In recent years it seems that the most popular way of making decisions about the future of one’s practice is to hold an ‘awayday’ for the partners.

As the managing partner of a seven-partner practice spread over three offices, I thought it seemed like an excellent way of getting my colleagues together and thrashing out a new five-year plan for the firm.

We agreed on a hotel and I booked us all in for the night before so that we could kick start the process with a convivial evening.

The alarm bells started ringing in the bar before dinner when three of the older partners approached me separately and confided that, although they were perfectly happy to put forward suggestions for a five-year plan, it would not affect them much personally since they were planning to retire in the next three years. I decided that this news was best delivered to the rest of the partnership while fortified by a couple of glasses of excellent claret and made the announcement during dinner.

The reaction was much as I had anticipated. Shock and outrage, closely followed by: ‘What is all this going to cost us?’ from the remaining partners. Although the retiring partners made no unreasonable financial demands, replacing them is still going to be a major problem and the cost to the business will be considerable.

A further contentious issue was raised by one of the newer partners who works with two of the retirees in our largest office. He instantly demanded a much larger share of the profits since, as he tactfully phrased it: ‘I do most of the work in our office anyway.’

From the conversation that followed it was obvious that the system of equal shares for all that we have used until now needed to be revised so, along with the problem of finding a couple of potential partners, I had another item for the agenda.

There was more. An informal chat over port and brandy with Gordon, the eldest of the retirees, over who should take over his clients revealed some unpleasant facts. One of his largest clients is about to go through a change of ownership, another has not had a fee increase for more than five years (they can perfectly well afford it, but the chairman is his golfing partner and Gordon doesn’t want to ‘rock the boat’). A third, also a personal friend, has financial problems so Gordon has not pursued their outstanding invoices ­ for 18 months. I swiftly added fees, WIP and debtors to the agenda.

By the morning everyone arrived at the meeting ready to do battle. Having considered the implications of the previous night’s bombshells they were determined to resist any course of action that might make life less comfortable for them. The original agenda was abandoned in favour of a series of arguments and any control I might have had at the beginning swiftly evaporated.

Although I managed to get the partners to acknowledge the need for improved financial control, they refused to accept that this should be managed centrally. ‘Nobody can tell me how to run my portfolio’ was their mantra and they insisted that they would continue to manage all the financial aspects of their own clients. I suspect that nothing will change and that we simply went to a great deal of trouble and expense to highlight some serious issues that I have no idea how to tackle effectively.

And the five-year plan? Well, that will be on the agenda again next year and I shall employ an outside consultant to chair the meeting.