Mayer Brown promotes a bumper crop to partner” />Mayer Brown has made up a bumper crop of 10 new partners in London, more than the firm has made in total during the last three years.
Between 2004 and 2007 the firm made up a total of eight associates in the City, two last year, six the year before an none in 2004.
The firm’s global vice chairman Paul Maher said: “The number of promotions globally and the breadth of practices that they represent demonstrate Mayer Brown’s clear intention to grow the practice, both through hiring high profile laterals and also organically.”
The firm made up 16 partners across its European offices (including London) and 43 worldwide. This is a big boost on the 34 that were promoted last year and 33 the year before.
The corporate practice has been the greatest beneficiary of the promotions, gaining a total of six new partners. Two of the six – David Bates and Stephen Beales – are based in London with one apiece in Paris and Cologne and a further two in Frankfurt.
The insurance and reinsurance practice has gained two partners, both of whom are based in London. They are Wendy Allen-Rodney and Lindsay McQuillian.
In the London finance practice Stephen Day and Rachel Speight have been made up while Bernadette Daley has been promoted in employment, Sandy Bhogal in tax, Stuart Pickford in litigation and Ian Wright in pensions.
Other European promotions include a tax partner in Paris and an IP partner in Frankfurt. All 16 will take up their new posts at the beginning of January.
To read Monday’s Lawyer News Daily and more readers’ comments on this topic, click here.
Making up or down?
Mayer Brown has made up 43 partners this year, but they’re actually down more than that number for the year as they have actually lost more than 90 partners since the last round of promotions (some involuntarily, most not). The failure to get salaried partners through to equity has also meant a further bolt for the door with a number of partners resigning recently and (according to recruiters) many looking to leave. London had until recently been spared the mass defections blighting the firm globally, but even that has now changed with partners even resigning from the firm leading corporate group. Driving all of this (amongst other reasons) is the push to rebalance equity and salaried partners (to artificially inflate PEP) and the relatively poor salaries paid to FSP’s (who earn a little more than senior associates). Indeed, the firm mistakenly released a memo last week noting that the management committee has decided to ensure that salaried partners remain salaried for 5 years, rather than the previously stated 3.
Mayer Brown promotions
I agree with comment 1 and would add that the leverage and staff retention ratios in Mayer Brown London must be of major concern. The firm has leaked a large number of expensively trained lawyers in the last three years to major opposition. They have to ask themselves why. The answers are tough ones: leadership, values and work life balance are amongst the foremost.
Mayer Brown ratios
Ratios are a real issue, not least in the corporate group where there are (despite recent resignations) as many partners as associates. However, internally, salaried partners are basically treated (for PEP and management purposes) as senior associates, so the firm is probably not that upset about the perceived imbalance. The salaried partners probably aren’t that happy about it…
join the club
Nice to see other firms having difficulty coming to grips with the PEP accounting issue (based on the non-equity gripes below).
work life balance?
How many people expect to have work life balance and partnership? Or was the comment below directed at assistant retention? Either way, this doesn’t seem to be a goal for any firm, let alone a US sweatshop like Mayer Brown.
3 more years
Actually, the memo below said 6 NOT 5 years
FSPs heading for the door
Mayer Brown does seem to have a problem – I hear many of the FSPs are feeling their contributions are not valued (at least internally) and are heading for the door. It seems a shame to bring in expensive laterals and lose home-grown talent.
Mayer Brown’s PEP
The PEP game you say they are playing should be easy to look through as is with others. The London bit is an LLP and must file accounts showing the true accounting profit (A). If you then look at the members names reigstered at Companies House you should find all the partners (B). Divide A by B and hold your breath to see if PEP or true PPP is remotely like they tell you it is!
LLP accounts not always the answer
LLP accounts can also be fudged. For example, MB books receipts by way of profits from the US associated firm that are paid to local partners as profits of the LLP, even though they are earnt in the US. Also, some LLP’s use cash accounting, which can be fudged by timing differences. WIP can also be manipulated by artificially bringing it forward. What will be very interesting is if US LLPs that operate in the UK are made to publicly announce results, although that won’t apply to DLA or MB as they operate separate partnerships and profit centres in the US and UK.