Two Friday’s ago we reported the frankly hilarious news that two major Australian law firms were apparently claiming to have won the same “coveted” IFLR corporate award. A terrific anonymous spy put the following question to us:

the Blake Dawson video basket

Who is the IFLR Australian Law Firm of the Year for 2009? The banner on the Blake Dawson website states that they won the award. http://www.blakedawson.com/x_home_page.aspx?id=18415 BUT… If you look at the Mallesons website (the 12th award down the page), they appear to be the winner too. http://www.mallesons.com/our_firm/5501514W.htm I’m unclear about this award. Was it jointly awarded to both law firms?

At that stage, we had no idea who won the award. But we nevertheless took it upon ourselves to possum poo-poo corporate awards generally. We pointed to the laughable “independence” of Beaton Consulting - in our view arguably the most partisan arbitrator possible - who presides over the BRW “Client Choice” Awards. We then said in respect of the Blakes/Mallesons IFLR award cock-up:

Let’s hope this isn’t a case of IFLR just trying to get bums on seats by creating so many awards - each of which rewards similar conduct/achievements - that “everyone goes home with something”.

Thereafter, we wrote another post on the issue, from which a mixture of confusion and anger reigned amongst our very learned readership. Take one look at the comments beneath our subsequent story on the post! Of course, the team here at the Firm Spy wholeheartedly declined to follow any basic journalistic principles to get to the actual bottom of the saga. Heaven forbid that we be forced to converse with the shonky corporate devils!

Today, however, we can apparently end the intrigue. With great thanks to a journalistically principled anonymous spy, we’re informed of an allegedly giant Blakes mistake:

To close off a recent debate on Firm Spy about Blakes and Mallesons both claiming the 2009 IFLR Australian award, I couldnt resist going to the source. IFLR in Hong Kong has confirmed the Blakes Dawson media release claiming the 2009 Australian award is incorrect. That award was indeed won by Mallesons. Blakes picked up the 2010 award.

But what about that claim on Blakes’ internet page? It’s still there. Perhaps Blakes should write to us to clarify or, for god’s sake, throw it into the Blake Dawson (gay porn actor) video basket!

Do you think corporate awards generally have the look and feel of a giant fake?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Considered Clint Eastwood’s greatest cinematic triumph, the 1966 classic spaghetti Western The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a story (says Wikipedia) of three gunslingers competing to find a fortune in buried confederate gold amidst the violent chaos of gunfights, hangings, Civil War battles and prison camps.

armed with PENS AND PAPER

The team here at Firm Spy thought this a fitting backdrop - highly analogous to the corporate legal landscape in which many of our readers work - to frame today’s post. The post considers the different ways three modern day gunslingers - Blakes, Mallesons & AAR - are competing to find their own buried gold.

The Good

Firstly, at the risk of publishing something created by the firm’s media affairs team, we turn to the “good” of the three. If the following comments anonymous comments from a Blakes spy are to be believed (and we recommend our readers adopt a higher-than-normal level of scepticism, given the positive tone used), Blakes is going the right way about trying to keep staff motivated amidst the “violent chaos” that is everyday corporate life:

Spirits look like they are set to rise following the upcoming 2010 pay review at Blake Dawson. Reliable sources have indicated that the firm, which markets itself as a salary leader in the top-tier marketplace, is ready to reward those employees who have stayed loyal to the firm, despite its pay freezes and internal cut-backs, with top-of-the-market remuneration packages. This will come as better-late-than-never news to many junior lawyers who have remained to pick up the slack while their peers left for higher-paying, less demanding in-house jobs. Good to see that Blakes will finally put its money where its mouth is and honour the claims it made to recruit juniour lawyers 1-3 years ago. Failing that, junior lawyer retention rates could slide further south.

This is good news, but we will wait to see the fine print. Blakes have a history of trying to make strawberry jam out of cow sh*t. We are particularly keen to see whether this news translates to double-banded salary raises, meaning it could be the first to receive Firm Spy Satisfactory Salary certification.

The Bad

Next we turn to the “bad” cowboy Mallesons Stephen Jaques. The following comments, if true, are yet more evidence of a firm that is prepared to “trade off its name” to retain staff, rather than actually making proactive steps to keep overworked, underpaid lawyers in their offices. The comments were received from an anonymous Mallesons spy last week:

I’d just like to complain about the fact that even though the GFC is over and the partnership is doing swimmingly, Mallesons only provides fruit for their employees once a month! And it’s all gone within the hour. This is in addition to making the weekly morning tea a rotation system so that each floor only gets it about once a month as well. I know other firms provide their employees with fruit twice and week and morning tea once a week which seems reasonable. Why so stingy guys? If you expect employees to do long hours at least provide them with something to gnaw on!

Yes, something other than the feted “possum poo” the firm is currently serving up!

The Ugly

Finally, we turn to the ugly. Last year’s Down Low Medal winner is apparently at it again. We received the following comments from an anonymous AAR spy last week:

allens melbourne has now lost 6 juniors (and a junior SA) from its corporate team in a month. Morale is so low partners have been individually talking to lawyers to discuss what can be done to improve the situtation.

How is your firm handling the renewed legal jobs market? Are they taking proactive steps to keep morale high and lawyers motivated? Or are they up to their old gunslinging Confederate trickery?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

In response to last Friday’s post regarding dodgey corporate awards, we received the following comments:

analytical review

So….. What does IFLR say about this? Have Blake Dawson and Mallesons written in to clarify? The Mallesons Wikipedia entry says that Mallesons won the IFLR “Australian Law Firm of the Year” for 2009. That’s the same award that Blake Dawson claims on their website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallesons_Stephen_Jaques I think both firms should duke it out Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome style. “Two firms enter. One firm leaves.”

At least we won’t confuse them with Dorda Brugger Jordis. They won IFLR’s “AUSTRIAN law firm of the year for 2009”. http://www.dbj.co.at/phps/Presse/Pressinfo_engl20090323.pdf

No, there will be no confusion about the Austrian winner, that’s for sure! But in an excellent scoop, it appears that the awards we identified aren’t the only ones that should be queried. We received the following very interesting comments from an anonymous spy on the weekend:

Even more dodgy are Fairfax’s CFO Magazine Awards , which have a whole heap of gongs for law, accounting and bank organisations, among others. As someone who has been close to the process I can tell you that these awards appear to go a long way to keeping the mag afloat and it is an unspoken understanding that those who take out advertising and or ‘sponsorship’ deals with CFO tend to get rewarded more than those who don’t. The judging process is strange to say the least yet huge resources are poured into the award submissions with firms eager to blab about how they met this or that criteria though it is doubtful the busy judges supposedly from the top end of town read these lengthy essays of self promotion in detail. (This is reflected in the scant reasons given for the wins). Nominees for awards are then charged handsomely to take out a table at the actual awards lunch or dinner. The proud CEO gets to be photographed with the award but not to say much if anything (as time is always tight at these awards bazaars). Once the award is in the bag, the firms rush back to issue a press release and put the win on their email footers and in every client pitch for the next 12 months until it’s time to buy (sorry win) the next award.

The Clear Forthright Open Awards?

We then received the following comments from an anonymous Mallesons spy (thanks to the white wizard, or whomever it was in the Mallesons media team that authored this):

Mallesons does not currently pay Beaton Consulting for Client Choice research, so how interesting that we still won the BRW ClientChoice award this year. Shock, horror! Maybe we won the award because clients actually consider our service to be better. The majority of legal awards are voted as a result of polling clients. Since these clients work with most of the major firms, they have no vested interest in choosing one over another, unless they think the service is better. As for IFLR, Blakes won Australian Firm of the Year and Mallesons won Regional Firm of the Year in the latest awards. A quick check of the IFLR website would confirm this. Or doesn’t Firm Spy bother with traditional journalistic principles like basic research? It’s your analysis on this one that is shonky, not the awards.

Well, we actually took the unusual step of doing some basic research on this one (although we’ve never claimed to follow traditional journalistic principles and, in a moment, we’ll get to the reasons why it is a sad case of the pot calling the kettle black for a person in a position of authority at Mallesons to characterise our analysis as “shonky”). We visited the Mallesons Wikipedia page, which claims the firm won the IFLR’ Australian Law Firm of the Year 2009 as well as the Mallesons website, which claims Mallesons won IFLR’s National Law Firm of the Year (Australia) 2009. Blakes apparently claims also to have won the same award - IFLR’s Australian Law Firm of the Year 2009 - ostensibly the same award. No, we didn’t sign up to IFLR, but we think our analysis is reasonable.

The real analysis that needs to be questioned, we think, is the transparent muddy analysis allegedly given recently by Mallesons to its staff:

Firm Spy, a few weeks ago the heads of each Mallesons practice group travelled to each center to deliver a snapshot of how the firm is travelling year-to-date. Although the numbers were confusing, the one message that seemed very clear in the presentation was that the partners have apparently earned 7% less than at this point last financial year. There were also some statistics on how lawyer utilisation numbers are down.

However, the partner who delivered my group’s presentation did a very poor job of clarifying that the figures we were shown included each of the lawyers who took the voluntary redundacy package. So it should come as no surprise that utilisation rates are down, and year-to-date revenue compared with last year. But with overheads lower, I can see no reason how the partnership can justify a less than excellent pay review in July. I wonder if all practice heads delivered their presentations similarly?

Yes, we wonder too! Sounds very shonky to us!

Of course, it is not a partner’s job to adhere to “traditional journalistic principles”, but is it fair to conjure up a range of statistics (if that’s what happened) that might arguably set staff up for downgraded expectations in their annual pay review? Or is it shonky?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

In a deal signed well ahead of the outbreak of the GFC, top-tier firm Blake Dawson decided to move its Melbourne offices from the opulent confines of 101 Collins Street in preference for several floors in the newly constructed CGU Building (shared also with Deloitte).

Blake Dawson yesterday

But if the comments from the anonymous Blakes spy below are an indication, Blakes partners vastly overestimated the space that they would require in their new office:

It’s amazing how eerily quiet the Blake Dawson Melbourne office is. We moved into the new William St office last year and then had a round of redundancies. There are soooo many spare offices and desks at the moment. It is open plan and this makes it more obvious.

One recently vacated desk is, of course, that of newly appointed BHP General Counsel David “Daisy” Williamson. Daisy’s departure ( in contrast to the 89 workers made redundant by the firm) caused “high anxiety” that Blake’s relationship with BHP would be threatened, perhaps signalling that the vacated seats wont be filled anytime soon.

However, it appears that the apparent miscalculation in tenancy requirements - and the associated cost blow-out - was offset by a little victory for partners. The same anonymous Blakes spy also sent us the following comments:

We apparently had so many spare computers after the redundancies that they were offered for sale to partners and staff too.

Imagine the irony if it were a Blakes partner who used a redundant employee’s old computer to hijack the firm’s Wikipedia page in order to update sordid details about namesake Blake Dawson’s professional porn career?!

Share your thoughts about Blake Dawson on our new poll!

Are there still spare seats in your office? Have you noticed recruitment activity picking up?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

You’ll recall that in the wake of firm-wide redundancies in March 2009, in which the firm laid off 89 staff, the Blake Dawson Wikipedia page was hijacked. The following comments briefly appeared on the page:

Blake Dawson has got the look

‘The partnership of Blake Dawson, the sixth-biggest law firm by revenue in 2008, is considering cutting up to 100 staff in a bid to slash costs and preserve profit. Blake Dawson is the first top tier law firm in Australia to announce anticipated redundancies during the 2009 economic downturn. While other major law firms Allens Arthur Robinson and Freehills have assured staff that there will be no redundancies, partners of Blake Dawson announced on 24 February 2008 that they would sack up to 100 staff instead of reducing their individual profit share. The firm’s partners receive an average of $850,000 each per annum.’

