Hill Dickinson cuts 14 partner roles and 69 staff following consultation

  • Print
  • Comments (16)

Readers' comments (17)

  • Brave enough to cut partners.

    It might be painful now, but in the long term Hill Dickinson will become a better firm.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wonder if they'd be kind enough to split the "Partner" cull between equity and salaried?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ...but the Monaco and Piraeus offices are key to the business, obviously!

    How much of this stemmed from taking on part of Halliwells?

    "A sensitive time for all involved" but you aren't losing your job, David. Why is there no management responsibility in law firms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's a brave move if they are cutting the equity partners (that's a much smaller pool than the "partner" one).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What about the Piraeus and Monaco offices? Hubris comes to mind.

    How much of this stems from taking over part of Halliwells?

    How long does the Sheffield office have to last?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ok - they can cut under performing partners but the antiquated decision making infrastructure and aloof culture still exists. They are relevant in the marine world. Reducing influence in the (unprofitable) insurance world and unheard of in any other. When I would meet and introduce myself to the business community in Liverpool I was often met with a 'Hill who'?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes, brave move but perhaps too little too late. To compete in the modern marine sector they need to be braver with the surgeon's knife and cut their regional offices or they risk losing their highly poachable top talent in London

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They are still the best Dickinson, by some margin.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Years and years of growing by random acquisitions is perhaps finally catching up with them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I despair at some of the legal sector's PR:
    “Accordingly it has been necessary for us to proactively manage the business to ensure the stability of the firm as a whole and to enable us to continue to further invest in the business in the future”.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am sorry to hear about this. Hill Dickinson is a great firm with a long and honourable tradition. In 2012 they celebrated their 200 year anniversary with lavish well deserved celebrations and joyous events that put the Olympics in the shade. Now all things that we ordained festival turn from their office to black funeral.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Watch the vultures start to circle. This looks like a clear prelude to make HD more attractice to potential merger partners.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The lavish 200 year celebrations in 2010 must seem like a world away now. "All things that we ordained festival turn from their offices to black funeral."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I suspect it'll take more than this to make Hill Dicks an attractive merger proposition, unless the merger in question is the sort of merger that vultures have with their prey.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Didn't the Halliwells liverpool office go there? They must feel right at home

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Use to work here, not surprised by the cuts. Decisions are being made by low level upstarts who don't know; else don't care about the way they conduct themselves.. Leave decision making to those who understand the dynamics involved.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the comments above. It is not really credible to use Singapore as a model for China. You may as well use Luxembourg as a model for Germany on the basis that they have the same cultural background.

    In terms of legal services, China is more likely to liberalise than India, but only just. Probably as one of the previous comments said, it will be as a trade off for something unrelated that they want. But that would not make for such an interesting prediction.

    As to K&W being part of a foreign law firm, I doubt they would see it that way, or present it as such to the Chinese authorities. Probably they would say, adding the M is just a rebranding, and the Swiss verein doesn't affect the Chinese law firm itself.

    More of a problem for Mallesons that their Chinese partners know all their confidential information, and would be hard pressed to refuse a request for info from their home authorities (yes, I am writing this rather tactfully from within the Middle Kingdom). Digitalspy carried a number of stories on this issue a while back, but I am not sure of the current status. Anyone?

    Big picture, yes of course the Chinese are going to try for world domination, in law as in other sectors, but naturally with Chinese characteristics, to coin a phrase. There are two basic models for this: the K&W type merger and the organic expansion of the various large Chinese firms mentioned above (most of which are not too well known outside China, but this is going to change, probably quite quickly).

    It will be interesting to see the relative success of these two models. One possibility is that one or more of the organically-expanding Chinese firms will swallow up, I mean merge with, a top-20 UK firm. Then we will see those "the Americans are invading London!" headlines all over again, except in a different language.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (16)