Writing this piece on the recent IBA annual conference is a no-win assignment.  Views are polarised: is the IBA is a vibrant and valuable meeting point for the legal industry from around the world or a pointless, self-congratulatory waste of time?

One thing is for sure: it is a truly global gathering, with 6,000 lawyers from over 180 countries attending.  It is like the Olympics for the legal world but with Russians and without carnival.  Drug testing would show very high levels of caffeine and alcohol.

Washington, DC 50 days before the most extraordinarily acrimonious and personality-driven showdown in recent US electoral history is a fascinating place to be.  Indeed, the shadow of global politics was cast over the whole event in a much more significant way than I can remember at previous IBAs.

A useful app would log how many times certain words are uttered during the week-long meeting.  The winners would probably be “Brexit” and “Trump”.  Interest in Brexit is almost indecent.  Lawyers from around the world see a nation known for being sensible and reliable that is struggling to find a common vision.  The pretty consistent response from the Brits present is talk of uncertainty, time changing, healing and resolving things, of opportunities and the fact that it is not going to be as bad as foretold.

The IBA means very well.  Fundamentally underlying it is a worthy belief that, as fellow professionals from around the world, many of the issues that we face are similar and that there is much value to be had from sharing ideas and best practise.  It has certainly moved on quite some way in recent years.

Unfortunately too many lawyers descend on host cities with no intention of engaging in the formal events.  They network around the conference and this has been a growing feature in recent years. Indeed, it has extended to a smattering of seminars, speaking events and other opportunities for individual firms to promote their wares without what they might see as the dillutive impact of doing it through the IBA’s formal programme.  Not quite cricket or even baseball for that matter, you might think.

The formal programme itself has some really outstanding keynote speakers and specialist events populated by leading practitioners from around the world.  These occasions are generally very well attended.  Indeed, often standing room only.

However, some presentations, especially from the Thursday onwards, attract audiences that offer little reward for the effort invested by the speakers.  A quick look through the telephone directory of attendees shows that by far the greatest proportion are from Europe, Africa and Latin America.  The IBA usually enjoys only patchy support from firms from the US and Asia where competitor organisations have always been well supported.  Being in the US this year at least meant that many the major US firms were well represented.

The IBA does a good job on the formal organisational side, greatly aided by cities like Washington DC that have conference centres that make it easy to network.  Having the convention centre close to the main hotels helps.  This year a somewhat remote convention centre was compensated for by plentiful taxis.  Standing in the main conference registration area is quite an eye-opener with hundreds of lawyers from around the world rushing hither and thither doing conference calls, looking self-important or possibly just hunting Pokemon.  Who knows?

It is a diverse crowd and the IBA has over the years gone to great lengths to encourage attendees from emerging markets.  Panel chairmen are often rightly challenged to make sure that as wide a range of speakers is considered as possible.

So the question must be: “was it all worth it and what if anything will we do differently do next year?”.  The answer is that certainly for an independent law firm, the IBA annual conference represents a very efficient way of meeting with important relationship firms in a concentrated way without needing to travel all over the world.  In any event, there is nothing quite like it so the question might more properly be put as, “if we did not do this, how could we achieve the same results in a different way?”.

Having said that, whilst it is easy for New York or London based lawyers to visit each other and work face to face with lawyers from other main jurisdictions, other jurisdictions do not enjoy the same accessibility.  So what better way of meeting a lawyer from Mexico, Romania, the Philippines or Latvia than to do so with help of coffee or a little alcohol at the IBA?

See you in Sydney 2017.

Charles Martin, senior partner, Macfarlanes