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)
Dell | 21-Oct-2010 11:35 am
@ 9:36 "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."
"etc" - it covers many things but not, in this case, profits. Whilst profits may be down at most firms lets not forget that partners are still trousering well above average income so more could have been done (if they'd really wanted to).
Look at Dragon's Den (for example), entreprenuers pay themselves peanuts to get businesses running through difficult patches yet partners nevertheless strip out substantial drawings even if it is supported by bank debt.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 11:41 am
"Scottish law firm", "Edingburgh headquartered", these types of terms are being bandied about in the legal press when reporting on the redundancies. Good to see that the recent re-brand the firm under went has been such a success. Be good to know how much that ridiculous project cost and what benefit its actually had other than irritating email recipients when they get a big coloured 'M's clogging up their inboxes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 11:55 am
@Dell- correct. Despite the staff taking a period of unpaid leave and generally taking the pain of the recession, the partners were still taking home 250-300k or thereabouts. Obviously D&W partners taking home 300k plus this year was the straw that broke the camels back. Got to keep up with the Joneses!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
edinburgh lawyer | 21-Oct-2010 12:19 pm
McGrigors has done itself no favours with its previous policy of offering jobs to all qualifying trainees. There are some shockingly bad NQ-4 years qualified people working there - on occasion I have wondered how some of them even got through university. Lets hope for the sake of all the capable fee earners that it is the useless few who are made redundant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 12:41 pm
Interesting they are coming out and calling it a redundancy programme this time. Plenty of people have mysteriously disappeared over the last year or 2 for various reasons (absolutely not redundancy, no, never that) and yes that includes a few partners. But overdrafts are overdrafts and their accounts show it's a biggie. V arrogant organisation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IHateBPP | 21-Oct-2010 1:03 pm
They merged with L'Estraneg and Brett but instead of doing what any sensible firm would do and moving everyone to one of the, many, sizeable offices sitting empty in Belfast they kept the two. Can't imagine the upkeep in either is cheap given their locations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scottish law firm - get me out of here!! | 21-Oct-2010 1:22 pm
The place is in disarray. Big overheads, big overdraft and big egos. I'm still working there but just started looking elsewhere. We picked up a few fat cats in Manchester and Belfast in the last 12 months through "strategic opportunities" but integration hasn't been that smooth with everyone jostling for positions and many partners on power trips....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 1:46 pm
A lot of complaining about the partners.
Solicitors are cash machines for their firms. They always have been and always will be.
The problem with solicitors is that they think if they work really hard and put in lots of extra hours for free then they will be recognised and rewarded.
In reality they are just mugs playing the game.
If the work is not there, then there is no need for you. Simple. Firms owe you nothing except the salary they agree to pay.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 2:22 pm
As a former employee at McGrigors I am sad to see this news. Not once in my 5+ years there did I ever see the big egos or arrogance that some people are posting about - quite the opposite. Perhaps in the last few years things have changed but there are still a lot of good people there and people I consider my friends.
Best of luck to all at McGrigors
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 2:43 pm
I hope the "Dickinson Dees model" (ditch everyone except under-performing partners) isn't being followed. The A&O model (share the pain) seems to be much more successful.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment