Bevan Ashford this week abandoned years of struggle to secure full integration between its two profits centres, with the top 50 UK firm announcing that its two halves will fully de-merge later this year.

The move, first reported on Monday (14 June) by legalweek. com, will see the Exeter, Plymouth and London (EPL) profit centre break off as a fully independent firm called Ashfords. The Bristol, Birmingham and London (BBL) profit centre will be named Bevan Brittan.

The firm's formal de-merger will take place at the end of October and will create a corporate-focused firm with 40 partners while 65-partner Bevan Brittan will specialise in public sector and general commercial work.

"Bevan Ashford's twin centre structure has served the firm well over the past decade in all economic climates," said EPL chairman Simon Rous and BBL chief executive Stuart Whitfield in a joint statement. "A consequence of [our] expansion, however, is that the two parts of the firm have started to overlap and on occasions independently go after the same business."

Rous told Legal Week that the firm faced a choice between dropping some of its business or splitting up entirely. "The choice was either for one side to adapt to the focus of the other, or de-merge," he said, conceding that the two halves of the firm had been discussing splitting up for a number of years.

EPL has always been keen to develop its core corporate and private client practices. One of the firm's top corporate clients is multi-national oilfield services company Schlumberger. The firm does the lion's share of its UK work.

The split comes after years of tension between the two halves of the firm, which was formed by the 1986 tie-up between Bevan Hancock and Ashford Sparks & Harward. Insiders claim that discord has been exasperated by rising profits on the EPL side, which until recently had been smaller and less profitable than the other half of the firm.

Former chief executive Nick Jarrett-Kerr unsuccessfully tried to push through a full merger, which led to a review at the end of 2002 that was expected to result in a demerger. Former partners have hailed the decision as a victory for common sense. "They could not get the merger to work and it created an uncomfortable situation," one said.