- 2009 Partnership Round: a Legal Week Wiki special -
Welcome to Legal Week's 2009 partner promotions round-up. Here you'll find all the latest news stories about partner promotions gathered in one place, as well as links to relevant blog entries and any other bits and pieces we think might be of interest.
March 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
11 minute read
Welcome to Legal Week's 2009 partner promotions round-up. Here you'll find all the latest news stories about partner promotions gathered in one place, as well as links to relevant blog entries and anything else we think might be of interest.
Over the weeks to come, we'll be compiling a table of the key facts from the UK's top 50 law firms, which will be regularly updated as the news comes in.
Don't forget you can share your thoughts, frustrations or pleasant surprises by clicking here, or just click through from your firm's name to its own entry elsewhere on the Legal Week Wiki. (And feel free to keep us up to speed with anything that's somehow passed our news team by!)
Best of luck.
Promotions timeline
- 30/7/09 – Taylor Wessing makes up 17 in promotions round
- 27/7/09 – CC makes up 17 to partnership as firm finalises restructuring
- 16/6/09 – Simmons makes up quartet to partnership in promotions round
- 21/5/09 – Travers makes up four in partner promotions round
- 08/5/09 – Olswang promotions round sees two made up
- 07/5/09 – Barlows makes up four in partnership round
- 06/5/09 – Herbert Smith makes up 13 in promotions round
- 01/5/09 – Macfarlanes adds two to partnership ranks
- 30/4/09 – A&O makes up 20 to partnership with 40% female promotions
- 30/4/09 – Eversheds makes up 32 as South Africa tie-up hikes numbers
- 29/4/09 – Norton Rose partner promotions see 12 made up
- 29/4/09 – Stephenson Harwood makes up City duo to partner
- 28/4/09 – Dentons promotions see Middle East focus
- 27/4/09 – Beachcroft boosts disputes in promotions round
- 27/4/09 – Watson Farley promotions see five made up
- 24/4/09 – Field Fisher promotes City quartet to partnership
- 24/4/09 – Hammonds makes up six to firm's partnership
- 23/4/09 – LG announces promotions with three made up
- 23/4/09 – Nabarro partner promotions see three made up
- 22/4/09 – Ashurst makes up 10 with five in the City
- 22/4/09 – SJ Berwin makes up six in promotions round
- 21/4/09 – BLP partner promotions see increase on 2008
- 21/4/09 – Mishcons makes up two in promotions round
- 17/4/09 – Clyde promotes 10 associates into equity band
- 15/4/09 – Bird & Bird makes up four with none in London
- 09/4/09 – Lovells promotes 19 to partner with six in London
- 09/4/09 – Pinsents makes up eight as downturn continues to curb partner promotions
- 08/4/09 – Wragges makes up just one in promotions round
- 07/4/09 – CC and A&O push back partner promotions
- 06/4/09 – Camerons partner promotions see 17 made up
- 06/4/09 – Linklaters makes up 18 to global partnership
- 03/4/09 – Lewis Silkin taps FFW and makes up four partners
- 02/4/09 – Skadden partner round sees two made up in London
- 02/4/09 – Simmons delays partner round to set out new plan
- 26/3/09 – Slaughters makes up just two in partnership round
- 24/3/09 – Trowers promotions round sees seven made up
- 23/3/09 – Freshfields makes up 14 new partners with just two in London
- 19/3/09 – Addleshaws makes up seven in partner promotions round
- 17/3/09 – Halliwells makes up five in partnership round
- 11/3/09 – Ince kicks off 2009 promotions with three new partners
- 12/1/09 – DLA Piper makes up 53 in 2009 partnership round
Analysis
- 26/3/08 – Editor's comment: A smaller round
In numbers – 2009 promotions in full
