Commentary: Norton Rose radicalism is too much for most City partners
Hearing some partners react to Norton Rose's plans to slice working hours before axing jobs, anyone would think the firm had proposed something radical rather than applying a tested route to surviving a recession without ruining your skills base. After all, four-day weeks have proved to be workable solutions to the recession for factories and even professional services firms like KPMG, but many City lawyers seem to believe it's a completely different story for law firms.
March 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM
3 minute read
An excess of conservatism at rivals misses the benefit and point of a goodwill gesture
Hearing some partners react to Norton Rose's plans to slice working hours before axing jobs, anyone would think the firm had proposed something radical rather than applying a tested route to surviving a recession without ruining your skills base. After all, four-day weeks have proved to be workable solutions to the recession for factories and even professional services firms like KPMG, but many City lawyers seem to believe it's a completely different story for law firms.
They argue that clients are so demanding and legal work so complex that transactional lawyers, at least, could never manage it. The subtext that partners are more wary of articulating is that many believe they are still carrying weaker performers tolerated due to the 2005-07 boom, so why not cut them out with a formal redundancy?
Still, let's assume for a moment that a law firm is operating a decent assessment system, which is supposed to be the means to deal with poor performers. Is Norton Rose's plan really so unworkable? Well, even Norton Rose concedes the programme, if implemented in earnest, will be far more work-intensive for management than a wide-scale redundancy programme, and that it would be unlikely to save as much money as a substantive programme of job cuts.
But critics should remember that the plan does not amount to putting busy M&A lawyers onto a four-day week while markets are booming. This is a contingency plan that will only kick in if management judges that workflow has fallen to such a point that they cannot justify the current staffing level. In addition, the firm would have considerable discretion to vary which staff were on a four-day week based on demand in different areas.
Once staff have given their consent, control rests with management, with decisions made by each practice, looking at predicted dealflow and work levels over the next few weeks. If the firm decides the numbers do not match, people will be given at least one week's notice that they are being put on a four-day week for a minimum of the next four weeks, or at least one month's notice if they are required to take a sabbatical.
The situation will be reviewed weekly, meaning Norton Rose is unlikely to find itself suddenly faced with a major deal and a shortage of lawyers and partners to advise on it. Indeed, the firm will be better positioned to deal with a rapid increase in work than rivals that have sent 10% of their lawyers packing.
Click here to comment on this article.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Combative Arguments at EU's Highest Court Over Google's €4.13B Antitrust Fine Emphasize High Stakes and Invoke Trump
4 minute readLaw Firms 'Struggling' With Partner Pay Segmentation, as Top Rainmakers Bring In More Revenue
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250