Margaret Taylor
Field Fisher lays off another seven fee-earners
Related images
Field Fisher Waterhouse has laid off seven fee-earners at the end of its third redundancy consultation.
Field Fisher Waterhouse has laid off seven fee-earners at the end of its third redundancy consultation.
The firm began consulting with fee-earners in its real estate, corporate and commercial practices last month and, while seven people have come forward for voluntary redundancy, a further two are still at risk of being laid off. So far the firm has made a total of 49 people redundant.
Managing partner Moira Gilmour (pictured) said the decision had been a difficult one for the firm to make but added that, as the economic outlook will remain uncertain for at least two years, the firm needs to “exercise prudent financial management”.
She added: “The current recession is having a significant impact on the property and finance industries, affecting our real estate, corporate and commercial and finance practices. As a result we have had to look at reducing the number of fee earners within those areas.
“Through the process we’ve looked hard at opportunities to minimise redundancies and have been able to do this through alternatives such as secondments, redeployment and temporary reduction of working hours.”
While a further two people could lose their jobs, the firm is hoping this can be avoided through secondments.
The firm launched its first round of redundancy talks last August, with up to 15 lawyers and staff in its real estate practice taking part in the consultation (8 August 2008). At the end of the talks 11 people were laid off.
The firm launched a second round of talks at the end of last year that resulted in 31 people losing their jobs (16 January).
Readers' comments (1)
English Undergrad | 20-Mar-2009 9:19 am
Disintegration
I am assuming that the majority of people responding to this article and stating that it's a good move to not include non-law students are actually law students. There seems to be an element of either envy or bitterness. If all the law students are so amazing then surely there would be no need to hire the non-law students.
Moreover, it is invalid to say that 'law degrees are harder than other degrees' - this is of course a ridiculous generalization. It depends entirely on the university and the particular course which you're studying. I am currently studying English (which according to many people is 'useless') at the best university for it in the country and contrary to popular belief I do actually have to work. I actually have more lectures and classes than the law students. It is much harder to get in for English here and so possibly the point that is being overlooked is that clever people who will make good lawyers don't all just decide to do law.
Doing a subject outside of law allows one a breadth and depth that law students do not have. My verbal reasoning, analytical and essay-writing skills are superior to those of law students.
One must realize that taking solely law students would close down the market.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment