Bond Dickinson confirms 7 per cent of support staff roles at risk

  • Print
  • Comments (12)

Readers' comments (12)

  • "the firm did not want to comment further at the time of writing."

    Silence from BD?! Surely not?!

    Further proof that this is a small-mid size regional firm which is experiencing just the same highs and lows as any other firm of the same size and standing, despite what the PR team may spout.

    Other firms have the same standard of client wins and inflated/exaggerated/massaged profits announcements from time to time: the difference is that BD, stemming from Dickinson's insatiably appetite to be loved- see the stories regarding their Wikipedia page- and Bond's lawyers' insufferable sense of self-importance and inflated ego as a a result of being big fish in the small sea of Bristol, have a desire to shout from the rooftops about it and try and be something which they are not.

    Please can this be the last of the column inches dedicated to this firm? The Chuck Norris jokes were funny, as were the pathetically obvious attempts from the BD PR's team to jump on any magic circle/ mid-large size law firm news story at every opportunity. My sympathies go out to those losing their jobs; I bet they are not as truly in love with the firm and its guardians as the young Temple Meads upshot lawyers appear to be.

    But for now, BD have promised us a period of silence. Lets all do the same and let the big boys do the talking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great figures from Bond Dickinson. A big well done! What a firm!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A ferociously impressive performance that cements Bond Dickinson's position as the Clifford Chance of regional law firms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you for all your hard work, everyone in the firm helped us make record profits last year. Now, please leave.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another shocking example of profits before people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I used to work at DDs. There is a lot of dead weight in the firm, specifically the partners. Most of the support staff are good at their jobs, a real shame. It will be hard for them to get new jobs if they are base in the North East.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why is it that BD partners receive such unwarranted criticism? Surely people must realise that partners take the risk and reward in any business. People must also realise that these are difficult times and the gravy train has long since departed. One's chips are often served cold in these times of austerity and that is the only reason this invidious redundancy nonsense rears its ugly head once again. One wonders why Slodder and May and Clifford and Chance don't receive such opprobrium? We're all the same are we not? And those scoundrels at Ham and Suddards didn't even pay their landlords. Quite annoying when one's tenants don't pony up the readies on time. I know Mr Blair is completely taken aback by this dreadful publicity. What one needs is our very own Alastair Campbell. One must place some blame on this dreadful Rights of Humans Act. Awful piece of legalisation. Thoroughly unhelpful and enough to put one in pure bad fettle. Tally-ho lads and lasses.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps Bond Dickinson should instruct a professional management consultant to review the efficiency of the firm at all levels?

    Q. Does the firm really need a senior management team of four people, when many larger firms have fewer?

    Q. Is it efficient to have so many corporate and commercial partners based in the South West and North East, when these are traditionally weak markets?

    Q. Have some of the Directors and Associates become stale? Could their roles be taken on by cheaper, hungrier, younger staff? In the long term, would this have a positive impact on the firm's culture?

    Q. Are there too many partners? Many firms seek to apply a model of six assistants and two associates to each partner. Does Bond Dickinson currently meet this model?Would applying this model improve the efficiency of Bond Dickinson?

    Q. Would the firm be improved by adding an extra tier of partnership? For example for the 10 top performing partners in any year regardless of lockstep.

    Q. Is there duplication in the marketing and business development department? Given that most work comes from personal networking, would the firm be materially disadvantaged if it only had 50% of the current resource?

    Q. Could savings be made by moving to out of town offices? Such a move can greatly benefit regional firms whilst making important savings. Is it efficient to have more than one office in a city? Does a firm need a waterfront office or is that an unnecessary additional cost?

    Bond Dickinson and all ambitious law firms should be constantly asking themselves the question "Could this firm be more efficient?". A management consultant can help provide an objective opinion on how business structures can be improved, beyond the old token gesture of jettisoning some office juniors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon at 7.22

    "I know Mr Blair is completely taken aback by this dreadful publicity"

    This is the exact reason that BD attract such criticism and mocking. They are notorious for self-promotion and shameless plugging at every opportunity. Detractors are fed up with hearing what a great firm BD are and how BD are the most progressive and interesting firm out there.

    They are not. They are a regional firm which merged with another regional firm to create a bigger regional firm.

    And your reference to "Slodder and May" and Clifford Chance (thus implying that BD are an established comparitive firm) suggests that either (a) you have been taken in by the utter drivel spouted by their PR team (in which case, their guerilla-style of self-promotion has worked) or (b) the PR team are carrying out some market research to determine "why does everyone hate us", and at the same time fishing for responsese from people like me in the hope that this article remains in the "most read" or "most commented" category, going by the old adage that any news is good news.

    I suspect the latter. Damn that PR team is good...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I assume that 7 per cent was arrived at after eliminating the other 13 per cent that already have been asked to leave or have fled.

    The total savings from eliminating the accounts people and IT people still doesn't add up to the amount that would be saved by eliminating the two extra people in the 'executive leadership team' that is unnecessarily bloated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon 3.01pm,

    Oh. Have they been up to their old tricks again? Are 20% leaving?

    What a shame. I hoped they had turned a corner.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There seems to be a fair amount of Fee earner duplication in the new firm. It'll be interesting to see how long the firm takes before making changes to the workforce.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


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 (12)