Acumen+giving+you+the+edge

Ashurst issues ultimatum to plateau partners

12 March 2012 | By Joshua Freedman

  • Print
  • Comments (18)

Related Articles

Ashurst management has given partners at the top of equity a warning to keep up their game if they want to stay at that level of the lockstep.

Remuneration committee head Nigel Ward sent partners an e-mail stressing that members on 65 equity points, the top of the ladder, had to conform to the high standards of performance expected of members of that level and that no one was guaranteed to stay there.

It is understood that no partners have ever been moved down from the 65-point plateau since it was introduced in 2008, with the number of equity partners at that level nearly trebling last year as part of a lockstep overhaul that also saw 17 partners moved down the ladder (8 August 2011).

An Ashurst spokesperson said: “We’ve always had a managed lockstep. We clearly expect the highest performance from all of our partners and although we always aim to achieve more, the benchmark against which this is set hasn’t changed.”

The note, sent on 1 March, comes alongside the firm informing partners of their position on the firm’s lockstep. Partners have been told where they stand, but the list of partners’ lockstep positions, open for all members to see, is set to be circulated shortly before the partnership votes on it.

Partner remuneration at Ashurst is officially decided by the remuneration committee, which carried out a review of the lockstep in 2008 (31 March 2008).

The lockstep has nine levels, running from 25 to 65 points. The firm introduced a modified lockstep in 2007,  allowing partners to be moved up or down, after previously operating a pure ladder where remuneration was determined by seniority alone.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (18)

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 9:44 am

    Where does it end?
    You climb the greasy pole. Then you're told there is an new, even more greasy pole above that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 10:19 am

    This firm keeps getting such bad press. It is off-putting.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 11:29 am

    how the mighty are starting to fall - tough at the top chaps ! That firm once had a great name .... once ....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 12:06 pm

    I don't work at Ashurst but not sure I understand how commentators can cite this article as evidence that "the mighty are starting to fall" and of "bad press"...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 12:07 pm

    @10:19am - you can slack off and take a break when you're dead.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 12:44 pm

    What's the problem here? Of course plateau partners should keep their game up and its worth reminding them, especially if lower level partners are constantly reminded about their profitability and requirements to progress up the ladder. Where is the business sense in distributing maximum level of profits to someone who is not bringing in the money (or running the firm)?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon | 12-Mar-2012 1:28 pm

    Hardly a surprise, few firms have as much dead wood at the top of the partnership as Ashurst.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • j | 12-Mar-2012 1:41 pm

    anonymous at 12:44 - couldn't agree more, well said.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 1:59 pm

    It is bad press because someone senior must have leaked the email to the legal press- which reveals a divided partnership. And that is never great.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 2:45 pm

    there is clearly pressure at all levels here and the number of announced exits and upcoming exits illustrate this well - this was once a firm dominant in many of the upper mid\large transactions - now one rarely hears their name mentioned .... and as for any strategy on expansion - I see none

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

  • Print
  • Comments (18)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed