Law firm partner’s profit share allocation was a reasonable exercise of discretion

15 July 2021

Most disputes between partners of professional services firms are settled either through confidential negotiations or arbitration.  A public resolution of the matter through a full hearing and reported judgment is a rare occurrence. A recent example of such a case involving an ex-partner of a law firm is a useful reminder that it is difficult to challenge profit share or bonus decisions as an irrational exercise of discretion.

What happened?

  • The Claimant, Mr Tribe, was a partner of the law firm Elborne Mitchell LLP and its predecessor for over 25 years, although his relationship with the firm soured over his last few years there.  He retired from the firm on 30 April 2016.
  • Regarding the distribution of profits, the LLP Agreement (the “Agreement”) provided that the amount the equity partners would receive in respect of each accounting period was based on:
    • a fixed amount of £75,000 each;
    • a “discretionary fund” formed out of remaining available profits (comprising up to 40% of the whole distributable profit) which would be distributed on the basis of recommendations made by the Senior Partner and then settled by a resolution of the equity partners; and
    • if the distributable fund was not allocated by a certain time it, together with any remainder of the profit, would be distributed based on lockstep points.
  • The Claimant’s claims were in respect of his profit share allocation for his last two years at the firm (i.e. the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 financial years).
  • The firm performed particularly well in those years, principally due to certain work brought in by a fixed-share partner.  There were difficulties regarding the recovery of fees on some of the Claimant’s matters and the firm’s shipping practice (which he had run) ceased when he left.  These factors were among those taken into account by the Senior Partner in formalising his profit share recommendations.
  • In respect of 2014/2015, the Claimant strongly objected to the Senior Partner’s recommendation as to what the Claimant’s share of the distributable fund should be and threatened to bring proceedings.  Following a debate at a partners’ meeting, a revised split was agreed and a resolution signed by the partners, including the Claimant (though he claimed he reserved his position).
  • The following year, the Claimant again objected to the Senior Partner’s recommendation in lengthy correspondence and put forward an alternative proposal.  However, he did not attend the partners’ meeting at which the proposals were discussed and voted on.  The Senior Partner’s recommendations were adopted.
  • The Claimant claimed that the Senior Partner’s recommendations and the subsequent resolutions passed by the equity partners were not done in good faith.  He sought damages and a declaration of his rights under the Agreement.

Outcome & Comment

The Court held that the Senior Partner’s recommendations regarding the Claimant’s profit share were reasonable exercises of his discretion under the Agreement.  The partners’ subsequent resolutions on the matter were also lawful. 

In summary:

  • In contracts under which a party is permitted to exercise discretion, there is an implied term that that party will not exercise that discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or irrational manner.  That is a fact-specific question.
  • In the context of an LLP, a decision-making power must be exercised in good faith and in what a member considers to be in the best interests of the firm.  In making decisions, irrelevant matters should not be taken into account and relevant matters should not be ignored.  Further, the decision should not be one that is outside the range of reasonable decisions in the circumstances.
  • In this case, the discretion of the Senior Partner to make recommendations was a broad one, particularly because it involved a proposal to partners, rather than a decision.  Partners would be able to challenge his proposals and adopt an alternative allocation if they disagreed with them.
  • The ultimate decision of the partners should also meet the same test.  That is, it should not be outside the range of reasonable decisions that might be made in the circumstances. 

Since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2015 in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd there has been considerable interest among employment and partnership lawyers in the scope for successful legal challenges to discretionary decisions by employers and LLP firms.  As already seen in relation to bankers’ bonuses, this case suggests that proving that a discretionary decision on profit share allocation made by an LLP firm was irrational and unlawful will often be difficult, although every case will turn on its facts.  It remains to be seen whether there is greater scope to challenge discretionary decisions made by firms in respect of partner exits, expulsions and compulsory retirements. On one view, the court should set the bar of what amounts to a rational and lawful decision at a higher level when it comes to partner exit procedures and expulsions, than in mere partner profit share disputes.


If you would like any further information or advice about the issues explored in this blog, please contact Andreas WhiteÖzlem Mehmet or another member of our Employment team.



Andreas is a partner in our employment team.  He has substantial litigation experience, with a particular focus on complex and high value employment and partnership disputes. Andreas has a particular interest in international and cross border employment law. He is a former president of the labour law commission of AIJA.

Özlem is a Professional Support Lawyer in our Employment Team. Before joining Kingsley Napley, Özlem was a Tutor and Team Leader at BPP University’s Law School, teaching on the Legal Practice Course.  She taught the Employment Law, Business Law & Practice, Corporate Finance and Equity Finance modules of the course, as well as the skills modules of Interviewing & Advising and Professional Conduct & Regulation.


Latest blogs & news

Disciplining an employee for posting racist comments online

We have seen examples of people being ‘outed’ for posting racist comments online by individual bystanders who have been able to find their LinkedIn profiles and then contact relevant employers calling for the employee in question to lose their job.  Unfortunately, this is nothing new. But what can an organisation do in these circumstances, if it wants to demonstrate that it stands against racism and discrimination?

Back to the workplace – the new guidance and key considerations for employers

With lockdown restrictions moving to “Stage 4” of the Government’s roadmap to recovery, one of the key questions will be what this means with regard to returning to the workplace and, in a recent article, we considered the rights of employees on this issue.

Law firm partner’s profit share allocation was a reasonable exercise of discretion

Most disputes between partners of professional services firms are settled either through confidential negotiations or arbitration.  A public resolution of the matter through a full hearing and reported judgment is a rare occurrence. A recent example of such a case involving an ex-partner of a law firm is a useful reminder that it is difficult to challenge profit share or bonus decisions as an irrational exercise of discretion.

