Clifford Chance faces law suit from redundant German partners
Share
Two former Clifford Chance Germany partners have accused the firm of unfair dismissal in the wake of its global partnership restructuring.
The Dusseldorf-based partners have filed claims of unfair dismissal against the magic circle firm. The claim centres on the fact that the duo were not equity partners.
The pair claim that as non-equity partners they are considered employees rather than shareholders of Clifford Chance, which would grant them additional protection under German employment laws.
A statement issued by the firm said: “The claim relates to two of our German salaried partners who were asked to leave the firm as a result of our partnership restructure.
“We believe the case to have no merit whatsoever and will be defending our position accordingly.”
Earlier this year The Lawyer reported on Clifford Chance managing partner David Childs announcing a review of the firm’s partnership (4 February 2009).
The global restructuring has seen the partnership decrease in size by approximately 15 per cent.
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 24-Aug-2009 9:48 am
I hope that this puts an end to UK and US firms treating people like dirt and machines that they can squeeze until they are out of juices.... neo-kolonialism it is called and guess what... the majorityb of the world does not like it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Batman | 24-Aug-2009 5:35 pm
There are plenty of indigenous firms in Europa which are trimmed for profit; try being an underperforming partner at Gide, Hengeler, Bonelli, Uria....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Aug-2009 8:23 pm
This isn't going to put an end to law firms, international or not, trying to be as efficient as possible. There's nothing new about it and there's nothing inherently neo-kolonial or neo-colonial about it (as the previous comment illustrates).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Aug-2009 5:10 pm
The firm is for sure in a precarious state. It will survive but without a doubt in a significantly weakened capacity.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment