Pay divide sees eight of top 20 UK firms award highest earners more than double average partner pay
Top earners at Clydes, Allen & Overy, Freshfields and Eversheds among those landing more than double average PEP
February 28, 2016 at 08:11 PM
4 minute read
Eight of the top 20 UK firms paid their highest earners at least double their average profit per equity partner (PEP) figure last year, according to Legal Week research.
The disparity between what the highest paid member took home and firms' reported PEP extends to more than £1m in several cases, according to figures compiled from the firms' 2014-15 Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) filings at Companies House.
The firm with the biggest pay gap was Clyde & Co, where the highest earner took home almost triple what an average equity partner did last year.
The accounts, which cover the period to the end of April 2015, show that Clyde's highest earner pocketed £1.8m, 2.8 times more than the firm's reported PEP figure of £660,000.
At Allen & Overy, which had the next biggest gap between highest earner and average PEP, the top paid member landed £2.9m, 2.4 times as much as the firm's average PEP of £1.2m.
At Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Berwin Leighton Paisner the top earning member was paid 2.3 times average PEP, while Eversheds, DLA Piper and Herbert Smith Freehills all paid their top earner at least double the average PEP figure.
For all of the firms' looked at, pay for the highest earner can also include additonal payments such as those relating to retirement annuities so the figure does not necessarily reflect the top of the lockstep or the highest profit share for a firm with merit-based remuneration.
At the other end of the scale, Ashurst, Pinsent Masons and DAC Beachcroft, each have a much smaller divide between top earner and average PEP. DAC paid its top member £468,000 with average PEP sitting at £310,000 for the year. Ashurst meanwhile paid its top earning LLP member £1m, while its reported PEP was £747,000.
The highest earners across the group in absolute terms were at Linklaters and Freshfields, both of which gave out a £3.2m share of profits.
Comparing the highest earner with average LLP members' pay – which is calculated by dividing the profit available for distribution by the number of members in the LLP and therefore including both equity and non-equity members – DLA Piper's International arm had the biggest gap. Its highest paid partner earned five times the average member's payout in the 2014-15 financial year.
Average pay per member at DLA International stood at £391,000 – £1.6m less than its top earner took home. The firm's accounts relate to its International LLP which covers its business outside the US.
The firm's regional spread – it has six regional offices in the UK as well as its London base – is likely to account for some of the disparity. DLA recently approved a shake-up of its remuneration structure across its International LLP, intended to bring it more in line with its US arm.
Other firms with a sizable gap between average pay per member and highest earner include Clyde & Co and A&O. At both of these firms the highest earner took home nearly four times as much as the average member.
The closest gap is seen at Pinsent Masons, where there is almost parity between the two figures. DAC also has a comparatively small divide.
The research also highlights the difference between average profit per member and average PEP at some firms, reflecting the fact that not all LLP members are equity partners. Those with particularly large differences include Clifford Chance, DLA Piper, A&O and Taylor Wessing.
The research excludes some figures for Anglo-Australian firm Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), which does not report its accounts in a comparable way.
Accounts for Hogan Lovells, Norton Rose Fulbright, DLA, CMS, HSF, Ashurst and Taylor Wessing cover the LLP including the UK part of the business. Where relevant the PEP figure used refers to this LLP rather than the global business. Slaughter and May is not an LLP and is therefore excluded from this research. Irwin Mitchell, which follows a corporate structure, is also excluded.
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 AllTop 10 UK firms outpace smaller peers with 5.7% revenue growth in 2015-16
Trending Stories
- 1Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 2Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
- 3Ex-Schnader Partner Nears Settlement in Misappropriated Comp Class Action
- 4The Increase in Artificial Intelligence-Related Securities Class Actions
- 5Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
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