Select band of law firms retain associate buy-in through recession
Author: Alex Novarese
18 Jun 2009 | 09:31
Allen & Overy, Norton Rose and Berwin Leighton Paisner lead staff satisfaction scores for UK's largest law firms
Allen & Overy (A&O), Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) and Norton Rose have emerged as standout performers in a flagship Legal Week project grading law firms on the satisfaction of their lawyers.
Legal Week Intelligence’s (LWI’s) 2009 Employee Satisfaction Survey identified the trio as top performers among the 25 largest UK law firms (see table below). Other firms to secure top-five rankings were CMS Cameron McKenna and Bird & Bird.
The satisfaction ranking is based on ‘core’ criteria that respondents said were the most important to them: prestige of firm; work/life balance; being valued as an employee; culture; quality of work; client interaction; salary; bonus; career communication; partnership prospects; and billable hours expectations.
Top 25 firms on average each attracted more than 80 responses with more than 4,000 qualified UK solicitors below partner level responding to the report.
The result will be viewed as particularly welcome for A&O, which this year unveiled a high-stakes restructuring programme. Despite the scale of its job cuts, equivalent to roughly 9% of its firmwide workforce, A&O’s satisfaction score was barely changed on 2008.
A&O managing partner Wim Dejonghe told Legal Week: “I am really pleased with the [LWI] result. We took the decision [with the firm’s restructuring] to do something that was globally comprehensive and we wanted to be totally transparent. I think that was appreciated.”
Norton Rose, which has opted to bring in flexi-working as an alternative to job cuts, remained one of the top-ranked City firms despite seeing a fall on its 2008 score.
Slaughter and May was another strong performer as one of the few top 25 firms to hold its satisfaction ranking roughly level with 2008. Slaughters senior partner Chris Saul said: “We have had some interesting work and, while you can never say never, we have been able to avoid redundancies and trainee contract deferrals and that has been important.”
Bird & Bird chief executive David Kerr agreed that the decision to maintain this firm's trainee intake had contributed its high score. He added: "I do think there is a good general mood among the troops."
The report, the sixth annual report on staff satisfaction from Legal Week's independent research arm, is the first comprehensive picture of morale and career satisfaction at major UK firms after a 12-month period dominated by job losses. However, despite modest falls in the satisfaction scores of most firms compared to 2008, the report suggests the recession has already sharply changed attitudes among junior lawyers.
So while previous LWI research found sharp hikes in pay and benefits had limited success in winning over disgruntled junior lawyers, fears of job losses appears to have made many assistants relatively more content with their careers.
The findings also contradict the expectation that ‘ruthless’ City firms would incur plunging morale in comparison to national and regional law firms.
While City and international firms dominate the top half of the rankings, DLA Piper is the lowest-ranked firm. The bottom five also includes Eversheds, Hammonds and Irwin Mitchell, though the latter firm managed to substantially improve its score compared to 2008.
The findings confirm that heavy redundancy programmes had a substantial negative impact on assistant satisfaction. Nearly 90% of the 160 respondents at DLA Piper said the firm’s job cuts had damaged its reputation, the highest of any firm. The finding reflects the criticism DLA Piper faced for the terms it offered redundant staff.
Commenting the findings, DLA Piper chief executive Nigel Knowles said the number of responding solicitors from his firm was a "relatively small percentage of our people".
He added: "At the time of conducting this survey we were going through a consultation period where a lot of our people were nervous. If the survey was repeated today our performance would have be enhanced. We have a stronger communication channel now with all of our people."
Linklaters also attracted criticism from responding solicitors for its restructuring, though the firm achieved a relatively high ranking due to scoring well on most criteria.
More recent job cuts could further shift the picture as several highly-ranked firms - including BLP and Camerons - have announced redundancy programmes since the research was conducted in March and April.
The research suggests some firms face a major challenge to win back their own staff after a bruising period. One head of a major City firm said: “Once the perception of your law firm as a bad employer becomes student folklore it is very hard to shift.”
The full report will be published at the end of June. The report contains individual rankings for 58 firms drawn from the UK's top 50 and the 10 largest London offices of US practices graded on 37 criteria.
For further information on the report, please contact Paul Birk on 020 7316 9864 or email paul.birk@incisivemedia.com.
COMMENTS (TOTAL 17 COMMENTS)
Oh please, DLA Piper would do better now that they have sacked a bunch of people and paid them stat minimum? Great line, but nobody's buying it.
USassociate -18 Jun 2009 | 11:35
Knowles in "47.6% of statistics made up on spot shocker"...
No acceptance of there being a problem or any culpability on behalf of the organisation.
You can't fault his positive mental attitude though, can you "Everything is going to be fine, Everything is going to be fine".
Ex DLAer -18 Jun 2009 | 13:26
Sir Nigel is clearly deluded if he thinks the firm's performance in this survey would be improved if carried out now. I was not involved in the redundancy process, but my views have not changed since participating in the survey. Not surprised at all by the results.