| Firm | 2009 promotions (2008) | City promotions (%) | Female promotions (%) | Notes |
| 17 (35) | 3 (18%) | 3 (18%) | Five partners made up in Asia | |
| 18 (28) | 6 (33%) | 2 (11%) | Eight made up in mainstream corporate | |
| 14 (25) | 2 (14%) | 3 (21%) | Nine in corporate – only two in London | |
| 20 (28) | 6 (30%) | 8 (40%) | ||
| 53 (69) | 8 (15%) | Seventeen promotions in corporate | ||
| 19 (18) | 6 (32%) | 3 (16%) | An increase of one on 2008′s promotions round | |
| 2 (4) | 2 (100%) | 0 (0%) | Sharply down against eight in 2006, five in 2007 and four in 2008. None in corporate | |
| 32 (30) | 8 (25%) | 9 (28%) | Eight new partners in | |
| 13 (18) | 7 (54%) | 7 (54%) | Eight made up in corporate | |
| 10 (17) | 5 (50%) | 1 (10%) | Three made up in finance | |
| 4 (18) | 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | Two in financial markets | |
| 12 (16) | 4 (33%) | 2 (17%) | Five in banking, with four in dispute resolution | |
| 17 (11) | 9 (53%) | 7 (41%) | First round of promotions since firm introduced lower tier of partnership in London | |
| 8 (17) | 2 (25%) | 0 (0%) | Two international promotions – one in Hong Kong and one in Shanghai | |
| 6 (8) | 3 (50%) | 0 (0%) | Two in Frankfurt, one in Paris | |
| 7 (9) | 3 (43%) | 2 (29%) | Three in London; two apiece in Leeds and Manchester | |
| 7 (5) | 7 (100%) | 4 (57%) | Associate director promoted to partner for the first time | |
| 6 (12) | 2 (33%) | 2 (33%) | Half of promotions come in firm's Middle East offices | |
| 10 (9) | 6 (60%) | 3 (30%) | Three partners also promoted into senior equity status | |
| 6 (19) | 2 (33%) | 3 (50%) | Four of the six new partners were trainees with Hammonds | |
| (4) | ||||
| 3 (5) | 2 (66%) | 0 (0%) | One promotion in Sheffield | |
| 4 (14) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25%) | Partners made up in Madrid, Rome, Stockholm and Frankfurt. None in the City | |
| 1 (9) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | Sole promotion comes in commercial litigation | |
| 9 (6) | 2 (22%) | 3 (33%) | Five promotions in dispute resolution practice | |
| 2 (5) | 2 (100%) | 0 (0%) | Promotions in tax and | |
| (8) | ||||
| 17 (19) | 2 (12%) | More than half of promotions in firm's Germany office | ||
| 2 (10) | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | 80% drop on previous year's promotions | |
| 3 (4) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | All promotions in Germany | |
| 4 (4) | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | Promotions spread across four practice areas | |
| 4 (8) | 4 (100% | 1 (25%) | All four promotions in dispute resolution | |
| 2 (4) | 2 (100%) | 0 (0%) | Both promotions in the City | |
| (8) | ||||
| 2 (8) | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | One promotion in Melbourne | |
| 7 (4) | 4 (57%) | 3 (43%) | Two made up in firm's Middle East offices | |
| 4 (6) | 4 (100% | 2 (50%) | All promotions in London for the second year running | |
| 3 (5) | 3 (100%) | 2 (66%) | Two in corporate, | |
| (13) | ||||
| (6) | ||||
| (6) | ||||
| (7) | ||||
| 3 (3) | 1 (33%) | 0 (0%) | One in London, one in Hamburg and one in Hong Kong | |
| (4) | ||||
| 5 (9) | 0 (0%) | 1 (20%) | Promotions spread across Singapore, Rome, Paris and Hamburg with none in London | |
| 5 (6) | 0 (0%) | 2 (40%) | Two in employment |
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Hong Kong Bourse Seeks Feedback on IPO Price Discovery, Takes Steps to Boost Capital Markets Activity
Big Four Japanese Firm Mori Hamada Launches Foreign Joint Law Enterprise, Joins Rebrand Drive
'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
