Slaughter and May to cut 28 secretarial jobs
Slaughter and May is looking to cut some 28 secretarial staff out of a total team of 165 in London with the firm blaming the changing role of secretaries at law firms.
Graham White
Slaughters told staff this morning that it had been reviewing its secretarial resource in London following technological advances that have allowed lawyers to be more independent in how they manage documents and communicate with clients.
A statement sent by the firm today read: “Regrettably, we have come to the conclusion that we will need to reduce our secretarial number.”
The firm expects that some 28 full-time equivalent roles will be cut from the 165-strong pool of secretaries in London. Slaughters aims to complete the redundancies by 31 December. The firm would not comment on the redundancy packages being offered.
According to executive partner Graham White, these will not be the first support staff redundancies made this year. Smaller scale cuts – in single figures - have been made within a couple of the firm’s specialised business services groups within the past months. White declined to comment which groups were affected, however, or on the number of jobs lost.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (22)
Anon | 2-Oct-2012 1:22 pm
Partners in City law firms are some of the most moral, selfless, loyal, honourable and kind people you will find anywhere. They are the best of us.
And this early Christmas present from the partners of Slaughter and May, current struggling on average earnings of just £1.84 million, to their staff is further evidence of the sheer decency of the group.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Oct-2012 1:24 pm
What a shame they couldn't have deferred the decision till the late spring, so that the article could have been headed "Slaughtered in May".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Oct-2012 2:51 pm
Money saved can fund more initiatives (parties and partner overseas trips) to develop stronger international relationships?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Shocked, not. | 2-Oct-2012 3:12 pm
Re. Moaning comments above about Slaughters being mean and miserly, not to mention cruel to sack people at Christmas.....
Why is that we assume lawyers are somehow any less venal than anyone else? If a hedge fund sacked secretaries no one would comment. But we somehow expect lawyers to care about people they employ despite every scrap of evidence pointing to the conclusion they don't give a damn. Very odd...Perhaps we just hope or wrongly believe lawyers have a higher calling other than cash in the bank?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Oct-2012 3:21 pm
Frankly, I'm just glad to be out of the place. All those bullying partners - screaming at everyone from secretaries to trainees to senior associates. I'm happy to take the 3 months pay off being mooted plus my notice period and go to a firm that treats people more decently!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 2-Oct-2012 3:45 pm
"go to a firm that treats people more decently"
Good luck with that. I think you will find they all have a deeply sociopathic culture, in the City at least.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Oct-2012 5:54 pm
I have a lot of sympathy for those being made redundant, having been made redundant in previous downturns myself. But the view often expressed in the comments on articles like this, that because the owners of a business (in this case, the partners) make lots of money they shouldn't review staffing levels and reduce headcount in areas where they consider themselves overstaffed is nonsense.
That's not to take away from the personal impact felt by those affected - it can be a real blow and feel deeply unfair. But by definition charities don't make profits, and profit making entities aren't charities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
CCH | 3-Oct-2012 9:21 am
@ anonymous 2 Oct 5:54pm
I agree that redundancy may be a real blow but how can it be unfair when, as you point out, it would be nonsense not to reduce staffing levels and headcount in those areas where they are overstaffed? Are you suggesting that it would be only fair for the partners to make staffing decisions that are nonsense?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Oct-2012 10:53 am
CCH | 3-Oct-2012 9:21 am - I don't think that was what @ anonymous 2 Oct 5:54pm was suggesting at all (unless I've missed something) - quite the opposite, surely?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous @ 5.54 | 3-Oct-2012 11:18 am
@CCH, anonymous at 10.53am has it correct - I'm in complete agreement with you. The connection drawn all too often in the comments on these sorts of articles, between the need for / unfairness of redundancies on the one hand, and partner profits or general firm profitability on the other, is completely specious.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment