We are reliably informed that in sporting parlance, the first day of this working week is known in AFL circles as “Mad Monday”. It is a day fabled for the Bacchanalian indulgences of players from the less successful clubs of the AFL . Dress-ups, booze and general frivolity are but the norm. On this day two years ago, for example, a celebratory Brendon Fevola “paraded outside a city bar in a nightie with a sex toy protruding from his pants” (for footage of the event, click here).

is anything available?

But while Fev occupied himself with a giant dildo and Ben Cousins probably spent this day Travis Tucking into his first bag of “bye-bye-urine-tests”,  we think it was a very different kind of Monday madness which gripped top-tier law firm Mallesons earlier this week. Not only did the firm have to digest the reference made in Friday’s News article (read by half of corporate Australia) that the firm is “run like a prison farm”, but it was also forced to endure the galling task of reading the BRW Top 500 Private Companies.

It was far from cause to celebrate.

The BRW revealed that in the last financial year, Mallesons revenue dropped by 10.5%; a drop-kick trajectory that would see the firm fold like Fitzroy within a handful of years. Not even Clayton Utz, a firm we recently characterised as being on the precipice of nuclear meltdown, could come within a 50m-arc of Mallesons. Clutz posted a revenue decline of 9.7%.

However, both Clutz and Mallesons stood in stark contrast to other top-tier firms:

• Blake Dawson revenue declined by 3.5%;
• Freehills revenue declined by 3%;
• Allens Arthur Robinson revenue (based on BRW estimates) appears to have grown by approx 2%; and
• Minter Ellison revenue grew by 2%

So powerful was this shirt-front that Mallesons has tumbled from its position as Australia’s largest firm by revenue, losing that premiership flag to Minter Ellison by $8.6m. And while Clutz’s fall is explicable by a number of umpire reports (in particular the loss of key partners to A&O), we cant think of any such excuse that is available for Mallesons.

If there are no excuses, what next?

When football fans perceive that their club is underperforming, invaribaly it results in the sacking of the coach. But what happens when a law firm isn’t performing?

Fortunately, Chief Executive Partner Robert MIlliner has already considered the prospect of life after Mallesons, making the following comments to BRW in July of this year:

Post-Mallesons Plan: “I won’t go back into practice - I’ll go and do something different… I wouldn’t mind another executive role - it’s a question of what’s available. I was thinking about doing a few boards and a few people have said to me, oh, you’re too young - young in the sense that I should do a full-time executive role first.”

In relation to the “question of what’s available”, do you think opportunities will open up for the coach that has taken his team from premiership glory to … wooden-spooner-in-waiting?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

A few weeks ago we published two controversial reports relating to reductions in non-partner fee-earner headcount at Allens Arthur Robinson and Clayton Utz. In the Clayton Utz post, we queried whether the 13.4% reduction in the firm’s non-partner headcount was attributable to “natural attrition” - as the firm contended - or a result of coordinated redundancies - something which aligned with rumours we reported at various times over the last year.

putting the spotlight on the stats

In the AAR post we looked at the official “voluntary” redundancy statistics reported by the firm, and contrasted that figure with the total number of non-partner fee-earners that had left the firm. We speculated that the significant difference in the number “voluntarily” leaving the firm through the redundancy program and those that had otherwise departed the firm might be attributable to alleged “freeze-outs”.

Over the weekend we received the following comments from an anonymous Mallesons spy:

FS - you have reported on the 2009/2010 financial year reductions in headcount that occurred at some major corporate firms but have omitted to scrutinise Mallesons in the same fashion. What gives?

Indeed we had forgotten to get the flashlight out in relation to Notoriously BIG Aussie firm Mallesons. According to the AFR (25/6):

In the year to July 2, Mallesons non-partner fee-earner headcount will have fallen from 1070 to 843 (down 21.2 per cent, the biggest fall of the surveyed firms).

All told, that is a reduction of 227 lawyers. But the voluntary redundancy program, according to the firm, accounted for less than half that number. Morover, the AFR reported in mid-September 2009 that the redundancy scheme affected “about 110 staff, or 5% of the workforce”.

So where did the additional 117 lawyers come from? Mallesons staunchly refuted our rumour  at the time of the scheme that approximately 200 lawyers signed up for the voluntary redundancies, so on that basis, it has to be assumed that the relevant 117 additional lawyers left the firm for no payout.

Save for junior lawyers who might wish to reach a valuable “PQE” milestone to move laterally, the Firm Spy can see no logic in a lawyer deciding to leave the firm in the same year as a voluntary redundancy scheme, but choosing to do so after the voluntary redundancy scheme period. It makes no sense! Receive a healthy payout or receive no payout whatsoever? One would have thought that those populating the offices of Australia’s elite law firm would have the presence of mind to form a well-considered view on the best way to answer that proposition.

The better, more logical view we would argue must be that a degreee of pressure was exerted over some of the affected workers by their partners or management. It might have been akin to the alleged AAR freeze-out pressure.

And if this is the case, we get back to a message we delivered a few weeks ago: that Mr Milliner is conducting the Symphony of Destruction. Moreover, why would an elite university graduate throw themselves into a career at Malleons when:

• hours are probably longer than at competitor firms;
• pay is probably lower than at competitor firms;
• being an excellent lawyer “is simply not enough”; and
• there is a chance that you will be managed or frozen out of the firm if times get tough.

From a graduate’s perspective, is Mallesons really all that it is cracked up to be? Has a partnership expectation of gobsmacking profit, and a relentless desire to maintain that profit, reached a point where the firm’s attraction to elite graduates - arguably its most important asset - is finally waning?

Or, as Notorious B.I.G would have said, is this just a case of Mallesons Mo’ Money Mo’ Problems?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

We went looking for some news on Mallesons last night and stumbled onto an interesting piece. A cursory search on Google news revealed no less than three articles featuring a jubilant Mallesons boasting that it had lured Clifford Chance litigation expert Denis Brock.

a draft cross referral agreement

We immediately thought two things:

1. attracting Mr Brock to the firm will give Mallesons an excellent chance to save some face in the wake of ex-Mallesons partner Dave Poddar’s recent defection to A&O (and our subsequent article considering why it would make great sense for many other Mallesons partners to follow him in the “triple jump”); and
2. there is something awfully fishy about a Clifford Chance partner “defecting” to Mallesons when virtually the whole legal world is waiting for an official announcement that Clifford Chance and Mallesons are merging.

We then thought that perhaps it was possible that these two issues are related: the Mallesons board conjured a way to strengthen its apparently vulnerable brand by contriving that it had “lured” a Clifford Chance expert, while at the same time giving that expert an opportunity to witness the nuances of Mallesons before reporting back to his old Magic Circle firm.

Tellingly, Mt Broc’sprofile still appears on the Clifford Chance website. Perhaps the firm will leave it there? His profile reveals that Mr Brock has been with Clifford Chance for 24 years and has been a partner for 15 years. In our view, there is every chance he is the kind of emissary who Clifford Chance would entrust with such an important reconnaissance mission.

Let’s recount the current state of intelligence on the Clifford Chance & Mallesons merger:

• In 1999, Mallesons & Clifford Chance first met to discuss merger plans;
• In late 2008, renewed merger talks broke down as a consequence of the GFC;
• In October 2009 we received a credible report that an in principle agreement on a merger had been reached between Mallesons & Clifford Chance and that a formal announcement would soon thereafter be made;
• Also in October 2009 we saw Mallesons CEP Robert Milliner comment that his firm would likely follow the lead of major UK firms in its remuneration structure of employees;
• In May 2010, the AFR published a report that Mallesons and Clifford Chance were again in advanced stages of merging, but this report was discounted by an anonymous comment we received that appears to have been authored by a Mallesons partner;
• In June 2010 we received our most logical report on the Clifford Chance plans in Australia: that it would do so on its own terms to the exclusion of Mallesons; and
• Also in June, our great friends at Rollonfriday delivered a very interesting scoop on the Mallesons/Clifford Chance tie-up; namely that Clifford Chance intends to open on its own terms in Australia but under the auspices of a “best friends” relationship with Mallesons under a formal “cross-referral agreement”.

In our view, these updates and all of the general intelligence we have gathered is at odds with Mallesons’ claim that a highly respected Clifford Chance partner “defected” to Mallesons.

Mallesons and Clifford Chance are “best friends”!

We think the more sensible view is that Denis Brock is relocating to Mallesons to help prosecute the rumoured merger or formal “cross-referral agreement” and the Mallesons board has seized on it as an opportunity to rebuff the much publicised (and very worrying) defection of Dave Poddar to A&O.

What do you think?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

For those who missed the show in last week’s BRW, Mallesons Chief Executive Partner Robert Milliner featured in an article entitled Like Conducting an Orchestra. In that article, Milliner likened his role as head of one of Australia’s most profitable law firms to that of a penguin-suited musical leader, standing in front of a group of people from “band camp”, who frenetically waves a wand.

double-bass? DOUBLE-BASS?

This year marks [Milliner’s] 30th with Mallesons - the past 28 of which have been as partner and the past 6 have been “conducting the orchestra”.

