Hill Dickinson 2013-14 revenue static despite cutting 150 jobs
Hill Dickinson posted flat revenue of £111.9m in 2013-14, despite launching a major restructuring project at the beginning of the financial year which saw the loss of 150 jobs.
May 20, 2014 at 07:24 PM
2 minute read
Hill Dickinson posted flat revenue of £111.9m in 2013-14, despite launching a major restructuring project at the beginning of the financial year which saw the loss of 150 jobs.
The Liverpool-headquartered firm also saw bank borrowings almost half from £17m to £8.9m during the period.
The earnings are flat compared to last year's audited figure of £111.5m. However, last July, Hill Dickinson initially reported revenue for the 12-month period ending 30 April 2013 of £112.8m, which helped the firm take 29th spot in Legal Week's list of top UK law firms by revenue.
Hill Dickinson declined to comment on the firm's income and profit per equity partner (PEP) figures, "until solid year end results have been finalised and a presentation has been made internally to partners". This is expected to take place at the end of June.
The firm said this year's revenue reflected increased activity amongst its business clients and a general improvement in the economy.
Corporate and transactional work also picked up, while the firm's key sectors of marine, health and insurance "remained strong".
Last year, Hill Dickinson saw PEP drop to £264,000 from £312,000, a fall of 15%, which the firm attributed to an increase in overheads and international expansion.
In November, the firm reported revenue growth from £51.9m to £54.9m in the six months to the end of October, a 6% rise on the figure at the 2012-13 half-year point.
Last summer, the firm issued a £2.8m capital call, following a period of investment that saw it move into new City offices at Broadgate Tower and launch in Monaco and Hong Kong.
"Our performance has been based upon significant growth among our top 50 clients," commented managing partner Peter Jackson (pictured). "We are delighted that they, and us, are benefiting from the recovering economic environment."
For an interview with Peter Jackson, click here.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllTribunal Dismisses AML Case Against Kennedys’ Chief Risk Officer, But Ex-Partner Fined
2 minute readLatham, Skadden Among Firms Acting on Mubadala's $3.4 B Acquisition of CI Financial
2 minute readDLA Piper Takes Greenberg Traurig’s Corporate Partner for Seoul
Cuatrecasas Elevates Seven to Partner in Spain and Latin America
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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