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 3:48 pm

    "announced exits and upcoming exits", eh? Who's leaving now?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon | 12-Mar-2012 3:48 pm

    Ashurst needs a number of further large mergers, and a drastic overhaul of its bloated partnership, in order to remain a credible force.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-Mar-2012 4:42 pm

    Seems that a lot of the dead wood has already been cut out.
    Given the amount that top of equity are paid, surely expecting high standards is a given?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • game on | 12-Mar-2012 5:41 pm

    it is called snakes and ladders ...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chief Anger Elf | 12-Mar-2012 9:33 pm

    "We've always had a managed lockstep"...mmm, not sure about that....

    "Voting" (ever seen sheep vote?) in March 2012 for remuneration period ending April 2012...mmm.....

    "No one guaranteed to stay on 65 points"....mmm, reckon I'll be ok tho!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ex-Ashurst | 13-Mar-2012 8:38 am

    It is disasterous PR given the spate of Partner exits over the last two years. Ashurst used to be a quality, prestigious firm in the market place. Since the change of leadership to Geffin the firm has become corporate in its focus and this new approach has destroyed a very collegiate firm not only at partner level but also at the lower ranks. Its a great shame and one that I find suprising nobody is willing to fight to change - the beginning of the end? I do not think so however I would think twice about joining this firm now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 14-Mar-2012 1:23 pm

    Clearly a partnership fraught with power play,realityvests
    a once great firm brought down by internal politics,,,will crash out in international expansion

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 14-Mar-2012 1:33 pm

    What - is no trainee going to pretend to be a General Counsel of a major client and post a comment expressing concern about this? Traditions on these comment boards are starting to founder...

    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