Players at centre of Harry Elias storm tell their stories
Philip Fong, Latiff Ibrahim give their accounts of last week’s resignations
By MICHELLE QUAH 03 February 2010
(SINGAPORE) Major differences in opinion on their future drove a serious wedge between senior partners at law firm Harry Elias Partnership LLP (HEP), which eventually saw the resignation of its managing partner - and some others - last week.
While the resignations were reported, the reasons for them were unclear. Now, BT has learnt that what constituted the ‘strategic differences’ that threatened to tear the firm apart are very different - depending on whom you talk to.
HEP’s new managing partner, Philip Fong, told BT yesterday the differences resulted from how the various parties believed the firm should be governed.
‘The vast majority of the senior partners agreed that we had to move forward, modernise the firm, the way we do things; we felt we needed to have a new transparent governance structure where decisions about how the firm operates are reached by a group of senior (equity) partners, rather than just by one man (previous managing partner Latiff Ibrahim),’ he said.
He explained that the new leadership structure - with the managing partner supported by an executive committee of senior partners - would also gel with the firm’s intention to move towards a limited liability partnership structure, which it adopted yesterday.
He said Mr. Latiff resisted the change: ‘We didn’t ask him to go; he chose to resign because he was not willing to go in the same direction - where power doesn’t rest with him but a group of senior partners.’
But the story from Mr. Latiff is a different one. When BT spoke to him yesterday, he confirmed he left because of strategic differences with the rest of the partners - but not because he wanted to retain absolute control.
‘I had always consulted my partners on any decision I’d made concerning the firm. The strategic differences that I had with the others resulted from my drive to grow the firm, to meet the challenges which Law Minister K Shanmugam had said would affect the legal industry here,’ Mr. Latiff said.
The minister, at last year’s Law Society dinner for law firms, spoke of the challenges posed by the opening up of the legal industry to foreign law firms, which could see the large local firms competing more fiercely with the mid-tier firms for clients and talent.
To boost their standing in the face of such challenges, Mr. Latiff said he had been considering mergers with other law firms here. ‘I also wanted to bring more partners in - in fact, I promoted five junior partners to equity partners last year. These were all matters I had discussed with my partners before any action was taken. The rest viewed such concerns differently - but I wished them well when I left,’ he said.
Mr. Latiff, who is the brother of Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, had been HEP’s managing partner from 2006. He advised on prominent projects such as Marina Bay Sands integrated resort (IR) and Singapore Flyer, and acted as counsel on disputes involving the Nicoll Highway collapse.
Now, there’s talk in the industry that Mr. Latiff could very well take the lucrative Marine Bay Sands contract with him - as he has already being courted by several of the large law firms here.
When asked by BT, he declined to comment, except to say that he is ‘moving on’.
Mr. Fong has sought to downplay concerns over the Marina Bay Sands contract, saying that ‘Tan Chau Yee (a senior partner in the construction, engineering and infrastructure projects practice group) was involved with the MBS (Marina Bay Sands) construction project since its inception’.
‘Mr. Tan has since taken over as head of this practice group. Moving ahead, any disputes will be handled by Mr. Tan and other construction litigation lawyers in the firm,’ Mr. Fong told BT.
Two others in the practice group - Lynette Chew and Kelvin Aw, who were made partners just this year - resigned along with Mr. Latiff. Ms Chew had been quoted as saying that they left because of differences between the partners.
The firm also saw two other resignations at that time: Shanti Jaganathan, head of the intellectual property practice; and Shashi Nathan, head of the criminal litigation practice group.
Mr. Fong said their resignations were unrelated to the others. He said Mr. Nathan had resigned to spend more time with his family, but that the firm has retained him as a consultant.
HEP sought to allay the concerns of its clients after news of the resignations broke - sending emails and mailers to them, as well as posting an announcement on its website, to explain the resignations. ‘The departures have no impact on the firm, which has more than 50 lawyers and fee earners,’ the announcement said.
Mr. Fong, who was voted by the other partners to take over after Mr. Latiff left, has also sought to galvanise the rest of the firm. In an email to his staff, he urged them to leave their problems behind them and set aside ‘personal differences or petty arguments which do not profit our firm or our clients’.
‘If necessary, aspects which serve only to hinder progress will be taken away, just as deadwood is culled to make way for new growth,’ he said.
Having spent 15 years at the firm, he said he would ‘serve with pride and glory’ as its new chief.
2 comments:
Players at centre of Harry Elias storm tell their stories
Philip Fong, Latiff Ibrahim give their accounts of last week’s resignations
By MICHELLE QUAH
03 February 2010
(SINGAPORE) Major differences in opinion on their future drove a serious wedge between senior partners at law firm Harry Elias Partnership LLP (HEP), which eventually saw the resignation of its managing partner - and some others - last week.
While the resignations were reported, the reasons for them were unclear. Now, BT has learnt that what constituted the ‘strategic differences’ that threatened to tear the firm apart are very different - depending on whom you talk to.
HEP’s new managing partner, Philip Fong, told BT yesterday the differences resulted from how the various parties believed the firm should be governed.
‘The vast majority of the senior partners agreed that we had to move forward, modernise the firm, the way we do things; we felt we needed to have a new transparent governance structure where decisions about how the firm operates are reached by a group of senior (equity) partners, rather than just by one man (previous managing partner Latiff Ibrahim),’ he said.
He explained that the new leadership structure - with the managing partner supported by an executive committee of senior partners - would also gel with the firm’s intention to move towards a limited liability partnership structure, which it adopted yesterday.
He said Mr. Latiff resisted the change: ‘We didn’t ask him to go; he chose to resign because he was not willing to go in the same direction - where power doesn’t rest with him but a group of senior partners.’
But the story from Mr. Latiff is a different one. When BT spoke to him yesterday, he confirmed he left because of strategic differences with the rest of the partners - but not because he wanted to retain absolute control.
‘I had always consulted my partners on any decision I’d made concerning the firm. The strategic differences that I had with the others resulted from my drive to grow the firm, to meet the challenges which Law Minister K Shanmugam had said would affect the legal industry here,’ Mr. Latiff said.
The minister, at last year’s Law Society dinner for law firms, spoke of the challenges posed by the opening up of the legal industry to foreign law firms, which could see the large local firms competing more fiercely with the mid-tier firms for clients and talent.
To boost their standing in the face of such challenges, Mr. Latiff said he had been considering mergers with other law firms here. ‘I also wanted to bring more partners in - in fact, I promoted five junior partners to equity partners last year. These were all matters I had discussed with my partners before any action was taken. The rest viewed such concerns differently - but I wished them well when I left,’ he said.
Mr. Latiff, who is the brother of Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, had been HEP’s managing partner from 2006. He advised on prominent projects such as Marina Bay Sands integrated resort (IR) and Singapore Flyer, and acted as counsel on disputes involving the Nicoll Highway collapse.
Now, there’s talk in the industry that Mr. Latiff could very well take the lucrative Marine Bay Sands contract with him - as he has already being courted by several of the large law firms here.
When asked by BT, he declined to comment, except to say that he is ‘moving on’.
Mr. Fong has sought to downplay concerns over the Marina Bay Sands contract, saying that ‘Tan Chau Yee (a senior partner in the construction, engineering and infrastructure projects practice group) was involved with the MBS (Marina Bay Sands) construction project since its inception’.
‘Mr. Tan has since taken over as head of this practice group. Moving ahead, any disputes will be handled by Mr. Tan and other construction litigation lawyers in the firm,’ Mr. Fong told BT.
Two others in the practice group - Lynette Chew and Kelvin Aw, who were made partners just this year - resigned along with Mr. Latiff. Ms Chew had been quoted as saying that they left because of differences between the partners.
The firm also saw two other resignations at that time: Shanti Jaganathan, head of the intellectual property practice; and Shashi Nathan, head of the criminal litigation practice group.
Mr. Fong said their resignations were unrelated to the others. He said Mr. Nathan had resigned to spend more time with his family, but that the firm has retained him as a consultant.
HEP sought to allay the concerns of its clients after news of the resignations broke - sending emails and mailers to them, as well as posting an announcement on its website, to explain the resignations. ‘The departures have no impact on the firm, which has more than 50 lawyers and fee earners,’ the announcement said.
Mr. Fong, who was voted by the other partners to take over after Mr. Latiff left, has also sought to galvanise the rest of the firm. In an email to his staff, he urged them to leave their problems behind them and set aside ‘personal differences or petty arguments which do not profit our firm or our clients’.
‘If necessary, aspects which serve only to hinder progress will be taken away, just as deadwood is culled to make way for new growth,’ he said.
Having spent 15 years at the firm, he said he would ‘serve with pride and glory’ as its new chief.
Post a Comment