DLA Piper puts 251 in consultation across UK as firm mulls Glasgow closure
DLA Piper has put 251 staff in consultation in one of the biggest rounds of redundancies yet in the UK legal market’s recent spate of layoffs.
Tony Angel
The firm has confirmed it is considering closing its Glasgow office, its defendant insurance practice and bringing into one place its document production unit following a review of its UK operations.
It follows the hire of Tony Angel as senior partner late last year (26 October 2011), with the former Linklaters managing partner carrying a review of the UK business aimed at cutting out wastage (1 June 2012).
A DLA Piper spokesperson said in a statement: “Following a comprehensive review of our UK business designed to ensure that we are operating in a manner, in the locations, and across the practice areas that support both our strategic objectives and the needs of our clients, we have begun a period of consultation in the UK that will consider the possible closure of our Glasgow office, the closure or divestment of our defendant insurance practice and the consolidation into one location of our current multi-site document production unit.”
The consultation process puts 116 jobs at risk in document production, plus 85 employees in Glasgow and a further 50 in defendant insurance, totalling 227.51 full-time equivalent jobs.
A detailed plan of the exercise released by the firm states that the consultation in the defendant insurance, document production and Glasgow units will begin on 28 November and completed “early in the new year”.
It also highlights an “enhanced scheme that will be discussed with employee representatives” as the redundancy package and says there could be staff transfers to Edinburgh.
The plan for the defendant insurance unit is a going concern transfer, while the process in the document production unit could see employees transferred to Leeds, where the firm says vacancies will be available.
The firm said: “We are establishing a consultation forum which enables the DPU [document production unit] teams in all offices to participate in the consultation process as we believe it is fairer for all DPU teams to be extended the same privileges, irrespective of numbers.”
The exercise does not include trainees, the firm also confirmed.
The news follows a string of redundancies among leading UK firms, with Lawrence Graham (9 November 2012), Pinsent Masons (8 November 2012) and Pannone (12 November 2012) all announcing consultation rounds in the past week.
For more on Tony Angel and DLA Piper, see feature
DLA Piper’s consultation exercise in full
| | | | Heads | FTE |
| Defendant Insurance | Partners | 4 | 3.6 | |
| | Fee Earners | 27 | 24.96 | |
| Business Support | 19 | 16.39 | ||
| | Total | 50 | 44.95 | |
| | | | | |
| Document Production - Birmingham | Business Support | 11 | 10.86 | |
| Document Production - Edinburgh | Business Support | 10 | 8.68 | |
| Document Production -Glasgow | Business Support | 11 | 8.62 | |
| Document Production -Leeds | Business Support | 23 | 20.98 | |
| Document Production - Liverpool | Business Support | 13 | 11.16 | |
| Document Production -London | Business Support | 20 | 18.26 | |
| Document Production - Manchester | Business Support | 14 | 13.21 | |
| Document Production -Sheffield | Business Support | 14 | 12.34 | |
| Total | 116 | 104.11 | ||
| | | | | |
| Glasgow | Partner | 10 | 10 | |
| | Fee earners | 25 | 23.3 | |
| Business Support | 50 | 45.15 | ||
| | Total | 85 | 78.45 | |
| | Overall Total | 251 | 227.51 |
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (62)
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 12:24 pm
Welcome to Angel's World. Money matters, people don't---who really thinks that is a sensible mantra for a people business in anything but the shortest term?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 12:27 pm
Things not looking good for Sheffield
It has a lot of defendant insurance staff on that site and DLA were always a stronger Leeds prescence if one of the Yorkshire offices is to go........
Birmingham will lose their Insurance staff too but DLA will keep a site in the "second city"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 12:46 pm
@ Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 12:24 pm
Last I checked, law firms were not charities or some kind of Hippie commune. DLA has to become more cost-efficient as it grows (eg, as good as its various PD units may be, it makes no sense to have multiple units for ONE country with one time zone) and more profitable to attract and retain the sort of talent to be competitive in the arena that it apparently seeks to play in. Meanwhile, those fine lawyers who have little or no interest in making money can join the civil or other public services.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 12:58 pm
There doesn't have to be a "next".
There has clearly been a review and the firm has reached a decision. Multiple spates of redudancies doesn't make sense if they've already spotted the problem. They may as well declare all at once.
There's a lot of hostile comments. My feeling is that every so often one firm becomes the butt of people's jokes / the focus of critics. The spotlight is currently on DLA Piper.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 1:03 pm
Lets not forget amongst all the emotion that DLA is a business and needs to operate like one. The legal sector has been blessed in that it has escaped up until the last year or so what many corporations have had to do for the past 5 years. i.e. become more efficient in the way they operate. A cursory glance at the figures above should tell anyone that with that many DP people (who I am sure are all wonderful individuals) DLA must be creating more documents that the rainforest can keep up with ( I think not) Well done DLA for being proactive and transparent in your communication around this (obviously) difficult decision.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 14-Nov-2012 1:07 pm
Agree, Liverpool and Sheffield must be on borrowed time too.
Expect DLA will eventually just have offices in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 2:35 pm
As an embittered ex-DLAer, I feel very sorry for those that are under threat but quite why they need over a hundred typists is not explained. It looks like a good business move, tragic though it is for the individuals involved.
I doubt there'll be another phase. If Liverpool or Sheffield were on the radar what better time to do it than now? Those who don't know the firm don't realise that Sheffield is probably the best managed and most profitable of all the offices. I don't know Liverpool but I'm guessing it's profitable enough to have clung on for so long. The real basket cases are Birmingham and London.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 2:45 pm
@Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 1:03 pm
Just wait until it happens to you (and I can only hope it does given your tone) and let's see if you are so understanding of such action. It is easy to be so unconcerned and unmoved about such matters when it doesn’t affect you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 3:04 pm
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 2:35 pm
As an ex-DLAer (there are so many of us) I agree entirely with your assessment. Very few people outside the firm understand the significance of the Sheffield office or the number of major clients based out that office that DLA would lose if the office closed. Leeds is a powerhouse though so posts suggesting that might close are barmy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 3:28 pm
I agree with the ex-DLAers above. People that pick out the Sheffield office for the chop obviously don't know the firm very well. It is one of the most profitable offices, manages some major clients, is home to a lot of central support functions and has a lot of history (just look at the number of ex-Sheffield people at the top of the firm). And of all the offices, it is arguably the least dependent on its local market.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment