Eversheds launches fresh redundancy talks
Eversheds launches fresh redundancy talks" class="inline_image inline_image_left" src="/pictures/web/images/14763_david-gray-eversheds.jpg" />Eversheds has launched a second round of redundancy talks with 45 lawyers and related support staff.
Those affected are predominantly in the M&A, finance and insurance departments. Those being consulted in finance are focused on real estate finance and acquisition finance.
David Gray, Eversheds chief executive said: “While we have difficulties in real estate and transational work, a lot of the cylinders of our business are firing strong.”
Gray added: “Whilst regrettable, it is important to put the proposed redundancies in context. We will continue to employ 1,300 lawyers in the UK alone. We are also continuing to recruit in areas that are performing strongly, such as pensions, projects, anti-trust and restructuring.”
The firm began considering redundancies in these departments during the summer, but decided to wait until the autumn before taking any decisions on the matter.
Head of corporate Peter Halpin said: “Looking at the CorpFin table, it shows quite clearly that after the first quarter the deal volume dropped significantly. Most corporate teams were hoping there’d be an improvement, however with the banking crisis its pretty clear transactional activity is going to be depressed for some time. And with prices still falling, its difficult to agree deals.”
Gray said: “We’re looking at opportunities for those affected, including redeployment internationally to offices in the Gulf.”
Eversheds made the decision in September 2008 (TheLawyer.com, 4 September 2008) to close its Norwich office and make 33 real estate lawyers and related support staff nationwide redundant. The consultation is ongoing and to date four lawyers and two secretaries have been made redundant in the firm’s Newcastle office as a result of that process.
With the launch of this latest consultation, 78 jobs are now under threat at Eversheds - the largest single number at any of the UK’s largest-grossing law firms. Including this latest consultation, since the start of the economic downturn 862 jobs have been brought under threat in the UK 200.
Eversheds’ competitor Wragge & Co. is in a redundancy consultation that is likely to affect 20 fee-earners in its property department. While DLA Piper has made five redundant in the technology, media and communications group (TheLawyer.com, 4 August 2008).
Readers' comments (16)
Anonymous | 13-Nov-2008 9:48 am
Eversheds launches fresh redundancy talks
Hmmmmmmmmm interesting turn of phrase consultation if you happen to be a secretary. Nicely organised so that there is no consulation for secretaries, 13 of which are to be made redundant from 24. They will be told today whom is at risk and who isn't, so guessing that 13 will be told that they are at risk today and to top it off, will face an agonising wait til 15 December for confirmation that they are to be made redundant.
Thank heavens that the Partners chose to stop having pudding and wine at their Partner lunches?!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Nov-2008 3:41 pm
Every cloud has a silver lining... right?
“Whilst regrettable, it is important to put the proposed redundancies in context. We will continue to employ 1,300 lawyers in the UK alone. We are also continuing to recruit in areas that are performing strongly, such as pensions, projects, anti-trust and restructuring."
Yes, I'm sure that puts redundancy in context for those affected. I'm struggling to see the justification for redundancies when the company is very obviously recruiting, and apparently recruiting in the same areas of those being made redundant, just in other offices. I also understand the Chief Executive sent an email to everybody saying it was regrettable there were going to be redundancies, but don't worry, we're recruiting in other areas! I'm sure those affected enjoyed reading that one. What an appalling lack of judgement and terrible display of shoddy management.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Nov-2008 4:03 pm
Ah yes, only a few then...
That is to say, only a few "important" members of staff - the lawyers - figure in the equation. As I am writing this, a further 9 of 27 support staff are awaiting their fate. Current tally today is 10 gone from Eversheds Commercial Manchester, 9 Commercial Leeds, 7 Commercial/Corporate Newcastle, 8 from Birmingham and 13 from London. Criteria for selection? Annual appraisal score? Tick. Sick record? Tick. "Other factors" Ti- eh? OTHER FACTORS? According to one inside report, Other Factors means "depending on who you work for and how outspoken you are". In other words, if your nickname is Cherry Blossom and when asked to jump you proudly show your highjumping gold medal from the Beijing Olymics, you're in. If, however, you are good at your job, the clients love you and your attendance record is wonderful, you've had it. I won't miss this firm if my card is marked.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2008 3:06 pm
What about the partners?
Why not ditch a few deadweight partners instead? They suck the firm dry. Getting rid of two or three of them could save twice as many assistant/support staff jobs and when the work comes along again, it is the assistants that will make the firm profitable again.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2008 11:39 pm
"Great place to work!"
