The management of the major firms continue to insist that the prospect of an economic downturn does not weigh heavy in the selection of partners.
Nevertheless, the fact that litigation is the third largest source of new partners this year suggests that firms are keen to bolster their teams to take advantage of counter-cyclical work flow.
The firms with the top-ranked litigation teams have bolstered their numbers significantly, with Herbert Smith promoting five new partners in litigation and arbitration and another two in insurance. All but one are based in London. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer elected six new dispute resolution partners, although they are spread across the firm’s global network of offices.
It is no surprise to find that the corporate and finance departments, the engines of the major City firms, continue to provide the bulk of candidates for promotion to partnership. Together they accounted for nearly half of all new partners – some 45% – in the 2001 round. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer made up 11 corporate partners alone, five of whom were based in London.
For lawyers in property departments, the table shows how difficult it is to become a partner. Only 5% of this year’s promotions are drawn from property practices, the same number as historically smaller practice areas such as tax and employment/pensions.
It is in less than high growth areas such as EU/competition and trade, where Freshfields made up seven partners alone, and IP/IT/telecoms, where Lovells made up six candidates.

For the first time in several years, the number of partners made up at the top City firms has dropped.
Clifford Chance, the City’s largest firm, slashed the number of partnerships it is offering from 72 to 38 in a move being interpreted as a sign that the economic chill is starting to bite.
In the US, where the economic conditions are most acute and where the firm’s practice is under pressure to catch up with the growth being enjoyed by the rest of the network, only five candidates were successful. With just four new partners in New York and one in Washington, this represents a third of the total this time last year.
Clifford Chance’s deputy chief operating officer Chris Perrin says that the disparity can be explained in part because for the 2000 figure the firm included local partners moving up to equity status, whereas this year only those joining the partnership in whatever capacity were counted.
Nevertheless there would still seem to be a significant drop in numbers.
Clifford Chance is not the only firm to reduce the size of its partnership promotions either, a review of this year’s round reveals. Allen & Overy (A&O), Norton Rose and Slaughter and May have all cut the number of promotions by approximately one-third.
But those seeking proof that the major firms are catching a cold after a period of unprecedented growth will find only mixed evidence.
Overall the number of partners made up at the top firms is down by only a dozen on the previous year, despite what Clifford Chance chief executive Michael Bray calls a “period of economic turbulence in some of the countries in which we operate”.
A number of firms have promoted candidates in record numbers. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has led the way by more than doubling its intake. It handed out a record 43 partnerships, up from 21 this time last year.
Other firms to post record levels include Linklaters & Alliance, which made up ten more than last year with 38, including the most in London of any firm with 23. Lovells, Herbert Smith and Ashurst Morris Crisp were also slightly ahead of last year.
In any event, firms that have appointed less partners this year are quick to deny that tougher market conditions are the reason for the lower numbers.
Explaining the decision to offer just 11 partnerships compared to 14 last year, Norton Rose managing partner Roger Birkby suggests that the firm is “fairly stringent” with partner promotions.
He says: “If you look back at our record you will see that we have not been the most profligate of firms in handing out partnerships. Partnership is a long-term investment decision and you should not be swayed too much by what we think the outlook will be in the next 12 months.
“If in the good times you open the floodgates you can soon find you have people who were fine when work was flowing in but not when it is much harder to get.”
Lovells senior partner Andrew Walker agrees that management needs to put the economic background to one side in the decision-making process, basing any selections on the calibre of people available.
He concedes that the economy is a factor that the partnership as a whole may have at the back of its mind.
“You are appointing the candidates as partners for at least 20 years and that should not be affected by short-term considerations,” Walker says. “But if times are tough, the partnership might not take kindly to, say, a 15% rise in numbers.”
A more likely explanation for the fact that numbers have fallen slightly is the fact that having dealt with under-performing partners in the 1990s, firms are making access to partnership more difficult. At a time of rapid growth, the quality control represented by the partnership selection process has come even further to the fore.
“Management will not say that it is getting harder to become a partner because it frightens the senior associates,” says Hildebrandt International management consultant Alan Hodgart. “But the process of selection is a lot more streamlined and a lot more professional.” In the past, Hodgart adds, firms have suffered from the fact that under-performing partners have been good enough to get past the threshold of partnership but have not ultimately deserved to get to the top of the lockstep. This creates tensions within the firms. “Management are trying to look at past performance and ask what that really tells them about the future,” Hodgart says.
In recent years the top firms have been developing their selection processes and bolstering their human resources arrangements to remove any politics and prejudice and to establish a more centralised, consistent approach. Hodgart also believes they have steadily refined the criteria used to measure potential candidates.
Until now most law firms have balked at emulating the Big Five accountancy firms by holding special weekends for would-be partners at partnership assessment centres, claiming they are artificial, time-consuming and expensive.
They are employing a wider range of techniques to ensure that the right calibre of people is appointed – and they are not neglecting talent who may be snapped up by rival UK and US firms.
Norton Rose uses psychometric testing as one part of its armoury, which involves structured interviews, a presentation by the candidate to a partnership committee and an assessment of the business case for the promotion.
Its system has been in place for more than three years and Birkby believes that judgements are now much fairer and more consistent.
“I would be far from claiming that we used to get all our decisions right,” he says. “We have made one or two people partners who should not have been. I am sure that some were turned down who would have made good partners. However, we have eliminated chance and prejudice from the process.”
Lovells has used a similar selection system to Norton Rose since the 1989 merger of predecessor firms Lovell White & King and Durrant Piesse. Before that, senior partner Andrew Walker says prospective candidates would be debated at a full partnership meeting, usually in November, and voted on, after further debate, at another partners meeting in March.
“There was no formal evidence gathering procedure,” Walker says. “One of the concerns was that so much depended on the debate. You would get bits of evidence and there was no way of checking whether it was the case.”
Lovells has a seven-member partnership promotions committee handling the selection process: this comprises a chairman, a representative put forward by each of the firm’s four principal practice areas and, since the merger with Boesebeck Droste in January last year, two partners from the German practice.
The committee’s role is to collect evidence on the suitability of candidates recommended by the practice areas, hold interviews and assess presentations by candidate.
It then prepares a report to the partnership board, which in turn will make a recommendation to the partnership as a whole before a vote is taken.
Although Walker believes that the system held up well to the new challenges posed by the firm’s merger with Boesebeck Droste, he now believes it should be reviewed.
“It is stretched to the limit – the main problem is how much time it takes,” he admits, before adding quickly: “Having said that, they are pretty important decisions.”