Law Firm Partner Moves in London - Issue 86
March - April 2025
Download the full Partner Moves Issue here >>
Welcome to the 86th edition of Law Firm Partner Moves in London, from the specialist partner team at Edwards Gibson, where we look back at announced partner-level recruitment activity in London over the past two months and give you a ‘who’s moved where’ update. Our records go back to 2007, and this is our methodology.
- March - April 2025
This bi-monthly round-up contains 89 partner moves, which is 7% up on the 83 we saw for the same period last year; 5% up on the cumulative five-year average (85); and 15% up on the cumulative ten-year average of (77) for the same period.
The most covetous firm this edition was Sidley Austin which hired 5 partners, followed by Edwin Coe and Milbank which hired 4 partners each. Next up was Joseph Hage Aaronson, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss, Proskauer Rose and Travers Smith which hired 3 partners apiece.
- Top partner recruiters in London March - April 2025
|
5 |
(5 laterals) |
|
4 |
(4 laterals) |
|
4 |
(3 laterals) |
|
3 |
(3 laterals) |
|
3 |
(0 laterals) |
|
3 |
(3 laterals) |
|
3 |
(2 laterals) |
|
3 |
(2 laterals) |
|
3 |
(1 lateral) |
In addition, eleven firms hired 2 partners each: Ashurst, Baker Botts, Baker McKenzie, Clyde & Co, DAC Beachcroft, Dentons, Greenberg Traurig, McDermott Will & Emery, Mills & Reeve, Paul Hastings and Simmons & Simmons.
A&O Shearman saw the highest attrition this edition, haemorrhaging 6 laterals – 2 to Latham & Watkins and one each to: Gibson Dunn, King & Spalding, Linklaters and McDermott Will & Emery. Two firms saw the departure of 4 serving partners: JMW Solicitors (one each to: Blake Morgan, Edwin Coe, Fox Williams and PCB Byrne); and White & Case (3 to Milbank and one to Paul Hastings). Three firms lost 3 partners apiece: Akin (one each to: Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss and Proskauer Rose); Quinn Emanuel (all to Joseph Hage Aaronson); and Weil (all to Sidley Austin).
- Firms with largest attrition in March – April 2025 (partnership to partnership moves only)
|
6 |
|
4 |
|
4 |
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
- Team hires March – April 2025
The most sizeable multi-partner team move this edition was Milbank’s hire of a four-partner infrastructure team (four laterals and one vertical) from White & Case. This was followed by two separate three-partner moves: Joseph Hage Aaronson’s hire of a construction team from Quinn Emanuel; and Sidley Austin’s hire of a private funds team from Weil. In addition, six firms hired two partner teams: Baker Botts (projects and energy from Vinson & Elkins); DAC Beachcroft (real estate from Macfarlanes); Greenberg Traurig (construction and finance from Reed Smith); Latham & Watkins (finance from A&O Shearman); Sidley Austin (capital markets from Latham & Watkins)*; and Simmons & Simmons (insurance from Kennedys).
* In what appears to be a rolling raid, these two hires are the ninth and tenth finance/capital markets laterals to join the Illinois firm from Latham in as many months.
- Other Fun Facts March – April 2025
- 30% of moves this edition were female (27).
- 3 firms hired from in-house or business: Bindmans (from Motion Picture Solutions), CMS (from Abbott Laboratories) and Travers Smith (from Livingbridge).
- 22% of all moves (20) were moves from non-partnership roles (either moves from in-house or non-partners elevated to partnership upon moving from another law firm).
- US Big Law’s Brave “Few”
More than 40% of the hires in this publication are by US founded law firms which, in many sectors of the market, now dominate in London. As such, we can always hope that we will look back at the unprecedented assault by the White House on Big Law as a very serious, yet narrowly avoided, threat to the rule of law. Perhaps when it’s all over some eloquent jurist will utter something suitably Churchillian along the lines of, “Never in the field of jurisprudential conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”.
We can hope that the quartet of Big Law firms - Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey and Wilmer Hale, bravely fighting back against the Trump Administration’s seemingly illegal executive orders, which appear to have singled them out for simply performing their constitutionally protected activities, will succeed. In view of the very real threat to the rule of law, and the existential, and immediate, risk to their own businesses, they and their fellow law firm advisers, deserve the approbation and support, of not just the legal services industry, but of us all.
