Linklaters to re-run managing partner vote after Davies fails to win backing
Linklaters is taking its firmwide managing partner election to its annual partnership conference after incumbent Simon Davies failed to obtain enough votes for re-election.
Simon Davies
Davies has not received the 75 per cent of the vote required for re-election to the global chief position, despite being the only candidate standing (12 January 2012).
The opposition is understood to be related to the wholesale restructuring of the partnership, in which a sizeable proportion of partners have been asked to leave (8 December 2011). Even partners with a high level of seniority have not been immune to the cull (16 January 2012).
One source claimed there had been an attempt to oust Davies, despite the fact that no one stood against him.
The managing partner is appointed by the international board, which is chaired by senior partner Robert Elliott.
The international board consults partners to sound them out on potential candidates, but it is understood that no names emerged as contenders to Davies. Partners are then invited to vote in a poll to confirm the choice in an electronic vote.
This vote is understood to have opened just before Christmas, but has not produced the requisite 75 per cent majority for Davies. The result was initially expected to be announced this month.
A spokesperson for Linklaters said: “We’re still in the process of implementing our firmwide managing partner appointment, which is expected to be completed at the firm’s annual partners’ meeting in April. We don’t comment on internal partnership processes until they’re complete and we have something to announce.”
Readers' comments (9)
True partnership | 17-Feb-2012 11:15 am
This guy should be booted out. Which kind of firm does he want to create? One were partners are consistently in fear of being sacked so that those remaining can make an extra 50K?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lord Denning | 17-Feb-2012 12:08 pm
It looks like he's already on the way out!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 1:20 pm
So if he does now secure the vote on the second time around what will that mean for the management of the firm if it doesn't have the mandate to carry out the basics?
This is a recession and you need strong management, a divided partnership will not get a strong management. What Links needs and lacks is a management that can bring people together.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 1:29 pm
Linklaters does have the reputation for being the harshest of the magic circle. Not surprising really.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 2:21 pm
Can Robert Elliott not put himself forward for the role then?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 2:29 pm
Davies should just get rid of a few more partners - there'll soon be so few left it'll be much easier for him to get a 75% approval rating ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 3:04 pm
This is quite extraordinary - given the innate conservatism of most partners (many of whom vote Yes to any proposal from management) this amounts to a real rejection of the candidate and the course which he has taken the firm. Is this an Arab Spring moment when the owners of the business reclaim control of the partnership? I suspect sadly not - still, there is time for a Hesltine challenger to emerge ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 3:37 pm
Truth is, the firm isn't growing. Only way to make new partners and retain MA's is to get rid of bottom 20%. Model is not unusual....it is up or out applied all the way. In some way it is a great model, at least it give severly under paid associates chance to make their millions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 4:38 pm
@ Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 3:37 pm - 20%+ of London-based associates are likely to be cut too so I doubt they are crowing too much.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment