Why did Inly, created a year ago, return to Asters?

A year ago a few former Asters members — Oleksiy Pustovit, Olesya Kryvetska and Tetyana Bebik — created the firm Inly. As we found out back then during our interview, Oleksiy was to focus on antitrust, Olesya on international trade, and Tetyana was to work across both antitrust and trade. Two weeks ago they announced that the whole team is being merged back into Asters.

I have no moral right not to find out why they decided to do this, so I spoke with Oleksiy.

Dima Hadomskyi: A year ago you left Asters and together with Olesya and Tetyana you created Inly. Now you are returning to Asters. I’ll save the question of why for later. For now tell me, do you still have the strength to dare to create your own firm again?

Oleksiy Pustovit: Yes. I’d say this process is continuous and ongoing.

D: You constantly want to leave and create your own business, but the firm keeps pulling you back — is this process continuous, or what process is it?

O: These are the realities: many changes around, new tools, new problems. Planning and finding solutions pulls you back. And it’s not about running away.

D: You just summed up the most interesting thing I want to ask you about. But before that one more general-philosophical question: what did you/you all understand over this year about the Ukrainian legal market that you couldn’t understand while working inside a large firm?

O: First, that it really exists. Our focus is more international, but it turned out we are also in demand here. Second, the opportunity to freely communicate with other teams and see the market a bit differently. A large firm is like a principality. But without that superstructure it’s interesting and sometimes fruitful to talk with other colleagues, even to do some collaborations. In a year we didn’t do much of that, but it did happen.

D: By “more in demand here” do you mean you underestimated the need for your expertise in Ukraine, or you overestimated the need abroad?

O: I underestimated it in Ukraine, at least I did. Olesya had a better focus.

D: You led the antitrust practice at Inly. What hypotheses did you have about demand for such services outside Ukraine and which of them were disproved or confirmed?

O: I’ll try to answer without providing a free training). First: low mobility — the bundle of brand, contact, time works. That’s a downside. Plus, there is demand for an alternative, but it’s limited. Also the motivation of foreign firms: brand is protection against mistakes.

D: Can you expand on each of those thoughts, please?

O: Of course. The choice of advisor is conservative; the motivation is to choose safety for oneself and the client, so Asters, Sayenko Kharenko, will get the best projects. They have established leaders, years of connections, a client base. They cannot satisfy all demand, there is a request for a quality alternative. But like any alternative, it sometimes comes with a different price, or limited demand. And here is a scaling problem: a large practice and an alternative are not comparable. Our ambitions to expand dominated.

D: What do you mean by “alternative”: deeper expertise, better quality, greater speed, or a completely different approach to delivering the service?

O: Good question — these are all separate points of differentiation, and each can work. My emphasis is on expertise and business processes. Perhaps the one overestimated factor is quality: a very subjective thing, hard to define.

D: Tell me, please, what exactly you did at Inly differently from Asters in terms of expertise and business processes?

O: Right now we continue many things unchanged because they don’t contradict but complement. The most important things are specialization, preparation, and engagement in the process. Working with the team is important. We were used to a small team performing many functions that are usually spread across HR, administration, and various committees. And each specialist needs a simple understanding of who helps with what, who solves problems, and how to grow in quality.

D: Reasons for returning to Asters are emerging: (1) you overestimated demand for deeper expertise, (2) the team of lawyers didn’t do administrative work well and because of that couldn’t grow as lawyers. What other reasons prompted the return?

O: Interesting conclusion; it’s correct in terms of interconnection, but it wasn’t a (at least a key) factor. And I disagree — we did that differently, and that was the point. And, in my view, very well. Large firms are tempted to pull in resources and complicate things. Where one lawyer and a partner would suffice, there will often be assistants, interns, perhaps others.

Reasons for returning? It’s not exactly a return, because that would imply some constancy. What happened is we had talks about a merger, not with Asters. For me Asters was the past. But changes occurred on both sides, and at least I saw interesting long-term prospects, although in the short term it wasn’t the best solution.

D: Were you negotiating a merger with another Ukrainian firm, or with a foreign one?

O: Of course with a Ukrainian one; I don’t see what foreigners should do here right now. Especially new ones. At least not systemically.

D: Was merging with someone large your strategy a year ago, or why were you negotiating a merger immediately after creating the firm?

O: It was unexpected; it was expected that at least two years would pass before such a process would begin. But interest in us appeared earlier.

D: Interest in what exactly appeared: in you as a team, or in your existing clients?

O: I think more in the first. We built something from scratch, so logically we would strengthen existing firms.

D: At Asters you will head the antitrust practice, so the appeal of prospects at Asters is clear to me. Still, what exactly didn’t work at Inly? You worked only a year, so it must have been something significant, something you didn’t give time to fix in the longer term.

O: I’ll start with heading the practice — that is purely an administrative function. And it presumes corresponding involvement in development and management. It would have been hard for us to do a high-quality expansion. Our and adjacent practices, I don’t know about others, have a limited supply of specialists. It takes at least three years to train a quality lawyer. That was fine for us; we weren’t specifically looking for adventures like a merger. But once offers appeared, putting everything into a matrix it became clear that it was a growth option, and it resonated with the team.

We also already knew certain nuances about Asters and could discuss them. Any firm has its specifics, sometimes not immediately visible. Here the advantage of the new-old team worked. And it’s reciprocal, because for the Asters team it didn’t feel foreign either; we were comfortable interacting from day one.

D: What changed in your understanding of client needs and competition after a year running your own business?

O: I can speak better about foreign in-house counsels and firms. I didn’t discover anything revolutionary, but I better understood the emphasis. Clear and timely communication, finding solutions instead of just advising. Regarding competition, likewise — there are no magical solutions. Even a clumsy but well-tuned system will work. Chaotic searches for magical steps are completely wrong.

D: So you kind of went away for a year to learn, it turns out) Did you notice anything in competitors that you hadn’t noticed at Asters?

O: That’s a slightly provocative formulation) Actually, yes — the more varied experience the better. And this applies to every team member, starting from the youngest lawyers. I, however, had joined Asters before Inly. And the learning lasted far more than a year and covered many things.

D: And finally, give three pieces of advice to those who are now sharpening their skis, things to think about when creating a new law firm

O: Figure out for yourself what exactly drives the desire. How long-standing is it and what else might address it. Two: is it a partnership or solo? If a partnership, repeat the first step for each partner. Three: google why lawyers are often poor managers. Find something about yourself and work on it, and even better have consulting support. Starting with a business plan.