Geffen's shock defeat and corporate chief's exit have stoked questions among firm's partnership

In the wake of an international merger and a change in senior management, it would be surprising not to find a seam of discontent in a firm's partnership. And as such Ashurst's merger with Australia's Blakes and the subsequent failure of senior partner Charlie Geffen to win the chairmanship has certainly set the rumour mills into gear.

The Blakes tie-up finally went live at the beginning of last month. It was a process that nobody could accuse Ashurst of rushing: discussions with the Australian firm first became public in June 2011, with the deal signed in September that year.

Compare that to Herbert Smith's merger with Australia's Freehills, which went live in October 2012, eight months after it was approved. 

On the surface, Ashurst appears to have got it right. Partners voted in favour of the tie-up, with well in excess of the 75% support required, and many spoke with enthusiasm about the cultural similarities between the British and Australian firms.

But despite the optimism, the firm's corporate practice has found itself thrust into the spotlight with talk of several partner departures on the cards, sparked in part by global practice head Stephen Lloyd's exit. 

There are also questions about why Geffen (pictured) – the driving force behind the merger – lost out on the chairman role just weeks before the combined firm went live. It will have come as a shock to many partners, who were convinced he would retain his leadership role. 

"It will be Charlie, one million per cent," said one in the run-up to the elections, while another partner said in the immediate aftermath: "He was instrumental in driving through the merger with Blakes; that deserves loyalty."

But behind the scenes, a group of senior London partners met during the election process to plan how to ask Geffen to step down, according to two senior sources at the firm. Despite their efforts to persuade him not to stand on the grounds that he would not win enough votes, Geffen still ran for the role and was defeated in the vote by litigation partner Ben Tidswell.

One source says these partners would have been able to influence more junior lawyers in the firm. Another theory is that Geffen lost out because of a lack of loyalty among the Australians – with some resenting him for driving a hard bargain in the merger. When Geffen was first voted in as senior partner in 2008 he was viewed as one of the firm's most exceptional practitioners, and even though he has been busy managing the firm he still has a reputation as one of the big legal hitters in private equity.

"No one could have stood against Charlie at the time," a partner in the firm says of his first election. "Everybody at Ashurst equated him with success, the private equity market was buoyant when he was in it."

But when Geffen stepped up in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis, he had some unpopular decisions to make, including reshaping several departments. Some partners have described him as "stubborn" – going ahead with what he believes is right even if there was a lot of opposition from partners. 

This is, however, a criticism that could be levelled at many crisis-time leaders, and it is clear that the ex-private equity head continued to have full support over the years from his corporate partners. One ex-partner comments: "Charlie is a Marmite character, but most of the corporate department thought he was God." 

Geffen's rather bullish attitude is thought to have ruffled a few feathers over the years. One source talks of how associates would joke about hiding under their desks on a Friday to avoid Geffen piling work on them to do over the weekend. Another jests nobody would take a holiday when Geffen did as they wouldn't get the benefits. 

Despite widespread opinion on Tidswell (pictured) being well-liked, fair and a capable leader, Lloyd's resignation coupled with questions over what Geffen will do next has fuelled murmurings that corporate and private equity is not as central to the firm as it once was. 

Undoubtedly Ashurst's position in the market – in common with firms such as Herbert Smith Freehills and Hogan Lovells – means it can be caught in the trap of being squeezed from both above and below, facing tough competition to attract big-ticket deals. 

And the growth of Ashurst's emerging markets, energy and natural resources practices, alongside the increasing prominence of litigation, means there is not such an exclusive focus on corporate and private equity, which some argue creates a more balanced firm. 

Tidswell says: "Corporate has always been the heartbeat of the firm. So much of the network depends on strong relationships generated by the corporate team. Of course the shape of the firm has changed and we have many pre-eminent practices, but corporate remains at the centre of Ashurst."

Certainly it would take more than the departure of Lloyd and possibly Geffen to cause major problems for the firm's corporate and private equity practices, but undercurrents of discontent may yet prove to be the biggest disruptors. 

While some post-merger jostling is understandable, management will be hoping that, having had the satisfaction of making their protest vote and ousting Geffen, disgruntled partners at the firm will fall back into line and devote their energy to making the merger work. 

For more, see:

• Ashurst corporate head resigns in wake of management elections
• Geffen ousted as Tidswell wins Ashurst chair election