Interview with Nicolas Bouckaert, Partner and Co-Founder of Kennedys’ Paris Office

In this article, Carla Braquet interviews Nicolas Bouckaert, co-founder of Kennedys’ Paris office and current partner at the firm.

1. Could you share a brief overview of your background?

I suppose one of the main things with my background is that I grew up straddling French and Anglo-Saxon cultures. Whilst I am French and both my parents are French, our family moved to the US when I was six and so, in a matter of months, I had become bilingual, having been sent to the local school, rather than to a French-speaking school. And, from there, I guess I was set on a particular track for the rest of my life, which has always been thoroughly bilingual and bicultural. When we moved back to France, I attended Anglo-Saxon or bilingual schools, and eventually took the Option International Baccalaureate at the Sèvres Lycée (close to Paris). Incidentally, that’s also where I met my wife, who is Franco-English and is also completely bilingual and bicultural. So, from a very young age, everything around me – books, films, music, conversations etc – was either French or English/American and I was equally at home in both worlds. I then studied Literature at university in the UK, as it seemed to me that the English approach to higher education was a better fit for me than the French approach – first at the University of York, which had an amazing faculty and where the programme had a comparative angle, and then at Oxford University, where I did a Masters in French literature and 20th century French philosophy. Then, although I had initially thought of becoming an academic, I had a change of hearts when I was at Oxford, and I finally decided to go into law. This had always seemed like a natural possibility, because my father was a lawyer, so I was exposed to that world, growing up.

2. Having studied Literature, how and why did you decide to pursue a career in law?

When I was at Oxford, I ended up being a bit disillusioned with academia, and the law (which had always seemed like a possible avenue) appeared like a logical choice. That said, I didn’t want to abandon literature and academia, and commit to a career in the law, without first getting some actual exposure to the legal industry, as I wanted to make sure that it was a field I would actually enjoy. I therefore did an extended summer vacation scheme at Barlow Lyde and Gilbert (which was then one of the City’s top insurance and reinsurance firms) to get some actual exposure. During my time at Barlows, there were several instances where I was given tasks that would normally have been given to trainee solicitors or even junior associates, which enabled me to get what was very much “real world experience”. In one instance, which I remember very vividly, an associate gave me a copy of the other side’s letter before action, the correspondence file and the key practitioners’ textbooks – and then he asked me to review the letter, do the legal research and analysis to assess it strengths and weaknesses and then suggest a possible response or strategy. Initially, I found it pretty daunting (this was before I did my GDL and I had never opened a legal textbook or read a single judgment), but what really surprised me – and clinched it for me – was the fact that, very quickly, I was in familiar territory: at university, when you write essays in literature or in philosophy, you are doing research and drafting and doing written advocacy, because your goal is actually to demonstrate that your thesis is the correct thesis, and should be preferred over the competing theories. In other words, the subject matter may be different (because, for instance, you might be trying to prove that Dickens’ early novels are structured like fairy tales), but the soft skills are those that are required of a lawyer, namely analysis, research and advocacy. And the goal is really the same: proving that you are right and the other side is wrong. So literature and philosophy, which are far more adversarial than people might think, actually gave me both the skills and the mindset to become a litigator. Which is what I discovered when I studied the letter before action the associate had given me, did the research and drafted a memo regarding the possible response. Having done that exercise, I discovered that I could indeed become a lawyer (though the GDL would obviously be required and help a great deal). And, more importantly, I had found the sorts of tasks I had been given during my vacation scheme to be great fun, so I knew I actually wanted to be a lawyer.

3. Aspiring solicitors who have graduated with a non-law degree come across many challenges, how did you overcome them and what advice would you give to those wishing to follow a similar path?

I never really encountered any particular challenges linked to the fact that my initial university degrees had been in literature and philosophy, rather than the law. In fact, I think that my academic background was a great preparation to become a lawyer. And, in any event, the GDL teaches you the basics – bearing in mind that you learn SO much on the job, as a trainee lawyer or a junior associate. Also, when I started as a trainee at Freshfields, half of the trainee intake had studied other subjects than law at university, so I don’t think City firms thought that recruits who hadn’t studied the law at university were at a disadvantage. I think they add diversity and bring knowledge from all sorts of fields that can prove useful when working as a lawyer.

The challenges – and there were many – rather came from the way law firms operate, and how it is so different from being at university. The stakes, the hours, the stress etc. Getting accustomed to working in that environment. That’s what I found difficult, at first, like most young lawyers. But, with time (and it takes a number of years), you develop a thicker skin, realize that you haven’t imploded yet and you are starting to know what you are doing. But I would say that, because the first couple of years are pretty stressful, having a network of friends, within your firm, is key. The friends I made as a trainee definitely helped me, whether by offering a friendly ear when I needed to blow off some steam or give me some pointers when I was dealing with a legal issue they had encountered before. So that network and that camaraderie are very important. And I am still in contact with quite a few, though we don’t see one another as frequently as we would like to.

