News Shoosmiths’ partner profits halved By Matt Byrne 6 July 2009 14:04 17 December 2015 16:03 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 6 July 2009 at 16:19 “Our profit was hit hard because we chose to put people before profit.” Making 25 fee earners redundant being a fine example of this! And of course not offering trainees any money to defer was another master stroke of putting people first I suppose! Reply Link Anonymous 6 July 2009 at 20:47 Andrew Tubb’s comments are pure comedy genius and another example of how out of touch with reality Shoosmiths really are. On the issue of trainees, Dickinson Dees awarded their trainees £7.5k to defer for a year, whilst posting the same PEP figures and an almost identical YoY decline. Shoosmiths offered theirs £0 and told them to ‘find another job in the interim’ – have they actually thought how difficult this is in the current climate? And then there’s the small matter of opening a Manchester office and recruiting for this whilst laying staff off. Shoosmiths = Profit before people. Reply Link Anonymous 6 July 2009 at 21:50 Truly awful firm, sounds like they are getting their just rewards. Reply Link Ashley 6 July 2009 at 22:25 Profits halved and T/O down 4% is serious and potentially catastrophic. The short term solution is to retire partners and establish a more corporate structure. The present leverage ratio is insupportable and has an overall impact on pricing with too much emphasis on the top end. It is highly likley many partners fail to personally generate sufficient fees to cover thier fixed and variable costs (including personal drawings). This kind of business model, in an environment where clients have effectively gained control of the pricing model, is high risk and unsustainable. Partners hahve to generate more or go. Reply Link mark 7 July 2009 at 03:35 I would imagine that most partners have probably built up fixed costs in excess of GBP150K [mortgage costs, housing costs, public school fees, alimony etc]. Those without savings are probably suffering considerable financial stress even at these lofty payouts. At some point it may be preferable to downsize everything, – house, expenses, debt, job and hence stress. Reply Link Baby Farks Mageezak 7 July 2009 at 08:35 Slap it into them. Reply Link Anonymous 7 July 2009 at 14:43 I would have been very happy had my previous firm waited until May to invoke a redundancy programme. Most national firms got rid of staff long ago to preserve profit – doesn’t appear as though that happened here. My mate is an assistant at shoosmiths and has nothing but good things to say about it. I suspect the posters here are ill equipped to offer any kind of insightful comment… Reply Link Anonymous 7 July 2009 at 15:13 As a current trainee at Shoosmiths, I have to agree with the above poster. To the deferred trainees STILL going on about deferrals and no compensation …. GET OVER IT!!! Reply Link A Trainee at a decent firm 7 July 2009 at 17:14 To the Shoosmiths Trainee – do you not think, if the firm was so easily willing to screw over the trainees coming after you, it has no reason not to treat you and your intake in exactly the same way? Reply Link Anonymous 7 July 2009 at 21:01 Anon @ 3:13pm Surely even you can see the irony in a firm purporting to “put people first” having recently become the only national firm to shaft its future trainees so outrageously? You’re at a firm which has become a laughing stock amongst the profession… GET OVER IT!!! (and stop trying to defend the indefensible). Reply Link Richard Spud 8 July 2009 at 08:51 Shoosmiths have grown far too big for their boots – pun intended. Reply Link Anonymous 8 July 2009 at 09:25 Good God, Shoosmiths has a live one here! Reply Link Anonymous 8 July 2009 at 10:39 At no point in my post do I defend Shoosmiths’ decision to defer or not compensate future trainees. I was merely make the point that your continous and belligerent posts about the matter are somewhat dull and monotonous. For your own good…. move on!!! Reply Link Anonymous 8 July 2009 at 13:26 To the current shoosmiths trainee posting dribble on here, just one question, how many trainees are being kept on this year at your firm? Maybe you are one of the very few, but it’s disturbing why you feel the need to post on here. Get a grip. Reply Link Space Cash 8 July 2009 at 17:02 Maybe the trainees not kept on can alter their CV and pursue a new career as shoesmiths. Reply Link anon 8 July 2009 at 22:33 I don’t think the industry will forget the name of Tom Goff for some time to come. For all the wrong reasons of course. Reply Link Anonymous 9 July 2009 at 11:06 Opening in Manchester must be really draining their cash. Doesn’t look such a good decision now. Reply Link Anonymous 10 July 2009 at 08:47 The Manchester market will not be cracked on a shoestring! Fortune favours the brave but it is difficult to see a profit coming from their Manchester office in the next 3 years. As somebody capable of carrying work to a new firm, would I wish to join them? The answer is a resounding “no”. It is high time that Managing Partners recognised that many decisions made internally have an impact externally. Should we blame their inept handling of the PR issues? Again, a resounding “no”. Trying to spin positives out of negatives is folly and as at least one Managing Partner in Manchester has found out to his cost, the “truth will out”. Treating people fairly and reasonably must be the starting point. Once you achieve that, much of the business looks after itself and people with genuine client followings will find you a much more attractive proposition. Reply Link Anonymous 10 July 2009 at 15:50 RE: Anonymous | 7-Jul-2009 3:13 pm. Is your post endorsed by Shoomith’s HR department!? Otherwise one would expect that after the initial debacle Shoomiths would have had the sense to instruct their IT techies to put a firewall on any trainee’s access to TheLawyer for fear of another ‘Tom Goff MkII’. Obviously not the case… Reply Link Anonymous 10 July 2009 at 16:21 What a wise move. I am a legal secretary (I was). When hard times hit the economy, staff is always first to be laid off. while the partners hardly ever feel the squinch. My suggestion is: keep the staff and strip the partners of their profits or give them the pink slip. Every firm should follow Shoosmiths’ example. Reply Link Anonymous 13 July 2009 at 16:42 To my comment above: People asked me what squinch means (even it’s clear from the context). “Squinch” is a new combination word consisting of “squeeze” and “pinch” that has entered our vocabulary since the economic meltdown began. It might not have made the OXFORD Dictionary yet. Reply Link Anonymous 18 August 2009 at 13:35 I was one of the staff laid off in March, as a PA. Thank you Shoosmiths, I have found a much better job and wouldn’t have found this great job without being made redundant. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.