Addleshaws cuts fee-earners as profits rise 30 per cent

  • Print
  • Comments (27)

Readers' comments (27)

  • Marvelous. Thanks very much guys for getting us back up to the expected PEP. We honestly couldn't have done it but for you. Now, if you could just shut the door on your way out and go through the side door this would be appreciated too.

    Disgusting treatment of staff. 24 fee earners on salary of circa £80k would take less than 20% of the profit "increase" posted, not the overall profit.

    Greed is a horrible thing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Let's not be too hasty to make judgments on the firm. I'm sure if you spoke to any non-partner of the firm they would tell you it is a wonderful place to work. The constant nervous glances over the shoulder to ensure no-one from the firm was within ear-shot would be mere coincidence...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Do as others would do unto you. Does that have any degree of resonance for the partners who have required sacrifice (not least to ensure their own PEP figures) from these associates on the vague promise of future promotion? Whilst all of us at this rank take such partner chat with enough salt to take us well over a government mandated RDA this is appalling behaviour - and justification - from AG. They must be using the same PR firm as the now defunct McGrigors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is appalling. Having beasted the senior staff for years and told them of their value to the business, they are now thrown over whilst the partners pocket even bigger profits.

    How can they sleep?

    As for the people saying at least they are not sly about it. Not being sly about something reprehensible doesn't make it less reprehensible.

    As for the people saying other firms do it, it is equally crap when they do it too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is anyone prepared to take this on as Age Discrimination?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul Devitt: " . . . having so far avoided a fee earner redundancy programme . . ."

    Yet fee earner numbers have dropped from 490 to 437 over the last 5 years? And with the market as it's been over that time they've all voluntarily resigned and moved on to pastures new?

    I don't think so. There's another name for that programme which hasn't just affected fee earners. At least this time around they're doing the slightly more decent thing by calling it a redundancy process.

    Now when are they going to deal with the issue of partners clawing back every bit of work to their own desks rather than going out hunting for new work, leaving those of fee earners empty and at risk of redundancy? Or has fee earner development fallen by the wayside?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Axing associates despite profits having increased?! I'm starting to suspect that AG is being run to turn a profit rather than as a charity to keep unimaginative swats in high paid employment after they leave education.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ..... its the AG Way

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If they don't get rid of large numbers of fee-earners and support staff on a regular basis, how on earth will they afford to pay for the last-minute first class train travel by partners between each office?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Would that be the same Addleshaw Goddard which won this very magazine's 2011 HR Award for "Innovation in Talent Management and Retention"? Surely not!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (27)