Will you be mine?

In theory, firms make up partners because they are good lawyers.

However, the practice is different when economic conditions are tough.

Philip Hoult examines how both sides cope

The partnership aspirations of many senior associates at the UK's largest law firms will have taken a severe dent this year, with the number of internal promotions falling dramatically.

Analysis of this year's round of appointments at the top ten UK firms by turnover reveals that 174 new partners were promoted through the ranks this spring, a fall of 19% on the 214 made up 12 months ago.

The prospects were particularly grim for those associates up for selection this year among the City's largest firms, with Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters and Allen & Overy all making up fewer lawyers this year.

Only DLA of those in the top ten saw the number of promotions increase, up from ten to 14.

So, is the current crop of associates paying the price of the tough economic climate? Managers at the top law firms are usually quick to insist that there is no direct link between the number of promotions they make and the prevailing business conditions.

After all, they point out, partnership is a long-term investment with successful candidates expected to devote 20 years of service or more to the firm after their appointment.

Accordingly, long-term considerations such as the abilities of the individual lawyer in question, including their capacity to generate and hold on to business over their time as a partner, should in theory override any short-term considerations.

'Only the best will do' is a common refrain.

That is the theory.

The reality is that this view is undoubtedly affected by the here and now, indeed more so than many firms are prepared to admit openly.

'Partner selection is a balance of legal and business skills and the economics,' says Tony Williams, principal of management consultancy Jomati and former managing partner of Clifford Chance and Andersen Legal.

'And the economics tend to be looked at short term unless there is an overriding strategic reason.

In the current climate, this tends to benefit candidates in new areas of practice or in new offices.'

One major difficulty management faces in deciding how many partners to promote, Mr Williams adds, is that in assessing the long-term prospects of the firm as a whole and the business case for promotion, the vast majority of information at its disposal is of a short-term nature.

In the uncertain climate, with fickle stock markets and diminished levels of transactional activity, firms are likely to be ultra cautious.

Another reason why short-term considerations can have a significant impact on the selection process is that the aspirations of would-be partners also have to be weighed up against the expectations of other constituencies from within the firm.

Many equity partners, for example, may be reluctant to countenance any further dilution of the equity at a time when profitability is under such threat.

The fact that fewer partnerships are on offer inevitably means that the competition for promotion - and, often equally importantly, for promotion from salaried or fixed-share partnership or equivalent status to full equity partnership - is greater than in previous years.

This leaves enormous scope for friction, with high-quality lawyers who two years ago would have been made up or who would have moved up the ladder, now forced to consider their futures, frustrated at their lack of advancement.

'At the more junior level, frankly it is a particularly difficult time,' says Andy Russell, a director of recruitment consultancy Hays ZMB.

'There is an acceptance that to a large extent your ability is irrelevant.'

For those already with partner status but now looking to make the step up to equity, there are generally speaking more opportunities elsewhere - particularly if the individuals concerned can convincingly demonstrate a good record and the ability to generate their own book of business.

But at associate level, such contacts are less likely to be transferable, making a switch more difficult, although some small and medium-sized firms will make opportunistic hires, aware that they are able to pick up a calibre of lawyer they may not have been able to bring on board during the boom years.

Candidates who have been passed over should think twice about leaving in a fit of pique, warns Penny Terndrup, director at recruitment consultancy EJ Group.

'They are often people that the firms want to keep,' she says.

'Candidates are often trading a bit of impatience for a move to a lesser firm where it does not mean as much to be a partner or where becoming a partner is not going to project them as far in the long term.'

However, she acknowledges that once the relationship has broken down, usually where repeated assurances about being on track for partnership have proved untrue, it can be difficult to get it back.

One of the key requirements for firms looking to avoid such a breakdown in relationships with their associates pushing for promotion is to be open and upfront.

'The earlier you can manage people's expectations, the easier it is all round,' says Mr Russell.

'On the whole, people who go through the whole selection process and do not make it find the experience a really bitter one.

'Firms have tried to get better at being open over the years but there is still an element of lip service paid to it.

At the end of the day, they are running a business and it is a question of balancing the moral obligation to make someone a partner with the business obligation to make a profit.'

Having discussions in advance about their prospects, say two years before a lawyer comes up for selection, can help reduce the embarrassment of partners working closely with him and the anger felt by the individual affected when he is turned down.

At CMS Cameron McKenna, the City firm has made a conscious effort to improve its communication.

'What you can't do is say nothing,' says John Renz, head of human resources.

'If you sit down and have a sensible conversation with highly ambitious, professional people and explain the situation, they will normally understand.'

Mr Renz adds that the firm has also loosened the links between the assessment of the business case for promotion - both in the practice area and for the individual - and the assessment of the suitability of the individual.

Lawyers who are told that they are considered partnership material in terms of their individual abilities but that the business case is not convincing enough are more likely to take any delay to promotion on the chin.

'What we are trying to do is have a more open discussion and a more transparent process,' he says.

'It does not make selection easy but it makes it easier.'

To an extent, the issue of partnership promotion is one in which the legal profession has boxed itself into a corner.

According to Richard Linsell, partnership specialist at City firm Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, law firms could learn from other professions in the way career paths are structured.

In large accountancy firms, for example, there are many senior individuals who, while they may never be asked to become a partner or indeed want to become partners, are accorded status and remuneration appropriate to their skills.

Until now, law firms have shown little appetite to evolve in this way, to give themselves and their lawyers more flexibility.

A prolonged downturn - and more discontent among their associates - may force them to change their minds.

Philip Hoult is a freelance journalist