Would you want my job cut?

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Of course some civil servants are lawyers, it is one of the many professions that make up the service. Also statisticians, scientists, economists, CIBA accountants etc. I have few complaints about my salary - I think taking the whole package into account (leave, pension etc) I earn a reasonable wage, not too little, not too much. If the pension is cut and civil servants leave, then that will just push up my salary to retain me. Can't buck the market as they say...

I'm sincerely glad you are happy Likewise DH is happy private sector, and my father was public sector til 50 and now is private sector: he's been equally grumpy in both :rotfl:.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

God, you are a bloody lawyer aren't you! ROFL!

Is he? One doesn't have to be a lawyer to work in the management of a firm

Are you Bendix?

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

True, I refered to another manifestation of this when I mention transport...briefly. The slight difference is with Slaughter and May they were paid for this job, presumably at market rate, they were neededto provide a service that civil servants could not and are, I presume, not being retained at any cost, but on a job by job basis.

Corporate clients, and I guess, governments could seta capfor fees. But then the firms would have to consider whether it was in their best interests to do that work. And then who would do it, more to the point, who would be raging to get the most out of tax payers on the other side of negotiations?

Rest assured Slaughter & May would not have charged at their normal rates for this job - they would have discounted massively, perhaps by as much as 40% on their usual rates. It's a well known fact that you can't charge full rate with government work, that the government is a pain in the a**e client and that most of such jobs are actually done at a loss when the final analysis is done.

There is a lot of discussion amongst the firms as to the benefits or otherwise of doing such work. My guys decided it is not worth it; S&M on the other hand will have made a commercial decision to go for it. Good luck to them. Who can speculate on their motives? As a private business, that's their concern.

But believe me - it is Slaughter & May doing the government a favour in this particular project, NOT the other way round.

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

Is he? One doesn't have to be a lawyer to work in the management of a firm

Are you Bendix?

I'm not. Bloody lawyers. Can't stand them. :rotfl:

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

He's on the internet at public expense during work hours, asking complete strangers if his job is worth keeping.

it depends on how you judge a salary. is it money paid merely for your time, or is it money paid for you to do a job.

some are just more efficient than others and can get through a workload pretty quickly and would rather spend the rest of the time doing things of interest.

others can be clockwatchers. they might put the hours in, stay off the social networking, internet forums etc. doesn't mean they are more productive.

sensible employers know this.

as a sensible employer of the public sector, i'm not bothered about getting the hours. i just want the results.

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

Rest assured Slaughter & May would not have charged at their normal rates for this job - they would have discounted massively, perhaps by as much as 40% on their usual rates. It's a well known fact that you can't charge full rate with government work, that the government is a pain in the a**e client and that most of such jobs are actually done at a loss when the final analysis is done.

There is a lot of discussion amongst the firms as to the benefits or otherwise of doing such work. My guys decided it is not worth it; S&M on the other hand will have made a commercial decision to go for it. Good luck to them. Who can speculate on their motives? As a private business, that's their concern.

But believe me - it is Slaughter & May doing the government a favour in this particular project, NOT the other way round.

Thank you, that's really interesting. From what I hear there are some very odd decisions about representation ATM. But DH would agree with what you say about good City firms keeping their business and profits are ok.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Rest assured Slaughter & May would not have charged at their normal rates for this job - they would have discounted massively, perhaps by as much as 40% on their usual rates. But believe me - it is Slaughter & May doing the government a favour in this particular project, NOT the other way round.

why would S&M do the government a favour? altruism?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

why would S&M do the government a favour? altruism?

There could be dozens of reason ninky. It's not necessarily a favour - more a mutually beneficial arrangement or good business.

My firm will regularly take on unprofitable mandates IF, for example, it's particularly sexy or leading edge or looks good on the deals list. It might attract new work from other clients in the future. There is no doubt that the Bradford & Bingley work is one of the highest profile cases at the moment. There is a certain kudos in doing it.

Similarly, they might think having a reputation as the Govt's first choice firm is useful.

There maybe even more basic reasons . . building ties between senior partners and ministers etc

I suggest a couple of these are valid in this case, but there is another potential reason. Slaughters, Freshfield and the firm I work for are the ONLY leading firms which havent laid people off yet - some firms have cut lawyer and staff numbers drastically. Firms hate to do that. They could have made a business case for keeping hundreds of associates busy on a high profile case like this is even if it makes no profit is better than making people redundant with all the associated negative things attached to it, including bad PR, redundancy costs and the eventual cost of rehiring new staff when things pick up again.

It's good business.

My own firm is looking at sending under-used lawyers to work inhouse for clients on paid secondments. It helps the client, it helps build relationships, and it gets expensive resources off our book temporarily without lsoing them forever.

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

I suggest a couple of these are valid in this case, but there is another potential reason. Slaughters, Freshfield and the firm I work for are the ONLY leading firms which havent laid people off yet - some firms have cut lawyer and staff numbers drastically..

Unless I'm wrong about you not working at same firm as DH there is at least one other who hasn't The only reason I think you don't work at that firm is a figue you gave for salaries of trainees.

Is there a list of City firms, leading or otherwise, who've made cuts? I've noticed as they have appeared on The Lawyer or RoF but not seen a list of all cuts to date.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

My firm will regularly take on unprofitable mandates IF, for example, it's particularly sexy or leading edge or looks good on the deals list. It might attract new work from other clients in the future.

well exactly. you said S&M were doing the government a favour. as you point out, it wasn't really a favour, just a considered business move....

corporate social responsibility my a**e.