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).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (16)
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