Bird & Bird pushes back chairman election process
Partners voted through changes to ensure CEO and chairman elections don't take place in the same year
January 08, 2019 at 04:38 AM
2 minute read
Bird & Bird chairman Massimiliano Mostardini will not face re-election this year, it has emerged, as the firm's partnership has extended his tenure so that it does not coincide with the managing partner's term.
Bird & Bird chairman Massimiliano Mostardini
Mostardini, who had been expected by many to be up for a partner vote this March, will serve a four-year term and face re-election next March instead. The length of the term will then return to three years, ensuring chief executive and chairman elections are out of sync moving forward.
Mostardini was appointed as chairman in 2016, replacing veteran Michael Frie, who had been chairman since 2007. Current CEO David Kerr was re-elected at the same time, extending his time at the top to more than two decades, and making him one of the longest-serving leaders of a UK law firm. Kerr took over as Bird & Bird CEO in 1996.
A Bird & Bird spokesperson said the change to the term was made in 2017 as part of a "more extensive governance review", but would not give further details.
Mostardini is a well-established presence within Bird & Bird, having set up the firm's Italy practice and served as managing partner since 2003. One former partner described the chairman as a "flamboyant" figure within the firm.
Putting the chairman and CEO roles out of sync means there is no prospect of an entire management change simultaneously in the future.
Such an event nearly occurred in 2016, according to one former Bird & Bird partner, who was at the firm as the changes were voted in. They said the decision to introduce the transitional measure followed the 2016 CEO election in which longstanding chief David Kerr did not secure a majority vote in a "two-horse race" against Dominic Cook, who at the time was head of Bird & Birds' consultancy spin-off Baseline.
The ex-partner said that in 2016 the majority of the partnership either voted against Kerr or abstained, meaning Kerr ended up winning without a majority of the vote. This led to the 2017 amendments as a precautionary measure, the individual said.
This content has been archived.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 All
Kim & Chang, Freshfields, A&O Shearman Take Top Spots for Highest Collective Deal Value as APAC M&A Grew By Just 1% in 2024
Another Partner Exits Deloitte Legal—Former M&A Head Joins UK Top 50 Law Firm
KPMG Law US Targets Alternative Business Licence, Shaking Up Legal Status Quo
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1TikTok Law and TikTok Politics
- 2California Supreme Court Vacates Murder Conviction in Infant Abuse Case
- 3New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 4Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
- 5To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
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