Regulatory compliance, trust and confidence in the financial services sector

In a case that attracted national media coverage and emphasises the crucial importance of regulatory compliance and the highest standards of professional conduct in the financial services sector, the High Court dismissed a breach of contract claim brought by an investment manager.

Your legal rights on returning to the office in the UK during COVID

So the Prime Minister has announced that most restrictions in place due to the coronavirus pandemic will be lifted on 19 July, despite acknowledging that the pandemic itself is far from over and that case numbers are expected to continue rising.   


Leading the way: it’s time for action on pregnancy loss

In recent weeks, it has introduced a formal workplace policy providing paid time off for all staff who are directly or indirectly affected by pregnancy loss. This is not only a significant enhancement to the provisions required by law but is also, I understand, the first of its kind being put in place by a UK law firm. We hope other firms in our sector and beyond will follow suit and normalise protection in this space, thereby supporting the wellbeing of those affected and protecting talent.

How wide should an investigation into bullying claims be?

When deciding whether to focus on the discrete allegations or look beyond them, employers need to balance confidentiality with duty of care to employees, says Mark McWilliams.

Disciplining staff for misconduct outside the workplace

Employers need to show the individual’s behaviour clearly affected the organisation’s reputation or their colleagues, says Catherine Bourne.

What are my rights on returning to work after a spinal cord injury?

According to the most recent NHS statistics 2,500 people are injured or diagnosed with a spinal cord injury every year. Indeed it is estimated  that there are a total of 50,000 people living in the UK with a spinal cord injury of some sort. Unfortunately sustaining a spinal cord injury impacts on every aspect of a person’s life. Often, where everyday tasks are a challenge, returning to work may seem unrealistic. The fact is that employment rates among people with spinal cord injuries remain much lower than the general population.

Should staff be compelled to have the COVID-19 vaccine?

There is currently no legal requirement to be vaccinated and the government has so far shied away from compelling people to be. Michael Gove’s review of the potential use of vaccine passports, expected in June, could alter the position. Employers can encourage staff to get vaccinated (as they may do with a winter flu jab, for example), provide access to medical information, allow paid time off to get the vaccine and provide sick pay for those suffering with side effects. However, insisting that employees are vaccinated could risk exposure to discrimination claims from those whose choice not to be vaccinated.

Preventing solicitor burn-out: more than ‘just an HR issue’

Failing to promote a good workplace culture based upon a firm’s core values is a potential regulatory issue.

Whistleblowing in the financial services sector – back in focus

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently launched a whistleblowing campaign, “In confidence, with confidence”, encouraging individuals working within the financial services sector to come forward and raise any concerns they have regarding potential wrongdoing, emphasising its commitment to protecting their identity and an increase in both resources and training at the FCA.  The FCA also commits to create a report about all concerns which have been expressed and to provide updates to a whistleblower every 3 months if so requested. 

Are bonus payments at an employer’s discretion?

In light of a recent EAT ruling, Nadjia Zychowicz and Eugenie Freeman discuss whether a high-performing employee should be awarded a bonus if the business is at risk of insolvency.

What are the alternatives to compulsory redundancy?

With many employers under significant pressure to cut costs, Moira Campbell outlines some possible options to consider other than reducing staff headcount.

The importance of seeking support from your employer when going through a divorce

The breakdown of a relationship is a challenging and stressful time, even when you and your partner are on relatively good terms.

There are a number of support services we recommend to help manage the strain which comes with relationship breakdown and the significant changes to your and your children’s circumstances. People often go first to friends and family and then perhaps to a lawyer, counsellor or financial advisor. Many people do not feel comfortable talking to their employer about their circumstances and in this blog, we explore how it can be important from both a personal as well as family law and employment law perspectives.

Should businesses scrap unconscious bias training?

Equality and diversity training initiatives have received a considerable amount of negative attention recently. In December 2020, the government announced its intention to scrap unconscious bias training for civil servants. Since then, there have been press reports of senior managers allegedly claiming that unconscious bias does not exist and the training is just ‘virtue signalling’ and a waste of money. 

So does this mean employers should now bin their diversity training? I don't believe so.  

Off-payroll working rules in the private sector – the change is near

6 April 2021 will see the implementation of the biggest reform in the engagement of contractors for decades.  The changes were originally scheduled to come into force on 6 April 2020, but implementation was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.  

‘Shecession’: what can be done to prevent the decline of women’s economic empowerment?

Last week we reflected on this year’s International Women’s Day theme #ChooseToChallenge and felt the impact of COVID-19 on women in the workplace cannot go without a mention. For the first time in nearly ten years, women’s economic empowerment in the workplace is set to decline according to PwC’s latest Women in Work Index, creating what has been coined a “shecession”, caused largely by the COVID-19 pandemic. 


Best practice guide for charities responding to Illegal Working Civil Penalty Information Requests

COVID-19 has had a severely damaging affect on all organisations and no less so those in the charitable sector.  Be that on a dramatic hit to donation levels, resourcing issues through furloughing or redundancies and difficulties in delivering programmes and training.  In a battle to survive and deliver on core services, it is easier than ever to forget crucial internal risk and compliance processes. 

Where age and gender discrimination meet: the challenges faced by older women in the workplace

The BBC recently reported that women appear to be bearing the brunt of ageism at work.  According to the UN, the number of people over the age of 65 is growing faster than any other age group and yet ageism is the most common type of discrimination in Europe with women being particularly disadvantaged.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility