Linklaters has agreed an alliance with a Saudi Arabian firm.

Given Saudi's appalling human rights record, Linklaters' press release used an interesting choice of words. Apparently the Saudi firm will help it with "executing deals in the Kingdom". While it's nothing to lose your head over, presumably someone was stoned when they wrote it.

The Magic Circle firm already has a presence in the Middle East with offices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. As part of its deal with Zamakhchary & Co, two Links lawyers will be relocating to a booth in its Saudi office.

  Who'd have thought it 
 

It's the latest firm to push into the country in the last eighteen months. Clifford Chance struck up an association with Saudi firm Abuhimed Alsheikh Alhagbani in 2016, though only after red tape issues stymied an entry into the Kingdom under its own name. This year CMS penetrated the terror-funding mecca.

However, a number of firms have decided to scale back in the Middle East. This year, KWM exited Saudi Arabia, and Herbert Smith Freehills and Clifford Chance both axed offices in Qatar. Latham & Watkins, Baker Botts, and Hogan Lovells have also all closed offices in the region, describing them as exercises in consolidation.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 13 October 17 10:18

Is this article not a little bit racist? I can't recall having seen anything similar for those firms opening offices in other countries with human rights issues (China for example) and I don't know of any association between Z&Co and Saudi capital punishment.

Roll On Friday 13 October 17 14:11

I don't agree "terror funding mecca" should be removed. Mecca is often used in common English parlance for a start. Secondly there is no doubt much funding for terrorism has come from Saudi. Thirdly the play on words with the use of "mecca" is good.
If Saudis and others get upset by those words perhaps they should seek the safe haven of Saudi Arabia. We have freedom of speech here.

(Saudi is worse for women's rights than China although neither is going to be high on anyone's list. The fact companies are withdrawing from Saudi is great. We have fracking, we have alternative powers sources. We don't need to kow tow to them any more just for money.)

Anonymous 13 October 17 15:07

Lydia,

I think the point these commenters are trying to make is that the article is drawing a very explicit and direct link between terrorism and Islam (the use of "Mecca" means the author is making a specific reference to the Holy City, rather than to the Saudi government). It is certainly true that you can describe something as, for example, "a Mecca for jazz fans" - but in an article about a Muslim country, this isn't going to wash. It is offensive.

Anonymous 13 October 17 16:34

Those that are offended by the use of the word "Mecca" can remain offended in silence. When the religious demand the rest of us conform to their standards, that are based on dark age myths, it is all of our responsibility to resist. You can have your beliefs, but don't demand I do things differently because you think your sky god will be offended. Freedom from religion is just as important (if not more so) than freedom of religion.

Anonymous 13 October 17 17:17

To anonymous user 13/10/2017 09:18 "Is this article not a little bit racist? I can't recall having seen anything similar for those firms opening offices in other countries with human rights issues (China for example)"

Rof has done lots of stories on other countries' human rights:

http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/1946/fromTab/58/Default.aspx

http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/AsiaNews/tabid/359/Id/4464/fromTab/359/currentIndex/48/Default.aspx

http://rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/3908/fromTab/36/currentIndex/1/Default.aspx

http://www.rollonfriday.com/Default.aspx?TabId=58&Id=5182&fromTab=36&currentIndex=4

http://www.rollonfriday.com/Default.aspx?TabId=58&Id=4972&fromTab=58&currentIndex=4

Anonymous 13 October 17 18:05

Heh. I'm Muslim and found the "terror-funding mecca" phrase hilarious. It's a good play on words. You weirdos need to lighten up a little (as do some of the people with whom I share my faith).

That said, the apparent undertone to this article (that all Saudis or Saudi law firms are some how implicated in human rights abuses or capital punishment) is clearly a load of shi'te - see what I did there?!

It is funny that in the UK & US in particular we are quick to point the finger at Saudi for financing unsavoury groups. I'm yet to see any hard evidence of it. On the other hand, we are oblivious to our own governments (using our taxes) to finance equally barbaric groups, if not the very same ones allegedly receiving support from the Gulf. It has nothing to do with their attitude to human rights. Rather their/our geo-political objectives - that are quite often aligned, at least according to our governments.

Most people are too stupid to understand that. Also lol @ Lydia's comments about how we now have fracking and don't need their oil and they can all f*ck off. We are yet to see that translate into American & British foreign policy in the Middle East... Instead, we're picking sides in the Iran/Saudi confrontation and arming to them to the teeth, at a hefty price of course.

FAOD: (1) I personally think the Saudi royal family are a bunch of weapons grade khunts and I am not defending their actions but that's irrelevant to the points above; and (2) most of the alleged funding from the Gulf going to groups in Syria is apparently (according to most allegations that I have seen) coming from wealthy individuals and "charities". It is not state level support.

Nothing beats a Friday arvo rant.

Roll On Friday 16 October 17 11:28

Anon at 17:05 seems pretty cool. Nice one, chap. Or Chapess. Or Chapxir, however you identify.