Author: Claire Ruckin
01 Oct 2009 | 01:01
LG's management team has failed in an attempt to remove a partner after the proposed exit failed to win enough support from its partnership.
Senior partner Penny Francis (pictured), managing partner Hugh Maule and the firm's seven-strong equity partnership committee called a meeting last month to vote on the removal of a partner from the firm.
The management committee wanted the partner exited for under-performance, but failed to receive the 80% support required from partners under the terms of its partnership deed. The partner will now remain with the firm.
Maule told Legal Week: "Ultimately we had a vote in accordance with our partnership deed; there is a very high voting threshold and a number of partners abstained. We now move on from this and it is business as usual."
The decision will be seen as a setback for LG's leadership team as it is unusual for partners to vote against management proposals.
Maurice Turnor Gardner partnership specialist Richard Turnor commented: "There could be many background issues as to why a vote to remove an equity partner comes about. It is very interesting and at the very least embarrassing if partners do not agree with management on such an important issue.
"However, in [some] circumstances the partners are given an opportunity to vote, decide not to fall in line and the firm moves on with everyone perfectly happy. It depends on the circumstances."
COMMENTS (TOTAL 3 COMMENTS)
Turkeys fail to vote for Christmas non- shocka.
anon -01 Oct 2009 | 16:25
"However, in [some] circumstances the partners are given an opportunity to vote, decide not to fall in line and the firm moves on with everyone perfectly happy. It depends on the circumstances."?! How will the firm move on with "everyone perfectly happy" when over 20% of partners clearly did not back a key management decision?
Anonymous -01 Oct 2009 | 18:04
I should have thought the answer to Anonymous' question was perfectly obvious. It's because (i) most of the 80% who voted in favour of the management decision were probably only doing it because they were asked to toe the management line, not because they care about the issue - they will therefore sail on in happy indifference; (ii) the 20% are obviously reasonably happy with their bit selves; (iii) the partner in question (whichever way (s)he actually voted) presumably comes out OK by being allowed to stay in the equity and (iv) "management" will probably deal with the potential ramifications for their happiness, and even if they don't, there are probably only about four of them.
Simplz!
Mutton Jeff -05 Oct 2009 | 09:57
RELATED JOBS
FURTHER READING
MOST READ
MOST COMMENTED
Updating your subscription status
Advertisement
COURSES
LATEST JOBS
Advertisement
RECRUITERS
LEGAL EVENTS
LEGAL BRIEFINGS
SERVICES SECTION