Allen & Overy's accounts, filed on Wednesday, show that the firm increased its profit in 2013/14 by 7% to £532m. Whilst managing to reduce its staff costs by £15m. Handy.

A&O said that growth was particularly strong in banking and litigation. But it's also started to see the benefits of its 2011 decision to move hundreds of support roles to Belfast, which resulted in a number of redundancies both at the time and again in 2013.

A&O's decision to give its associate pay rises six months after its competitors also helped. The rest of the Magic Circle upped their pay in May 2013. A&O finally relented in November 2013, meaning that associates spent half the financial year on their old salaries.

    Please sir, may I have what my mates at Linklaters are getting?

The firm confirmed that the saving resulted from "transitioning support roles to Belfast, a 4.1% decline in overall staff headcount and the impact of 1 May 2013 salary awards". In other words, cut some staff, ship out some of the rest and give belated pay rises to those who remain. Now that's management.

On the upside, staff bonuses were up 9.6% to £31m. So although pay rises were later than they might have been, at least those who really put the hours in should have seen the rewards.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 10 January 15 15:40

1. Job cuts are good. Efficiency is important. The article implies having jobs for the sake of having jobs is a positive.

2. Why not 'ship out some of the rest' either? Ignoring for a second that they are not actually 'shipping out' the jobs, do the people of Belfast not deserve jobs? And, if they are offering to do the same work in Belfast for a fraction of the cost someone in London is going to do it for - why would you recruit the same roles in London? For symbolic reasons?

Anonymous 11 January 15 09:54

To anonymous @ 15.40 - How dare you say job cuts are good. You naive and heartless twit. I can't wait until one day in the future it is decided that you can be erased in order to give your firm a tiny cost saving. That might change your perspective. The point is not about abstract 'jobs', but about people and the impact such an approach has on them.

Anonymous 11 January 15 19:57

Anon 09:54,

I would never wish unemployment on anybody. However, all businesses must run for their own benefit. They are not charities. Employees often have ample protection (notice periods, consultations, retraining opps etc) vis-a-vis redundancy. Support roles are often fluid/transferable too.

Instead of actually understanding my point, you have attributed a completely alien meaning to my words. If Belfast is offering a more competitive price for the same service, it would be the height of stupidity to acquire the service in London for 4/5x the price.

"the impact such an approach has on them" - are you saying businesses should forget about efficiency and costs savings altogether?

For you to wish unemployment on me says more about you than it does about me. You should go see first hand what some of the efficiency programmes at the larger firms are doing for young people etc in places outside of London.

Apparently, I am the naive one.

Anonymous 12 January 15 12:06

To @junior lawyer who has swallowed a book on free market economics and now thinks he knows it all.

'Employees often have ample protection (notice periods, consultations, retraining opps etc) vis-a-vis redundancy' - holy moly, you really are living in a bubble. One day it will go pop..........remember that.