The Milliner philharmonic roadshow appears to have hit a few favourable notes in the concerto interview, with BRW reporter Judith Tydd making the following opening comments in her Mallesons composition:

The reputation of Mallesons Stephen Jaques speaks volumes, from attracting some of the brightest law graduates to securing the most complex legal work for Australia’s leading corporations. But just what - or who - keeps the company ticking over?

Is it, perhaps, the harmonics? Apparently not. The article goes on:

It’s not just the prestige, the firm’s chief executive partner Robert Milliner, says. “It’s about the best work for the best clients with the best people,” he says.

While it is true that Mallesons has until now made a habit of attracting the “best people”, thanks mainly to a pipeline of elite graduates, we believe that the firm is slowly but surely beginning to lose some of its lustre for those dreaming of a corporate legal future. The double-bass is losing some of its strings, so to speak.

And the reasons why (we think) that graduates should be cautious about an early career at Mallesons were recently laid bare by the firm’s head of P&D, Kate Rimer. Yes, in an ensemble interview entitled Fast -Track Your Promotion with ALB TV, Mallesons’ Rimer produced a series of bad notes indeed!

A voiceover to the interview opens with the following prefatory words:

Kate Rimer says being an excellent lawyer in today’s environment is simply not enough.

Rimer continues:

“I think more and more that legal excellence or technical legal skills are a given… What our clients are telling us is valued is the ability to work with them, so it’s the client relaitonship skills, the business development skills, it’s the ability to work in and lead a team. So if you want to climb the ladder, if you are going to have a team of five or six lawyers working for you, how do you do that?… I hate them being called the “soft skills”, i think the client and people skills are really going to stand out the stars from the ordinary performers and that’s what we look for when we’re promoting people.”

But why would the best graduates in the country want to dust off their instruments in an environment where being an excellent lawyer “is simply not enough”? Did they attend university and orchestrate class-topping grades … all so they could fast-track their promotion with “soft skills”?

Or did they hope that they could forge a career in a firm where actually being a great technical lawyer, and not something of a marketing guru, would see them rewarded with promotions and the like?

And what about that rhapsody over underpay? Don’t the best graduates deserve the best pay and best working conditions? Not harder and longer hours than at competitor firms?

We think it is time that graduates paid closer attention to the notes being produced by the firm.

And perhaps it is also time Robert Milliner listened to the orchestra he is conducting. After all, we think their lead opus - which they are currently playing with considerable gusto - is Megadeth’s 1992 heavy metal power-ballad Symphony of Destruction…

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

To have the ticker to pump decent pay rises into employee hearts and minds, partners must have enough blood money in the bank to share. That, or the promise or reasonable certainty of money to come. There must be blood in their veins, so to speak.

bad blood

To this end, there can be little doubt that top-tier firm Mallesons was in an excellent position last week to send pulses racing with some bloody good pay reviews for staff. The firm:

• has streamlined its firm to such an extent that it has a reported 44% profit margin;
• has less partners than its major competitors;
• has less staff than its major competitors; and
• has the highest revenue of all Australian law firms.

So staff were understandably hemorrhaging when they apparently received less than sanguine pay reviews last week. We received many emails from anonymous Mallesons spies over the weekend. We have chosen not to publish all of them because the sentiment is clear from those published below:

First this:

Mallesons consistently underpays its staff. It coats its position with a veneer of false legitimacy by artificially deflating the performance ratings of strong performers, and linking pay to those artificially deflated ratings. The partners are simply oblivious to what market salaries really are, and they don’t seem to want to retain strong performers. What makes me sad? The fact that I like my partner, but am going to have to leave the firm in order to earn the salary I’m worth.

Artifical ratings to justify low pay? Sounds familiar and very believable. We later received this from an anonymous Mallesons spy:

Dear Firmspy,

This outrage just has to be reported. I’m writing anonymously, but please don’t try to find out my identity. I’m scared of what the partners will do. I’m too scared to even talk to my partner about pay. Some news about the Day of Dollars/Dolours at Mallesons in Sydney. Well it’s official. Mallesons has stooped to an even more indefensible level of stinginess, with the announcement of a round of absolutely ridiculous pay increases, particularly for 3-4 year solicitors. There was no double-band increase. There wasn’t even a single-band increase. There was nothing more than a pile of sh*t rolled into a some thin rectangles and stuffed into an envelope.

A 3-4 year solicitor at Mallesons now earns on average a wretched $90k-$92k including superannuation, up from the $84k they have earned since July 2008. That’s an embarrassing raise of about 7% over 2 years, which barely accounts for inflation over that time. And let’s not forget that target billable requirements have also gone up to 7 hours per day. So Bobby M’s pathetic pay rise is, for all practical purposes, a pay cut. Note the plosive alliteration to symbolise disdain.