Really!!! What a "regretable" turn of phrase that is! I know some of these people and they have worked their buts off for Eversheds and had excellent appraisals and still get a kick in the teeth. This is more than regretable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2008 1:40 pm
Redundancies
This firm is certainly not a great place to work and hasn't been for some time. If you are not prepared to dedicate your life and soul to the firm you are quickly singled out and either have enough pressure put on you to make you want to quit or are axed in more imaginative ways, redundancy being the current favourite.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Nov-2008 12:24 pm
Redundancies
Hmm what an interesting article!! A great place to work erm I think not and hasn't been for some time, some people are already working on a 5:1 ratio and constantly work over, doing long hours to complete deals for the business, do voluntary work to make the firm look good and yet it still isn't enough to keep their job!! Shocked and appalled at the whole process!! Really don't understand how much more support staff could give over the last 2 years!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Oscar W | 18-Nov-2008 12:40 pm
Last post
That was great how you put 'erm' before 'I think not'. It made your post sound all withering and sarcastic.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2008 12:40 pm
Redundancies
At the current ratio's of support staff to fee earners, partners are in real danger of having to make their own drinks. This will be a disaster. I'm not sure if some of them know what a kettle is, let alone how to use one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2008 3:42 pm
CRM - we're too big for all that nonsense
A number of those being made redundant, including myself, play a vital role in the increasingly-important CRM function. In this time of crunching credit and increasing competition, there are 20 law firms vying for every single panel appointment, so innovation and proactivity are vital.
A few years ago Eversheds began rolling out a programme making PAs CRM managers for their particular clients, carrying out the day to day management and close contact with their opposite numbers in key client relationships. Clients were hugely appreciative of this slant on things, loved the way it worked and the fact that, as one key client put it, "I don't need to see the feet paddling, I just see the swan on the water". What happens now that these key people are being disposed of without a second thought?
I suspect that Eversheds too will be disposed of - without that second thought
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
EVERnezer Scrooge | 19-Nov-2008 5:40 pm
Season's Greetings from 'a great place to work'
Merry Christmas to all..and sling yer hook before Christmas so we don't have to pay you for the bank holidays.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Nov-2008 0:17 am
Eversheds ... and sheds ... and sheds...
Reading these posts I am SO glad I made the decision to go on my own all those years ago. Working for a firm like this is selling your soul and then getting asked for a refund.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Nov-2008 8:53 pm
"A great place to work" & "Diversity"
Its so true that this firm sucks the life out of you and then disposes of you without any hesitation - so much for their value of 'a great place to work' - I should know as I was made redundant during phase 1.
Those Partners you work alongside stab you in the back to save their own skin - but for how long? Its about the partners heads started to roll - for every one a dozen support/assistant employees will be able to continue to meet their motgage payments!
And as for 'diversity' - lets just say there were only 2 non-white lawyers in the Leeds Property and guess what both of them were swiped out in round 1.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Dec-2008 12:27 pm
Real Motives
Eversheds consultancy process is mere lip service. If you were indentified at the start of the process you are out, there is no reprieve.
What's even more laughable is the criteria assessment that has been used in order to identify those at risk (ie where numbers in a certain position are proposed to be reduced, as opposed to a role redundancy). Criteria have been made up and the scores fixed within those criteria in order that the firm can get rid of those they wish. The real motives...money!
Of those in similar roles where redundancies have been proposed the person(s) with the highest wage are out. 3 associates, reduced to 2, the 1 redundant associate having a higher wage than the 2 'safe' associates. 4 solicitors, reduced to 2, the 2 redundant solicitors being 6 and 8 years qualified, the 2 'safe' solicitors 2 and 3 years qualified. 3 solicitors, reduced to 1, the 2 redundant solicitors 4 and 5 years qualified, the 1 'safe' solicitor being a solicitor Australia!!!
It's a similar story acorss the board.
In short, those on low wages are kept (all wages are low at Eversheds as it is), those on higher wages are out, behind a mask of performance related cirteria made up and fixed to suit Eversheds' purpose.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Jan-2009 12:42 pm
Redundancy - Count yourself lucky to escape!
Thank God I left when I did (about 18 months ago) - Eversheds used to be a decent company to work for but in the last few years it has treated support staff abominably. I was demoralised, over supervised and constantly on edge and felt as though I was under surveillance for my final few months. The redundancies have been humiliating, long drawn out and processed in a harsh uncaring manner. I've assured my friends who were "dumped" that credit crunch or no it's way better out here in the real world! If you can survive 'The Shed' you can do anything!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jun-2009 1:05 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with all the above. This is not a great place to work!! I left around 6 months ago and it couldn't come soon enough. I was tired of slaving my heart out for a manager who didn't notice and or care. I had been steadily promoted through the ranks in the department to be on 1/3 less money than others recruited externally. Constantly shifting managers and boundaries meant it was almost impossible to score decently in the PDR process which was always based on the last two/three months (despite claims that it related to the "whole year") and therefore no salary review despite being paid the lowest at my level.
A shocking place to work more like!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment