McGrigors to cut 40 jobs in UK-wide redundancy round
Edinburgh-headquartered McGrigors has launched a redundancy consultation with the aim of cutting 40 jobs across its UK network of offices.
The redundancies are expected to affect fee-earners and support staff and will take place across the real estate, banking, projects and procurement, corporate, and risk advisory practice areas. The redundancy consultation, which began on Monday, is expected to conclude on 1 November.
In a statement a firm spokesperson said: “In May 2009 we announced a series of cost-saving measures which we hoped would allow us to ride out the worst of the downturn, protect jobs and safeguard the long-term health of the business in the event of an economic recovery.
“Unfortunately, over the past 12 months it has become increasingly clear that an immediate recovery is not going to emerge, and that we are instead facing a sustained period of market uncertainty – particularly while the effects of the public sector spending review become clear.
“This is not a matter which has been entered into lightly, and we do so only as a last resort. We’ve always endeavoured to do the right thing by our people and believe that everything possible has been done - such as secondments to clients or other departments, sabbaticals, flexible working, pay freezes - for as long as possible, to avoid this measure.”
McGrigors put in a fairly strong performance in the 2009-10 financial year, with turnover increasing 10 per cent to £69m.
While his meant the firm overtook Dundas & Wilson as the leading Scottish-headquartered firm by turnover (11 October 2011), the rise was the result of the McGrigors’ October 2009 merger with Belfast firm L’Estrange & Brett (28 August 2009) rather than representing underlying growth.
McGrigors last cut jobs in May 2008, when it laid off nine real estate fee-earners (30 May 2008).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (81)
Anonymous | 20-Oct-2010 7:09 pm
I don't know what will distress McGrigors management more - this news making it into the press or being called an "Edinburgh headquartered firm". Real shame for their staff though, who are now paying for their firm's big spending as well as a big recession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Oct-2010 7:17 pm
McGrigors is a fantastic law firm to work for. business is business !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Oct-2010 8:01 pm
What an untrustworthy bunch of gutless partners - everyone should jump ship
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Oct-2010 8:25 pm
The management are so focused on the top line that they have forgotten about the bottom one....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 9:32 am
Never. They would never take any responsibility or face the possibility that little Gertrude might not be able to have her pony this Christmas. The ratio of partners to fee earners in certain departments is shocking
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 9:36 am
This is really disappointing for the 40 involved, and the others who will be part of the consultation process with them until the results are announced. However its worth noting that the firms seem to have done everything they could over a 2 year period to avoid having to make this kind of step - pay freezes, unpaid leave etc. It was a last resort for McGrigors, rather than a first resort as was the case with too many firms.
A lot of very good people will lose their jobs here through no fault of their own.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 10:41 am
The management is so focused on mergers to improve the turnover but at the expense of efficiency and profit. Its a basic and flawed strategy. London is a mess and the Belfast takeover of L'Estrange has been a disaster - both offices are under performing and draining the cash! Its time for strong leadership before this really snowballs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Citylawfirmworker | 21-Oct-2010 10:43 am
@EC3 - why is everyone suggesting alternatives to fee earner and support staff redundancy automatically a "soft-in-the-head socialist"?
Surely we are all grown up and are allowed to talk about grown-up things - like the absence of gearing/capacity management?
Would be great to hear a well-thought out argument in favour of the redundancies.
True, partners probably did get "there by hard graft" - but as other posters have pointed out, once you get to be a partner and are responsible for a team, billing 100,000 hours should not really your main focus.
Its an interesting game we are playing (at non-partner level) - try to bill loads of hours, impress the partners, aspire to join the cosy inner club - but then be confronted with the reality ...like equity vs salaried; practice group vs other more lucrative practice group; you are only as good as your last year's billings etc etc
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 11:06 am
Hopefully HR tread very carefully through the consultation process and have been meticulous in covering themselves. Historically they have been pretty rubbish and narrowly avoided several discrimination claims this time last year with their completely tactless handling of the NQ jobs. Outrageous what some poor trainees were told.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 11:20 am
Agree with Anonymous at 9.36am to an extent. The problem with that being some associates were working hard, bringing in large fee incomes and then not having a pay increase or bonus year on year. Effectively carrying the less industrious partners who, of course, have to protect their incomes for not doing an awful lot.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment