Hiring hiatus comes to an end as mid-sizers target magic circle talent, but reticence remains

Paul Olney
The UK’s top 25 firms are back in recruitment mode, with an estimated 2,133 people having been brought on board to UK offices in 2009-10 alone.
However, the total number of hires is still exceeded by the 2,370 people firms made redundant during the downturn, suggesting management caution has far from subsided.
Slaughter and May has hired 78 people during the current financial year, but in line with its conservative approach to lateral hiring all of them were associates and support staff rather than partners.
Slaughters practice partner Paul Olney said: “In general we’ve been hiring fewer than normal this year. In certain areas, such as insolvency and restructuring, there’s much more of a vibrant market. We have a more generalist practice, so our general goal has been to redeploy people where we can. We probably tend to take fewer laterals than other firms.
“We’ve not put a freeze on hiring [support staff], but we’d only want to hire in this still uncertain time where we need to add resources.”
Partner recruitment is still a fraction of overall hires among the top 25, while most of the magic circle made no lateral hires at all. The exceptions are Allen & Overy, which brought four partners into IP litigation, high-yield and equity capital markets, and Linklaters, which brought in litigation partner Christa Band from Herbert Smith.
A senior partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer defended the lack of lateral hires at his firm, saying: “We’ve lost fewer people [than other firms], so it’s not surprising if we’ve hired fewer too.”
Nick Woolf, a headhunter at Sainty Hird & Partners, said a lot of the partner hires could be accounted for by opportunistic captures by mid-market outfits of magic circle departees.
“There’s two types of lateral hires, one being opportunistic, the other strategic,” he said. “Magic circle firms are rarely opportunistic and they don’t have to be. They don’t have many weaknesses, whereas mid-sized firms do have gaps.”
One of the largest groups of partner hires has been at Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP), which has brought in 10 laterals, particularly into finance, tax and litigation. The firm has laid off 85 people since autumn 2007.
BLP managing partner Neville Eisenberg said: “Our strategy’s always been to build our capabilities in key areas and hire the best people. The recession provided us with more opportunities to hire leading individuals, and in doing so we’ve propelled our strategy forward.”
The highest numbers of hires were made by two firms with large volume businesses, Irwin Mitchell and Eversheds, which recruited 414 and 293 people respectively. Since late 2007 Irwin Mitchell has laid off 16, while Eversheds parted company with 735.
Around 138 of Irwin Mitchell’s hires were fee-earners, the vast majority of whom were into the personal injury arm. Eversheds recruited significantly into its volume business, Legal Systems Group.
Eversheds HR director Angus MacGregor said that, despite plans to expand its volume business further, including talk of outsourcing to its South Africa office, most of these hires were due to a high churn rate. He added that the high number of hires is also reflective of the firm upgrading its finance and IT capabilities over the past year.
A considerable number of the fee-earner and partner hires across the top 25 are in litigation and regulatory practices, suggesting that bank-on-bank litigation may finally be coming through - a thesis corroborated recently by The Lawyer’s top 10 cases (The Lawyer, 11 January). Out of 14 fee-earner hires at DLA Piper, for example, six were in its litigation and regulatory division.
DLA Piper chief executive Nigel Knowles said: “What we’re finding is that we’re getting involved in far more cross-border litigation and arbitration. We’re the right size for the amount of work we’ve got going on, but we’re always looking to grow in areas of the economy that are set to expand.”
Additional reporting by The Lawyer team
(Click on image to view larger version.)
Readers' comments (32)
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 10:59 am
Seriously, the top 25 firms hired hundreds of lawyers in the last twelve months? What's the ratio of fee earners to support staff for this chart?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 11:07 am
Also the numbers given for 'job loses' must be taken with a pitch of salt - these are presumably announced job loses. Alot of the top 25 firms made massive unannounced job loses via managing people out.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 11:31 am
Only 19 job losses at Pinsents?! That makes me chuckle.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 11:52 am
seriously? you expect ppl to believe that A&O laid off more associates than CC and Links??!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 12:17 pm
actually A&O did make that many lay-offs - at least in London anyway
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 12:19 pm
This table seems to show that the data for 8 out the top 12 firms in the table is based on 'estimated figures'. If thats right, are these the law firm's estimates or The Lawyers'?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 1:41 pm
...and still, not a word of help or support to the army of NQ lawyers not kept on. We are having to face turning from the law after huge investment of time and money: and once a turn away has been made, we will struggle to return. Go and do pro bono they say - and pay the rent with what? The SRA, The Lawyer, law firms, and Patners at large should feel ashamed by the lack of support being offered to this easily forgotten, inexperienceed group. It is shameful.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 10:00 pm
Will be interesting to compare the figures employed before the crunch and in the latest LLP accounts of each of the above firms, I have my doubts the announced 'job loss' figures will tally with the people who were actually cut by 'announced' and unannounced 'managing out'. If the lawyer is to make a statistical comparison, then it shouldn't rely on the figures of cut backs actually announced by the firms - they have to dig deeper.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Apr-2010 10:08 pm
Only 4 job losses at Freshfields. Not sure who is doing the maths.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Associate | 20-Apr-2010 9:45 am
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the likes of Freshfields and Slaughters were sacking in droves: the figures of 4 and 0 (official redundancies) are therefore very misleading and it is very disingeneous and insulting for the above-named partners at those firms to suggest otherwise.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment