Law firms ready to ring in the changes for uncertain 2010

  • Print
  • Comments (9)

Readers' comments (9)

  • How like The Lawyer to ring in the new year with predictions of doom and gloom.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "We’ll go on seeing firms moving their back-office staff to cheaper ­environments offshore."

    Isn't that a rather short sighted view? Shouldn't firms who rake in £ms from UK companies be obligated to reinvest in the UK - surely offshoring does nothing for our economy in the longer term.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whatever happened to morality in business? "Improving efficiencies" is just a crass euphemism for ruining minions' lives.
    Partners should be in no doubt about the often irremediable suffering they create when they can people to protect PEP.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Why should God have anything to fear from reason?"
    These words, poetic licence permitting, of Benjamin Franklin are of equal application to the current legal market.
    Sensible and honest self awareness is the key to survival in any environment; blue sky thinking (the sort of thinking that embraces merger) will not help.
    Any sensible "eat your greens" firm will see opportunity in what we undoubtedly face - they will make lemonade from the lemons dished up by the economy and the inevitable bankruptcy that follows every Labour long term office period.
    I'm looking forward to 2010 - an ice age I can believe in!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In the past when consulting engineering firms were chosen solely on the quality of the teams they put forward for projects the fee model was one which Clients should look at in today's market. The gross annual salary of the worker bees was divided by 1750 to come up with an hourly salary cost figure and then multiplied by 2.85 to cover overheads and supervision by partners etc. Roughly speaking a lawyer on £100 K would have a charge out rate of £ 180 per hour.

    Clients have ALWAYS the whip hand. Perhaps they ought now to exercise it, and bring sanity and sense into legal costs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's quite to run a moral business that's bankrupt. And I can see the long term advantages of moving some parts of a business off shore, especially if it's into emerging markets or if it means the firm can provide clients a better deal (whether their domestic or international clients).
    But I do agree that going after an impressive PEP is ridiculous as it doesn't really show the financial health of a firm. And it's certainly true that bad handling of redundancies can be damaging to those leaving, those staying and those potentially joining one day. All that we can hope for is that we go into this profession with a clear idea of what it involves and what firms priorities are but also that those employing us treat us with respect when they make decisions that affect both our careers and ultimately our lives.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is odd to call a business that lays off staff immoral. By the same token a badly managed business that squanders its opportunities for growth and so creates fewer jobs is also immoral.

    High PEPs are usually a sign of business growth and strength. They have often involved the creation of jobs that might not otherwise have been there. By that measure they are more moral than low PEPs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There are still 11.5 months before we move into the next decade .... the first decade of the 21st Century runs from Jan 01, 2001 to Dec 31, 2010 .... just like the first decade AD ran from From Jan 01, 0001 to Dec 31, 0010 ..... and not from Jan 01, "0000" (there was no such year) to 31 Dec 2009 as those who got all excited on 31 Dec 1999 instead of 31 Dec 2000 (ie most of the world) apparently believe.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There never was a "first decade" either! Who do you think was counting at the time? It makes perfect sense to count the ten year period from 2000 to 2009 inclusive as a decade - why complicate things? It is this sort of impractical and unjustified pedantry which gives lawyers a bad name!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (9)