Thanks for nothing Ashurst!

Given a great majority of a Finance, Corporate and Litigation trainee's work falls under the category of low-level work which a "legal analyst" (read: anyone who can read and write) will be able to undertake, I doubt the firm will continue to recruit so many trainees.

Scottish Government quango reporting this as 150 "new" jobs for Scotalnd..

http://www.sdi.co.uk/news/2013/06/international-law-firm-chooses-glasgow.aspx

Its no suprise that this has happened, A&O's HR Associate Director moved to Ashurst shortly after leading the A&O move to Belfast.

@12.12

And their new CFO is ex A&O too. Comfy.

It seems Ashurst wants to be the sheep rather than the shepard.

With the IT team working full-steam ahead in the roll-out of Windows 7/2010 for all offices worldwide their timing shows a complete lack of understanding of the work of the IT department. IT are planning projects well into 2014 and have an expanding team working flat-out. They have also had to employ a large number of contractors. New skill sets are being brought into the team and this coupled with the years of business knowledge and experience had built up a motivated team who all work longer than their contracted hours per day as well as working authorised over-time.

The selection criteria for the redundancies apparently has no reflection on the way staff do their jobs - so no consideration to be given for the late nights worked, weekends lost and personal time and money spent upgrading skills. The team is completely demoralised.

The excellent management team managed to advise the staff about the redundancies AFTER the news appeared in The Lawyer - well done The Lawyer (always the best place to find out what is happening in your firm in advance of actually being formally informed - it's how the staff found out the latest updates on mergers / non-mergers over years!).

When the ex-A&0 contingency moves on to the next firm at least the employees of that firm will know what to expect.

so do something about it instead of whinging!this isn't the first and won't be the last - its time the lazy people of law opened their eyes and made some personal choices. you can stay where you are and expect change or you can move out.

Glasgow is miles better than London if you've got a decent job, lucky them.

I know a few people who work at Ashurst and there is real anger. A LOT of anger.

It is a betrayal of trust. They have put a lot of unbilled work into getting Ashurst where they are today, hoping that the effort they put in would be rewarded not so much by remuneration but secure in the knowledge that there would be recognition of that work and affording them a secure position because of it.

It has all been in vain because despite that fact that Ashurst are where they are, people do not matter (despite what they say on their website).

Comments such as ‘Get on with it’ just shows the kind of attitude people have and it say more about that individual than it does on the people who have contributed to the success of Ashurst.

I myself do not work in law or business services but one thing I would say – get your CV’s out. Do not wait to see if they deem your job necessary – leave and they will find out too late that it was.

Have no trust or allegiance anymore to your company. Look after no one – and that my friends is YOU.

So 120 disgruntled IT staff out in the market place working for your competitors with all that in-house knowledge of the company's weak points and security risks. Well done!

How old are you 14.59? 3?????

How old is 14.59 by the way?

23.17 - please formulate your argument as to why 14:59 is three years old.

I think the comments were well put and I can't see why you would attribute those comments to a three year old. Well apart from the fact that using insulting comments suh as yours reduces your argument to the playground.

Like you it's really quite simple. The first comment displays the naivety of a 3yr old whilst your own is worthy of someone who has either led a very pampered existence or, like a pre-school child, has no experience of life outside the safety of the home.

By all means continue in your delusion that you are special and that putting in extra hours and hard work will be rewarded by your masters. Without mugs like you business would find it considerably harder to get away with shafting staff.

Dear 19:52

Strangley enougth I think the comments were reflecting exactly what you are saying. The orginal comments were saying 'stuff the company' - do not have allegence to them and do what you need to do for yourself. Anybody would feel anger at the realisation that hard work has not been rewarded but I see no reason to be insulting to the poster for saying that.

And why, by the way, do you have to be insulting? It really doesn't enforce your side of the argument but rather brings it down to the level of the gutter.

Oh and by the way my life hasn't been smooth.

My mother was killed in a car crash when I was 9 and my father died of cancer when I was 14.

I had to go through school and colledge and I paid my way in life to get to the position I am now.

Do not presume because people wish to have hard work rewarded that it means they have been wrapped in cotton wool.

It may be because of the anonymity of the comments that you feel you can judge people. All I ask is you think first before posting comments like you have.

A no-brainer really - move half the staff way up north with the cheaper salaries and use the grant money to put towards the reduncancies. Maximum statutory is not much so no worries there, the grant will cover it.

Lose half of a motivated team with loyalties to the company and a desire to work in the best interests of that company and replace it with people who have not. Of the remaining employees - morale will be at rock-bottom so I am sure they will produce great work!!

But, all the law firms are doing it. (Not sure though that these savings are passed on to the clients, or whether it just allows firms to be more competitive whilst retaining partner profits.) Once the out-sourcing and relocations have been maxed out, what then? Because then there will be nothing to differentiate Ashursts from any other firm competing for a client's business. And why pay fees of £500+ per hour when you can get away with half? All law firms will be the same after all.