Magic circle tag redundant, Eversheds research finds

  • Print
  • Comments (36)

Readers' comments (36)

  • "However, the report by Eversheds, which recently decided to expand its commoditised arm alongside premium City work (14 January 2010), is likely to re-ignite debate about whether clients will desert the magic circle en masse in favour of cheaper alternatives (2 June 2008). "


    No it won't. And they won't.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is this "research commissioned by Eversheds" the most self-serving, steaming pile of bulls**t ever? Certainly sounds that way.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is "Eversheds"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hilarious not least of which because they thought the use of the word "redundant" was somehow appropriate given the plethora of lay-offs over the last 18 months.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If anything, the magic circle has put more clear water than ever between it and the chasing pack. Size might not be everything but it's a start, and those firms dwarf the likes of 'Sheds and Herbies when it comes to turnover, headcount etc.
    These green-eyed window pressers should face it: There is a difference and the sooner they realise there's more than one division to compete in, the happier everyone will be

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks for this Eversheds. I expect this news will produce seismic change in the industry, just like your 2008 'report' with a similar name.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I see the lawyers at the Magic Circle have nothing better to do than comment on The Lawyer website. I wonder which client they've been charging for their time?
    Here, here I say. As an ex Magic Circle lawyer that has spent time in-house, I couldn't agree more with the findings. It's about time people realised just how arrogant and exploitative the Magic Circle firms really are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Maybe Eversheds could start its own peer group called the Tragic Circle composed of similarly minded firms that see no problem in sacking staff at the drop of a hat.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The term Magic Circle refers to those firms well equipped to handle the top notch, big ticket and most complex public M&A, finance and capital markets transactions. No other firm can boast the quality that can be offered by the Magic Circle in these areas (some are close depending on the practice area (e.g. Herbies)), so the term is still more or less valid and will be for the foreseeable future.
    In other practice areas, the usefulness of the term MC is debatable.
    It should have been pretty obvious from the start that if the report was commissioned by a practice not considered to be part of the MC, that firm would say the term MC is irrelevant. Have absolutely no idea why E-Sheds would even want to come out with this report - shooting themselves in the foot in terms of PR.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As descriptions of the firms as businesses the label 'Magic Circle' still has some usefulness, although the increasing size gap between the big four and Slaughter & May makes it likely to be used less in the future.
    As descriptions of client experience the term is poor to useless. There are a great many poor lawyers at Magic Circle firms (although the average quality is very high), and a lot of excellent lawyers at other firms.
    The quality of service across all departments at all of the Magic Circle firms is highly variable, as one would expect in view of their size and the fact that they are afterall different firms with different managements.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

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 (36)