Fox Hayes fall offers hard lesson in capital management
3 February 2009
Related Articles
Firm profile: Fox Hayes
17 November 2003
Ambitious Lupton Fawcett scoops up 32 ex-AMS staff
3 January 2011
Leeds' Lupton Fawcett takes over Fox Hayes
19 December 2008
Leeds’ Fox Hayes goes into administration
19 January 2009
Cobbetts called in for Fox Hayes wind-up
26 January 2009
When Leeds firm Fox Hayes went into administration two weeks ago, the rate of its business decline was in direct contrast to its prior mercurial growth.
When Leeds firm Fox Hayes went into administration two weeks ago (TheLawyer.com, 19 January) the rate of its business decline was in direct contrast to its prior mercurial growth.
A little over a decade ago Fox Hayes was a traditional Yorkshire firm with 21 employees and a commercial and private client practice. By last year, as a result of its investment in a volume conveyancing business, it had grown to 200 employees.
By embracing new technology and a commoditised business model, the firm reflected the transformation that its home city had undergone, as it changed from a deteriorating manufacturing centre into a bold financial and legal hub.
Fox Hayes’s expansion saw it take on new offices in Leeds city centre befitting an upwardly mobile business – 22,500sq ft of custom-made space. The partnership, which doubled in size between 2006 and 2008, was enjoying unparalleled prosperity, and in 2007 the highest paid partner took home £310,181.
Now, just six months after Fox Hayes announced a turnover of £10.1m for the 2007-08 financial year, the firm, which is more than a century old, has gone into administration. Following up to 43 redundancies before Christmas, a further 115 people have lost their jobs.
All former client matters have been sent elsewhere. The firm’s commercial and private client business went to Lupton Fawcett in early January prior to the administration. A conveyancing business called Advantage Property Lawyers, which was established by former employees on 17 November 2008, has picked up the remaining conveyancing work and is temporarily renting part of Fox Hayes’s former offices.
Comments have flooded in to TheLawyer.com from former employees. The focus has been on how managing partner Philip Drazen, together with a team of almost 40, including most of the partners, “abandoned ship” for Lupton Fawcett just days before the firm went under. The sense of dismay is understandable, the resentment palpable.
One reader posted: “I’m 12 weeks pregnant and I am terrified about how I will cope without a job. I haven’t been paid since 22nd December, most of which went on bills/mortgage and Xmas. I have only £7 in my bank account. I lay awake at night worrying about what I am going to do.”
Whether Drazen would have been able to find jobs for around 115 residential conveyancers is questionable, and he did not return calls or emails for comment on the matter.
From a business perspective, the most striking management errors seem to have been the failure to diversify out from a narrow business model while operating a highly geared business.
Fox Hayes was a panel firm for Legal Market Services (LMS). A glut of suppliers and lower-tier work meant that the volume business was working with margins of under 10 per cent. And Fox Hayes had not invested in counter-cyclical volume business lines such as litigation and repossession work, leaving it particularly exposed.
Fox Hayes’s borrowings and cost base were comparatively high. In 2007, when the firm had a turnover of £8.9m, its total debt and overdrafts came to £2m. Employee costs were £5.2m and the firm paid an annual rent of £260,000.
According to one former employee who posted on TheLawyer.com, management’s enjoyment of working lunches could have added to the cost base.
“Whilst the fat cats sat in their offices, or lunched on the company, it was those who are now left with nothing that kept the firm going and making its massive annual turnover,” the ex-employee wrote.
Indeed, in a November 2003 interview with The Lawyer, Drazen said he took “three members of staff out for lunch once a week”, adding: “There’s no room for the big firm mentality of slogging in the office forever to get brownie points.”
It is unlikely that the cost of a few lunches every month would have influenced the decision to put the firm into administration, with the sudden drop-off in bulk conveyancing work a far greater contributing factor. But for those who have lost their jobs, that thought will provide little comfort.


Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | 3-Feb-2009 4:27 pm
TUPE
Surely a great test case for whether the service provision change provisions of TUPE 2006 apply here so that the associates can claim to have followed the work?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Feb-2009 8:24 am
Fox hayes
Yes it is true to say that Fox Hayes should have diversified into other areas of law and this was a fault of the management ,but if the conveyancing market hadn't crashed & the interest rates had stayed above 4% then Fox Hayes would still be in business.
I believe the partners worked extrmely hard to keep the business going since Northern Rock was privatised, trying their best to keep as many people in employment to the detriment of themselves.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Feb-2009 12:58 pm
Editorial Feedback
Very well drafted article by the author
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Feb-2009 7:38 pm
A reflective comment
As a ex-employee who was made redundant in the second round of redundancies in 2008 I have watched the saga unfolding but have had time to reflect and although my redundancy was traumatic the pill was not bitter as each and every one who has lost their job due to the administration of the firm. They all have my sympathy and I wish them luck in the future.
What must be remembered is that Fox Hayes LLP was two firms Fox Hayes PTC and Fox Hayes the law firm. PTC was a successful part of the firm and would have continued to be so had the downturn not occurred. What happened over the growth period was that the law firm sat backed and milked the income from PTC instead of it growing at a similar pace. The law firms business plan was to revolve around entraupenerial clients which is all well and good but when times are hard they simply disappear. Despite suggestions that they should look to attract larger and more substantial clients or get invloved in debt collection insolvency and repossession work those suggestions fell on deaf ears and were dismissed.
Now that the law firm has gone to Lupton Fawcett the partners and staff will have to show their worth to survive and I'm sure they will not get an easy ride. We shall see. So far as APL is concerned the blueprint of FHPTC was fundementally sound but the life blood was sucked out of them by others. I wish them well and hopefully a Pheonix may rise from the ashes and they will learn from previous mistakes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
debbi m | 9-Feb-2009 2:31 pm
Foxys Fall
As an ex-employee (got out in 2006) the whole point of the big white bespoke building was that Fox Hayes would be ONE firm - united! This was constantly emphasised and Drazen himself said "Work Hard for Us and We'll Look After You." That unity didn't last very long when times got tough! The conveyancing part was the money spinning part - and they were the ones who suffered the most in the property crash. If the firm was going to go down, it should have gone down together. The whole business stinks and i'm not surprised Drazen isn't commenting. Anyway, whatever he says is a big lie!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 10-Feb-2009 9:54 am
Anonymous
Could have sworn you said in your previous posts couple of weeks ago regarding Fox Hayes that you had no connection at all with FH. Incidentally, I have never worked for them - I am from Manchester, but do know of them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Aug-2009 2:30 pm
Who has taken responsibility for the outstanding conveyancing work since Fox Hayes went into Administration?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment