Bevan Brittan to vote on shake-up as PEP drops
Share
Restructure plan to move chief exec Whitfield to client-facing role; non-lawyer slated to take over
Bevan Brittan is considering plans to vote chief executive Stuart Whitfield out of his role as part of a management restructure aimed at pepping up falling profit.
Whitfield’s ;position as chief executive could be in doubt after a four-partner committee, tasked by the partnership with coming up with a restructuring plan, suggested he be replaced.
The committee proposed that non-lawyer and chief operating officer (COO) Andrew Manning takes over as chief executive while Whitfield would move into a client-facing role in the commercial practice and become senior partner.
Voting is ongoing and is expected to conclude at the beginning of August.
The drastic measures have come after the firm’s net profit dropped by 36.5 per cent to £6.1m in the 2007-08 financial year, down from £9.6m the previous year. Average profit per equity partner has plummeted by £54,000, from £234,000 to £180,000 – a slide of 23 per cent – despite the equity partner headcount dropping from 41 to 33 in the past year.
Bevan Brittan commercial development ;director Sally Calverley said: “We’ve identified a need to increase profit, so having a person who is both internally and externally focused is not felt to be the right way forward.”
The ultimate aim of the proposed restructure is to increase net profit by 37 per cent in the next 12 months. The target for the end of the year is £8.4m – 12.5 per cent lower than the £9.6m posted at the end of 2006-07.
In addition to Whitfield, 13 management partners and 18 sector heads face losing their responsibilities. The proposals recommend having just four sector heads as the firm targets business in its core areas of health, local government, private sector and corporate.
Bevan Brittan has also recently ;completed ;a redundancy consultation that will see six fee-earners and around 24 support staff leave the firm.
Read today’s leader for more on this story.
Readers' comments (5)
Anon. | 21-Jul-2008 3:35 pm
So what?
Whitfield is potentially being ousted because the firm isn't making much money, but only in the law is that unusual. The only real difference here is that in other big businesses, failed bosses don't normally get to take another position in the company after they are de-throned.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Jul-2008 3:44 pm
yep
I'd go with the previous statement ('so what?'). Whitfield's post isn't even that of a managing partner, he is a 'chief exec' - if he wants a corporate-type role, he should take a corporate-type demotion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City partner | 21-Jul-2008 3:50 pm
Who should be in charge?
I have some sympathy with Mr Whitfield. As a non-management partner, personally I'd hate to give up my role on the deal coal face for what Slaughter and May's Nigel Boardman described years ago as 'counting paper clips'. Yet law firms need management, and it is perhaps a bit tough that Mr Whitfield is taking the heat for the partnership's collective failure when other members have avoided blame simply by simply not stepping forward to help manage the firm.
If Whitfield's role was a contested one then this consideration does not apply, but only if.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Jul-2008 10:24 am
No surprises...
Unfortunately all partners need to take a degree of responsibility but all exist in a fear culture that they too will be ousted from BB if they say anything against the firm.
A very high number of partners are caught in lockstep and are desperate to get out of a failing firm. Anyone out there looking to merge would at least get a lovely state of the art office in Bristol! Please send in your offers now... starting bid £1...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Puzzled | 22-Jul-2008 12:35 pm
About time
It's only right that the buck stops with Whitfield. As CEO for 5 years he had complete control of all appointments and an enormous say in all business decisions, including the remuneration of partners.
The interesting thing is that the Bevan Brittan partners are intending to retain what has now to be seen as a lame duck; initially as Senior Partner and then as a fee earner - I would have thought that they would be keen to get him out of the business, given: the reputation that flows from his forcible removal, his lack of following and his out of date legal skills.
If Whitfield himself was still in charge then I wouldn't bet on him being with Bevan Brittan for long.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment