Clifford Chance to cut City associates in response to 'low NQ attrition'

  • Print
  • Comments (27)

Readers' comments (27)

  • sounds like a bit of a car crash

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Can't think of any other industry in which it would be readily accepted that a desire to offer a permanent role to someone ending a 2 year fixed-term contract would be used to justify terminating existing employees.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Those for whom way is being made have a few years until they're recycled/pushed aside for cheaper labour. Start honing those transferable skills now so that you're fully prepared for the tap on the shoulder when (not if) it comes.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pardon? When we recruited people we expected them to be poached but they weren't so we'll sack them? This simply reflects a lack of work. There's no need to confuse the issue.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CC has vowed not to sack partners only because its partnership deed doesn't allow it too. Links' and A&O's deeds do allow it. So Links and A&O can do it without a vote but CC would need a vote. And the turkeys are not going to vote for Xmas.
    If CC's management had the power then they'd be doing exactly what Links did.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • is this the first spray of a lot more blood that will be spilt on the corporate carpets of london's city firms?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Advice to the NQs. Drive drunk in Hong Kong and you will be just fine. If you have a problem just call Mr Charlton.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If there's no work then why the retention of NQs? They say it's important that 'resources' are in line with business need. That smacks of the need for less experienced/cheaper people to do what work there is, rather than there being a lack of work full stop.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The sheer hypocrisy is startling. CC demands team working skills and a desire to work in a collegial environment from its applicants and then it fires a bunch of associates because cheaper labour is available...
    A disgusting decision. Shameful and abhorrent.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Vercingetorix: I believe CC partners DID vote on the last restructuring and more partners voted 'yes' than stayed. In other words, some turkeys did indeed vote for Christmas.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As always, you need to take the official figure and roughly triple it to take into account all of the "stealth" departures.
    The partners had to do something to celebrate the reduction in the 50p tax rate, this is their present to themselves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Many partner did indeed vote - with their feet to greener pastures. Think CCs many top funds, PE and corp partners who move to more elite firms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We all have to go with the times but getting rid of experiance is not always the best way forward to compare it to new cheaper lawyers who just qualified is not a way forward, but who are we to judge what a firm need to do to move forward throught these ruff times.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What's the big deal, other than it's surpising that the downsizing is not much bigger?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am surprised that 'Christina Bryan' is not on here, vociferously justifying CC's actions!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Problems if you get larger and larger and keep taking on more and more low margin work!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is surely Stage 2 of the 'Newcastle model'.
    After deciding to stop promoting associates, the partners replace them with more compliant, less expensive underlinings.
    This ensures the partners who arrived in the 2000s are guaranteed to remain in post for another twenty years as their competition is pushed outside the profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is absolutely normal in a large firm. The way the work allocation is done is that there needs to be a certain number of people at each level, and a 20% per year attrition. If people aren't leaving then they're paying extra for people higher up the lockstep to do jobs, when the work can be done by NQs who get paid 61k a year.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree that this does appear like stage 2 of 'the Newcastle Model'. However the firm which pioneered stage 1 of 'the Newcastle Model' is certainly not being hampered by a "low NQ attrition"!
    Like making the partners untouchable in a recession, this policy will kill the firm slowly. Standards will slip and those who suffer from this selfish, greedy scheme will make their feelings known within the profession and to clients. It takes a long time to repair a reputation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In response to Anoynmous@10.24:
    Can't think of any other industry in which it would be readily accepted that a desire to offer a permanent role to someone ending a 2 year fixed-term contract would be used to justify terminating existing employees.
    - I can't think of any other industry where said permanent employees would have an automatic entitlement to 10-20% pay rises year-on-year; where associates are charged out on a similar fee base (indeed, that fee base moves on a 6-month basis at some firms).
    Associates can't have it both ways: if you want lockstep salaries, guess what... you need attrition to keep the pyramid in check. The broader problem, however, is the utter evisceration of CC's strategy - like that other British brand (Tesco), the market has shifted and it needs to urgently redefine itself. 13 redundancies won't make a dent.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 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 (27)