Wragges set to cut 85 more jobs after 17% revenue drop-off

Not a great result, even in this market.

Anonymous -10 Jun 2009 | 17:27

This firm has really gone to the dogs over the past few months. They promised no more redundancies, as if!!!

frustrated employee -10 Jun 2009 | 19:57

Particularly given Wragges' substantial (we thought) litigation, i.e. anti-cyclical, practice. Are we going to see a league table any time soon? Or is LW going to spare firms' blushes this time around...?

Anonymous -11 Jun 2009 | 10:04

Just looking at the numbers on the Law Society website - 85 jobs appears to be just under 20% of the firm, which seems like a lot, although it may be that the numbers on the Law Society website are out of date or not accurate...

anon -11 Jun 2009 | 12:17

Interesting that again, equity partners are left out of this process...

...if you could bottle the atmosphere, you'd make a fortune? Not likely now.

anon -11 Jun 2009 | 14:04

Law Society figures are just for the real people i.e.'Fee Earners'.

Secretarial and Support plebs are not included as they are of no importance and can be made redundant with little or no concern; it's not as though they have real lives, mortgages or families ...

So it's more like 10% if you count the wastrels who are taking money out of the mouths of partners' children.

And yes ... entirely tongue in cheek.

Anonymous -11 Jun 2009 | 14:54

This time they are not trying to kid people that it's not about saving costs - shaping up to give less generous redundancy packages than last time?

Anonymous -11 Jun 2009 | 15:23

In the light of today's LW article, it looks like they are trying to trim down to make themselves more attractive for a merger.

Anonymous -11 Jun 2009 | 15:30

The figures are not a great surprise, given that the firm pinned its colours firmly to the mast of bluechips, real estate and corporate, which was always due to take a downturn at some point. They make great hay while the sun shone but cannot have expected it to last forever.

The failure, if there is one, was losing sight of the ecconomically counter-cyclic areas of the business (litigation, insolvency, volume areas etc)

I'm afraid that whilst the (all) equity partner numbers remain consistently high and also the fact that quite a number of 'retiring' partners are taken on as (very expensive) consultants, then they will continue to be under 'cost' pressures.

Acting to reduce costs without looking into levereage is only sustainable for a short while.

Whilst a number of the magic circle and chasing pack are addressing partner numbers, too many firms (like Wragge and Co) are only taking half, and not the full measures required.

Anonymous -11 Jun 2009 | 16:19

It's a real shame. I work for Wragges and used to work in a firm that cared for its people (maybe even a bit too much) but a firm that understood that partners and PEP needed to take the lead in any decision of the firm. Wragges of today is a very different (and much uglier) place to work.

anon -11 Jun 2009 | 17:31

I don't work at Wragge & Co but surely it was well understood that the "cared about their staff/nice place to work" thing was a profile-raising exercise or a means by which to pay staff less and not a guarantee against redundancy? By saying this I am not in any way sympathising less with anyone who is or is about to be made redundant.

. -12 Jun 2009 | 12:57

As an x-Wraggie I can confirm that the 'nice, caring place to work' was generally true though was indeed constrained by commercial sensibility, and was highly used for marketing purposes. To be honest in the current economic climate this takes a back seat to hard commercial facts.

Certainly towards the end of my time there things did become a little less caring and they (along with many, many other law firms) could be right swines when it came down to protecting partners (and their favourites) who, if they had been other than partners, would have been dismissed.

I've certainly been subject to bullying in such circumstances, but that's just the way law firms work; not that that is any excuse.

I think one of Wragges' greatest positives is that the non-legal folks there are very caring of each other and back each other up.

As a firm they do genuinely still aspire to be 'a caring meritocracy', it's just that some of the partners care more about their own merit (and pockets) before anything else.

X-Wraggie -12 Jun 2009 | 15:54

Wragges has an excellent marketing department which has somehow maintained its reputation as a caring employee. However, I know from personal experience and conversations that such a reputation is throughly undeserved and definately overplayed by Wragges.

The firm, like all other commercial companies, is driven by the need to satisfy shareholders, or partners in this case. Hence, when times are tough (and revenues fall 17%) the firm like all other coporate organisations looks to cut costs, which in a law firm is predominately the salaries of the people it employs.

