The track to partnership at the
UK’s leading firms has grown for the third consecutive year, according to research by
Legal Week.
UK associates at the country’s top law firms took 8.8 years on average to make partner this year, compared with 8.2 years in 2006.
It means that, with the exception of 2006, when the average time to reach partner fell marginally from 8.3 to 8.2 years, it has been taking associates longer to make partner every year since 2004, when new partners across 11 of the top firms had an average of 8.1 years’ post-qualification experience (PQE).
The steady increase comes despite significant drops in the partnership track this year for the London offices of a number of firms, including Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Clifford Chance.
Slaughter and May has the fastest route to partnership of the top 10 City firms with its clear ‘up or out’ policy, giving it a five-year average of just under 7.1 years’ PQE for new partners. This is despite the fact that new City partners at Slaughters go straight into the equity whereas those at most other firms spend time as salaried partners first.
Slaughters practice partner Paul Olney (pictured) commented: “There is an increasing trend for a number of our competitors to look at more extended models and some form of interim status, all of which has the effect of stringing out the partner track.”
Despite a dramatic drop from an average of 12 years to make partner last year, Freshfields has one of the longest partnership tracks among the top 10 City firms. Associates at the firm took on average 9.4 years to be promoted this year, surpassed within the top 10 City firms only by Norton Rose, where associates have to wait an average of 9.6 years.
Freshfields corporate partner Julian Long said: “Clearly, one has to look at some of the big trends such as how important London is to the global legal market, but we do not feel particularly constrained from year to year.”
Linklaters senior partner David Cheyne commented: “We do have an official minimum of six years before an individual can be made up to partner; however there is no maximum.”
Within the top 25, Berwin Leighton Paisner had the fastest route to partnership this year with new partners having an average of just 7.3 years’ PQE and its average over the last four years worked out at 6.95.
The average PQE of new UK partners across the top 25 this year stood at nine years, significantly raised by firms such as Beachcroft and Irwin Mitchell, where average PQE stood at 11.4 and 13.9 respectively.
Talkback: Is partnership more distant than ever for most City associates? Click here to have your say.
Click on the link below for a full breakdown of partner promotions at the UK's top 50 law firms.
Partner Promotions 2008
Please can someone explain how S&M can operate an 'up or out' policy without breaking the laws on constructive dismissal. Or do they make their unwanted senior associates redundant? Ta.
Doesn't work like that. It's about active career management and being honest with people about their prospects. Slaughters takes pride in helping its lawyers get good roles outside the firm.
I don't understand the above reply. If a 10 year PQE senior associate decides that he/she doesn't want to be a partner but is very happy continuing to be an associate, what would S&M do? They couldn't legally kick them out without making them redundant, right? And if they made life so uncomfortable for the associate that they left, that would be construcive dismissal. Or am I missing something?
And firms wonder why their good associates are keen to leave in order to work for investment banks, hedge funds and PE houses with bonuses and co-invest....
Are you stuck in a 2007 timewarp?! They don't wonder about people going to banks/hedge funds because it isn't happening anymore and they'd be quite happy if it did.
The more people drop out, the more cake for me.
The S&M approach has a quality control problem: not promoting people who make good associates, but very average partners just because they have survived until 7 years' PQE.
Re comments on constructive dismissal, the reply about honesty and active career management is more to the point. In most cases, the decision whether to stay or go is not about associates asserting their legal rights, it's about each person thinking about what future they can make for themselves. Sure, if you really have been done over, look at whether it's worth making a complaint, but I suspect most of us are simply trying to find the right place for us to work, which means being honest about our situation and our prospects, rather than thinking about whether or not we can make out a claim for constructive dismissal.
Until I read the above I'd stopped believing in fairies.
Even the smug S+M fairies....?
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
