Clifford Chance partners have voted in favour of amending their partnership agreement to allow management to forge ahead with a partnership cull.
Clifford Chance partners have voted in favour of amending their partnership agreement to allow management to forge ahead with a partnership cull.
Firmwide managing partner David Childs had asked for partner approval so he and the management committee can begin dramatically scaling back the firm’s partnership. Last month the firm’s management told partners that it plans to “review the shape and size” of its partnership in the coming months (4 February).
A Clifford Chance spokesperson said: “The proposed review of the size and shape of the Clifford Chance partnership is now underway.
“The aim of the exercise is to ensure the firm has the right structure for achieving its long-term strategic goals as well as for meeting evolving client needs.”
The first stage of the review will see Childs work with the firm’s management committee and office managing partners to identify where cuts are needed. The next stage will identify which partners will be asked to leave.
The entire process is expected to take several months to complete with those affected likely to have left the firm by the end of the year.
At this stage it is not know how many partners will be cut, although both salaried and equity partners will be asked to leave.
The dramatic restructuring is being driven by the firm’s desire to become the world’s top international law firm amid worsening economic conditions, with the aim of maintaining profitability a key consideration.
Alluring shapes
Typical! Just at the most febrile time in the market, Watsons are looking to expand into collateral areas which, quite simply, defy any rational explanation. If there was ever a time to look to the future and batten down the hathes itr is now. But not for Watsons. As usual, on the crest of the curve. Well played you fellows!
Shape and Size
SRA ignoring false information? They ignore true information as well such as firms advertising they are on Personal Injury Panels – when they are not. The failings are a disgrace to the public’s right to justice. They do not cross reference, perhaps they dont have the expertise? But then the LCS are of the same ilk, ignore what they dont like, perhaps it will go away – just like the false information. ITS UP TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE SURE IT WONT GO AWAY – AND A JOURNALIST WHO IS NOT AFRAID! We need clear investigation by the SRA, the LCS and the LSO. Perhaps Lord Hunt will look into it for us all?
Size & Shape
Come on, wake up and smell the coffee! I very rarely leave the office before 6.00pm and have cycled home in the dark if I have to. The point is that we are here to look after our clients. Four days or five what’s the difference!
top international firm?
The reason so many firms are having to cull lawyers, work a 4 day week etc is that the greatest expense faced by a law firm is its salary bill.
Lawyers expect high salaries and don’t like to be rewarded for performance as it creates a risk in a risk-averse profession. But it is that salary expectation that is leading so many lawyers to the exit in the current economic environment – firms cannot afford to have solicitors on high salaries sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
The answer is that the profession as a whole needs to have the confidence to move towards a more performance-based remuneration structure. Using bonuses is one way to do that, but by the time the bonus is calculated it can be a long time since the effort was put in. Getting rid of any performance-related remuneration seems to be a step backwards.