4. How has being a dual-qualified lawyer benefited you in your career?

Being dual-qualified is like having an extra tool in your toolbox. It also gives you a profile that stands out a bit more. So it is a definite plus. That said, I haven’t practiced English law on a regular basis since I moved back to Paris in 2009 and started working as a French law lawyer – I think that, in practice, very few dual-qualified lawyers manage to have or build practices where they work equally regularly in both legal systems. I think the greatest advantage that comes from being dual-qualified is a cultural one: I work predominantly for the international market, key amongst which is the London market and the US market. And being dual-qualified, and having lived in the US and the UK, and trained in the City, means that I know how my UK or US clients think and how to communicate with them. So it’s an issue of cultural fluency as much as it is an issue of actually being fluent or bilingual. That makes the rapport with clients easier, more effortless, and that brings added value. Things move at a faster pace and there are fewer risks of misunderstandings. Also, because I trained as an English lawyer, I know the English law reflexes that my London clients will have, and can anticipate their questions or flag differences between the French legal system and the English legal system before they become relevant or problematic.

5. You began your career as a trainee solicitor in London at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer before moving on to become an associate and later a partner in Paris. What motivated your decision to transition between countries, and how would you compare the working environments in the UK and France?

It’s a classic case of “life is what happens to you when you’re busy making other plans”, as I hadn’t originally planned on leaving the UK and resettling back to France. My original plan was to stay in England indefinitely and build my legal career in London. But, towards the end of my training contract, my mother unexpectedly passed away. It was very sudden and, when it happened, I had been living in the UK for almost ten years and so had been away from my family for a long time. It led me to rethink my priorities and I just simply wanted to move back to France, to be closer to my family. So the move back to France was the consequence of unforeseen personal circumstances, rather than something that had always been part of a “great plan”.

As far as comparing working in the UK and in France: without wanting to sound facetious, it’s both very similar and extremely different. Very similar, because lawyering is lawyering is lawyering: the goals, the constraints and the skills remain the same, whether you practice in the UK or in France. Extremely different because, whilst the Channel is not that wide, there is obviously a real culture shock at play and the English and the French have very different national temperaments and ways of doing things. That said, you learn to straddle that cultural divide and just try to keep what seems like the best bits from either culture (I don’t want to indicate what I think those best bits are, for fear that I might end up vexing both my English and my French friends in a single swoop…).

6. Why did you choose to work in (re)insurance disputes, product liability? Was there anything specific about those areas that appealed to you?

It happened in a fairly organic way. To that extent, it wasn’t necessarily the result of a single and conscious decision. I knew that I wanted to be a litigator. I had always known that, and my various seats during my training contract only confirmed this fact: I really enjoyed my litigation seats, whereas the transaction seats (M&A, finance etc) left me cold. When I moved back to Paris, my father, Christian Bouckaert, was the Managing Partner of a Parisian insurance and reinsurance boutique law firm, called BOPS, which was one of Paris’ very best firms in the insurance litigation space. My father suggested that I join BOPS as a junior associate. His thinking was “who better than your own father to show you the ropes of French law litigation?” And, because fathers make for pretty demanding bosses, I ended up working very hard and learning very fast. It was rather intense, but great. And because the firm’s client base was predominantly international and UK or US based, I was a useful addition to the team thanks to my English legal training and fluency. So it also made great sense in that respect. It was funny, too, because, when I was a kid, my father and I used to joke that I would become a lawyer and we would eventually work together and be Partners. And it eventually did happen, as we were both Partners at Kennedys’ Paris office at the same time for three years. So that was great fun and a real privilege, to work with my father for a decade or so, because we worked well together and he obviously had a lot to teach and pass on (four decades plus in the profession will do that). Later on, when I had made Partner, I would still often use him as a sounding board and bounce ideas off of him, because he has phenomenal strategic acumen.

So, from the moment I joined BOPS, I naturally specialized in insurance and reinsurance work, like all the associates there. And I enjoyed it from the beginning. First of all, insurance law is fun, from a purely intellectual standpoint. Second of all, because insurance is ubiquitous, as an insurance specialist, you get to work on cases that relate to very varied and interesting fields (manufacturing, banking, engineering, drilling, aerospace etc) and consider a host of different legal issues (defence cases and subrogation cases, for instance, do not revolve around insurance law issues, per se, but usually around general contract or tort law issues). And, at heart, I’m a nerd and insurance litigation enables you to manage cases that stem from really interesting fields: product liability cases have always appealed to me because, whilst I do not have a scientific background, I really enjoy understanding how things work (or break, as the case may be). Similarly, my political risks and trade credit practice is extremely interesting, because it ties in with the political or geopolitical events that shape our time, which is naturally fascinating.

7. What traits do you seek in trainees at your firm?

I think the traits we look for in trainees and junior associates are the same: we look for things like work ownership, attention to detail, being a problem solver, or intellectual rigour. But I think that having a great attitude is the most important trait. Because having a great attitude is something that cannot be taught; you essentially either have it or you don’t. It’s also key because it’s a quality from which a certain number of other qualities will flow: if you have a good attitude, you are significantly more likely to have good work ownership, attention to detail, learn from your mistakes, produce rigorous work, want to go the extra mile etc.