with that person, understanding what is keeping them awake at night and working out how you can help. That is the extra dimension lawyers bring, and it will become increasingly important.
.jpg&w=256&q=75)
Copyright & permissions
