Exclusive: up to 45 redundancies at Pinsent Masons

Pinsent Masons is making up to 45 staff redundant following its merger with McGrigors.

Several firms have announced redundancies recently, on the grounds that they have too many expensive senior associates. But Pinsent Masons is at pains to point out that this is entirely down to the recent merger with McGrigors, which has led to a duplication of support roles, and that no lawyers are for the chop. A spokesman said that "unfortunately, as with any merger, there are a number of duplicate roles within our support teams and as such we've identified a small number of potential redundancies in those areas".

A redundant Pinsent yesterday

All of which is bugger all comfort to those who will be booted out. And who were, apparently, only given five days to apply for their jobs or for voluntary redundancy. The firm says that up to 40 staff are at risk, although insiders say that it may be closer to 45.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Perhaps this helps to explain the bizarre recent news of a Pinsents partner moving to (self proclaimed) leading law firm Dixon Dees?

All firms chop and change. However it does seem particularly difficult to make partner now.

Some staff were given only 3 days....

but it's not really redundancy, it's a subjective decision about how they can squeeze more money out of the system.

it won't have a significant effect on partnership levels - it's support staff (e.g. mail room, post room, IT) whose functions have been duplicated through the merger and consolidation into a single office.

Actually, it is the tip of the iceberg. Partners have been disappearing for a long time. Last year profits fell but PEP remained static, partners faced the chop. Fee earners are not made redundant they are usually compromised out, or when a partner leaves, key staff members will usually leave with them.

The firm is making more partners work a few days a week at the London offices (a ridiculous manipulation of figures at their head office to make themselves look good?), despite London (historically) being an unprofitable part of the firm.

It's all hocus pocus really.

I would not be surprised if part of the rationale for the McGrigors union was to hide dire financial results on the Pinsents side – and no office move to hide the severity this year.

McGrigors seem to have been too dense to figure this out - unless they had some horrible skeletons of their own.

But who really cares anyway, both firms are mediocre at best.

What a load of absolute b*ll*cks from that last anonymous user. You, sir or madam, know nothing, so you shouldn't spread your idle thoughts about how you wish it could be. Do you write for a tabloid newspaper or something? And no - I am neither the Senior Partner nor the Managing Partner of Pinsent Masons.

... re the above contributor - I agree definitely not the senior partner. Sounds more like a slightly pompous NQ puffed up with pride in his firm. Touching, touching.