Sounds like some of the figures we reported earlier in the week in the Allens Arthur Highway Robbery Robinson Lawyer Salary Report were off the mark. If you believe the comments of the anonymous AAR spy below, anyhow. The comments about the successful achievement of its “distribution curve”, if true, offer the most candid insight into how Allens‘ partners are using tactical performance management to, at best, reduce lawyer salaries and, at worst, open up the possibility of reduced headcount.
The target billable hours published for Allens Arthur Robinson are wrong. Accurate targets are: Law Graduate (unadmitted, equivalent of articled clerk or UK trainee): 4.5 hours ($67k incl superannuation) 1st year Lawyer: 6.1 hours (approx $68K includig superannuation) 2+ Lawyer: 6.5 hours (approx $78K+ including superannuation) Senior Associate: 7.5 hours (approx minimum $120K+ including superannuation) Allens Arthur Robinson’s management are aware that legal salaries across all levels are below market rate (although this has not been acknowledged or communicated to staff). At some levels, the discrepancy is as much as 20% below market rate. Salary compression at junior levels is also critical. “Thawing the salary freeze” offers the opportunity for the firm to consider a revision of its approach to remuneration. This may result in changes to the calibrated lock-step system currently in place. After the introduction of a forced-rank distribution sytem for performance reviews in 2009, the firm “successfully achieved its distribution curve”. (ie the firm reduced the number of staff achieving an “exceptional” or “very strong” rating and increased the number of staff who received a “strong” or “underperforming” grade). Some partners complained that they felt compelled to impose a grade on staff they did not agree with. Lawyers complained about flaws within the calibration system itself, including the fact that lawyers might be disadvantaged if they did not have someone to “champion” them during the calibration process (ie if they do not work directly with a high-ranking partner).
Meanwhile, with cap in had (and the Downlow Medal swinging around his neck), Chief Executive partner Michael Rose told Lawyers Weekly in an article profiling AAR’s “plans to manage the upturn”:
At the beginning of the year, there was an awful lot of press around very significant cuts in numbers at law firms around the world… So there was a high degree of anxiety among lawyers at the end of last year and beginning of this year. What was pleasing for me was our approach of frank communication and letting people know what was going on. I think it dealt with that anxiety and helped people understand the environment and feel more confident about what was going to happen next.
Compelling partners to impose a grade on staff they disagree with (if true) is hardly fostering “frank communication” Mick! Still, Rose was pretty frank with his assessment of the situation:
My sense is that there is a large degree of frustration now.
Are you frustrated? Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
I am still at a loss to understand why Allens are behaving in this manner…this would never have happened when Tom Poulton was in charge…the morale at AAR is shocking at the moment, and rightly so..but do the partners care? Hardly..there is always someone to replace a lawyer that has left..and there are a new bunch of law graduates every year..