Whilst we’re sorry to see them leave, it was their personal decision based on fit for their practice and unrelated to the Leading Practices Review… Freehills remains committed to superannuation with a team that will continue to be regarded as amongst the best in Australia.
Meanwhile, brand new Lander & Rogers partner Natalie Gullifer said:
Freehills has been very cooperative about our team’s decision to depart, and we expect to maintain a strong working relationship with the firm.
Hmmm… sounds like all concerned are keen to distance themselves from the Leading Practices Review, but let’s get the FS magnifying glass out to make sure.
Firstly, the business case for a move to Lander & Rogers is probably there, if a ridiculous amount of cash and pressure isn’t what you’re looking for. For example, the firm’s credentials as an employer of choice for women is beyond question. According to the AFR (10/12/10), in the two years to December 2010, Landers reported the second highest ratio of female to male partners – 29.8%. That places the firm miles ahead of Freehills at 21.8% and this would probably be a consideration for the four females constituting the Lander & Rogers departure group (although in fairness, Freehills’ female to male partnership ratio is still higher than the average of the top 33 firms by revenue, which is 20.4% (AFR 25/6/2010)).
In addition, there can be little doubt that Lander & Rogers is one of the mid-tier firms which is gaining market share at the expense of top-tier firms, including Freehills. This is reflected in the growth in Landers’ headcount: L&R reported the third highest percentage growth in non-partner headcount of any major Australian law firm between June 2009 and July 2010. It grew by a whopping 20% when many rival firms were losing headcount. The firm was also the 15th highest graduate recruiter between January and July 2010, placing it ahead of big names like Baker & McKenzie, Gilbert Tobin and others.
But despite its impressive headcount growth, Lander & Rogers did not feature in the BRW Top 500 last year, meaning it has revenue of less than $81million. And according to the AFR (10/12/10), Lander & Rogers has 47 partners and 131 non-partner fee earners – meaning there isn’t a whole lot (comparatively speaking) to go around. For example, supposing the firm has a profit margin of 40% and giving the firm the benefit of the doubt and ascribing it hypothetical revenue of $80million, 47 Lander & Rogers partners would have access to a profit pool of $32million. That’s $680,000 each. Or 25% less than the $930,000 that Freehills partners are estimated to have taken home last year (and we’re being generous).
The good news for the departing Freehills Superannuation group is that the per partner revenue targets will be commensurately lower, meaning less timesheet pressure for all concerned. This is particularly relevant given that the Freehills Leading Practices Review is about increasing per partner revenue. Which gets us to a message we seldom write about – the quality of working life at mid-tier firms vis-a-vis the top tier. Lander & Rogers is beyond reproach in this regard. We routinely hear reports that the firm has an uncompromising “out the door at 6pm” policy and encourages staff to have a life outside the firm. Contrast this with Mallesons, for example. Or the post-LPR Freehills, perhaps?
Let’s just hope Landers doesn’t force the new gals to endure a public waxing as part of their initiation into the firm.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
