Career Clinic: Will a redundancy pay-off mark my card?

A lawyer that gets made redundant?? That's almost unheard of, even during the recession post-dotcom bust hardly any lawyers were made redundant, they were moved into practice areas of law firms. It's common knowledge that one of the biggest benefits of the legal profession is job security, how many fixed income lawyers do you know that have been laid off in the face of one of the biggest credit crises in recent years? Exactly, none. So it will look extremely bad to have made redundant firstly as a lawyer, and secondly as a corporate/commercial solicitor since this practice area is flourishing. Pal, they may package it as a redundancy pay, but ask yourself, can you really make a corporate lawyer redundant? Say no, and stick it out, this is an insult.

Investment Banker -11 Oct 2007 | 13:14

I wonder if Investment Banker didn't get enough attention as a child? Anyhoo, I took voluntary redundancy last year from my previous job when the company was taken over, and it did me absolutely no damage in the job market. Go with your instincts and try to avoid being bowled over by short term gain. Speak to some recruiters and see what their perspective is - doubtless there are different considerations between private practice and in-house (where redundancy is quite common and doesn't carry such a stigma). Be honest with potential future employers - if you want to move then why would you not accept a redundancy package to give you some extra cash when you would have gone anyway?

In-house lawyer -11 Oct 2007 | 14:10

I took the voluntary redundancy option from my last job 4 years ago when I was 4 years qualified. I got a better job afterwards and bought a house in France with the cash, so it's difficult to have any regrets. As long as you can sell it to prospective employers as being your choice and that it was based on good reasons (in my case I didn't want to work for a large monolith in a different location, which was what was on offer following the company being taken over), I don't see why it should be a blot on your career.

in-house lawyer -11 Oct 2007 | 14:20

Investment banker is a legend. He should have his own column on LegalWeek.com.

Anonymous -11 Oct 2007 | 15:08

In reference to the above post... Investment Banker now DOES have his own column - check out Legal Village for a fistful of common sense (or controversy, anyway) on why law firms have remuneration all wrong.

Web editor, legalweek.com -11 Oct 2007 | 16:19

I don't think redundancy carries a stigma when there are plenty of other jobs to be had. You won't have a problem finding another job. As long as it's genuine redundancy and they don't try to attack your capability (which can be very bad for your confidence but in your case it's voluntary redundancy anyway so the capability issue won't arise) it can even be a good thing. I've been made redundant once and jumped before I was pushed once and in each case I went into a better job. I didn't get enough money to buy a house in France but I was able to replenish rather depleted savings! So do what you think is best for you and I hope you get a nice big pay-off - maybe you can pay off some of your mortgage.

Senior associate, regional firm -11 Oct 2007 | 18:00

Pick up the phone to a recruiter now - before you are offered the package - and say you are thinking of leaving. Make it convincing. Mention the restructuring, of course, but not that you expect to get the chop. Express concern that it is very disruptive and creates uncertainty (perhaps hint that good people may leave or that it may not work for clients). Explore the opportunities available and, ideally, have another job lined up before you are offered the package.

Ex-MC Lawyer -11 Oct 2007 | 18:06

Investment banker - boy are you wrong - LOADS of people got made redundant all the time:http://www.rollonfriday.com/story295.htmBecause we are to a large extent not unionised, you don't get collective bargaining of pay-offs. Some firms avoid the stigma of redundancy by offering people the option to resign and when the sum offered reaches the correct level they accept the suggestion that they resign (redundancy by another name).

Associate, US Firm -12 Oct 2007 | 17:16

If you get your timing right, this can work to your advantage. It is best to find another job first and then accept the redundancy package. It does not carry the same stigma as it did in the past. One of the other comments questioned why a solicitor would ever be out of work. I would turn this around and point this subtly at the employer during an interview. I.E. the industry is doing well, but my firm is looking for redundancies - They are obviously not getting their act together. You can also play this in another direction ; that you were looking for a new job or your next challenge when they announced these voluntary redundancies. It was a good opportunity to further your career. You may need to tone this down slightly so that you don't look too mercenary, but who in that position wouldn't take advantage?

www.getmorejoboffers.com -14 Oct 2007 | 21:18

Please would someone briefly explain to Mr Investment Banker about what happened in the early 1990s, when hundreds of lawyers were made redundant as the work dried up. It's fine to have forthright views, but there's always a risk of showing off your ignorance.

Assistant, city firm -17 Oct 2007 | 17:08

I have been around in private practice for a few years but seen very few half-decent lawyers made redundant, and I have never seen a star be offered redundancy. Redundancy exercises are structured to get rid of dead wood. I therefore think it will be quite seriously unhelpful on your CV to have been made redundant, particularly if you are in a large department - it would signal you were one of the ones they were happy to let go. That assumes you are in practice; if you are in-house, I'd suspect less so. Better by far to get a new job first, or dress it up as a career break if you have to - go and fool around East of Suez for a while and come back with renewed zeal.

Dullard -19 Sep 2008 | 17:17

People still think redundancies are only to get rid of deadwood, given the increasing announcements being made?

Anonymous -11 Mar 2009 | 17:30

IB's first comment looks so inspired.

Anonymous -06 Apr 2009 | 16:12

Speaking to friends involved in redundancy consultations, the criteria to choose has been performance. Future employers know this as they too would have based decisions on verifiable facts such as fee income, hours billed, appraisals etc. Beware.

reality check -05 May 2009 | 17:57