SJ Interview: Mark Sansom

Could you walk us through your journey at the firm and how your experiences have shaped your leadership style?

Mark Sansom: I’ve been at Freshfields for 26 years now. I joined as a trainee in August 1999, and I’ve never felt any wish to leave. The firm has always offered room for progression and development, and I’ve enjoyed every bit of it. I’ve been fortunate in that the opportunities just kept presenting themselves, both in terms of the work and the roles I’ve taken on.

Early on, I found myself gravitating towards competition law, which I fell into quite quickly during my time as a trainee. It was clear from the start that this was the area I wanted to focus on. Later in my career, as competition litigation began to take hold in the UK, I worked with some brilliant partners here who were early pioneers in this area. It was a natural fit, and competition litigation became a core part of what I did.

My management responsibilities came about gradually. Jon Lawrence, who led the competition litigation team here at Freshfields, retired in 2017 and moved to the bar. This led to me stepping into the leadership role for our competition litigation team in London. It’s always been important to me to continue practicing fully alongside the management roles I’ve done, which I’ve managed to do. And I’ve kept a full caseload while also taking on more management responsibilities. I think this balance works well for me, and it certainly helps to have a very strong team around me to support both the leadership and the client-facing roles.

Over the years, you’ve worked on some significant competition cases, including the Merricks v Mastercard case for Mastercard and the BritNed case for ABB. Could you tell us more about these cases and how you’ve navigated such high-profile, high-stakes litigation?

Mark Sansom: We’ve been very fortunate here at Freshfields to have one of the leading teams in competition litigation – I would say, and I think many would agree, the leading defence-side practice. iIt’s certainly the case that we’ve handled some of the most significant cases in the field. I’ve been fortunate to be involved in a number of them over the years, starting with the EWS case, which was one of the first abuse of dominance competition damages claims in the UK. We represented the defendants in that case, and it resulted in a complete victory with zero damages, which was a great outcome for the client (and the right one on the facts).  That case and the Court of Appeal judgments that flowed from it are still often cited as leading authorities. 

Then there’s the BritNed case that you mentioned. We worked with ABB on several cases, and that one was a major success, again securing the right result, and again resulting in authorities, including from the Court of Appeal, that have often been cited in later cases. More recently, the  Gemalto v Infineon case was an important one, in which we secured a complete victory for Infineon on limitation grounds against a half billion Euro damages claim, and the appeal court upheld the decision, which was a great result and 100 per cent the right outcome on the facts. Of course, there’s also the very recent Merricks v Mastercard case you also mentioned, which is probably the biggest of all, as that claim was the largest civil damages claim ever filed in the UK, for over £16 billion, the largest opt-out collective proceedings brought in terms of the number of represented class members, at over 44 million, and also a very long-running claim that we defended for nearly 9 years. The case is significant not only because of the size of the claim but also because it has set the legal tests on some critical issues for collective proceedings in the UK generally, including through the judgment of the Supreme Court on the certification test for UK competition class actions, as well as recently leading to the first major collective settlement judgment following the first contested collective settlement procedure.

The common thread in all of these cases and the results we have managed to achieve is the approach we take. We have a very collaborative, unhierarchical culture at Freshfields. Every member of the team, regardless of seniority, plays a vital role, and that’s reflected in our successes. Our clients also appreciate this. It was really meaningful to us, for example, that Mastercard praised our team for the diversity of thought we bring to the table. Each member of our team adds something unique, and that’s a big part of why we’re able to win in these complex cases. We also make sure to work very closely with our counsel team and the economists involved in these cases, who are really essential for these competition matters. It’s a full, multi-disciplinary team effort, there are no short-cuts if you want to prevail, and I think recognising that and setting ourselves up to operate accordingly, holding ourselves to the highest of standards, has been really important for our success.

It’s clear that collaboration is a central theme in your leadership approach. Do you think teamwork is one of the key lessons you’ve learned throughout your career?

Mark Sansom: Absolutely. The more experience I gain, and if I’ve learnt anything at all about leadership along the way, the more I realise that it is about empowering the people around you. It’s not about trying to be the one in the spotlight or making every decision. It’s about creating an environment where the people around you can thrive and the decisions are collective ones that people buy into because they reflect all of your collective input. When you do that, you multiply the collective ability of your team. The most successful teams are the ones where everyone has agency, where their input is valued, and where there’s a sense of ownership over the work being done.

On top of that, it’s also important to be transparent. Everyone needs to be aligned with the larger strategy. That’s especially important in high-profile cases, where there’s often a lot of pressure. The more you can make people feel like they’re part of a unified effort, the better the results will be. That’s how we try to approach things, anyway, and I do think it’s been a major part of our success here at Freshfields.

You are also quite well-known for your involvement outside of the law in motorsport, as a racing driver doing international championships with the likes of McLaren. How has racing informed the way you approach your work at Freshfields?

Mark Sansom: Motorsport has taught me a lot, not just about personal commitment and self-evaluation, but especially about teamwork and feedback. In high-level motorsport, after every session on the track, there’s a debrief where every team member—the strategists, the engineers, the drivers, the mechanics, the pit crew—gets to share their perspective on how the session or race went. The goal is to understand what worked, what didn’t, and how to improve for the next session. There’s no blame, just a neutral, analytical discussion focused on understanding any issues, assessing the data, and problem-solving. That mindset is something I’ve tried to bring into my work here at Freshfields.

