Ashurst moves towards greater alignment in Oz but denies partner cuts
1 February 2013 | By Joshua Freedman
Related Articles
Ashurst plans more Oz transfers as Korea launch put on shelf
25 March 2013
Ashurst axes partners from super-plateau after six years of grace
7 May 2013
The great Aussie merger mystery
3 September 2012
Ashurst seeks partner cash injection after Australian merger
10 September 2012
Ashurst chief faces comedy 'roast' at partnership conference
8 March 2013
Related Firms
Ashurst’s Australia managing partner John Carrington has maintained that the firm’s partner headcount will not change “in any substantial way” as he deflects reports of a major partnership cull in the jurisdiction.
Carrington declined to comment specifically on claims that the firm was planning to cut up to 50 equity partners in Australia but said the number of equity partners would “ebb and flow”.
His reaction follows a report in The Australian Financial Review that over the next month Carrington would likely inform between 20 and 50 local equity partners that they were being asked to leave or de-equitised.
He told The Lawyer this morning (1 February): “We are committed to being a full-service firm in the sense of the services we offer. We wish to remain a leading domestic law firm. People will come and go for a variety of different reasons. We don’t see that the overall number of partners is going to change in any substantial way.”
He said 2012 had been a difficult year, leading to “adjustments”. In December it emerged the firm was cutting jobs in Australia amid difficult market conditions (13 December 2012).
Carrington said: “Like a lot of firms we made some adjustments, but nothing particularly substantial. Indeed, other Australian businesses have done that.”
The firm is currently in an interim period between non-financial tie-up going live last year and the planned vote on a full financial merger in early 2014.
A partner cull Down Under has been viewed as a likely exercise to bring the Australian business in line with Ashurst’s UK arm amid other moves to integrate the firms financially.
When originally announcing the tie-up in September 2011, Ashurst senior partner Charlie Geffen said no “reshaping” of Blakes was necessary as the deal would increase revenue for the Australian offices. However, comparable average profit per equity (PEP) was a condition of the full merger all along (26 September 2011).
Blakes’ PEP was within 10 per cent of Ashurst’s at the time, Geffen said in September 2011. The gap is now smaller, Carrington said.
Australian domestic firm Blake Dawson switched from an all-equity partnership roughly three years ago prior to its 2012 tie-up with Ashurst.
Carrington said: “We changed our process over three years ago, before we announced the merger, and we had a decline the number of equity partners and an increase in the number of what we call fixed-income partners.”
The decision was taken because it was “increasingly difficult to bring in younger partners”, he said.
He added: “The ratio between fixed-income partners and equity partners will ebb and flow. We’re managing our business in accordance with our local market,” adding that legacy Blakes’ revenue was only marginally down on this time last year. At the moment it’s a far more optimistic outlook in Australia than 15 months ago.”
The firm said it has 190 partners and 800 lawyers in Australia. It has a total of 132 equity partners and 57 salaried partners across Australia and the legacy Blakes arm in Asia, which combined with Ashurst’s Asian business last year, according to The Australian Financial Review.
The firm has appointed a team of partners to work on financial alignment, which will report back to colleagues at the annual partner retreat taking place in Paris at the end of this month.
In another alignment exercise, the UK arm revamped its capital structure by asking partners to put capital into the firm up front for the first time. Blakes partners already invested in the firm in this way, but Ashurst partners’ previously saw a proportion of profits held back instead (10 September 2012).
Separately, Carrington confirmed other planned alignment measures such as an integrated practice leadership setup and client list.
He said: “We’re moving towards a global management structure, we’re doing a large number of joint pitches together, we have a global integrated client list, we’re looking at secondments of lawyers and secondments of staff. At the initial stage we’re setting up a structure that will include our corporate teams, our banking teams to work together. We’re looking at ways we get the teams to work together pre-financial integration.”
Partners of the legacy Ashurst LLP will also find out later this month where they sit on this year’s lockstep, which in previous years has seen partners’ positions on the pay ladder shaken up.
In 2011 17 partners were move to a lower rung in a major restructuring (8 August 2011), while last year a smaller number of partners are understood to have been affected.


Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:14 pm
As an Ashurst Australia employee, I can tell you the morale amongst the legal staff at the moment is pretty low. From the start, people have been perplexed why we are tying up with a third tier UK firm. We (and I assume clients, peers, prospective employees etc) have had to try to reconcile being (/being associated with) a top-tier firm with a mid-tier brand. I don’t question the quality of legal talent here, but there is a lot in brand and one wonders how long the status quo will subsist, particularly when you hear of the likes of A&O, Clifford Chance, Jones Day etc doubling in size in their first few years in AU. We are told the vision is to be one of a handful of “elite global firms” but how is this possible when the apparent strategy is to use a brand with a patchy reputation as springboard to “elite” status, all the while as top legal talent trickles out the door?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:14 pm
I'm not sure how one can claim that Blakes is a top tier firm and Ashurst is third tier while the PEP of the former is actually lower. While A&O, CC and Jones Day etc may have doubled in the first few years, those firm did not merge with an existing giant but grew with lateral hires. If you look at Ashurst in other Asian cities you will perhaps see that the growth is surely more than a double.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:14 pm
Email above from anonymous 1 is hilarious. Overall turnover of Blakes and number of offices and reach and almost no capacity to do English law work, without merger firm - they - would have disappeared or reduced its PEP further.
Partner's will definitely be culled. There is too mcuh excess fat and Australian firms have too many practice groups that are not very profitable. MC and SC firms in UK are managed to only do most profitable work. No one is interested in doing single jurisdiction deals.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:15 pm
As someone who does not work at either Blakes or Ashurst, but rather a major consumer of legal resources on a global scale, I never understood this deal. Blakes was probably number 4 or 5 in Aust market - Ashurst very much third tier in the UK but most importantly in Asia they are a complete nobody of a firm - why Blakes would tie up with a firm that gives it no real market winning presence in Asia and throw away its name before a real deal is done is beyond me .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:15 pm
Since when have Australian summer clerks (i.e., Anonymous | 1-Feb-2013 4:45 pm) been allowed to post comments to The Lawyer website?
For the record, lawyers at all major corporate and commercial law firms are, or at least should be, ashamed to tell people where they work. Embrace the shame and revel in it, or otherwise go in-house!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:15 pm
The first comment above appeared to be a sensible analysis ending in a poignant lament. It is such a pity when stable firms which help people grow as practising lawyers are sacrificed on the alter of PEP.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:16 pm
While Ashurst London is claimed to be chasing the magic circle, I agree with the first commentator that the firm's global image is definitely third tier.
With the exception of Paris, the offices in continental Europe are performing weak and cannot really attract top legal talent. The firm's image in the US and the development and performance of its offices in New York and D.C. are disastrous.
Ashurst is lightyears away from an "elite global firm" unless they sneak in through the backdoor by merging with a strong US player. I keep my fingers crossed for my friends at Blakes that Ashurst will not pull the exit option if a US merger comes in sight.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2013 6:16 pm
where is firmspy when you need it!
i am an ashurst australia employee, completely agree with the first comment. embarrassing!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment