157 / 462
GAZETTE
JUNE
1992
Thble 1 Source:
Finance
February, 1992
Ireland - The Top Corporate Law Firms
(Ranked in order of staff numbers)
NAME
Total
No.
Partners
Other fee
Earners
Other staff
1. McCann FitzGerald
224
43
79
102
2. A&L Goodbody
223
28
93
102
3. Arthur Cox
140
21
39
80
4. Matheson Ormsby Prentice
118
15
44
59
5. Willam Fry
112
16
47
49
6. Mason Hayes & Curran
75
10
20
45
7. Eugene F Collins
64
8
32
24
8. Gerrard Scallan & O'Brien
63
9
28
26
9. Ivor Fitzpatrick
& Co.
62
5
27
30
10. Beauchamps
56
8
18
30
11. Cawley Sheerin Wynne
55
9
21
25
12. Murray Sweeney (Limerick)
49
8
19
22
13. Rory O'Donnell & Co.
48
4
24
20
14. Whitney Moore & Keller
42
10
10
22
15. Holmes O'Malley & Sexton
(Limerick)
41
7
5
29
16. Kenny Stephenson & Chapman
(Waterford)
33
5
11
17
16. Binchys
33
3
16
14
17. JG O'Connor & Co.
30
7
nd
nd
18. Patrick F O'Reilly
27
3
10
14
19. Gore & Crimes
26
5
4
17
20. M.J. Horgan & Sons (Cork)
25
3
8
14
20. Orpen Franks
25
6
7
12
21. LK Shields & Partners
24
3
9
12
22. Dockrell Farrell
22
6
6
16
23. McKeever & Son
20
4
3
13
23. JW O'Donovan & Co. (Cork)
20
5
4
11
24. Reddy Charlton McKnight
19
9
7
3
25. Kevans
18
3
11
4
Thble 2 Source:
Legal Business,
March 1992
UK - The Top Ten Law Firms Ranked by Profits per Partner 1991
Firm
Gross Fees
Fees per
Average
Profits
£ million
fee-earner
profits
per
£000
per equity fee-earner
partner
£000
£000
£
£
£
£
Clifford Chance
232
207
278
56
Linklaters & Paines
144
208
349
69
Freshfields
115
207
293
60
Slaughter and May
113
208
377
65
Lovell White Durrant
111
185
321
54
Allen & Overy
94
181
344
54
Herbert Smith
89
199
312
56
Simmons & Simmons
84
190
281
57
Norton Rose
72
167
265
47
Nabarro Nathanson
63
155
178
43
The table gives a figure for the average net profit generated per equity
partner within a firm. Average profits per equity partner are not the
same as take home pay.
Drunk Driving: Failure to Give a
Specimen: Shock can be a
Reasonable Excuse
The Queen's Bench (Divisional
Court) had held in
DPP
-v-
Pearman, The Times,
Law Report,
March 27, 1992 that justices were
entitled, without having heard any
medical evidence, to find that shock
combined with inebriation which
rendered a defendant physically
incapable of providing a breath
specimen for analysis, could amount
to a reasonable excuse for failing to
provide a specimen under section
7(6) of the (UK)
Road Traffic, Act,
1988.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court
so held in dismissing an appeal by
the prosecution against a decision of
mid-Hertfordshire Justices to acquit
Susan Elizabeth Pearman of failing
to provide a breath specimen without
reasonable excuse.
Lloyd LJ said that the justices had
found that the defendant had
provided one specimen of breath but
when it came to providing a second
specimen she began to lose her
composure. She blew into the
intoximeter but was unable to
provide a sufficient breath for a
second specimen.
The defendant sobbed continuously
and felt short of breath and unable
to breathe properly. Her condition
prevented the supply of further
breath specimens.
Lloyd LJ said it was clear the
justices had the test in
R
-v-
Lennard
[1973] 1 WLR 483 well in mind. It
was open to the justices to conclude
that the defendant was physically
incapable of providing a second
specimen, although the fact that she
had succeeded in providing the first
specimen meant the case was very
close to the borderline.
The second submission for the
prosecutor was that the justices
should not have reached that
conclusion without medical evidence.
The Court was unwilling to accept
the proposition in those absolute
terms.
133