Slater & Gordon circles Pannone as consumer legal services market consolidates

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • Interesting then to see what would happen to the remainder of Pannone i.e. the non personal side, as it would be very sub scale. Merger or takeover by another firm?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In response to the poster above, I suspect it MUST be one or both!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The firm is currently split into 3 parts: (1) bulk consumer/"white label" work, (2) private client work, and (3) commercial work.

    If S&G are having both parts (1) and (2), then there won't be much left as part (3) lacks scale. Part 3 would presumably then disintegrate or be bought out, with the Pannone name disappearing altogether, plus redundancies.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is a real pity. Another Manchester stalwart disappearing from the market, but perhaps not surprising given the direction toward the PI/Serious Injury side the firm's management has been clearly taking it. It will be interesting to see what happens to the non-PI side. I have worked on deals opposite them, and used them since going in-house. I agree that it the non-PI side is small and possibly sub-scale as a standalone, but there are some very good individual lawyers in the corporate, real estate, tax, corporate recovery and banking teams of the firm. I guess this is an opportunity fo the competitors to hire some quality people and cherry pick the talent. Difficult to see how the "Part 3" bit (as described by Pan None) would work well as a standalone piece.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down.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 (4)