Categories:Australasia

Aussie firm Slater & Gordon posts turnover rise after acquisitive year

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Readers' comments (3)

  • I don't understand why any law firm would want to float and have to pay dividends to shareholders.
    I imagine the process involved some investment banking snake oil saleman convincing a bunch of lawyers, who thought they were incredibly commercially savvy and forward-thinking, that it was worth forever paying out a share of their profits in exchange for a short-term boost from the capital injection from the float.
    Maybe they'd also be interested in building a monorail?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I fully understand that partners at the major UK firms actually capable of flotation want to hoard all profits for themselves, but the reluctance to float is plain contumacy fueled by injudicious greed. I would rather float than merge with a US firm as global exposure would enhance without having to infiltrate a foreign culture into the business. The general public still think that law is a cash cow, and would happily throw their money at a firm with robust accounts.
    If Slater & Gordon's net profitability has risen 42%, then imagine what a major UK firm could do with the extra capital input. Partners at pioneering floated firms could eventually sell their shares at a huge profit and probably get around to retiring at an even younger age with even MORE cash.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I just looked up 'contumacy' in a dictionary: "stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, especially disobedience to a court order or summons"
    Not sure if that's what Debs intended to mean.
    Those points will all have been made in said iBankers' ever-so-slick powerpoint slides, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea from the point of view of partners in law firms doing anything other than high volume commoditised work.

    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Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down.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 (3)