Therefore, can we once and for all stop talking about Wragges as a caring employer. It is not. It is like any other organisation, its exists to make profits for its owners. Its reputation for caring for its employees is pure marketing spin, and so I would encourage any potential employees to look at the facts before deciding to join this organisation because of its "caring" attitude.

This is its second round of redundancies in 8 months and its partners are looking to move elsewhere (Huw Evans to A&O for example). If you have a choice, don't be spun by the caring employee spin, choose the honest employee, the firm who you know is commercial, who will make redundancies in a downturn. At least you can say they are honest unlike the "caring employee" that never has been Wragges.

ANON -12 Jun 2009 | 20:27

Tonight 110 0f the 115 partners blew £7,128.00 on an evening out at Shimla Pinks on Broad Street, proving that whilst the remainder of the staff (who stand to have their number culled by 85) are serious about cutting costs (including volunteering for extended maternity/paternity leave, unpaid leave, voluntary redudancy, salary reductions, etc), the partners aren't too bothered about saving costs. Typical fat cats. Wragges needs to start at the top if they are truly serious about saving costs.

Shimla Pinks -13 Jun 2009 | 01:44

£65 quid each - Wow!

Anon -15 Jun 2009 | 11:34

Of course, to put things in context, the cost of Shimla Pinks is a replacement for a partner conference weekend abroad, and so is actually a big cost saving when compared to previous years.

I do know that general staff are seriously thinking about ways to save costs, as they have been asked to do, as there is a high degree of fear for jobs at present. Some think however that any ideas they come up with will be used, but that jobs will still go.

The real thing the partners need to look at is the amount they waste on first class travel. Every first class ticket is a 'one off' which they are entitled to, but when they all do it as an "exception" (and upgrade associates who may be travelling with them too) then it mounts up to a horrific cost.

Not all of them do it, but when some do and get away with it then everyone else thinks it's OK to do so as well.

Shimla Pinks -15 Jun 2009 | 13:05

Plus they also paid thousands for an external consultant to put the PowerPoint slides together for the conference. Where is the logic in that?

anon -15 Jun 2009 | 14:29

I'm thoroughly disappointed in Wragges and they are definitely not a caring employer. Since I've started working there it's been like a sweatshop and the false promises made at the interview have not materialised. I knew I should have joined Eversheds, at least you know what you get with them. Wragges are using this round of redundancies to really squeeze every drop of blood from the existing work force.

Future employees - don't believe the marketing hype. Wragges is no less cut throat and demanding than DLA and Eversheds.

Jobseeker-2-b? -16 Jun 2009 | 09:04

I completely agree with the above article. I had the choice of Wragges and Eversheds, and went for the former....a massive mistake.

10 months of misery, false promises and being treated like i belonged on the bottom of someone's shoes and I resigned. Quite possibly the best decision I have ever made!

Future employee - leave Wragges well alone....definately a sinking ship...

Ex Wragges -17 Jun 2009 | 20:59

With reference to the "£65 wow" comment, that person would do well to remember that most support staff only have £65 per week to buy their weekly shopping so to squander this on one meal when you are about to make people redundant is inconsiderate and insensitve.

Anon -18 Jun 2009 | 09:03

In reference to a number of the above comments, Wragges is definitely not a "caring employer".

I would say to any future trainees with a choice, don't choose Wragges. And if you don't have a choice, make sure you have a two-year exit plan on qualification!

Former Wragges -18 Jun 2009 | 21:41

It's a shame but it is reality. I worked for Wragges for a very long time and enjoyed it and had excellent rapport with every partner. It is not just Wragges who are affected - it is everyone. What you have to remember is when you put Wragge & Co on your Cv it opens doors for you - so think of the positives should the inevitable ever happen.

I would say one thing about Wragges and that is "halcyon days".

Anon -19 Jun 2009 | 21:31

As a current member of a Wragge & Co support team, it is interesting to see how things have changed. A caring meritocracy? Perhaps to a point it was, however in my department it is now "every man for himself" and the knives are out.

anon -22 Jun 2009 | 23:36

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE - Do not be sucked in by the clever, award-winning marketing of the firm!

work-and-play -30 Jun 2009 | 11:54