Insiders have told RollOnFriday that DWF is planning another round of redundancies. That's another round on top of the 99 staff who were already put at risk two months ago.
It seems DWF, having merged with five firms in the last year, has simply got many more people than it actually needs. In March it put 99 jobs at risk. By a remarkable co-incidence, that was just one less than the 100 jobs that would mean it would have to go through an extended consultation process. However it seems it wasn't enough, so now it is bringing out the axe again.
Teams under consultation include banking, banking litigation, property repossessions and insolvency and some of these teams apparently contain only legacy Cobbetts staff. The words "asset" and "strip" come to mind.
As is usual for DWF, no one would comment.
Tip Off ROF
It seems DWF, having merged with five firms in the last year, has simply got many more people than it actually needs. In March it put 99 jobs at risk. By a remarkable co-incidence, that was just one less than the 100 jobs that would mean it would have to go through an extended consultation process. However it seems it wasn't enough, so now it is bringing out the axe again.
Teams under consultation include banking, banking litigation, property repossessions and insolvency and some of these teams apparently contain only legacy Cobbetts staff. The words "asset" and "strip" come to mind.
 |
An asset stripper yesterday |
As is usual for DWF, no one would comment.
Comments
77
62
80
69
80
74
74
75
You're clearly not as well informed as you think. In law firms, mergers typically lead to job losses in back-office/support functions as there is duplication of roles (e.g. IT, finance etc). But with fee-earner or partner roles there is minimal scope for duplication (unless you share a client base) and therefore job losses are, more often than not, down to wider performance or profit share issues.
Now run along.
80
61
You truly are naive to the ways of the world.
60
77
Ok, enlighten me on the way's of law firm finances post-merger and how this would naturally tie back to forced attrition of fee-earners/partners.
I think what you'll find is that fee-earner departures are down to one of two things: (i) their individual profitability/productivity (something not directly related to the merger) or (ii) someone taking the opportunity to exit someone they are not keen on (again nothing to do with a merger, and typically done by stealth).
69
73
31/05/2013 08:10
DWF = Dump the Work Force?
DWF = Dundas + Wilson's Future?
67
82