Pre-merger Howard Kennedy to cut 10 support staff roles
Howard Kennedy has put 10 support staff on redundancy consultation ahead of its planned merger with Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI).
Mark Dembovsky
The firm said the redundancies were a result of a review of the firm’s internal structure and were not triggered by the merger talks with FSI.
A statement read: “We’re continuously reviewing the structure of the firm and it’s important to stress that this is a standalone Howard Kennedy restructuring process and not related to the merger with Finers Stephens Innocent in any way.
“We’re aiming to make as minimal redundancies as possible with only 10 support roles at risk.”
It comes amid delays to the planned £45m merger between the two firms, which will now go ahead in February instead of November as initially planned (19 November 2012).
Earlier this month Howard Kennedy chief executive Mark Dembovsky told The Lawyer that there would be no large scale reduction of fee-earners and that delays to the merger process had come from issues with “back office alignment”, rather than people (5 November 2012).
Support staff were notified of the consultation yesterday. It is believed that there are currently no similar redundancies planned at FSI.
The merger is being led by Dembovsky and FSI managing partner Paul Millett (8 August 2012). The combined firm will have 351 staff including 88 partners and 125 fee-earners, and a total revenue of £45m, pushing it into the top 60 of The Lawyer UK 200.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (36)
Anonymously | 22-Nov-2012 7:57 pm
This firm has bleeted on about Transparency for the last 18 months yet reading this news in the lawyer was the first that anyone knew about this, apart from the unfortunate people who are in consultation.
Maybe there will be announcement in the weekly blog!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 9:55 am
Strange comment from the first post. The firm, as well as being transparent, which it now is, also needs to be commercial. The management have taken a sensible decision to reduce costs and they have gone about the process correctly by informing those in consultation. HK has an overstaffed support side and it is about time that it addressed this issue. I also hope that the combined firm, upon merger, trims some of its fee earner headcount - there will be some duplications and there certainly are some fee earners around the edges who are not producing. Again, commercial sense.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fine Tuned | 23-Nov-2012 10:36 am
@Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 9:55 am
Presume this is a comment from Dembovsky. No matter what you may say, HK is clearly not transparent if people who work there did not know about the latest redundancy round.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 11:42 am
are you mad? how can you tell the firm there's going to be a redundancy round without informing those directly implicated first?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 11:52 am
The second comment was obviously not from Dembovsky who would certainly not hide behind a comment. The firm is more transparent whatever way you look at it. Perhaps the management thought it would be kinder to let those facing consultation find out first and digest the news rather than make a massive firm wide announcement to those it doesn't concern. These are people's livelihoods we are talking about not a bit of gossip to be shouted about
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 11:54 am
Absolutely amazed that only those 'In the know' were made aware of these redundancies, surely the staff (as a whole) should of been informed of this round of redundancies and the knock on effect this will have prior to merger rather than hear it from The Lawyer or office gossip. HK being 'Transparent' is laughable given the history of how they treat their staff, nothing will ever change merger or no merger with those in charge pulling the strings. Changes at that level clearly need to be made.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 11:59 am
re. Are you mad? They have done it before, previous redundancy rounds were dealt with in exactly that way. Everyone informed in a room that there would be redundancies and if you were one of those up for redundancy you would have an email when you got back to your desk. Please do not give the impression that this is a caring firm, never has been and never will be merger or no merger.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 12:13 pm
@anon 11.59
In exactly what same way?! No one was taken to a room to wait for an email in front of everyone. It was done discreetly to obviously preserve people's feelings. At least this time round the management were present and not on a golf course! I suppose you think those affected should have been paraded in front of the firm in aid of transparency without a thought to how that may make them feel?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 12:45 pm
I think you have misread my post, previous redundancies were dealt with via email after meetings (as you know). Dealing with them the way that HK have done now has only led to office gossip of the 'Who is it' variety and for the majority of staff to find out via a publication is appalling. If it was made clear to all staff that redundancies were due to take place, basically a message mirroring Dembovsky's statement to 'The Lawyer' it would have stopped the idle gossip. As someone who is obviously in a position at HK maybe a message should be communicated to the remaining staff that are not aware of this rather than hearing it from Joe Bloggs from front office.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 12:55 pm
No surprise, the staff have always been an inconvenience for HK, one of the worst reputations for how they treat their employees. Management is beyond shocking, some of the goings on in the firm would make your toes curl.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 1:06 pm
It is correct that in a previous round of redundancies, everyone was put in a room and then when you got back to your desk, if you had an email you were up for redundancy. But then, in the last round of redundancies earlier this year, affecting partners and one senior associate, HK changed tack and decided that rather than just tell those involved, they would send a firmwide email naming all of those affected. So those poor individuals were indeed paraded in front of the firm - nice and discreet and caring.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 3:19 pm
nice to see the recruitment/head-hunting industry has time on its hands this afternoon to post disruptive comments. the disgusting way it goes around trying to dislodge people is the only thing that makes toes curl!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 3:45 pm
I'd be very worried if I was a fee earner at HK right now re the comment at 9.55am, obviously someone who knows the plan of action;
'I also hope that the combined firm, upon merger, trims some of its fee earner headcount - there will be some duplications and there certainly are some fee earners around the edges who are not producing. Again, commercial sense.'
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:02 pm
True. So they learnt from being too transparent and still get kicked for trying to do the right thing? Is there any winning when it comes to the awful reality of redundancies? Of course not. Unless you have a better idea?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:05 pm
Unbiased point of view here as I don't work in this industry. Redundancies should be made aware to "ALL" employees first, they shouldn't have to read it in the press. It's not rocket science!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:14 pm
Micky Mouse firm
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:27 pm
This firm beggers belief. Hope they don't get rid of too many staff as I am in no doubt they will have trouble recruiting anybody to join them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:36 pm
There are no 'recruitment/head-hunters posting disruptive comments' these comments are the truth and maybe are proving a bit hard to swallow, shambles.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:39 pm
Good luck FSI!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23-Nov-2012 4:43 pm
The reputation of this firm will always be in ruins due to appalling treatment of staff. Current management aren't getting it right. Good luck FSI!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment