EXCLUSIVE Stephenson Harwood cuts pay by 20% for homeworkers

^{Heartbreaking, but needs must.}

Management at Stephenson Harwood have decided to let staff work from home full-time - for a price. Those who opt to go fully remote will have their pay cut by 20%, RollOnFriday has learned.

The option is included in the firm's new hybrid and remote working policy, which comes into force at the start of May. It grapples with the thorny issue of pandemic work practices, which have seen many lawyers' eyes open to the time-saving pleasures of commuting to their study, but has created a rift with bosses who now want their people back in the office. They have said that networking, brainstorming, supervision, training and their firms' cultures are all improved when their staff share the same physical space, and are not hundreds of miles away from each other getting bleary-eyed on Zoom.

Stephenson Harwood has specified that from May its fulltime workers will have to be in the office 60% of the time, equivalent to three days a week, but it has also provided an option for staff who don't want to come into the office at all anymore.

If they are "primarily not based in the office...but still based in the home country", there "is an expectation that remote workers will come to the office 1 day a month minimum". However, the travel cost will be covered by the firm and, if it turns into a late night, the hotel cost will also be covered by the firm.

"The cracker", said a source at the firm, is the term which states that "salaries for remote roles will be discounted by 20%" compared to their office-attending counterparts.

The policy specifies that remote roles "may be a modified version or be slightly different in terms of the responsibilities of a hybrid role", but the insider said they didn't expect this to translate to less work. "I doubt the associate role will be modified in any meaningful way (reduced hours, lower targets etc)", said the lawyer.

"Like so many firms, we see value in being in the office together regularly, while also being able to offer our people flexibility", a spokesman for Stephenson Harwood told RollOnFriday. "For the vast majority of our people – and the candidates we speak to – our hybrid working policy works well", by providing them with the option to work remotely for up to two days a week.

Despite its preference for office-based antics, the firm was trying to accommodate staff who wanted to stay away even more, he explained. "For resourcing reasons during the pandemic, we recruited lawyers who weren't based in London, but lived elsewhere in the UK. The packages we offered were different from what we offer our people in London. They're fully remote and are not expected to regularly attend the office”, he said. And presumably paid somewhat less. Now the firm has "opened the option to existing members of staff, so anyone interested in taking advantage of the additional flexibility offered by the package can have a conversation about whether it can work for their role".

Comments

What an absolutely shit place to work.

Do they think their lawyers are idiots - more profit for the equity, no reduction in targets.

It is purely bully boy tactic.

Time to move on. Get paid fairly for the work I do.

That's awful - what a cheap, nasty bunch that must be in charge there.

I interviewed at Stephenson Harwood for a TC (over a decade ago). I have a speech impediment and struggled a bit with the presentation element. A female partner - whose name I unfortunately can no longer recall - told me during the feedback session that they wouldn't be able to put someone like me in front of their clients. Classy.

Awful idea clearly aimed at discouraging the very policy they claim to embrace. It will backfire because people will think if they are paid less they won’t work as hard and will be at home full time so it will be harder to manage them.

I would just leave and find a firm that allows me to work from home 3 days a week and earn more money. There are plenty out there.

Whelp, time to ready the CVs, that is outrageous. Working from home generates MORE money for the firm - less travel time, more billed time, more likely that associates log on in the evening and at weekends with the home/office distinction removed, etc. They should get a raise rather than a pay cut. And why would you stay when so many of SH’s competitors will offer better terms - ie no pay cut for home-working?

Vote with your feet and walk if they reduce your pay.

There will be a divide between progressive firms that allow staff to choose and those that insist on presenteeism like Stephenson Rees Mogg

If people are doing the same job, just in different location, would there potentially be an equal pay issue?

Presumably clients will be billed 20% for the advice that those remote workers are providing, then?