The orders, which also target the clients of these law firms, and even appear to restrict their lawyers from entering courtrooms, have been called a “functional death sentence”, so (unsurprisingly) they were all temporarily stayed ahead of additional hearings; and, in May, a Federal Judge found the Executive Order against Perkins Coie to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, whilst it seems probable that the rest of the quartet will also overturn the more vexatious provisions within the orders, for the rule of law, this will likely prove a pyrrhic victory. As demonstrated by the scramble of other Big Law firms to settle with the administration, the reality is that, going forward, all major commercial law firms will be more particular about which clients and matters they can take on. This is because, despite protestations to the contrary, most existing clients will not want to get caught in the crossfire by continuing to instruct a law firm which has incurred the ire of an administration which has shown itself perfectly capable of targeting that law firm’s clients simply by association. Whilst it may sound trite to use the term “justice” in the context of billion-dollar law firms, the ramifications for justice are nonetheless chilling.
Whilst it may sound trite to use the term “justice” in the context of billion-dollar law firms, the ramifications for justice are nonetheless chilling.
At stake is an issue which transcends right-wing vs left-wing politics. Asset owing capitalists have as much to lose from the breakdown in the rule of law as the indigent left, nor, despite the administration’s demands that all law firms drop DEI policies, is it about culture wars; even arch liberals can find Big Law’s constant grandstanding on DEI a tad wearing. As the White House executive orders unashamedly make clear, it is about singling out for vengeance those law firms whose employees and partners have, at some time, taken an adverse position to the current administration or its causes. A mixture of political vengeance and, more importantly for the rule of law, a warning to lawyers not to represent clients or causes in opposition to the administration.
… Yikes!
Most senior lawyers admit privately to being appalled by these attacks. Moreover, as Edwards Gibson has previously argued, the financial success of Big Law is predicated entirely on the rule of law. So why has Big Law, that immensely powerful and well-connected collective, been so spectacularly ineffective in standing up for its own interests? And why, when Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey and Wilmer Hale have decided to fight the administration, did the much more powerful super elite New York firm Paul Weiss take a different tack and, together with a host of peer and near peer rivals, settle with the White House?
The answer lies in three interconnected developments in Big Law: (i) the inherent fragility of the law firm partnership model which, post financial crisis, has become even less cohesive; (ii) the increasing reliance by Big Law on private capital clients to drive its stratospheric profitability; and (iii) (thanks to (i) and (ii)) the increased ease in which individual rainmaker partners can switch law firms, taking all of their lucrative private capital clients with them.
To learn just how structurally unstable the US super elite law firms have become over the past ten years (and why some probably had no choice but to make inglorious settlements with the White House) please follow the link to our recent article Big Law Jenga: Why Private Capital Stars are a Tragedy for the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, head-hunters are part of the problem!
CLICK THE DOWNLOAD LINK BELOW FOR OUR FULL MARCH – APRIL 2025 REPORT
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss this article or any other aspect of the market in more depth.
Scott Gibson, Director scott.gibson@edwardsgibson.com or +44 (0)7788 454 080
Sloane Poulton, Director sloane.poulton@edwardsgibson.com or +44 (0)7967 603 402
Please click here to understand our methodology for compiling Partner Moves
Download the full Partner Moves Issue here >>
If you would like to subscribe to our Partner Moves Newsletter, email us at support@edwardsgibson.com
Edwards Gibson Partner Round-Up - Our Methodology- Previous editions of Partner Moves in London
- Quantifying your following and writing an effective law firm business plan
- Specimen partner business plan template
- The Partnership Track and Moving for Immediate Partnership
- Legal directory rankings and their effect on lawyer recruitment
- Restrictive Covenants and Moving on as a Partner
- Big Law Jenga; Why Private Capital Stars are a Tragedy for the Rule of Law
- Big Law’s Brave “Few”, Their Inevitable Pyrrhic Victory, and Why This Is Still a Tragedy for The Rule of Law
- No Accounting for the Big Four in Big Law
- MIPIM 2025 Doppelgänger Style!
- "Memery Loss" London Law Firm Memery Crystal Crashes
- Lawyers should remember that the financial success of Big Law is predicated entirely on the Rule of Law
- Paul Weiss - The invasive species that upset the London Big Law ecosystem
- Paul Weiss - Happy Birthday to BigLaw's Apex Predator
