Mayer Brown has suffered two more departures from its London office with a corporate partner and an environment partner both choosing to leave the firm.
Paul Maher
The news comes just a few weeks after the firm’s former vice chairman Paul Maher resigned from Mayer Brown after taking a leave of absence to consider his options (19 May).
Fiona Adams, who has been a partner in the corporate team since 2000, has now also left the firm along with environmental partner Cate Sharp. It is not yet clear where the partners are moving to.
Maher’s decision to leave the firm came after Mayer Brown overhauled its governance structure, electing partner Bert Krueger as global chairman.
The firm has replaced its 17-member committee with a six-partner management committee and a 12-strong partner committee.
Last week The Lawyer reported on Mayer Brown completing the appointments to the partnership board (28 May).
London partners Ian Coles and Jeremy Clay both have places on the newly-created board.
This comes as no surprise to anyone who works at the firm. The only question is, who is next and how many associates will they take with them?
These two partners have been working close by Paul for a significant period of time and so their departure can only be put down to two possibilities: either they’ve decided to follow Paul Maher in the direction he has chosen to pursue or they’re outraged with regard to how Paul has been ousted; probably a combination of both but there’s certainly no question where their loyalty lies.
Having worked in business at a relatively high level for a substantial period of time I acknowledge why a great deal of emphasis is normally put into keeping a brand strong. A strong brand, put bluntly suggests a strong, stable business; qualities that keep clients and the market content. How then can a law firm of Mayer Browns stature afford to handle a high profile issue in such an unprofessional way? Speaking from an experienced position I fear for Mayer Brown in what is an increasingly competitive legal world. Perhaps I’m wrong about the firm’s future prospects but I do wonder if there’s enough managerial flair within the firms ranks. I hope there is.
There is a third and fourth possibility… they were invited to follow their patron to pastures anew or they saw the writing on the wall?
Mayer Brown has been in severe difficulties for a very long time. Maher contributed to some of the problems with his management style. He has had little client work for years (how could he while jetting around the planet to build the firm?) whilst causing great disruption, including the loss of many large billers in the US (Alan Salpeter (and his genuine $30m in billings) being the most prominent.
The damage has been done so his loss will probably be net-net about zero, leaving a firm with difficulties, but without Maher’s issues. The departure of some of his management cadres will probably have the same benefits and costs for a net of zero. Many remaining partners won’t miss them.
A voluntary departure of underworked associates and partners also has its benefits.
Yes there certainly is a forth point except my argument is comprised of a series of positive statement that ensure its validity unlike the third blog which is quite frankly wrong and as usual with these blogs a distortion of the facts.
Firstly i have worked with Paul for some time and in fact I know that the client base he is departing with is worth consistently well over 25 million dollars. Call my bluff if you like but i have seen the raw figures. To me the loss of a clientele base of this magnitude is not of zero value. The London office is only just scraping the 200M pound turnover mark anyway. Let’s face it the growth in London is mostly down to Paul anyway; he designs the business plan and oversees its implementation. With respect i wonder if the firm in London under Sean Connolly will have the trust in itself to make confident decisions without Paul. In time other top partners will flee in Maher’s direction I’m sure of it as an insider.
A previous blogger also mentioned managerial flair; certainly not evident at Mayer Brown anymore; writing off 25million is nothing short of idiotic and suicidal.
In addition the third blogger eluded to the firms problems and yes they’re in abundance but they have absolutely nothing with Paul. Paul put everything into making Mayer Brown a success and went very far. However now it is evident that the so called International law firm would never allow Paul to achieve his ambition. Mayer Brown always appoints a chairman who is at least 55 and American. They wouldn’t let an Englishman run the shop. Bert as he is known was simply stretchered into the lime light to block Pauls bid as chairman. The firm has made a costly and perhaps unforgiving mistake.