In the same way that a motorsport team works together to improve performance, we approach our cases with the same mentality. When something goes less than perfectly, we don’t point fingers; instead, we focus on understanding what happened and how we can fix it by putting in place a process so that it doesn’t happen again, or the chances of a recurrence are reduced. This helps to create a culture of constant self-improvement, and it also ensures that people feel comfortable sharing their ideas and learning from each other. It’s about getting better, together. No-one would even be in that team if they weren’t excellent and they are all trusted, dedicated professionals. So it’s just about how we support each other to get the best out of one another.  I think that’s one of the things I’ve taken most from motorsport, and it’s something I try to apply in my leadership style.

Turning to the broader issue of work-life balance, which has become a much-discussed topic, particularly after the pandemic. How do you view the balance between work and personal life, especially in such a demanding profession?

Mark Sansom: Work-life balance is crucial, and I think people have become much more aware of that in recent years. Working in a high-performance environment like a major law firm can be incredibly demanding, but it’s important to have other interests outside of work. Whether it’s family, sports, or other hobbies, having diverse interests allows you to recharge and bring a fresh perspective to your work. I know motorsport has been a huge outlet for me, and I believe it’s important for people to find what helps them balance the pressures of work.

I also think that people are learning to manage their time better. The pandemic showed us that remote working is not only possible but actually, in balance, beneficial. But there’s still a strong desire for in-person collaboration. At Freshfields, we’ve adopted a flexible approach, allowing people to work remotely part of the week while also valuing the time spent together in the office. This balance has worked well, especially for younger lawyers who benefit from the mentoring that happens naturally in the office environment.

Shifting towards litigation trends, particularly in the UK, you mentioned that collective and class actions, like the Mastercard case, are on the rise. How do you see these developments affecting the legal landscape in the coming years?

Mark Sansom: Collective and class actions are definitely one of the most significant trends we’ve seen in the UK in recent years. The UK now has a system that allows for opt-out class actions for competition damages claims, similar to what we see in North America. This has opened the door to large-scale claims that simply wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Other forms of mass claim are also being tested by claimant firms and litigation funders. These cases are transforming the litigation landscape and will likely continue to do so.

But with this shift comes the challenge of ensuring that the system remains fair for all stakeholders. The goal should be to allow meritorious claims to proceed to a fair trial while preventing unmeritorious claims from clogging up the court system and costing defendants millions just to get them to the off-ramp. This is an area where the legal system is still finding the right equilibrium – these developments are all relatively recent still - and we’ll likely see more changes in the coming years, for example following the recent Civil Justice Council report on litigation funding. It’s an exciting time, but also a challenging one for both claimants and defendants.

Balancing these competing interests seems tricky. How do you manage the procedural demands of collective proceedings while also addressing clients’ reputational and commercial concerns?

Mark Sansom: That’s a great question. The procedural system in these cases is still evolving, and while the goal is to filter out unmeritorious claims early, the reality is that some cases can drag on for years before reaching a conclusion. This is particularly difficult for defendants, who can rack up significant costs defending themselves, even if they ultimately win the case. It can be hard to manage clients’ expectations, especially when they’re facing the media scrutiny and reputational risks that come with high-profile cases.

It’s important to maintain a robust, fair system that allows sound cases to go forward but also protects businesses from unnecessary delays or frivolous claims. It’s a delicate balance, and one that the courts and tribunals are actively working to refine.  North American jurisdictions have had many decades to work on this and it is still work in progress; in contrast, our collective redress mechanisms are still relatively young, so we have to recognise that it will take time for a canon of case law to be built up that will allow the system to find a predictable equilibrium.  We need patience. 

Looking ahead, what do you see as the major challenges and opportunities for Freshfields and the legal profession over the next five to ten years?

Mark Sansom: Over the next few years, certainly one of the biggest macro challenges for this jurisdiction will be adapting to the rapidly changing global legal market. We’re already seeing more competition from other jurisdictions, for example the Netherlands, which is positioning itself as a hub for English-language commercial litigation. The English, and wider UK, legal system has been one of the most trusted in the world, but we can’t afford to be complacent. We need to continue investing in our courts and legal infrastructure to remain competitive on the global stage.

Another major challenge for the legal profession, and law firms in particular, will of course be the rise of AI and technology. These advancements offer incredible opportunities to increase efficiency and improve service delivery, but they also require us to rethink how we operate. It’s an exciting time, but it will also require a shift in how we train and develop future generations of lawyers – as reflected in our recent announcement about funding some of our future trainees to study for an LLM in legal technology at King’s College, London: as someone amusingly said, it’s an LL.M in LLMs! We are  very optimistic about the potential of AI to empower young lawyers and enhance the profession as a whole.

There are probably more macro uncertainties now that at any time in recent decades, given macro shifts in the economy, the advent of AI, instability in global trade, and ongoing wars in several regions, all of which affect trade flows and the demand for legal services in different ways.  The legal profession is changing rapidly in the face of all of those factors, and I have to do my bit to help ensure that Freshfields is well-positioned to adapt and thrive in this evolving landscape.

Copyright & permissions