Current DLA -18 Jun 2009 | 13:36
How does one 'buy in' to pay cuts?
playftseforme -18 Jun 2009 | 14:57
There should be more tables like this, so law students know which firms to avoid. DLA is a no-brainer.
playfootsieforme -18 Jun 2009 | 16:41
DLA played an own goal. It was a truly stupid move to behave as they did on redundancies but no one can expect them to admit it. The challenge for DLA today is to grow up, rid themselves of expensive and inadequate non-fee earning partners who have no clients or reputation and start to focus on quality rather than headstrong expansion for expansion's sake. It's still a good firm. It's still a firm that has achieved a lot and one that should be commended for that achievement. But they were the bully boys from Sheffield too long ago for that to work now. Instead they should look after the firm and the legal profession long term. Isn't that what they gave the Sir in Nigel for?????
ex dla -18 Jun 2009 | 20:48
I should say that the firm that "achieved a relatively high ranking due to scoring well on most criteria" probably did so because the responding associates were too frightened to type what they really felt from their work computers.
It would be useful to see the response percentages.
Wetting Myself -18 Jun 2009 | 22:01
I concur with the above comment. Until the identity of those to be put "at risk" at Linklaters was released people were not satisfied with many decisions of management. The redundancy shocked most of us deeply and I don't see how that deep rooted lack of trust and satisfaction can be erased in a matter of months.
Anonymous -19 Jun 2009 | 10:54
It seems doubtful that the 123 associates that responded from Linklaters felt that intimidated as 78% of them also said they felt the firm had damaged its reputation through its redundancy programme. The firm scored above average because it did well on most of the criteria.
Alex -19 Jun 2009 | 11:16
Why are Norton Rose and A&O mentioned, but CMS Cameron McKenna given no mention??
Curious Associate -19 Jun 2009 | 12:21
It's all about balance isn't it? Several firms did not opt for the cull which proves that there were other options available. Some of the larger firms chose not to consider alternatives on any real level. Doesn't mean to say that life isn't sweet for those left behind...for now.
Sam -19 Jun 2009 | 17:46
Obfuscating the truth...go ask any ex-A&Oer what they really feel over pint. Its always been about the bottomline, so why sugercoat it?
A&Ocasualty -21 Jun 2009 | 00:27
I was previously satisfied with the top 10 firm I worked for and thought I worked with a good bunch of people. I was subsequently hounded by them when I challenged my redundancy for valid reasons. Those associates remaining behind and feeling satisfied should be aware that the tables could turn at any moment.
Another victim -22 Jun 2009 | 11:32
There is more than a hint of bias against CMS Cameron McKenna in the reporting of this story that does not reflect well on Mr Novarese or his paper. Personal prejudices and petty point-scoring have no place in reputatable publications.
Neutral corner -22 Jun 2009 | 23:40
You’re assuming rather a lot, Mr Neutral. Firstly, you assume that I have a grudge against Camerons and secondly that I’m using Legal Week to prosecute it. Well I can assure readers that not only do I have no such beef with the firm, but that even if I did you wouldn’t be able to tell it from reading Legal Week.
Camerons are mentioned prominently in the body text (2nd paragraph) as having scored highly. But there’s a simple reason I didn’t make more of that: Camerons were one of the few firms that announced a redundancy programme after the research had been conducted. Had I made more of their high ranking, readers would understandably have questioned whether it was due to Camerons having gone late on their restructuring rather than signaling the underlying engagement of their staff. Gauged against the other firms, I think that Camerons would still have ranked well even if the research had been conducted after they announced job losses, so I commend them but, yes, that issue was a factor in how I wrote the article. Any Camerons lawyer who wishes to discuss the matter with me please feel free.
Alex Novarese -23 Jun 2009 | 11:44
Lawyers are for the most part smart people. So it makes sense to be positive about the firm you presently work for. Not just because there is a risk that the firm will find out about negative comments (and the MC firm I used to work for was very hot on checking up on anonymous postings from internal lawyers), but also because of the benefit when you move on.
By this, I mean when you sit in an interview, your brand is influenced by the brand of the firm where you came from. If it's perceived as a miserable slave ship where everyone can't wait to leave, then there is less need for the recruiting firm to entice you away, and your negotiable salary may be impacted.
So, despite the crass mishandling of some of the restructurings, associates with any sense will continue to say "how high" with a smile when told to jump at 3am...but I would be pretty confident they would then seek to exit post-recession from environments where trimming excess capacity equates to "our lawyers work till 8 or 9 on average, they should be working till midnight or later".
And whatever they might say to surveys, partners, or the likes of me at client events, many City associates are deeply unhappy, trapped by their leverage and a falling property market, working for people they don't like, whilst too tired to work out what would be a better life. You may get a more meaningful survey if you ask how many associates buy lottery tickets...
Inhouse -18 Sep 2009 | 13:31
The survey doesn't measure absolute happiness, it's a relative ranking of how satisfied associates are in relation to each other. Are lawyers happy in general terms, or compared to the man in the street? I've no idea.
Alex Novarese -01 Oct 2009 | 16:28
RELATED JOBS
FURTHER READING
MOST READ
MOST COMMENTED
Updating your subscription status 
Advertisement
COURSES
LATEST JOBS
Advertisement
RECRUITERS
LEGAL EVENTS
LEGAL BRIEFINGS
- Market abuse and insider dealing – latest prosecutions and other developments
- Takeover Code – proposals to amend Rules 28 and 29 on profit forecasts and merger benefits statements
- Takeover Code – amendments to Rule 5 effective immediately
- Issuer liability – Treasury response paper and Regulations amending section 90A of FSMA
- Regulatory Investigations Group Financial Penalties – 5 steps to deterrence
SERVICES SECTION
