Shift away from guaranteed deals for high-profile lateral hires
Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) is ditching its long-term strategy of hiring prominent partners on guaranteed pay deals in favour of a single remuneration system for all those in the equity.
The firm’s willingness to dig deep for a succession of big-name hires in the past several years is viewed by the market as a cornerstone of its current success.
It is understood that several high-profile names - including real estate lawyers Chris de Pury, Robert MacGregor and James Knox and private equity heavyweight Raymond McKeeve - joined the firm with guaranteed incomes in excess of £1m.
Last month BLP posted a rise in average profit per equity partner (PEP) of 56 per cent, from £455,000 to £712,000, on the back of a turnover rise of 20 per cent (£229m) for the past financial year.
The disparity between the incomes of the firm’s star lawyers and those that have been at BLP for many years is understood to be among the reasons it has overhauled its remuneration structure.
“We’ll be more reluctant going forward to hire people on special deals,” confirmed one BLP partner. “We still will for the right person but the deals are more likely to be linked to performance than they were in the past. It’s a new philosophy and it’s starting now.”
A firm spokesperson said: “Guarantees are not completely off the table but higher profits tend to make them less necessary.”
Asked about the move, one recruitment consultant commented: “This is nothing but semantics. It’s a PR exercise they have to do because the special deals have p*ssed off so many of the other partners.”
Separately, BLP’s astonishing PEP figure has led critics to suggest the increase is the result of a programme of de-equitisations and exits.
One BLP partner told The Lawyer that as part of a realignment of its business, the firm was reassessing its partnership.
“The increase in profitability has involved dealing with partners whose genetic makeup doesn’t fit with the firm’s direction of travel,” said the partner. “Some partners have agreed to step out of the equity, while others have left the firm.”
Readers' comments (9)
Anonymous | 13-Jun-2011 10:50 am
Undoubtedly BLP is a success story but word is there are a lot of unhappy junior equity partners there right now. Winners and losers I suppose ...?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Jun-2011 11:58 am
This is just semantics. If BLP unearthed a magic circle partner with a £4m following they'd snap him up like a shot and pay what they needed to do it. This is just a way of keeping line partners happy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Jun-2011 2:16 pm
Frankly a 56% rise in PEP, especially in the current market, did look a bit too good to be true when it first came out. If, as this article suggests, partners are "stepping out of the equity" then that might help explain such phenomenal results.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Jun-2011 2:19 pm
Sounds a bit mealy mouthed to me. BLP is just a good firm with strong management. If your firm isn't posting 56% rises then tough. Live with it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Push-me-pull-you | 13-Jun-2011 3:12 pm
"...partners whose genetic makeup doesn’t fit with the firm’s direction of travel."
We have an early winner of the Mixed Metaphor of the Week.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dayglo Dave | 13-Jun-2011 5:04 pm
Push-me-pull-you : I knew perfectly well what he/she meant. The departing partners didn't have sufficient lead in their pencils to cut the mustard.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hugey | 14-Jun-2011 12:41 pm
But is there enough cream in their coffee to mix metaphors?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Jun-2011 2:54 pm
Nice quote from SSQ.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Jun-2011 11:55 pm
Obviously the partners who have left didn't quite have the requisite amount of "genetic" BLP*nis...unlike the various shades of git who seem to be running that place at the moment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment