News Europe UK Business Leadership Mercedes panel review forces firms to explain bills By The Lawyer 16 February 2009 17:29 13 December 2015 21:50 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 17 February 2009 at 00:24 What goes aroung… So Mercedes puts cost at the heart of its panel review. So perhaps with this in mind they finally realise why we all drive Audi, BMW , Jaguar, VW. In fact anything but Mercedes. Reply Link Anonymous 18 February 2009 at 13:28 Value and costs One would think that Shoosmiths should have been in a better position to deliver on costs than the new firms!! What we see here is a client looking to pay more for a better service… sometimes sitting in first class of a budget airline seems pointless…why would you even bother which seems to be the approach taken. Reply Link Anonymous 18 February 2009 at 22:21 Value and costs ‘What we see here is a client looking to pay more for a better service’ What rubbish! The only thing that appears to have ‘grown organically’ is the apparent delusion of the subject management. A spectacular ‘own goal’. Reply Link Max 18 February 2009 at 22:46 Is Shoosmiths the Woolworths of the legal world? This is a disaster for Shoosmiths and the relationship partner Gary Assim who boasted of this as their trophy client to anyone who would listen. It goes to show that out and out cheapness is not enough to keep clients. However, Nabarro is hardly much of a step up. It is difficult to see any area in which Wragges isn’t much stronger, with the possible exception of Real Estate. Why thereofore were Nabarro appointed at all ? A GC who picks firms for the ridiculous reason that they haven’t merged may explain it. Hats off to Wragges though, who should clean up on most of the work. Reply Link Anonymous 19 February 2009 at 10:50 Been there, done that, don’t want the t shirt I comment as someone who has worked for this client (not at Shoosmiths, thankfully). My experience is that this is a client who has a hugely inflated opinion of itself and treats firms with little regard. The work was never particularly good and the rates pretty dire. A main factor which is not mentioned in their choosing of firms is the ability to flatter the inhousers to a degree I found frankly rather pathetic. Even in the current climate, I can honestly say that I am pleased that we no longer act for them. This may draw cries of sour grapes etc. but it happens to be the plain truth. I know rivals who have acted for them feel the same. The in house team has gone markedly downhill under the current leadership. The Mercedes name may have some prestige but in reality I found this anything but a star client. Reply Link Anonymous 19 February 2009 at 16:44 re:Been there,done that,don’t want the t shirt Don’t you just love the comments from disgruntled former employee’s of law firms. They are so bitter and twisted….and the way they hide behind the “Anonymous” moniker shows a huge degree of courage…well done fella…you’ve done yourself proud… You mentoned sour grapes in your comment….no…surely not…lolol Reply Link Anonymous 20 February 2009 at 12:15 Been there,done that,don’t want the t shirt Re 19-Feb-2009 @ 16:44 Nice to get the in-house view; eloquent as ever. Reply Link David 20 February 2009 at 14:12 A real shining star… hmmm……disgruntled panel firms…..disgruntled ex employees……what a great advert for the in-house leadership. How proud the Mercedes Board must be…. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.