Global law firm Baker McKenzie is facing renewed legal scrutiny after an Illinois judge allowed a legal malpractice lawsuit to proceed against the firm and its Moscow affiliate, Baker & McKenzie CIS Ltd. The case, filed by London-based investment firm Lehram Capital Investments Ltd., accuses the firm of negligence, conflicts of interest, and mishandling of crucial litigation tied to a disputed coal mining venture in Russia.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute centers on Lehram’s 2013 acquisition of a coal mine in Russia’s Kemerovo region — an area known for its energy resources and complex local political ties. Lehram alleges that soon after the purchase, one of its directors was detained by Russian authorities and pressured to sign documents transferring the mining asset to a company allegedly linked to the powerful Shchukin family, which the plaintiff claims has close connections to regional government figures.
Lehram retained Baker McKenzie’s Moscow office to help recover the mine and address what it characterized as an unlawful seizure of its property. The lawsuit claims that the firm, despite its global brand and integrated marketing, failed to deliver the competent representation expected from an international law firm of its stature.
Malpractice Allegations
In its complaint, Lehram accuses Baker McKenzie and its Russian affiliate of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The allegations include filing the recovery claim in the wrong court — a procedural error that allegedly doomed Lehram’s case from the start. According to the suit, Baker lawyers chose to file in a civil court that imposed a 10-day limitation period instead of pursuing arbitration, which would have offered a three-year filing window. As a result, Lehram’s claim was dismissed as time-barred, effectively preventing the company from reclaiming its lost asset.
Lehram also contends that Baker McKenzie failed to disclose significant conflicts of interest, including prior relationships with Russian government-connected clients. The firm is further accused of exposing Lehram representatives to risk by introducing them to individuals allegedly tied to criminal groups during the course of the representation.
Baker McKenzie’s Defense
Baker McKenzie, which operates globally through a Swiss verein structure — meaning its various offices are legally independent entities — has argued that its Moscow affiliate acted autonomously. The firm sought to dismiss the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, asserting that the case should be heard in Russia, where the events occurred, or alternatively in London, where Lehram is based.
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and ensuing geopolitical tensions, Lehram’s lawyers countered that Russia no longer represented a viable or fair forum for litigation. Baker McKenzie’s defense team maintained that Illinois was an improper venue, contending that the Chicago-based parent had no direct involvement in the disputed Russian proceedings.
Court Ruling and Next Steps
On October 17, 2025, Judge John Tully Jr. of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, denied Baker McKenzie’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing Lehram to move forward with discovery. The court found that Lehram had presented sufficient evidence to suggest that Baker McKenzie’s global offices might operate with more interconnection than the verein model publicly suggests.
Judge Tully’s ruling builds on a 2024 decision by the Illinois First District Appellate Court, which had previously rejected the firm’s forum non conveniens motion. That earlier ruling concluded that Lehram had provided enough evidence to raise questions about the legal unity and operational control among Baker’s international entities, thereby justifying Illinois jurisdiction.
The court’s latest decision enables Lehram to pursue discovery into the internal relationships between Baker McKenzie’s Chicago headquarters, its London operations, and its Moscow affiliate. This phase of litigation will likely include document requests, internal communications, and testimony concerning how the firm coordinates cross-border client matters.
Implications for Global Law Firms
The case highlights ongoing legal and ethical challenges faced by international law firms operating under the verein model, where member firms share branding, marketing, and resources but claim separate legal liability. While the verein structure offers flexibility for managing global operations, courts in the United States have increasingly scrutinized whether such distinctions truly shield parent entities from liability.
Legal analysts say the Lehram v. Baker McKenzie case could have significant implications for malpractice risk management, especially for firms that market themselves as “seamlessly global” while maintaining legally distinct partnerships. The outcome may clarify how far U.S. courts are willing to extend liability to global firms when their affiliates allegedly fail clients abroad.
If Lehram ultimately prevails, the case could set a precedent allowing plaintiffs to hold major U.S.-based law firms accountable for malpractice committed by their international branches — particularly when evidence shows the firms function as integrated global operations rather than independent local partnerships.
Potential Financial and Reputational Risks
Beyond potential damages, Baker McKenzie faces reputational consequences from the ongoing litigation. The firm, one of the world’s largest by headcount and revenue, has long prided itself on its international reach and consistency of service. A protracted malpractice battle could invite further scrutiny into how global law firms balance local autonomy with centralized oversight.
As the case moves into the discovery phase, both sides are expected to engage in intensive fact-finding. Lehram aims to obtain documents and testimony that could prove that Baker McKenzie’s Chicago and London offices were directly involved — or at least aware — of the strategic decisions that led to the alleged malpractice in Moscow.
The case underscores a growing risk for international law firms: the possibility that courts in their home jurisdictions may hold them liable for actions by affiliates operating abroad, particularly when firms promote themselves as unified global organizations.
Looking Ahead
For now, Baker McKenzie has not publicly commented on the latest ruling. Lehram’s attorneys have indicated that they intend to pursue full discovery before any settlement discussions occur. The outcome of this case could influence how large multinational law firms structure their global operations, client disclosures, and conflict-management practices going forward.
The Baker McKenzie case is a reminder of how complex, competitive, and high-stakes the global legal landscape can be. Whether you’re an aspiring attorney or an experienced lawyer seeking new opportunities, staying informed and well-positioned is essential.
Find exclusive legal jobs that aren’t listed anywhere else — from top law firms, corporations, and government agencies — on LawCrossing.com.