These comments were quickly removed, but the troubled Wikipedia page has yet again been altered, this time by hilarious references to a homosexual porn actor using the same name “Blake Dawson”:

In 2007 the firm underwent re-branding, and as part of this project, shortened its name to Blake Dawson ^[1]. The name change drew some attention from the local press and the Australian Financial Review, a respected business newspaper, published a story about a homosexual pornographic actor who shared the same name. Blake Dawson, the actor, featured in “The Diary” in 1982 and “Spring Semester” in 1985. The law firm still continued to proceed with the name change after the story was published.

Not only did the firm continue with the name change, but it collected a coveted award for doing so. Rebranding website www.rebrand.com considered the shortening of the firm’s name from Blake Dawson Waldron to Blake Dawson as one of the top 100 rebrandings of 2008! In the rebrand.com summary of the rebranding, the following is written:

Challenge - The firm wanted to stand out both for its excellence at law and for its distinctive personality.

Strategy - Principals created a new brand strategy, which centred around the theme “Excellence with Rapport”, a stand out look and feel…

Hmmm… we wonder whether like his corporate legal namesake, Blake Dawson the homosexual porn star also has a “brand” that has a “stand out look and feel”…

And we should thank our anonymous Blake Dawson (law firm) spy who tipped us off to the Wiki page with the following comments:

Checkout the wikipedia entry for Blake Dawson. There’s a new paragraph about how the firm shares its name with a gay porn star. The porn star name thing is old news but this is the first time it’s been mentioned in Wikipedia. Blake Dawson’s Wikipedia entry now looks pretty sad with the mention of porn stars and redundancies.

How does your firm “look and feel”?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

On March 9 this year Blake Dawson announced on its website that partner David Williamson had been appointed Chief Legal Counsel at BHP. In that announcement, the following comments were made by influential Blake Dawson partners:

Chairman, Mary Padbury, welcomed his appointment and said: “We are thrilled for David and very proud of him.  This is tremendous recognition of his legal, interpersonal and leadership skills, his experience and industry knowledge and the regard with which he is held at BHP Billiton.  We wish him every success.”

Managing Partner, John Carrington, said: “We will miss David but we are delighted for him.  He has made an outstanding contribution to the life and success of the firm.  He leaves a powerful legacy.  He is a wonderful friend and colleague to many at the firm.”

These kind words may, however, mask a deeper concern that Williamson’s departure could see the exit of the firm’s most important client. We recently received the following comments from an anonymous Blake Dawson spy:

BE VERY AFRAID OF CHANGE

I was surprised to see FS has not yet commented on the move of ex-Blake Dawson partner David Williamson to the role of general counsel ar BHP. What do consider the implications of this development will be on the firm? I can tell you that inside Blakes - where I work - there is high anxiety that with Williamson gone, the vast amount of BHP work undertaken by Blakes might leave with him. Williamson was the key liaison with BHP and it is, in my opinion, unclear who will now take that mantle. I understand that there is history in Australia of partners who rise to general counsel reallocating work away from their former firm. Who is to say this wont happen to Blakes?

We’re certainly not in a position to say, although we too have heard of precedents in which newly appointed General Counsel direct work away from their former firms.

And while we cannot comment on the likelihood that BHP will remain a major client of Blakes, we certainly can comment on the likelihood that until the dust settles on this issue, junior lawyers can probably expect pay conditions to remain tight. This will come as bad news to the anonymous Blakes spy who sent us the following comments last night:

Blake Dawson first year lawyers did not get a pay rise on admission last year and are on the same wage as the new graduates who are not admitted and have no legal experience. This is despite the fact that the firm benefited from the lawyers charge out rates increasing upon their admission, and the billable targets increasing for the lawyers.

The injustice! Is it time to fight for your rights?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Some long overdue gossip from a Blake Dawson spy!

In early December last year we reported the rumour that Blake Dawson was tracking at a remarkable 20% over its budget. At that time we queried when the firm would unfreeze the pay of the 70% of staff (approx) whose wages have been steady for well over a year now, notwithstanding that the firm had made a 89 staff redundant.

Since that time, Freehills, Minter Ellison and Clayton Utz have all moved to unfreeze pay for some or all staff. So where does Blakes sit?

Well, if the information received by an anonymous Blakes spy last night is to be believed, wages will remain on ice for several months yet:

I wish to write on a matter of recent interest here at Blake Dawson. I was surprised to see that the Firm Spy is yet to report on it.

