Ince partners to move to 'black box' pay system under Gordon Dadds merger
Ince partners will also be subject to a 12-month lock-in
November 09, 2018 at 10:26 AM
3 minute read
Ince & Co's partners will move to a 'black box' pay system when its merger with Gordon Dadds goes live later this year, in a move away from the firm's current lockstep transparency.
Ince – which currently operates a managed lockstep with a bonus pool to reward top billers – last month reached a deal to be acquired by AIM-listed firm Gordon Dadds, with the combination set to complete by 31 December.
The acquisition – which will create Ince Gordon Dadds – will see Ince partners adopt Gordon Dadds' merit-based black box pay system, whereby remuneration is kept secret and partners do not know what each other is paid.
This approach to partner pay is relatively uncommon at major law firms, although notable proponents include US firm Jones Day.
In 2016, Ince moved to a managed lockstep system, with partners awarded base pay on a 10-step lockstep ranging from £140,000 to £240,000. The rest of the firm's profit is distributed between partners based on performance, with decisions made by a remuneration committee.
Gordon Dadds, meanwhile, operates an 'eat what you kill' pay model, with the bulk of partner pay determined by lawyer and client performance.
One former Ince partner suggests the black box measure, while "controversial", is "necessary to stop people being unduly competitive and to avoid squabbles", given the performance-based model.
The ex-partner continues: "There was no need not to be transparent under lockstep, as everyone knows what the other is getting paid. But this will be a shock to the system. It's a huge culture change [for Ince partners] and could signal internal conflict and unhappiness. But you're trying to eliminate that with the black box, to avoid controversies."
Another former partner believes the new system can avoid partner animosity, so long as it does not stray too far from what they describe as the "rule of thirds".
"Most partners in law firms operate using the rule of thirds – for whatever you bring in, a third is for yourself, a third goes to the firm, and the final third is left to cover expenses and other costs. And so long as what happens behind the black box at least roughly mirrors this, it should keep the altercations to a minimum," said the former partner.
Ince partners will also be subject to an effective 12-month lock-in at the combined firm, followed by a potential six-month notice period. Legal Week understands that those leaving within this timeframe risk forgoing part or all of their share options and capital entitlements, which Gordon Dadds is providing as consideration for its acquisition of Ince.
One ex-partner said the 12-month lock-in was expected and that, for Ince partners who are already subject to a 12-month notice period, it will "come as no surprise".
Today (9 November), Gordon Dadds released a statement via the London Stock Exchange announcing that, under AIM rules, the acquisition will be classified as a reverse takeover, and that negotiations around the deal are ongoing.
Ince and Gordon Dadds declined to comment.
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 AllAshurst Beijing Chief Representative Leaves for New York Boutique Sterlington
Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Axiom-Ince: SFO Charges Five, Including Former Head, Following Investigation
3 minute readSDT Upholds SLAPP Claim Against Osborne Clarke Partner Advising Nadhim Zahawi
3 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