Addleshaw Goddard cuts 24 fee-earner roles at end of consultation
Related images
Addleshaw Goddard has axed 24 fee-earner positions following its second round of redundancies in just over a year.
Paul Devitt
Managing partner Paul Devitt announced today that the roles have been cut in a bid to “rebalance” the firm’s front-line fee-earner resource.
The jobs have gone from across each of the firm’s UK offices in London, Leeds and Manchester. The redundancies do not affect the firm’s newly opened Singapore office.
The redundancies follow the admission in June that natural attrition rates had fallen among senior fee-earners (21 June 2012). In the five years to 30 April 2012, overall fee-earner numbers reduced from 490 to 437, but the two most senior fee-earner categories – managing associate and legal director – grew from 100 to 173.
In a statement, Devitt said: “We took the difficult decision, having previously avoided a fee-earner redundancy programme, to rebalance the shape and size of our front-line fee-earner resource to ensure that it’s a better fit for our business and more appropriately supports our long-term strength and competitiveness.
“It has, of course, been a difficult period for those affected by the consultation and we thank them for their understanding and great professionalism. We wish them well.”
The firm announced the redundancy programme at the same time as a 30 per cent rise in profits, from £34.4m in 2010-11 to £44.9m for 2011-12. Turnover was also up by five per cent, from £161.9m to £170m.
It is not thought that there are any similar plans to cut partner or support staff numbers after May 2011 redundancy talks ended in 40 jobs being cut from the firm’s business services teams. That was in response to a difficult 12 months, with a 17 per cent slump in net profit (24 May 2011).
As part of an ongoing streamlining of the firm’s management, Addleshaw Goddard has also slashed the number of hurdles that lawyers have to navigate to be promoted to the partnership (30 July 2012).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (17)
Anon | 29-Aug-2012 1:12 pm
From what I understand a LOT more have gone by "stealth" over and above announced redundancies.
This is borne out by the fee earner numbers, down from 490 to 437 over five years, despite far more trainees having qualified in that period than fee earners leaving through retirement/to go to other firms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 29-Aug-2012 3:45 pm
@ Anon at 1.12pm, you are correct and I suspect the numbers in the regions have been hit harder than London - to be fair to Addleshaws this pattern would also be seen at Eversheds, DLA and similar firms who have much lower numbers of fee earners in their regional offices than they did 5 years. Squire Sanders has barely 100 fee earners in its Leeds office these days.
I suppose you could say that Addleshaws have at least had the decency to do this in public rather than managing people out, which is the strategy of many firms.
Mind you, if they didn't have their very expensive new City office then AG probably wouldn't have had to have made these savings....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 29-Aug-2012 4:07 pm
@ Anon | 29-Aug-2012 1:12 pm - and the numbers are actually even worse than they first appear as there has also been an office opening, and there will have been some (if not a huge number) lateral recruits too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Aug-2012 4:24 pm
Surely though this level of redundancies will happen every few years or so? Why will lack of attrition suddently improve?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Till | 29-Aug-2012 6:58 pm
I've resisted but can do so no longer. Please - this is not news. The economy is in a mess. People lose their jobs. That's unpleasant but it is not news. It seems the Lawyer and Legal week have become nothing more than a channel for the headhunters to continue their disruptive mischief. Firstly you light the fire and then you allow these people to fan the flames to create uncertainty and concern for those who are employed in the legal sector. The legal sector is a major contributor to GDP and surely as a rag that purports to represent those who work in it you should be doing all you can to support the sector. Allowing the inaccurate and deliberately adgitating commentary from those who consistently fail to display their names is a poor show on your part.
Am I alone in my frustration?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 30-Aug-2012 10:11 am
@Till
Are you suggesting that the legal press shouldn't report redundancy situations? You seem to be arguing that the Lawyer should be a cheerleader for the sector rather than providing news and analysis.
I suspect you probably are alone in your frustration, not least because there has actually been very little commentary on overall headcount reduction in the legal press - if anything this story has been quietly buried, there certainly hasn't been any fanning of the flames. Many national/international firms' offices in places like Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham are considerably smaller now than they were in 2004, let alone 2006/7 at the height of the boom. I haven't seen a single article in the Lawyer, Legal Business or Legal Week etc which has analysed the reduction in headcount in the UK offices of the top 50 firms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Smith | 30-Aug-2012 10:11 am
Till, I fear you may be alone. A law firm as large and successful as AG is having to make redundant some of their best and most qualified legal staff as they cannot support their salaries and remain competitive as a business model. This is news.
As for your criticisms of those who are reluctant to post their names, they may have reasons other than being ‘headhunters’. I leave it to you to deduce what those may be.
This website is a piece of media like any other. It is not there to represent the legal market, just to comment on it. This is exactly what all the people posting are doing. If the Law Society starts supporting such discussion threads, you will have reason to complain.
I hope you don’t lose your job at AG in the next round of redundancies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ramon | 30-Aug-2012 10:40 am
@Till. Your further thoughts?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim | 30-Aug-2012 11:15 am
@Anon 10:11 am
Agree. Addleshaws will be damned for doing this in public (rightly or wrongly so) but surely the firms that have gone through round after round of stealth headcount reduction need outing. I know of a number of firms that have managed out significantly more than then numbers AG have, all without the (limited) protection a formal redundancy exercise gives people.
At least AG are open with their strategy, whether we agree with them or not.
@Till 6:58 pm
Think you may indeed be alone. The Lawyer as the legal sector's Pravda ain't going to work.
Headhunters get up to mischief whatever, it's their job!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Aug-2012 12:45 pm
Are AG the new Dickinson Dees?
When people say managing out, do they mean making up spurious reasons to boot someone out without even pretending to have cause?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment