Charles Russell Speechlys rules out 'eat what you kill' in pay review
Super-pointer group muted as merged firm tries to harmonise two similar but different locksteps
February 25, 2015 at 05:09 AM
3 minute read
Charles Russell Speechlys has ruled out an 'eat what you kill' pay system as the firm kicks off a review of its remuneration structure.
The recently merged firm has given itself until May 2016 to bring together the pay deals of legacy outfits Charles Russell and Speechly Bircham, following their merger in November 2014.
Under the pay review, the firm is looking at a range of options, from keeping the pure lockstep operated by legacy Charles Russell to adding a 'super pointer' group for top-performing partners, but it has ruled out moving to a pure merit-based pay system.
Charles Russell Speechlys managing partner James Carter (pictured) said: "We are highly unlikely to move to an eat what you kill system, it is just not consistent with the culture of the firm.
"It is a long exercise and we need to consult. That's why we put an 18-month time frame on the process at the time of the merger. We are reviewing the whole structure, looking at all options from pure lockstep to mixtures of lockstep and bonus payments."
Legacy Charles Russell operated a pure lockstep, whereas legacy Speechly Bircham's remuneration structure incorporated more flexibility, primarily in how quickly partners could accelerate up or down the ladder, in a modified lockstep.
"The two legacy firm were 80% of the way there to having an integrated remuneration structure," Carter said. "The approaches were similar, but there were inevitably differences in the detail."
There is understood to be no regional variation in either firm's lockstep.
Since the merger, the firm has combined its two offices in Geneva, where both legacy firms previously had bases, into a single office.
The firm is also set to implement a new integrated document management system in the next few months and a new accounting system should be in place by the end of this financial year.
The litigation practice at the firm is also reviewing a third party litigation funding agreement that legacy Speechly Bircham had to ensure that it best suits the combined firm's needs.
This content has been archived.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 AllPogust Goodhead Set to Axe Roles as Accounts Remain Overdue
DLA Piper Takes Greenberg Traurig’s Corporate Partner for Seoul
Cuatrecasas Elevates Seven to Partner in Spain and Latin America
McCarthy Tétrault Welcomes Former CPP Investments Leader to Its Business Law Group
2 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