Regional Brokers of Western Civilization: Final insights from a student fellowship project

Over the last year as a student fellow at the Center on the Legal Profession, I have explored the development of EU legal economies, focusing on the dynamic city centers of Dublin and Brussels. Each of these cities has been radically transformed in the wake of a globalizing world economy. Yet, rather than come to resemble one another, they remain as distinct as ever. In fact, it is their locality that drives their importance in the global economy.

Building off of a previous study on the development of the London legal economy, post-Brexit, this paper looked at how Dublin and Brussels weathered shifts in the European legal market over the same study period. These two cities were chosen for their unique relationships to the London economy, formerly the dominant legal center in the European Union. Dublin, representing the only dominant English-speaking country in the Eurozone, shared close cultural and geographic ties with the UK. Brussels, by contrast, represents the organizational heart of the European Union—the very thing that many Britons voted against in 2016. By comparing and contrasting these two localities in the period following the Brexit referendum, my research sought to shed light on how law firms are responding to complex geopolitical changes.

The results were compelling. Both Dublin and Brussels underwent sustained, globalizing transformations during the research period. However, the outcomes of those transitional periods were deeply indebted to the local economies upon which they were built. Dublin, an increasingly dynamic center for cross-border work, cemented its global profile by courting more sophisticated business clients and developing key practice areas like trusts and investment funds. Brussels, on the other hand, became even more synonymous with EU regulatory knowledge. In an era of increasing antitrust pressure, clients courted firms with strong ties to the Belgian capital. Brexit impacted both cities. But, rather than lead to an outflow of legal work from London headquarters towards other EU cities, the impact of Brexit appeared to reinforce the regional roles of each legal hub. Ultimately, the end result was a legal services economy that engaged in sophisticated, multi-desk transactions to provide clients with a truly global suite of services.

Dublin and Brussels represent distinct approaches to globalization in the legal industry, shaped by their unique roles, economic contexts, and responses to geopolitical changes like Brexit. The differences between Dublin and Brussels highlight the varied roles that international offices can play within a global legal network by demonstrating how offices can serve as either broad-based service hubs or specialized nodes. Dublin’s adaptability and growth as a nexus for cross-border legal services emphasize the role of international offices as strategic, multipurpose hubs that cater to diverse client needs across multiple jurisdictions. In contrast, Brussels underscores the role of international offices as specialized centers of expertise. Its deep focus on EU law and policy—particularly in regulatory compliance, competition, and lobbying—showcases how an office can function as a critical conduit for legal knowledge and influence within a specific legal ecosystem. Together, these distinctions demonstrate that international offices within a global legal network do not serve a uniform purpose but instead complement each other by addressing the diverse legal, regulatory, and strategic needs of clients worldwide. This division of roles strengthens a firm’s ability to provide comprehensive, localized, and high-value services across geographies.

Moving forward, additional research could be conducted on other critical EU hubs—like Frankfurt, Paris, and Luxembourg—to see how their legal markets have adapted in recent years. These centers would provide further insight into the dynamics of the current global legal market and add important nuance to the role of Brexit on shaping the legal services economy. The growth of this field of research would provide invaluable insight into the globalization of the legal profession. Moreover, it would enrich our understanding of how firms can more effectively allocate resources to address client needs.

Reaching the end of a year-long research project always leaves one with the lingering desire to know more—the further one delves into any topic, it turns out, the more its beauties and complexities become apparent. I certainly feel that way at the conclusion of my time at the Center on the Legal Profession. I would like to extend a final token of sincere gratitude to the advisors at the Center on the Legal Profession for helping to guide this work—notably, Professor David B. Wilkins, Dana Walters, and Bryon Fong. Their generosity and encouragement inspires many students to take on new intellectual pursuits. I feel very fortunate to be one of them.

Hadley DeBello is a 3L student at Harvard Law School. She holds a B.A. in Social Studies from Harvard College and a M.A. in China Studies from Peking University. 

As a fellow at the Center on the Legal Profession, her work tackles the changing political and economic conditions of the legal market, particularly in regards to the globalization of the juris doctorate degree. Prior to law school, her research was published in The Harvard Political Review, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, and Axios.