With a month to go before nominations open, several names are already emerging in the Allen & Overy (A&O) leadership race to replace senior partner David Morley and managing partner Wim Dejonghe next year.
Some sources believe corporate chair and financial institutions co-head Richard Cranfield could put himself forward for the senior partner role, having lost out to Morley back in 2008. However, others question whether he will go for the position again remarking he “may have been around too long”.
Cranfield, who joined A&O back in 1985, could be going up against long-serving dipute resolution head Tim House, who is described by one source as a “safe pair of hands”. Both Cranfield and House are expected to stand against Dejonghe, who has been managing partner since 2008, while Morley is set to retire from the position when his term ends.
Another source noted that while House would have support in London, he could find himself up against former Amsterdam head Arnold Croiset van Uchelen who is “quite charismatic and pretty popular in the other offices”. Dejonghe himself is also a former European office head, having managed A&O’s Belgian offices from 1996 to 2008.
Meanwhile banking co-head Stephen Kensell is believed to be throwing his hat in the ring for the managing partner position, with several sources saying he “fits the profile”.
He could run against corporate co-head Andrew Ballheimer, who “may want to do something like that to prolong his management positions”, while other contenders include finance partner John O’Connor and corporate partner Richard Browne.
One source close to the firm said Browne has “effectively been managing partner of the corporate department for a long time and has taken his role very seriously”. The source added he is also “a relatively aggressive manager to ensure the department is run as effectively as possible”.
Other potential contenders for the managing partner role include employment partner Karen Steward, with a source saying she is “a strategic operator, who has turned the employment team around”.
Meanwhile other sources cite banking partner and board member Cathy Bell-Walker as another possible candidate, particularly if she wants “more of a figurehead role”.
Candidates will be able to put themselves forward from mid-December, with the election expected next February. One A&O partner noted “it would be important to consider what combinations would work well” in the election, saying the firm had been “led very well under the pairing of Dejonghe and Morley”.
A&O and all candidates declined to comment.
SURELY one of these roles must go to a woman???? Karen, Cathy it’s your duty to put yourselves forward.
@Anonymous 9:11 am – I second that!
I disagree, if the best people for the roles happen to be male then that’s not a bad thing – it’s just commercial sense.
If woman were looked over in favor of a man even though they are better suited that’s a different matter entirely.
I disagree, if the best people for the roles happen to be male then that’s not a bad thing – it’s just commercial sense.
If woman were looked over in favor of a man even though they are better suited that’s a different matter entirely.
You disagree that females should be on the list? It’s for the partnership to decide who is best suited for the jobs/who they want, but surely it’s not ridiculous to say some female candidates should be in the mix?
@Anonymous 10:56am – what a disappointing view – the diversity issue facing law firms in a nutshell…
I agree with anonymous 10:56am – what would be disappointing if the best candidates would not be elected because they did not fit the gender profile. That is not to say that females should not put themselves forward. It is irrelevant to me whether male or female partners get elected – as long as they can successfully lead the firm through what is going to be a difficult period in the next few years, I am happy. One should not let diversity trump over competence (e.g. if both roles go to females then great – as long as the are the right people for the job).
Whatever the decision, there are tough times ahead.
Anonymous 12:50 – so what you are saying is that firms/white males are not capable of identifying the best commercial candidates in their midst.
@Anonymous 4.58pm – pretty much, yes. Unfortunately the unconscious bias in law firms is so pro-male in terms of leadership ability that female lawyers / partners are simply far less likely to be promoted to leadership positions, even when they’re the best candidates. That’s both because they’re less likely to put themselves forward and because they’re less likely to be appointed when they have put themselves forward (the two are obviously interlinked).
If we look at the top 200 firms in the UK, how many managing and senior partners are women and how many women are there on executive boards? Very, very few as a percentage. Yet this is despite many firms having more female solicitors overall. It simply doesn’t stack up that across all of these firms white men are almost always the best commercial candidates with the best leadership ability.
Both Karen Steward and Cathy Bell-Walker are well respected and highly talented practice leaders as well as lawyers. Bit patronising to make their gender the headline issue in whether or not they should run.
@Anonymous 2.46am It’s a bit difficult not to make their gender a headline issue when the two female “candidates” are lumped together at the end as an afterthought!
@Anonymous 5.43pm Spot on.