Shoosmiths plans to cut its headcount by 93, with most roles at risk of redundancy sitting in the volume motor personal injury team.
The firm has announced it has begun a consultation as part of a firm-wide restructure that will see the firm move its focus to conveyancing, medical negligence, high-net-worth wills and probate, and complex serious injury and mixed liability litigation. The news was first reported on RollonFriday.
In a statement, Shoosmiths private client head David Palmer said: “One of the firm’s key objectives was to sustain its national private client offering whilst rebalancing away from very high volume bulk processing of personal injury work, where it’s increasingly difficult to leverage the specialist legal expertise for which we’re renowned.
“Going forward, we expect our private client practice to grow strongly through its ability to deliver exceptional service and expertise in the more complex aspects of private client work.”
Palmer said he believed that the firm’s relationships with referrers and direct consumers through its Access Legal brand will help deliver a valuable case flow, but that a smaller team could handle the work.
Shoosmiths last made redundancies in 2009 (19 September 2009).
The firm’s consumer services team currently comprises 250 solicitors and support staff.
The consultation is due to end on the 23 July 2012.
The news comes after Herbert Smith announced plan to make 51 people redundant in its London office, with up to 23 fee-earners set to go (30 April 2012).
Readers' comments (2)
Anonymous | 3-May-2012 1:35 pm
A lot have already gone through "stealth" processes. And no doubt a lot more will too in addition to the quoted number.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-May-2012 5:15 pm
I suspect that the government's clampdown on whiplash claims is going to cause carnage among the claims management companies and the solicitors doing bulk work. One problem is that they are going to have to pay out a lot in redundancies and still have hefty property fixed costs, while suffering a big reduction in revenue.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment