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
© 2025 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 AllSingapore Litigators Shift Competitive Landscape as Another Senior Duo Sets Up Own Shop
Squire Patton Boggs Hires 7-Lawyer Team to Beef Up ESG Practice in Brussels
2 minute readSkadden, White & Case Guide Citigroup Demerger in Mexico
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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