Not sure I completely agree with the naysayers. Most firms tend to be pushing for 3 days a week mandatory so SH aren't really any different there. The option to work wherever you want in the UK for a 20% cut however could be pretty attractive (e.g. if you move from London to somewhere pretty remote where you can buy a massive property for a fraction of the city price). Pretty sure if I asked my boss if I could move to the Scilly Isles and never come into the office again he would be a bit reticent...

Look forward to seeing this policy reversed when the impending backlash ensues and 25% of their staff leave…

This is what happens when your management team are a bunch of nodding dogs too scared to challenge the managing partner’s latest bonkers idea. And there are plenty of firms like it.

The good news is that there’s a lot of demand out there for quality fee earners so dust off your CV now.

I can see the merit in this - come into the office regularly, bear the inconvenience and be paid well or choose to work away from the office and be paid less. I see no controversy here.

This enables you to work on a London salary (minus 20%) and live *in the home country*. I.e. somewhere by the coast, up North, down South, etc... pretty good option for people who want the City work, still want a good salary, but don't want to live in or even close to London for whatever reason.

20% haircut to never see colleagues again seems ok to me. It only works though if you get well outside the commute distance to London but with no need to fund ridiculous train tickets and overnight accommodation. Then factor in possibly no need for private schools and the fact that top rate tax is close to 50% now and net disposable could well go up as a result.

It's clearly just a deterrent though as there's no logic to it. Has the work done become 20% less valuable suddenly?

@Anon 9:45

You have a point if you’re talking about partners who are have enough money to decide if they want to live in London or buy the “massive property”, as you put it, outside of town.

But what about the non fee earners or other low paid staff who cannot afford to live in London due to astronomical rent or ridiculous house prices? Or didn’t have the bank of mum and dad to gift them on the property ladder? Or the single parent who needs to juggle childcare and work ? Many of the people who have long commutes are those in the firm who are don’t have the luxury of being able to afford to live close to work. Many have shown they can work remotely and efficiently over the last two years. SH’s pay cut will force them to look elsewhere for a job now.

Law firms should pay based on value not based on where you live.

potentially also indirect age and sex discrimination - perhaps there’ll be a class action.

What a joke.

Businesses don't take account of travel costs when they offer you the job on £x per annum.

They are saving on overheads by employees not taking up a physical desk with this policy and want to force a massive pay cut as well?

This is a clear example of having their cake and eating it as well.

This career is more than just logging in and doing your 8 billable hours from your basement

LOL at all the rich lawyers assuming everyone who lives outside of London has a massive house or has opted for a relaxed lifestyle by the coast.

Check your privilege. There is a housing crisis. Without a huge salary or trust fund most of us can’t afford to live in London.

Inflation and rising energy prices makes things tight with extra money spent on commuting into London. Oh and throw in a 20% pay cut too, thanks Stephenson Harwood.

So 80% of SH London rates whilst living somewhere more reasonably priced, with the firm covering your travel if they need you in.

Is that actually as bad as the rest of the comments seem to think?

I'm a former SH lifer who has now, thankfully, escaped.

Let me be clear for the benefit of any potential laterals: the decision makers at the heart of this firm are mean-spirited, out-of-touch and snobby.

Fundamentally, If you're not a good chap or chapess, you will not get the same opportunities as others - irrespective of merit.

Suggesting homeworkers have chosen the easy option by dismissing them as people living in the Scilly Isles or by the coast are complete “Let them eat cake” responses to the financial struggles faced by some staff trying to get by who don’t have enough money to live in London.

Ultimately it’s an option. Might not suit most but, as it stands, I would be much better off under this type of option (not offered by my firm). I could lose the nanny in favour of nursery, and remove commuting and office costs. I would be more relaxed and quids in!

I think it's a jolly good idea to pay our associates 20% less for doing the same work while saving on office space.

No downsides to this from my perspective!

Anon @ 10:17 - The point is though that this is not a pay cut. The standard position for pretty much every firm is that there are some mandatory days in the office each week. I guess there may have been some people who started work during the pandemic who may have assumed they can work from home forever but that is a bit naiive. All this is doing is formalising a position that most firms probably already have on a case by case basis (I know several people (not SH) who worked flexibly in this way pre-pandemic who had agreed similar discounts.

"This career is more than just logging in and doing your 8 billable hours from your basement"

One must also be able to say 'pro bono' without giggling.

Firms that operate offices nationally tend to pay c 30-35% less in the regions (eg compare Sheds London NQ salary of £95k with its regional £62k).

As a lawyer in the NW, I would take my London equivalent salary less 20% any day of the week for the right role.

@Not a lawyer

”Let them eat cake” response is spot on.

”The peasants cannot afford to live in Notting Hill”.

“Let them live in Richmond.”

It’s not just non-lawyers who can’t afford to live in London. Junior lawyers on SH salary with a family also struggle! Seriously how is living in London possible with kids unless you’re on over £150k or have been given a load of family cash?

This is a policy for the haves and have-nots, except it’s the have-nots who have been hit with the 20% deduction.

"LOL at all the rich lawyers assuming everyone who lives outside of London has a massive house or has opted for a relaxed lifestyle by the coast.

Check your privilege. There is a housing crisis."

No there isn't, the 'housing crisis' is a phenomena which exists solely in London. They are pretty much giving houses away in every other county of the UK.

In Liverpool they try and give you a free terraced house with your tenth cup of coffee.

‘brainstorming‘

😂

"Suggesting homeworkers have chosen the easy option by dismissing them as people living in the Scilly Isles or by the coast are complete “Let them eat cake” responses"

Don't be so Scilly.

It’s a bizarre idea and clearly can’t work for any firm with regional offices, where pay is typically a lot less than 80% of London salary. Imagine two associates sitting in Manchester/Scotland/etc, same PQE, same firm. Associate A is employed by regional office on regional salary (and has to go into office to get that), Associate B is employed by London and gets London minus 20%, and gets to work from home. Associate B inevitably still taking home more. There must be all kinds of employment claims in there.

This makes sense as Stephenson Harwood offers some of the highest salaries in the City.

If a firm that paid a mediocre salary tried to enforce a 20% cut it wouldn’t work.

Assuming working remotely full time means not having to rock up to evening/other client events and other non-chargeable guff, might be worth taking a bit of a cut but a cut does not makes sense if profitability is maintained by remote workers and most firms are looking to downsize office space (and reduce overheads) based on fractional occupancy.

I quit because my firm clearly values facetime more than I do. No ragrets

This is great for people who don't want to be on the partnership track

Just do your work, clock your hours and take home decent wedge (in real terms) with complete flexibility as to where you live and no negatives of commuting cost and time.

Nobody is making anyone take the WFH option (as far as I know....) So if it's not for you, or your career is better served in the office, don't take the option.

I agree its an option that doesn't need to be taken up, but what happens if you opt to continue to work flexibly and then one week you want/need to do two days in the office for one reason or another, can SH management start threatening docking pay?

@Anonymous 11.32: "No there isn't, the 'housing crisis' is a phenomena which exists solely in London."

Do try to keep up with the news:

https://www.ft.com/content/e5b51a05-db58-4e61-8de1-602465b942e0

UK house prices rise at fastest pace in 18 years - Annual growth hits 14.3% as price-to-earnings ratio reaches all-time high

you lazy people get back in the office and stop using covid as an excuse you snowflakes.

This is an interesting response to the cost of living crisis for homeworker staff. SH not giving a t0ss about the single parent who lives outside London and has to do the 4pm pick-up.

"UK house prices rise at fastest pace in 18 years - Annual growth hits 14.3% as price-to-earnings ratio reaches all-time high"

It's madness isn't it.

The average house in Merseyside now costs upwards of £3.60

Is SH also increasing salary by 8% for inflation, on top of normal pay rises?

Sensible policy - you're saving money on your commute and / or mortgage / rent. You can spot the overpaid bedroom workers afraid to interact with people face to face from the comments.

