Exclusive: mass redundancies feared at DWF

Around 100 employees are believed to be at risk of redundancy at DWF.

An insider has told RollOnFriday that 99 support staff have been put into a consultation process. And given the recent acquisitive nature of DWF, which has snapped up five firms in under a year, it is not surprising that there may now be some job losses.

But 99 is a very precise number, and by a happy coincidence for the firm, the consultation period only has to last for 30 days when fewer than 100 staff are at risk. However rumours are circulating that other staff have been culled, bringing the number to over 100 and obliging the firm to conduct a 90 day consultation. And if that was the case, then the firm would have to pay all its unfortunate victims for the extra 60 days.

DWF yesterday

But surely a sizeable law firm would go through the process absolutely by the book? A spokeswoman for the firm originally told RollOnFriday that she thought the numbers were "incorrect" and would check the position with HR. But that was over a week ago, and despite repeated requests for comment none has been forthcoming. So the mystery remains.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Dundas & Wilson never bothered going through the correct process when making redundancies in 2011. I understood it to be because they used the "law firm" get out provided for in legislation?

Bet you 50p that most of these people will be the Cobbetts associates and staff. Basically DWF bought Cobbetts' work for a knock-down price when it was in distress and is now stuffing everyone involved it doesn't want. (And didn't even make any of Cobbetts partners into equity partners at DWF either). Basically got a load of money for very little.

What a right royal stuffing Cobbetts has had. Makes the old corporate raiders of the 1980s look kind-hearted.

One law firm treated all it's support departments as seperate business units - making no more than 19 from each "business unit" redundant. Putting 60+ people at risk without needing any consultation.

By the book.... If you know how to work the book....

I think it was 2012 that D&W made redundancies....

Clearly after all those mergers there will be people in duplicate rolls so it is understandable that there will be redundancies. If the business were failing in the first place then they clearly have to make cuts - unfortunatley support staff dont bring in money so are normally first to go! What is heartbreaking for those at risk, is the hard faced way they go about the redundancy process.

This is only the beginning!!!

Whilst the people from Cobbetts will (quite understandably) be feeling nervous, they can at least take comfort that the regime at DWF will axe anybody without hesitation.

Nobody is safe, it's almost a hobby of DWF getting rid of staff, whether their own or new staff as a result of mergers

Speaking as an ex employee of DWF and one who worked there for 2 years before going through consultation as a result of a merger - nobody is safe, particularly support staff who are seen as a burden

Legal profession aint what it used to be, I got caught up in the Eversheds debacle, I might earn peanuts in the NHS compared to my previous earnings but am so glad I'm out of this

I'll go on record. I work for DWF following acquisition. I don't like it. In fact, I don't actually know anyone who does. The atmosphere is terrible. No-one wants to speak up about how they feel because they are too scared in case it will be held against them. No-one is safe. DWF are ruthless when it comes to redundancies. Tap on the shoulder, your at risk, blah blah and off you go with a bad taste in your mouth and a standard redundancy package - treated horribly by. They "live their values" - I certainly hope they don't!!

DWF is a business being run as a business. So many law firms have equity partners with no clients, no fee earning responsibilities but as they form part of a bloated "management structure" they are allowed to continue to earn well whilst bringing little to the business. Combine this with an excess of support staff and you have a recipe for disaster.
Better to cut away the fat to ensure the firm not only survives but also thrives.
The speed at which litigation heavy firms are responding to the challenges created by the Jackson reforms is poor. Many are sleep walking into a disaster because the excess staff, the bloated management structures and the non-performers should be being managed now rather than when the cash flow starts to falter.
Lawyers are pretty clueless when it comes to managing their own businesses. DWF's approach seems the right one to me (assuming of course the non-fee earning equity partners are limited to say, one - the Managing Partner).

Dwf used to be a great place to work. The chaps whose names are over the door are decent blokes, on first name terms with the majority, and one is still on the "shop floor" - for now, at least. Even he's probably not safe, the way things are going.

DWF believe strongly in their values. How can a firm be taken seriously for its values when they treat their people so poorly.

Hopefully the Cobbetts clients will appreciate they are pawns on an unsophisticated chess board and find decent lawyers asssisted by the Cobbetts partners who were told "join us or you're bankrupt". No-one's under an illusion DWF
Wananbes remember DWF