Eversheds to cull 166 jobs across the UK and Asia as new strategy takes hold
Up to 166 jobs are at risk across Eversheds’ UK and Asia offices, with the firm’s Copenhagen office set to disappear altogether, as the firm seeks to realign itself under its new strategy.
Lee Ranson
According to the firm, 82 lawyers and 84 non-lawyers are at risk of losing their jobs following the announcement of the redundancy consultation. An Eversheds source said that the firm would offer enhanced redundancy packages – understood to be double the statutory requirement - to those who lose their jobs.
As part of the changes global managing partner Lee Ranson will become interim Asia managing partner, replacing Nick Seddon, who will leave the firm. According to the firm this is part of its strategy to drive closer integration between Eversheds’ Asia offices and the rest of the business. Other management changes are also expected in Asia.
The firm is also looking to close its Copenhagen office, which is part of the UK LLP, after deciding that there is not enough client interest to keep it open. Eversheds said it is in talks with another firm about forming a relationship and possibly transferring some of its staff.
In the UK, Eversheds’ marketing, IT and facilities teams will be cut down, and lawyers in the real estate and company commercial practices also face the axe.
The consultation period began today. A statement from the firm said: “Alternatives to redundancy will be considered wherever possible, including both redeployment and relocation within the business together with opportunities within Eversheds AGILE.”
Chief executive Bryan Hughes revealed his new three-year plan for the firm at a partner meeting in June 2012 (9 July 2012).
Between 2008 and 2009 Eversheds completed four separate redundancy rounds with some 735 staff losing their jobs (10 September 2009). At the time the firm offered departing employees only the statutory minimum redundancy package, which was one week’s salary for every year worked, providing the employee had been with the firm for at least two years. The cuts had a large effect on morale at Eversheds and the firm attracted a lot of criticism for offering only the statutory minimum.
In a recent interview with The Lawyer Hughes said of the 2009 redundancies: “As with many law firms at the time, redundancies were new to us. When we met with our assessor from Investors in People he said one of the problems we had was that morale was so strong beforehand the firm had further to fall than most. I had to spend a lot of time getting people back onside and part of the morale problem was that we needed to get people busy again.
“You don’t have to make unpopular decisions [to be a law firm manager] but you do have to make the right decisions. I’m in the role to protect and sustain the business. If you can’t make difficult decisions you shouldn’t be in the job.”
Eversheds also cut 75 back-office roles in 2011 (26 May 2011) as a result of an outsourcing deal with Accenture that led to human resources and financial services staff across the firm’s regional UK offices losing their jobs.
For a video interview with Hughes, click here.
Readers' comments (24)
Ever shedding | 24-Jan-2013 12:02 pm
I think this is just the start of another wave of big scale redundancies in big international firms. 2009 all over again!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 12:02 pm
Impeccable timing with The Lawyer's front page feature this week. Maybe Bryan is reaching for a clutch of P45s in the picture?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 12:11 pm
Not about cats, didn't read.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fran Shaefer | 24-Jan-2013 12:44 pm
seems in line with the rest of the industry
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 12:59 pm
I heard good package though !!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 1:20 pm
Most of the people I talk to in law firms (senior and junior) seem upbeat about their firms and business generally, certainly when compared to the last few years. This seems to be at odds with all these redundancy stories. Why the disconnect?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 2:42 pm
A difficult day at Eversheds, however in the long run this will make the firm stronger.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 6:13 pm
This latest batch of redundancies sits very uncomfortably with the fact that PEP increased by over 10% (£50k) just a few months ago. Eversheds are clearly not struggling and this latest move seems yet another stunt to line the pockets of those who already earn unjustified amounts for the actual amount of work they do!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
T-bone | 24-Jan-2013 6:21 pm
@1:20pm
Easy, the people you are talking to are focused on chargeable hours/workload. Redundancy decisions are being made by people focused on profit. There’s a lot of downward fee pressure and just because people are busy, it doesn’t mean that the income reflects that to a level satisfactory to the equity partners calling the shots.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 8:57 pm
The interview with Hughes earlier this week mentions PEP was up last financial year and profits per lawyer have doubled since 2004. So this frankly smacks of pure greed and protectionism of partner's profits at the expense of the rest of the firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ashley Balls | 24-Jan-2013 11:24 pm
Talk of morale returning to 'normal' is probably just that; talk. When a business makes staff redundant 4 times in as many years you have to start to question the management and planning skills of those at the top. One rather unfortunate conclusion is that 'management' consider personnel as just another component on the production line to be turned on or off (hired/fired) at will. Not clever; 2 out of 10 Mr Ranson.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Jan-2013 3:15 am
To Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 1:20 pm - good question!
To Anonymous | 24-Jan-2013 2:42 pm - hello Evershed's PR department! Poor effort though as obvious cliche with no real meaning or insight into the situation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Logic | 25-Jan-2013 7:15 am
To Anonymous, 24 Jan 2013, 2:42 pm.
So, I understand from what you said that if they fire all fee-earners, the firm will be even more stronger? Tell me more please.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Jan-2013 10:01 am
Only 2 weeks ago, this company was celebrating record turnover & profits with champagne to staff. A greedy bunch of mercenaries.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Jan-2013 10:17 am
A further 166, after cutting 735 staff in 2008/09 and 75 staff in 2011. That's shocking!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Jan-2013 3:59 pm
High profit over a few months doesn't mean things look good long term, However using that high profit to give the fairly substantial redundancy packages is fairly honourable. Cutting employees does after all mean higher workload for those left!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SF | 25-Jan-2013 8:39 pm
There is an argument to be made that the Firm put its staff first three years ago when it should have made cuts in much larger numbers. Unfortunately, if the Return on Investment in the London office is not increasing, then further cuts need to be made to bring it in line with what they maybe needed to do back then.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Jan-2013 11:57 am
Unfortunately we are in a world recession and although redundancies are never welcome be thankful that you are getting more than the basic redundancy package - I assume that you did read your contract when you started ? Stop moaning and grow a pair ! The NHS has to make saving of 20 billion by 2015 and the RCN has identified over 60,000 nursing posts which are being cut. Put these problems into perspective no one will actually die if a lawyer doesn't work but someone may if a doctor or nurse doesn't. Put your energy into something more important for goodness sake.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
G | 27-Jan-2013 12:06 pm
Sad but sensible. Real estate will be in the doldrums for another 4 years
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Jan-2013 9:32 pm
I hear that the redundancy is double the statutory minimum - while better than before, still not much recompense to those fee earners whose earnings are going to be well above the statutory weekly cap.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kelly Matthews | 29-Jan-2013 6:38 am
"When a business makes staff redundant 4 times in as many years you have to start to question the management and planning skills of those at the top"
The above quote from the previous poster is spot on. This smacks of poor planning, poor decision making and not knowing if you are coming or going.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Jan-2013 4:46 pm
In 166 cases it appears to be "going", I'm afraid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Frost | 31-Jan-2013 9:21 am
You would need a crystal ball on steroids to predict anything in the current economic climate.
You could make a fortune selling it to every other firm in the same position though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31-Jan-2013 9:31 pm
I hope they're eschewing pudding this time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment