Addleshaw Goddard cuts 24 fee-earner roles at end of consultation

  • Print
  • Comments (17)

Readers' comments (17)

  • 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 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • @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

  • 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

  • @Till. Your further thoughts?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @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

  • 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

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (17)