Nationwide Building Society has cut the number of firms on its commercial lending panel from 60 to 17 following a comprehensive three-month review of its legal advisers.
Among the firms that have secured a first-time place on the panel are Addleshaw Goddard, DLA Piper, LG, Reed Smith, Shoosmiths, Taylor Wessing and TLT Solicitors. They have been appointed alongside existing panel members Burges Salmon, Eversheds, Nabarro and Olswang. The building society’s strong presence in the North West has also seen places on the panel for regional firms Berg Legal, Brabners Chaffe Street, DWF, Hill Dickinson, Kuits and Pannone.
As well as advising on general corporate lending, some of the firms will also be used to provide property and security advice arising from the building society’s commercial lending operations.
The review was overseen by general counsel Liz Kelly. She said: “Throughout this review we focused on finding firms that met Nationwide’s business needs and who could provide high quality and relevant legal advice to our commercial lending customers. The new panel represents a range of firms we feel we can work closely with to provide excellent, cost effective legal support.”
The news comes after Nationwide cut 300 firms from its conveyancing panel in April.
Readers' comments (9)
Christiano Ronaldo | 22-Oct-2010 2:42 pm
This is just a typical example of a lawyer trying to justify their existence. How does it take 3 months to make a list of panel firms? A day to write a list of 17 names might be considered a little over the top. No wonder lawyers get away with charging £500 per hour to fill in forms, write schedules and change the words in PLC precedents.
Or is 'comprehensive review' jargon for 3 months of being wined and dined by all these firms just for the fun of it? It shows that these financial institutions are still happy to flush money down the loo. I hope Vince Cable reads this article and does something about it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Oct-2010 3:54 pm
I didn't know Christiano Ronaldo was a communist!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Oct-2010 4:35 pm
Not sure what Christiano is on about but, not sure how any organisation is supposed to manage a panel of 60 firms and give them all work in this climate, no matter how big it is. I think all the banks and building societies are looking to drive costs down and get a better service. Days of hourly rates are numbered (does anyone still charge hourly rates??), which in my view just hide inefficiency!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Oct-2010 5:18 pm
No Mayer Brown or K&L Gates?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Oct-2010 5:26 pm
Hourly rates aren't disappearing for good. Not any time soon anyway. Pretty stupid comment at 4:35pm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Oct-2010 5:26 pm
Christiano (with an "h")
I fail to see how a lawyer (singular) can fail to justify "their" (plural) existence - unless of course you are referring to an lawyer who has multiple personality disorder. I would submit it's better to have several personalities, than not even manage one.
Christiano (with an "h") also believes that economic genius Vince Cable is the answer to the business world's prayers. Isn't this the same man who recently lamented capitalism? Riiiiiight.
It's probably best to stick to football chat-rooms than discuss adult topics.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Naysayer | 24-Oct-2010 8:50 am
"Christiano" proves the sage advice that one should "never rush into print"!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2010 8:00 am
RE Mayer Brown and K&L Gates - note LG and Taylor Wessing being on the panel and Iain Thomas ex MB now at LG and Richard Williamson ex K&L now at TW. A coincidence...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2010 8:18 am
60 firms on a panel is utterly absurd. 17 is still excessive.
I agree with some of the comments on here about people creating work to justify their existence, although this isn't something that is unique to the law, it's just that the salaries are higher than in most cases.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment