Trowers names new UAE chief for embattled Middle East practice

Readers' comments (29)

• name and shame them | 14-Sep-2011 5:06 pm

  There are some very obvious people in the firm who are responsible for the decision making and the department that gives the legal advice surrounding redundancy. They should be the ones that get the majority of the flack. There's a lot of protection of very little equity going on, not to mention using redundancy to eject people who might not exactly be redundant. In fact, I'm pretty sure that redundancy has been used to eject individuals followed by a swift hire a little while later. Pathetic.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Denny Crane | 16-Sep-2011 8:08 am

  Oh dear.
  
  I cannot give any credence whatsoever to comments by (supposedly) educated ex-Trowers employees who have no grasp over when and when not to use a possessive apostrophe when using the firm's name.
  
  Perhaps, if your drafting skills were not so poor, you would have been retained?
  
  Complain about Trowers all you that want, but going by the inarticulate half-wits that seem to spend all of their free time commenting on here, many are lucky to have had the opportunity to work somewhere other than Burger King.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Oh dear Denny | 16-Sep-2011 3:19 pm

  I have been watching these comments with interest, sympathy (and some amusement) but this post by “Denny” is sheer quality for how ironic it is and I just had to comment. The quality of his response is about as measured and learned as the comments he purports to criticize. At least the other contributors had a valid view (based on facts it would appear ) to put forward, however coloured by their own negative experiences, or experiences of those they know. Denny’s comment lacks even that basic element of fact and is just the kind of knee-jerk, hypocritical, low level reaction that make people laugh at the writer and confirms that the bar for entry in Trowers isn't quite as high as he would like to flatter himself to think. I'd bet that if the boot were on the other foot, he'd be commenting about how terrible the firm is left, right and centre with about as little class as he had shown already. His lack of any sympathy or empathy is rather sad.
  
  Fact: Trowers is doing badly. Fact: they seem to have made people redundant with very little care as to how they did it. Fact: there is no smoke without fire. Fact: “Denny” will probably think finding a typo or grammatical error in this post or posts to follow, automatically makes him right.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Jamiestarr | 16-Sep-2011 8:41 pm

  Mr Denny
  
  So, you're the best that Trowers could come up with! Honestly, the least the firm could do is try and admit the fact that they got it wrong.
  
  I'm going now to give some free advice to the Trowers management. They're likely to pay a consultant thousands for it, but I'll give it to you for free. It appears that the management does not listen to its associates but pays a lot of attention to the comments on here. Just 3 points really (I think a senior Trowers partner likes things in 3)
  
  1. Increase salaries
  Fact: the salaries are not market.
  Why: Since the cuts last year (flights, club and utilities) associates are being paid approx 20% less to what they would get elsewhere. It's starting to affect motivation.
  If not: Think about it this way - when things get busy we're not going to be working late. Some don't already!
  
  2. Start Promoting from within
  Fact: Everybody knows a senior associate is leaving to join another firm as a "partner". Why on earth didn't Trowers make that person up?
  Why: Reward hard work and become a meritocracy. There are so many hard working lawyers at Trowers who simply don't get rewarded, or promoted, because of some idiot manager/partner who doesn't see talent and prefers to see a threat (blah blah - you know the rest). When promoting, make sure it's the right person and not someone who sucks up to management - it's really simple.
  If not: The firm will become a place nobody wants to go to - law firms are defined by its people. It's only a matter of time before clients start noticing.
  
  3. Clear the dead wood
  Fact: It's clear that some practices do not make any money.
  Why: Why bother with them? Sure, these people did indeed contribute when it mattered. However, they've passed their sell by date so .. come on, be fair. Stop chopping at the bottom. Think about the future and consider who, at the top, needs to go. Who doesn't contribute, who is too busy with other things - who simply doesn't bring in any work? Some people need to go.
  If not: The firm will never change and I am afraid the brand will be damaged. You still have a chance to save things.
  
  That's it - really is easy.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 17-Sep-2011 8:33 pm

  This sounds like dla piper circa 2009.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymouse | 19-Sep-2011 9:28 am

  Yes, Denny's post was remarkable. I can imagine senior management at Trowers sitting around deciding on redundancies based on the victim's ability to follow the rules for forming the possessive singular or plural.
  
  Interesting that all 3 posts that support Trowers have directed their caustic wit at the character of the people writing to air their feelings about the firm. I was taught at law school to deal with the issues, but perhaps they don't teach that any more.
  
  A very sad state of affairs it is.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Fight! Fight! Fight! | 19-Sep-2011 7:39 pm

  Not sure what is going on at Trower's - look's like a right mess - but great fun for spectator's on the comment's page. One question about thi's punctuation thingy: why would Trower's rely on Burger King to sort it out, rather than a spot of in house-training??

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymouse | 21-Sep-2011 9:18 am

  In the warped mind of Denny, it seems that the next step up from flipping burgers at BK is to be an associate of Trowers & Hamlins.
  
  Presumably, all of those made redundant by Trowers have now gone back to their former profession and are writing comments to the Lawyer while preparing a Mushroom Swiss or two.
  
  With reasoning like that, Denny must be one of the magic 25 at senior equity.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• middlemiss | 21-Sep-2011 2:57 pm

  for a law firm to be attractive you need to have at least one of the following:
  
  1. Good work
  2. Good pay
  3. Good conditions
  4. Good training.
  5. Good prospects for good pay even if its not good now.
  
  If you dont have these, then it is difficult to recruit good people. Its not hard to recruit any old person (or to get rid of people), but when you're charging a few hundred dollars an hour, most want good people. As the good people move on and are replaced by average people (as why would anyone in their right mind choose to go there at the moment), then the rot sets in.
  
  From what I have seen, T&H have gone from an ME heavyweight from times when there was not an awful lot of competition to being a firm that's best known ME legal circles for the disenfranchisement of its staff and the antics of a few senior lifers who hold their 'meetings' in bars like the seaview hotel and run the place like the ME is still a backwater rather than a massive regional hub; and others who are strictly part time some of the time, and the remainder of the time they're keen to ensure that bright young things from the lesser ranks would rather leave than upset the status quo.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment