Partners predict lawyer layoffs will follow support job cuts
Legal Week research finds more than half of partners predict lawyer cuts, with 83% expecting to see more support staff redundancies
June 10, 2016 at 07:37 AM
7 minute read
Partners predict a wave of lawyer redundancies will follow the large-scale support staff culls announced by a number of firms in recent weeks.
Legal Week's Big Question survey, carried out in the wake of UK support staff redundancies at firms including DLA Piper, Norton Rose Fulbright and Dentons, has found that 57% of partners expect to see lawyer job cuts at major UK firms during the coming year.
The survey, which canvassed the opinions of around 150 partners, also found that 83% of respondents believe there will be further non-legal job cuts during the next six months.
Eleven percent of those taking part believe lawyer redundancies are extremely likely, with a further 46% believing them to be quite likely. In contrast only 5% believe lawyer cuts are extremely unlikely.
Additionally, almost two-thirds of respondents (61%) think more support staff cuts are likely during the coming six months, with 22% fearing this is very likely.
Looking across support and legal roles, almost half (42%) of the respondents believe most of the cuts will be in London, with 32% believing regional UK offices will be more affected and 26% worried about international networks.
The research findings come after it emerged that Norton Rose Fulbright and Dentons plan to cut 60 and 50 UK back-office jobs respectively, while DLA Piper has laid out plans to cut up to 200 UK support jobs – the equivalent of up to 18% of its UK staff.
Both DLA Piper and Dentons plan to outsource jobs to Warsaw, while Norton Rose is set to open a support centre in Manila in September. In addition, King & Wood Mallesons has laid off 37 London support staff and secretaries.
Brexit impact
The cuts come against a backdrop of increasingly uncertain market conditions, with respondents citing fears over Brexit and generally tough economic conditions as possible drivers for the redundancies.
Susan Bright, Hogan Lovells' UK and Africa managing partner, suggests the cuts simply reflect cost pressures on law firms. "People will be looking at costs and efficiencies as one would expect every business to do," she says.
Some respondents though, believe that a vote for the UK to leave the European Union in the upcoming referendum would worsen market conditions, triggering a fresh wave of layoffs.
Pinsent Masons managing partner, John Cleland, sums up the uncertainty that Brexit has created: "One of the challenges in the current environment is that the 2016-17 financial year is almost impossible to plan for. I've no doubt many firms would – if given the option – prefer to set their budgets after the outcome of the Brexit referendum is known."
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 AllLosing its 'Sparkle'? Why Latham Has Faced a Stream of Exits in Europe, UK
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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