A couple of weeks ago, a meeting was held at Blake Dawson (Melbourne office) in which a partner - who I won’t name - asked those in attendance if there were any general queries about “issues” affecting Blakes staff. The partner was then promptly asked by a courageous colleague of mine “when is the firm intending to move on pay?”

This question has certainly been playing ont he minds of many Blakes staff recently and many of us were thankful that it was raised. However, no one in the room was satisfied with the response. The partner in question responded with “these decisions take time - it doesn’t happen overnight, but I think July 1 would be enough time to consider everything, how the market is moving etc”. In short, the response was a disgrace. What sort of modern corporate law firm “takes time” to make decisions?

The decision to make nearly 100 staff redundant was made quite quickly…

Yes, we recall the very abrupt sackings too.

Is your firm moving pn pay? Tell the Firm Spy first!

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

[ED - thanks to our good pals at Lawyers Weekly and The New Lawyer we can now report that a Blakes spokesperson confirmed that salary freezes will remain in place until 1 July 2010]

When does the point come when partners can feel convinced that the economic uptick is not just a “false economic dawn”? Where is the juncture that partners agree that the GFC is over and decide to lift pay freezes? Do partners sit down and actually think about these things, or do they just keep one eye on Firm Spy to check if other firms are acting and, in the absence of such action, decide to do nothing?

partners having a chuckle

These are the questions which are playing strongly on the minds of lawyers/accountants across the nation. “The partners are f*cking us”, one eloquent contributor recently wrote. We agree. And the following anonymous tip, emailed to us yesterday, sent us over the edge:

I read with interest the comments made several days ago (ostensibly by an Allens Arthur partner) about the way AAR has apparently systematically revised down lawyer performance reviews, in many cases in the face of opposition of partners. I hold a senior position at Blake Dawson and while I cannot say there has been a focus on giving bad performance reviews despite good performance, a growing number of my senior colleagues have grown tired with the way the firm is handling the pay freeze. As of at least a few weeks ago, I know for a fact that Blakes is tracking at more than 20% over budget for 2009/2010 - certainly not the kind of performance that justifies the current pay conditions being levied against most lawyers. It is time for Blake Dawson to increase lawyer pay or risk losing a substantial number of lawyers. And yes… even I agree that this is “remuneration f*ck us”.

“F*ck-you” strike, anyone? The post the tipster is referring to about AAR noted the following:

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).

So how do you feel about your pay freeze? Are you confident that the partners of your firm - people who probably regard themselves as having the highest moral fibre - are actually considering your interest in being remunerated fairly when deciding whether to lift your pay freeze? Or are they just holding out, lining their already fat pockets, waiting for one of the other big firms to move before they do something?

Pour your heart out to the Firm Spy. We are your voice. Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

It is very clear to us that the Firm Spy Remuneration Report has thus far been a ratings bonanza. Our internet traffic has taken off on (what our favourite special comments person would term) a “semi-ballistic trajectory”. And so, today we move onto Blake Dawson.

when enough is enough

By way of background, Blake Dawson has undergone a GFC period as tumultuous as any of the Big 6, though its partners still pocketed up to a reported $1,200,000. Distringuishable from other firms, however, Blakes has repeatedly deployed its PR machine with an almost comical modus operandi - break bad news to staff and then try to score points in the media with half-truths and distortion.

An excellent example is the Blake Dawson pay-rise-pay-freeze. At the time, the firm denied that it was introducing a blanket pay freeze, instead telling media it would still:

‘recognise exceptional performances but in a more focused way than in previous years.’

What is this “focus” rubbish? The firm later clarified, after the Firm Spy suggested that its pay position was less about “remuneration focus” and more about “remuneration f*ck-us”, that 30% of staff had received pay rises. We subsequently revealed, thanks to the excellent work of a Blakes firm spy, that the figure reported by the firm of 30% included raises given to newly admitted lawyers and elevations to SA. All of a sudden, 30% became 18%! Let’s hope that half of the 18% given pay rises weren’t support staff, otherwise less than one in ten lawyers would have received a pay rise. F*ck us? Err… maybe it is time for a “f*ck-you” strike! It wouldn’t be the first time that a revolt has been mooted. Little wonder why Blakes lawyer turn to chicanery like hijacking.

…And onto the figures reported by our anonymous Blake Dawson spies.

Firm Spy cannot guarantee the veracity of the figures quoted. They come from anonymous sources.

Sydney

Summer Clerk

Not admitted. Daily billable hours target - 5 hours. Salary - $900 per week. Comments:

Summer clerk for the upcoming break. Salary $900 incl super. Free gym membership for the 12 week period.

1-2 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2007 and June 2008. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $86,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $86,000. Perks - free gym, subsidised further education.

2-3 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2006 and June 2007. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $88,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $88,000. Perks - free gym, purchase additional leave, subsidised further education.

3-4 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2005 and June 2006. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $110,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $110,000. Perks - free gym.

6-7 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2002 and June 2003. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $128,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $128,000. Perks - blackberry, free gym, subsidised further education.

7-8 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2001 an June 2002. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $185,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $200,000. Perks - blackberry, free gym, subsidised further education.

Melbourne

0-1 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2008 and June 2009. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $67,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $70,000. Perks - purchase additional leave. Comments:

Morale is terrible. Many people I know will leave when hiring picks up again - so the firm is going to have a shortage of lawyers when many take off for greener pastures. Very small pay rise for those who were newly admitted (credit where it is due - any pay rise is better than none) from $67k to $70k. That is where the stats used to come from  - ie they gave x% of employees pay rises. The truth is, there were no pay rises for lawyers with 1, 2 and 3 years PQE. Revenue was only 1-2% down from the previous financial year [ED - it was actually lower by a mere 0.5%], staff have been shed, discretionary costs are down, lawyers are working long hours and harder than ever. By the sound of it, partners aren’t feeling any impact from the GFC. A couple of people I know did get a “bonus” in the form of a $200 gift voucher from Myer. WOW!!!

4-5 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2004 and June 2005. Daily billable hours target - 6.5hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $90,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $92,500. Perks - blackberry.

5-6 Years PQE

Admitted between July 2003 and June 2004. Daily billable hours target - 7 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $92,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $94,000. Perks - blackberry, free fruit. Comments:

The unfriendly work environment, uncollegiate atmosphere, uninteresting work, lack of support/mentoring, no emphasis on development, not enough client contact, under-resourced, not enough emphasis on expertise building, hopeless HR team [sic]*

Canberra

Graduate

Not admitted. Daily billable hours target - 6 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $68,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $68,000. Perks - free gym, subsidised further education.

[ED - another ACT grad gave us the following entry]

Graduate

Not admitted. Daily billable hours target - 5.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $61,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $61,000. Perks - free gym.

Brisbane

Graduate

Not admitted. Daily billable hours target - 6.5 hours. Gross package 2008/2009 - $65,000. Gross package 2009/2010 - $75,000. Perks - free gym, subsidised further education.

*yes, the comments just cut off at this point.

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Blake Dawson pay freeze - you have reported on this already, and Blakes came back with figures of 30% received rises - this INCLUDES those lawyers elevated from graduate to lawyer and lawyer to SA. However, it has now come to my attention that in the September quarter Blakes turned the 2nd largest profit in the firm’s history - this was included in the Board report for the quarter. The firm has not changed its approach to remuneration however!!

In 2009, Blake Dawson took on a total of 85 graduates. Meanwhile, the firm was recently reported to have a total of 1382 employees. It was elsewhere reported that the firm averages $190,000.00 profit from each lawyer, giving rise to a total profit of $136,000,000.00. By dividing the total profit by the profit of each lawyer, it reveals that the firm has apporximately 715 lawyers. So … when Blake Dawson spokesperson Helen McKenzie said ‘we were pretty upfront about what our approach would be and we told everybody that there would not be a salary freeze’, why didn’t she also clarify that considerably fewer than 20% of lawyers (plus grads) were those who actually received the pay rise? 30% sounds much healthier than 18%, don’t you think?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!