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).
Readers' comments (81)
Eagle | 21-Oct-2010 3:47 pm
McGrigs have had a "grow at any cost" approach for the last few years - taking L&B in Belfast, Leds office in Aberdeen, and loads of ex-Halliwells/Hammonds people in manchester. However those types of add-ons should effectively pay for themselves as they're already revenue generating (albeit possibly at slightly lower rates now in the current market).
The problem for McGrigs is the same as for every other firm - less work going around, at lower rates, but with the same number of salaries to pay. Real Estate and Construction especially.
There are some cracking partners and people there who bring in some significant work, but at the bottom end of their partnership (where equity is a max of c.£150,000) to be honest they're not really any better/worse than anyone else, in that they'll feel the pinch of market conditions like everyone else.
What firm HASN'T made redundancies in the last 2 years?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 4:13 pm
Being ex-McGrigors, this is sad for me to see. Some of the partners and associates are extremely talented, but there is no doubt the ratio of partners/associates is incorrect and something had to give.
Good luck to the 40 under consultation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 4:31 pm
"huge mistakes made by management"
Was one of those mistakes not putting you into a position of responsibility?
If you could do better why not go and set up your own firm and in doing so understand the tough decisions that have to be made by "management."
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 4:49 pm
What was the criteria for "The Lawyer - Regional/National Firm of the Year"?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 21-Oct-2010 4:54 pm
"The partners own the business, and got there by hard graft, so they get to fire people. "
Well, not quite. Lots of people graft; those who demonstrate they can contribute to the business get to own it. Thing is, it's easy to contribute to the business when there's 5 clients chasing every lawyer. Not so easy when there's 5 lawyers chasing every client.
Law prides itself on being a profession. The professional thing is to step down. Sacking those not to blame for your own shortcomings may be business practice. But we're meant to be above that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dayglo Dave | 21-Oct-2010 5:55 pm
Anonymous@2:43pm. You mention the A&O model. They cold-bloodedly culled 9% of their total workforce. Did you mean to say Norton Rose? That firm behaved remarkably well and deserve to be rewarded through greater staff loyalty for many years to come.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2010 6:21 pm
There is little the Partners in the firm (or any other firm) can do about the general economic environment. There are plenty of jobs available for lawyers so, instead of complaining, those affected should just get out and look for a new role. No one owes you a living. You need to go and earn it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
An Insider | 21-Oct-2010 7:07 pm
I've been with McGrigors for a few years. I will miss the cut ....this time. Internally its being badly handled. Its like a funeral in the office. We apparently merged with L'Estrange to improve the Belfast offering and the topline. But the revenue in Belfast is rubbish and the partners there don't see eye to eye. But thats a whole other story... The jury is still out on Manchester and London should be cut adrift. I have lost confidence in the management team, as have the majority of people sitting close to me. (ps .. I hear the office in the Falklands is going ok...)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sean Sniffs | 21-Oct-2010 9:12 pm
Talking of Dickinson Dees, word on the street is that they're ordering in 30 new cardboard boxes for the end of this month.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Oct-2010 3:27 am
As an ex-mcgrigors person, I have to say I dont agree with the negative comments on here. Mcgs was a great firm to work for and generally they treat their staff very well in comparison to many other firms in the market. best of luck to the current staff.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment