We have made it quite clear to Middletons Lawyers that we don’t like their corporate branding: Straight Talking. But the firm has stood by its moniker despite our protestations. It is a particularly stoic effort given that we exposed some alleged sh*t-talking from Middletons managing partner Nick Nichola last year.
Well, we think we’ve dont it again. Let’s see if Middletons thinks a business case now exists for a change to some more traditional branding like “contributing their might” or “mofos”.
Onto the apparent sh*t talk. We received the following regrettable tip-off from an anonymous Middletons spy last week:
Middletons in Melbourne sacked three of their graduates last Monday, 21 Feb 11. They were simply told there would be no permanent placement for them after their rotations and given the option to either finish up immediately or serve the four week notice period out.
Middletons: a straight-talking firm with 243 lawyers annd over 60 partners across 3 offices didn’t have room for three graduates on its books? It is a shame the lack of progression opportunities weren’t made clear to these same sacked graduates who presumably digested the firm’s advertising paraphernalia before accepting the grad positon last year.
In 2010, Middletons told UTS law students that the firm:
[looks] to recruit well-rounded, talented people, then provide the opportunities and support for them to achieve their best.
Meanwhile Middletons told Melbourne University law students last year:
As a graduate you will gain diverse legal experience through rotations in three practice areas during your first year. [emphasis added]
Sound to us like straight-talker Nick Nichola was inviting prospective graduates to entertain the thought that a second year would follow their first year with the firm and it would be filled with “opportunities” and “support” so that the graduates could “achieve their best”. But was this straight-talk, or Middletons shit-talk? To be sure, we asked Mr Nichola what the deal was:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Graduate Sackings
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:36:53 -0500
From: news@firmspy.com
To: nick.nichola@middletons.com, jeffrey.nevill@middletons.com
Cc: jeremy.hyman@middletons.comHi Nick/Jeff,
In 2011 we’re doing things slightly differently – we’re offering firms the
chance to respond to allegations before we publish them. To this end, we
wanted to offer Middletons the opportunity to respond to an allegation
before we publish an article on it on Tuesday.We’ve been advised that three graduates have been told in the Melbourne
office that their contracts would not be renewed at the end of their
graduate year (being a few weeks from now).Is this true?
If so, please elaborate on the justifications for this. Were the said
graduates informed, at the time of accepting a job offer at Middletons,
that there was a real risk their contracts would not be renewed after the
grad year?We would also like a comment on how this aligns with the Middletons
“straight-talking” policy.Thanks,
Firm Spy
Middletons declined to respond to our email. Dodging questions certainly doesn’t appear to us to be a ringing endorsement of the straight-talking ideology published on its website:
Straight talking also describes the evolution of our firm. We know it will challenge the accepted view of lawyers, but we are quite confident that it truly reflects who we are as a firm – no-one is interested in how clever we are if we can’t clearly articulate what we think
What do you think?
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
lets not forget the graduates they gave jobs to and let go before thier first day, in order to protect partner pay from the GFC
On the subjtect of grad jobs, DLA Sydney office had a “competitive clerkship” this year. 16 clerks and only 10 grad offers. High stakes musical chairs. At least they were up front with people at the beginning of the clerkship.
DLA Sydney has nothing on Clutz Sydney.
I believe Herbert Geer did a similar thing in their Melbourne office a week or so ago.
Those 3 grads are the lucky ones….
Meh, you gotta be kidding yourself if you think doing a grad year guarantees you a career in any mid to top tier law firm.
In any case, these 3 must have been pretty shocking to not have had their contracts renewed. Knowing how much grads and 1st years are being paid at middletons, they would’ve charged out at least 4 to 5 times their gross salaries in their first year.
Why would any firm invest the time and money to train a grad (liability) for a year only to throw away the resulting lawyer (asset) pulling in that level of returns?
Well, because they were rubbish.
Ex-Middletons lawyer, that’s a very very harsh allegation to make against people you don’t know.
Your entire post is based on the fallacious assumption that junior lawyers create work. They aren’t pulling in that level of return if there isn’t sufficient work for them to do so. If your argument was true, every firm would employee zillions of graduates because they would all somehow invent enough work and charge it to willing clients.
Garbage.