Get back to your swanky offices you big cry babies, and stop pushing up the house prices in the nice country and coastal areas for local provincial types. Want London salaries? Work in London.

If your season ticket and tube travel costs around £10,000-£12,000 a year gross (i.e. you have to earn £10,000 so that after tax you have earned the £6,000 or £7,000 to pay for it) then by working at home permanently you immediately save that outgoing. If you’re earning 70-90k which the bulk of associates will be then actually your pay cut isn’t really 20% because you’re not having to pay the costs of getting to work. So the real deal is more like taking a 5-10% pay cut to work at home full time and I reckon a lot of people would consider that as a good deal. If you move out of London then even better and you’re probably better off as living costs lower.

The catch is that you are immediately signalling you’re not really a team player, you will miss out on client meetings and events, and won’t be seen as a full member of the team. So progression and future pay rises are likely to be limited but that might not be a problem for some.

So it’s not that bad an idea, for some people.

This should depend on the role. If you're a solicitor already on a six figure salary with ambitions to get huge pay rises each year, then fair enough. You're being paid to get in the office.

Seems harsh though on the business services staff taking home circa £60k who live outside of London because house prices are out of reach, they have a long commute, are likely to be stretched with commuter costs and may have family responsibilities as they can't afford a nanny etc. If they can work effectively from home, as proven over the last two years, why not allow them to continue to do so without penalising them?

@Should depend on the salary?

Exactly this. Some people commenting here don't seem to realise that not everyone at a law firm earns a lot of money. Having to take a horrible commute which is costly and not a productive use of time is because the firm doesn't pay enough to allow you to live nearby! It's not a lifestyle choice!

Will all the partners will be in 60% of the time too…highly doubt it!

"Some people commenting here don't seem to realise that not everyone at a law firm earns a lot of money"

Off they pop then.

There's a chap on the Discussion board lamenting the fact that his mate can't hire a restaurant manager for some extravagant yearly sum.

They can just go do that kind of thing instead. Easy street.

Well, high street really, but you get the idea.

You seem to be confusing the ROF Discussion board with any vague semblance of reality.

If you don’t want to be in the office, there is no reason why the firm should keep you when 90% of the workforce is returning to the office. You should feel blessed that you’re offered the option to WFH full time.

I left the Cleary Gottlieb London office in January 2022, as the partnership insisted all us associates return back to the office, I told where to go - enough saiid.

I get more work done from home than in the office. I log on for longer at home. So a 20% cut in pay makes no sense. Unless SH are allowing their staff that WFH to do 20% less work?

Why not take the alternative (positive) route and pay people more to come to an office. We’re hybrid, but for potential external roles now I insist that my home address is listed as my office so that commuting is a tax deductible expense. That way there’s no compelling barrier for me to come in

I suspect a driving force behind WFH will be childcare (costs these days, being nearer the kids etc). Inevitably, women will be attracted to WFH. If that’s the case, there could well be a discrimination case down the line if firms are penalising lifestyles evidentially preferred by a specific gender

The point about non fee earners is a good one. As the point about fee earners who don't want to be on the career track.

Guess SH may be using this as a staff cutting measure without being transparent about it as many non fee earners look for purely remote roles...

it not just law companies IT companies as well are the same and the government For dome reason the management in British business and central government just cannot believe nobody really liked the old “normal

do unlike most people who would question why do many people not like the old normal? and then bringing in changes they want to bully personnel into their old positions. if you look at the job boards and listen to the head hunters .Folk are not buying back into it anymore

Really interesting reading this and the comments above because I recently joined Stephenson Harwood on a “remote” basis.

I trained in London but always planned to return to the South West to be closer to family. From my perspective, this policy is a total game changer.

I get to live in Bath and work for a City firm. I also earn a lot more than I did at my previous firm, which is a great firm in Bristol (but which often has to keep pace working opposite SC/MC/US firms), even after the 20% discount.

I get to go into the office whenever I want and when I do the firm pays. For context, a return train ticket from Bath costs more than £200. The firm also covers accommodation if I want to stay over, making the social side of things way easier. In fact, I have been to most socials since starting and have definitely been made to feel part of the team rather than a remote resource.

There is also absolutely no suggestion that this set-up will affect my career progression - if that was the case I would never have joined because I would like to progress all the way.

The best bit, though, is that I can be a better dad to my daughter and a better husband to my wife. For context, I work in the PE team and spent the last week working hard to get a transaction over the line but I did not miss a single bath time - neither my daughter’s nor my own!

Employees can choose whether to commute or permanently work from home. I really don’t see what the problem is. And the nonsense about discrimination claims is absurd, as are the suggestions that regional pay in national firms is potentially risky unlawful.

I’m struck by the outpouring of anger against SH here. It shows that something fundamental has changed as a result of C19.

The message is simple. We love WFH.

However, the Masters of the Universe who run our firms don’t.

A clash of wills is now happening. I hope the pompous, out-moded dinosaurs lose. Let’s see Law Firms recognise that the world has changed.

Law firms are just awful places to work. Partners I speak to at other firms (I’m a senior in-house lawyer) openly talk about adopting a similar policy for their associates. They are absolutely obsessed with not being about to monitor their every move and assess if their can shovel even more work into them. Dreadful, dreadful places.

It’s complete hogwash to say that you get more work done at home and therefore you should be entitled to work from home indefinitely. The question then is what have you been doing when in the office that has resulted in the purportedly low productivity. And the simple answer to that is you were either doss around or attending to matters that are unrelated to work, and hence the poor productivity. This isn’t a firm problem, and the firm shouldn’t jeopardise its staff culture and morale for incompetent, uncooperative employees.

I strongly suggest that people who think SH’s policy is inappropriate should seriously contemplate a change of career.

Myself and my colleagues have categorically been told we are expected to be in the office four days a week whilst the partners sit back sipping cocktails in their European gardens. The idea (so we’re told) is to be at the beck and call of clients. We may as well be in front of them on our knees providing pure pleasure.

So many talented staff have recently departed the firm and I’m afraid to say this course of action will see many more continue that trend.

Lets hope the firm can get back to the professional outfit they once were, in the meantime good luck and RIP.

@LP 23:12 - Honoured that Jacob Rees-Mogg has graced us with his presence and his Victorian values. "Get to the workhouse plebs!"

@Stephenson Harwood Remote Worker 30 April 22 19:04, is your salary 20% less than the people who aren't fully remote?

SH is out of touch.

My billable hours have increased while working at home and saving time on a very long commute. I can balance commitments as a parent and often log on in the evening to get the work done.

It doesn't feel right that there will be a 20% difference in pay for a colleague who is at the same level as me and billing the same amount but who doesn't have the commute or family duties. I have been dedicated and recorded good hours when the firm needed me to do so during the pandemic and it isn't fair to now be penalised because of my circumstances.

If I decide to commute to the office to secure the full pay it will mean I will be less productive at work (and for the family) and it will cost more to the firm in salary and overheads. Lose Lose.

Is this the sort of crap idea that came out of "brainstorming" in the office

Interesting from a firm where the most profitable offices have been purely WFH for over 2 years and teams are bigger and more profitable than ever. Somewhat contradictory to the idea people need to be in the office. Of course this will just widen the gender pay gap so let’s see how that plays out given I imagine this will be more popular amongst female staff.

It's nice that the firms which can downsize their commercial space due to increased WFH will then pass on those savings to their employees........um.

Always entertained to read people self-diagnosing themselves as having trebled their productivity by wfh and bemoaning those who would like them to return as out of touch.

If that was true, and you really were delivering more from home, then why would your boss want you back in?

Clue: it's the same reason that they don't let you do your own year end appraisal.

This is going to be terrible for the gender pay gap and disproportionately impact women. The work from home flexibility we are seeing more of is the best thing for young families and mothers in particular that has happened. This sort of model is pathetic and whilst I don’t think 100% home working is the answer if firms take this approach it will be difficult to see how flexible working will work. If you do three days at home and two in the office on average what % discount do you get on your salary then?

Snobby little firm.

This news just hit the front pages of BBC World News.

Surely the straightforward point is SH don't want the kind of people who prefer to work at home. Aren't those people effectively been invited to go?

So SH have found that they don’t like having to pay the staff the increased 30% - 45% to keep up with the market salary level in the last 12 months, and have worked out a way to clawback some of it.

The HR team should be applauded for the lateral thinking and getting some profit back for the Partners.

Big brain comment by Anonymous 02 May 22 14:01. Somehow manages to forget that lawyers record time... which is quite a good indicator of productivity.

Disgraceful approach - of course this will disproportionately affect women / working parents. Feels like going backwards. And are they going to reduce the chargeable hours / charge out rates of such lawyers? If I were a client, I’d want the benefit of this cost cutting exercise to be passed on to me, rather than lining the partners profits

Leaving SH was the best decision I ever made. Not only was I never given a pay-rise on-top of my minimum wage in my 5 years of service, working 12 hour shifts in their time of crisis, unappreciated and victim to a hierarchy, but I actually jumped £20,000 after a company realised just how badly I had been mistreated. Speaking up for the young Team Administrators of Stephenson Harwood, GET OUT NOW!!! Get in contact with Anna Wallbank at Owen Reed and tell her a TA that used to work at SH got you in contact, she will help you out! Good Luck!

"Somehow manages to forget that lawyers record time... which is quite a good indicator of productivity."

No You...

If you really were logging more time than ever before, then why would your boss want you back.

Spoiler Warning: you aren't

Double Spoiler Warning: if you are, it's because it's boom time for your practice area and your colleagues are picking up your slack

Your bosses are not morons. You are not a special underappreciated genius. If they want you back in it's because you aren't doing as much for the business before.

You don't get to fill in your own appraisal because you would give yourself ten out of ten every time. Despite being bang average.

This is the same.

Some firms give covid bonuses, others slash pay. What a way to get rid of any scant remaining morale. An even greater wave of resignations will surely follow. As a former SH lawyer it’s painful to see but hardly surprising given the central management.

GREED and nothing less.

Stephenson Harwood - they hate the seniors - anyone under 45 should leave - end of life firm - the board are securing their pensions.

Great news for clients - 20% reduction in all fees as a result of this policy! Fantastic!!
Those people at the top of SH must be marketing legends!!

Why didn’t anyone think of that before, cut associate and staff salaries, pass those “savings” on to clients and watch the fees roll in!!

Why stop at 20%? Go further - be the market leader what about 40% or even 50%

I wonder what the partners, associates and staff think about being led by a CEO who is simply a genius. They all must feel marvellous and that the future of the firm has never been in better hands!!

It truly is awesome 😎

Sounds shit

The SH MP/CEO has just emailed all staff giving himself a pat on the back for the media attention this has received. Class act.

I'm sure a copy could find its way to ROF.

If you want a London salary, work in London.

Why is this firm being referred to as a “top law firm “. Fourth tier at best ?

Glad I don't work in SH ( Shit Hole ) anymore. Such backward thinking for what used to be a forward thinking firm. RIP

Will SH recover. What recruiter would recommend SH as an employer.

Not just parents - this will disproportionately affect disabled people. Really bad form SH.

Same firm that increased associate pay a few months ago and increased the Target hours at the same time…greed.

SH has haemorrhaged associates over the past 12 months even prior to this policy being introduced - what are management thinking?!

SH - the noise people make as they quietly tap off an email to an employment lawyer, quickly followed by one to a chinny.

Trainees as CGSH London offices are becoming increasingly frustrated with the backward thinking of this firm - pull your socks up partnership and stay in line with what your peers are offering their hard working staff. No wonder many of the partners have left this sinking ship.