'There are real challenges at the firm': Shearman equity partners face demotion in profits push
US firm considers demoting equity partners in global profit drive
September 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM
4 minute read
Shearman & Sterling is considering demoting some of its equity partners in a bid to boost profitability and focus the business around priority practice areas, Legal Week understands.
Partners inside the firm told Legal Week the issue is expected to be discussed tomorrow (21 September) at a meeting between the firm's global and regional managers in New York. It is understood that partners in less profitable practice areas and regions will be most affected, though the details of the plans are not yet clear.
If approved by the larger management group, a cull of the equity ranks could be implemented during the annual compensation period next January. Other more immediate changes could include a reduction in the number of practice group heads.
"There is a desire within the partnership to make sure that every equity partner is in fact putting in the time and effort and driving the business," said a current Shearman partner, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely about firm matters.
Another partner said: "It wouldn't surprise me if Asia or the US were affected by any changes. I don't think it's any secret that most firms struggle to make money in Asia, unless their partners are on some sort of salaried structure. It's no secret the firm has struggled with underperforming partners and areas. There are real challenges at the firm."
Shearman partners with knowledge of the plan said the firm's leaders have been searching for a few years to trim the ranks of unproductive partners. But they have been hamstrung by the firm's partnership agreement, which requires that a supermajority of 75% of equity partners approve a partner's removal from the equity partnership.
"It never happens," said one current partner. "This has been a major problem for the firm." It is possible, however, to de-equitise a Shearman partner with his or her consent. And management does have potential sticks at its disposal to encourage that consent: leaders are authorised to trim equity partner compensation annually by as much as 25%.
In a statement, a Shearman spokesperson said: "As with all firms, we regularly review how and where we invest equity and manage headcount."
The move has taken on increasing urgency in the past few months, with news of the potential departure of a top antitrust group in Brussels for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as well as the June departure of three top M&A partners in San Francisco for Paul Hastings.
Partners have grown frustrated at the firm's stalled growth. After two strong years in 2013 and 2014, average profits per equity partner fell nearly 4% in 2015, to $1.8m, while gross revenues grew just under 2% last year, to $860.5m. Two inside sources at Shearman said this year that demand has been flat.
The 839-lawyer firm had 162 equity partners and 26 fixed-share partners last year. Under Am Law 100 guidelines, the fixed-share partners are counted as non-equity partners, though they have full voting rights and Shearman considers them equity partners.
Meanwhile, the firm has continued to grow its younger tier of partners. It has promoted 25 partners within the past two years, many to fixed-share status.
If Shearman does move toward de-equitisation, it would not be the first time the firm has used powerful measures to cull its equity partnership. In 2005, the firm made waves by encouraging underproductive partners to leave in what were then labelled 'Shearminations'.
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 AllNew Frontiers: Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Launches in Cairo and Abu Dhabi
4 minute readTravers Gives Holiday Bonus, Ropes & Gray Reduces Time Off Allowance
1 minute readJapan’s Mori Hamada Joins Funder LCM for $150M Credit Suisse Bonds Claim
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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