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.

FURTHER INFORMATION

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.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

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

BEIS White Paper on Audit Reform: Will Kwarteng's reforms really unchain entrepreneurs?

In 2012, as a recently elected MP, Kwasi Kwarteng co-authored “Britannia Unchained: Global Lessons for Growth and Properity”, a political pamphlet which championed risk-taking and innovation in the UK economy, and which ever since has led some to label him a fervent Brexiteer. Appointed as the Business Secretary in January 2021, only a few months later his department (BEIS) published one of the longest and most ambitious government White Papers in recent years.

Barder: Exceptional and rare

Cate Maguire looks at how the Barder principle has been applied in cases involving 'known unknowns'

World Menopause Day - time to break the taboo!

World Menopause Day was held on 18 October 2021. It is an opportunity to break the stigma and taboo that still exists around menopause and to encourage open dialogue about what is a natural and very significant transition in a woman’s life.

Redundancy and negotiating an exit package during the pandemic

Coronavirus is having a serious impact on businesses and the global economy. Sadly, many businesses have been impacted to the extent that they have or will have to put cost-cutting measures in place. For some individuals this will result in their role being put at risk of redundancy.

Preparation for Public Inquiries - Webinar Summary

In light of the announcement that an independent inquiry into the Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022, Kingsley Napley hosted a webinar last week on the theme of Preparing for Public Inquiries in conjunction with Blackstone Chambers and FTI Consulting. For anyone who missed this event, a recording is available here (LINK) and we have also prepared the summary below.  

Why it’s time for youth mobility visas for EU nationals

The Youth Mobility Scheme allows employers to access younger workers from countries such as India and Iceland for two years. With skills shortages afflicting critical sectors, now might be the time for the government to consider a youth visa agreement with the EU.

Back to the office? - Your legal rights on returning to work during COVID-19

In revised guidance first published in July, the Government stated that it is no longer instructing people to work from home if they can.  In line with that, many employers have planned and begun implementing a return to the workplace.  However, as the latest figures and the Government’s recently published Autumn and Winter Plan seem to indicate, it is clear that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will continue to be a genuine and serious one for some time.

Covid and post-Brexit immigration rules serve up a recipe for disaster in the hospitality sector

From being the centrepiece of England’s post-Covid recovery with ‘eat out to help out’, the hospitality sector is now struggling to rebuild after lockdowns, furlough and rising food prices. At the same time many restaurants, cafes and pubs are coming up against the hard realities of a post-Brexit immigration policy and discovering what it means for their business.

Proposed changes to the flexible working regime

Earlier this year it was announced that the Government had plans to consult on changes to our flexible working regime. The Government’s Consultation Paper has now been published and illustrates the Government’s intentions regarding how flexible working rights will operate in future.

Is a personality clash in the Boardroom a fair reason for dismissal?

A recent case has highlighted a trend that that we have seen over recent years, with Employment Tribunals finding that the dismissal of a senior executive can be fair where there has been a breakdown in relations amongst a management team and one director / executive is considered to be more at fault (Moore v Phoenix Product Development Ltd EAT/0070/20).  Also, the procedural requirements for such dismissals may be more limited, in this case, the fact that no right of appeal was offered did not render the dismissal unfair.

"Was it something I said?” Whistleblowing during the pandemic

You may be surprised to learn that, without realising it, you may be a whistleblower. If you are a manager, you could easily come across a situation in which you are expected to manage (or even dismiss) a whistleblower, without anyone warning you of the dangers. 

 

What rights do employees accused of bullying have?

Employers have a duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of their staff and this includes those facing such allegations, says Bina Patel

The “Great Resignation”? Things to consider for employers and employees

In recent weeks, a number of commentators have predicted the “Great Resignation”—a mass exodus of employees leaving their jobs following the wake-up call the pandemic has afforded them. Microsoft research has indicated that almost half of the worldwide workforce is ready to resign this year, with just under 40% of UK and Irish workers saying they are ready to quit. Many have had cause to re-evaluate their careers during COVID and with lockdown restrictions set to ease further, people are considering their options. If the “Great Resignation” is upon us, there are a few things employers and employees should bear in mind.

Back to work – where exactly does this leave employers in the aftermath of “Freedom Day” ?

“Freedom Day”, and what it actually means in practice, is not proving to be as straightforward as some had hoped (and arguably as the Government had initially led the business community to believe).  Employers can be forgiven for feeling confused as to what is expected of them and what they should be doing in terms of bringing their employees back into the workplace. We are by no means at the end of the debate, but we summarise below, the latest developments

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.

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