Cobbetts
UK 200 RESULTS 2010
Movement since 2009
Turnover (£M):
Profit per equity partner (£K):
Earnings per partner (£K):
Equity spread (£K):
Net profit (£M):
Profit margin (%):
Revenue per fee-earner (£K):
Revenue per lawyer (£K):
Revenue per partner (£K):
Revenue per equity partner (£K):
Total number of fee-earners:
Total number of qualified lawyers:
Total number of partners:
Total number of equity partners:
Total number of female partners:
Total number of female equity partners:
Total number of staff:
Leverage ratio (fee-earners per equity partner):
DOWN
43.8
132
125.3
100-250
4.1
9
129.6
187.2
527.7
1,412.9
338
234
83
31
12
4
588
6.55
Cobbetts, which has a two-tier partnership, reported the same profit figure (£10.4m) for total remuneration to all classes of partner as net profit (remuneration to full equity partners only) for the 2009-10 financial year.
Income fell by 10 per cent, from £48.5m in 2008-09 to £43.8m in 2009-10. We have estimated net profit to be £4.1m, giving an average profit per equity partner of £132,000. According to filings with Companies House, the highest-paid member in 2008-09 took home £257,000. We estimate that this did not materially increase for 2009-10.
The firm operates a modified lockstep. It has 31 full equity partners, known as variable equity partners, with points allocated by a remuneration committee, and 52 fixed-share, or assured equity, partners, for whom 10 per cent of remuneration is contingent upon the firm hitting budget.
In contrast to 2008-09, Cobbetts did supply a headcount figure and a breakdown of practice income figures for the 2009-10 financial year.
On average it had 20 per cent fewer staff, 9 per cent fewer
fee-earners, 13 per cent fewer lawyers, 11 per cent fewer partners and 11 per cent more equity partners during the 2009-10 financial year than it did at the 2007-08 year-end – the last financial year for which the firm supplied such data.
Since 2008 fee income for the corporate practice fell by 24 per cent, from £21.4m to £16.2m; litigation increased by 34 per cent, from £9.5m to £12.7m; property dropped by 52 per cent, from £22m to £10.5m; and finance decreased by 57 per cent, from £4.2m to £1.8m.
Cobbetts established Cobbetts International along a Swiss Verein basis to target opportunities in the Middle East and North Africa region.
UK 200 RESULTS 2009
Movement since 2008
Turnover (£M):
Profit per equity partner (£K):
Earnings per partner (£K):
Equity spread (£K):
Net profit (£M):
Profit margin (%):
Revenue per fee-earner (£K):
Revenue per lawyer (£K):
Revenue per partner (£K):
Revenue per equity partner (£K):
Total number of fee-earners:
Total number of qualified lawyers:
Total number of partners:
Total number of equity partners:
Total number of female partners:
Total number of female equity partners:
Total number of staff:
Leverage ratio (fee-earners per equity partner):
DOWN
48.5
0
0.0
0 - 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cobbetts posted an 18 per cent drop in turnover for the 2008-09 financial year to £48.5m, but that was all it was prepared to reveal.
Cobbetts clammed up this year, preferring to wait until its much-anticipated LLP accounts are filed (early next year at the latest) before discussing its finances.
Consequently, all of the financial data and indeed the headcount information were estimated this year and put to the firm for comment.
Numerous sources suggested to The Lawyer that Cobbetts had a tough time last year and even made a loss. The firm’s profit margin in 2007-08 was just 14 per cent. For it to have made any profit at all in 2008-09 it would have had to implement considerable cost-saving measures.
The firm did make 10 per cent of its workforce redundant during 2008-09, but its high fixed costs – notably property – suggest that this may not have been enough to keep it in the black.
Managing partner Michael Shaw refused to comment on financial data presented to him in the summer.
NEWS
FEATURES
Judgment call: 6 February 2012
For the purposes of service out of the jurisdiction, where a claim was made under or pursuant to a contract, that was the contract “in respect of” which it had to be shown, to the standard of a good arguable case, that it existed and that one of the requirements of CPR PD 6B para.3.1(6) had been met.