There were tantrums, tears and chests brimming with ire as rem review letters were passed out throughout the day. Partners faced a barrage of complaints which they batted away with self-satisfied smugness on their way out the door to go home and bathe in their profits in the style of Scrooge McDuck. Or should that be McF—k? Meanwhile, in contrast to the 7% log-of-turd hurled at 3-4 year solicitors by the partners, 4-5 year lawyers scored a 15% bump-up. Still, that leaves lawyers on the verge of SA-ship earning about $100,000 including superannuation. Very few of them are happy. Not that there are many of them left at the firm. Why is it that the 3-4 years got so royally screwed? Will a HR lackey from Busta’s team try to explain in the comments section? Firmspy, you simply cannot understand the extent of the anger and resentment felt by the victims of this unjustifiable exercise in partnerly flipping-the-bird. Do the partners want all the 3-4 years to leave? Because that’s what’s going to happen. It’s all anyone could talk about: recruiters, CVs, Freehills…

Then this:

Pathetically anemic and below-market salary raises at Mallesons today, even for top performers. Same lame old justifications from the partners about “challenging economic conditions” (cue violins!). People are absolutely livid and the revolving door will start spinning any minute now. Note to Mallesons partners- if we are intelligent enough to do your drudge work, we are sure as hell sufficiently smart to work out what we’re worth in the market and when we are being blatantly low-balled and taken advantage of.

Perhaps its time for Mallesons employees to give partners a coronary by simply taking a few days off work? Could a large group of disgruntled junior workers band together, as blood-brothers, and decline to work until partners get pay right?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Congratulations to the AFR legal affairs team for their excellent work last Friday. For those of you who missed it, we suggest you get your hands on last Friday’s AFR and read the annual Partnership Survey.

fanatical breast exposure NOW

The survey offers some fascinating insights into the way the legal market is moving. We intend to spend much of this week digesting the info and commenting on it.

But before we do that, let’s talk about the defection of David Poddar from Mallesons to A&O.

We received the following quip from an anonymous Mallesons spy last night:

Can the Firm Spy think of any way to tie the defection of disliked national sprinter Jana Pittman to our English rivals with the defection of the equally disliked ex-Mallesons partner David Poddar to our English rivals Allen & Overy?

Indeed - for those that missed it - Athletics Australia suffered a great loss yesterday when it emerged that “Drama” Jana Pittman would be leaving Australia to represent England. So too did Mallesons, when highly regarded partner David Poddar defected last week to English rival Allen & Overy. In the A&O media release, managing partner of A&O Australia, Grant Fuzi, said

Dave is highly respected practitioner and his joining is particularly important to our clients. With his experience, we will have the capability to provide top level advice on merger clearances, access issues and general competition matters, as well as cartel advice, which is particularly important after the recent introduction of criminal cartel laws in Australia. This expansion is yet another reflection of our commitment to strengthening the Australian offering since our launch just a few months ago.

Although Mallesons has played down the significance of the defection, we would regard Poddar’s defection as a very worrying development for the firm, given that Poddar is clearly a highly rated lawyer. The Australian noted for example:

The Allen & Overy raid on Australian law firms continued yesterday with the hiring of one of the leading members of the trade practices mafia, David Poddar, a Mallesons partner for the last 12 years.

So why would a partner at Australia’s most prestigious law firm and most profitable firm want to a move to a rival firm? We imagine that the following issues were foremost in Poddar’s mind:

• Allen & Overy probably offered a set two or three year salary, meaning no at-risk component unlike at Mallesons;
• presumably that wage is higher than he could have possibly received at Mallesons;
• With A&O’s arrival, Mallesons might have lost its domestic lustre - the Magic Circle being more prestigious; and
• perhaps Mallesons financial outlook is not as promising as it once was.

Of course we’re speculating, but the move of a young partner to A&O is a truly worrying development for the Mallesons partnership. And if Poddar is able to so readily depart, what will stop a flood of his former colleagues jumping ship if Clifford Chance arrives later this year?

In much better news for the males remainng at the firm, and still on the topic of sport, we received the following comments from an anonymous Mallesons spy over the weekend:

It might interest the Firm Spy to know that two Mallesons graduates, currently strutting their stuff in the corridors of its Melbourne office, were cited by reputable websites across the world specialising in such matters as being ‘Official World Cup Crowd Babes’ for the 2006 World Cup.

Presumably the platinum bottle-blond ‘Fanatics’ pictured to the left and right of the top photo of this link - http://fivefalcons.com/world_cup_babes_2006/australian_babes_world_cup_2006.php - are not as enraptured by their new corporate suits and computer screens…

Yes, that is interesting. Out with the old Dave “Drama” Poddar and in with the new nubile blondes! We do hope, however, that the young lady exposing her very own soccer-balls (yes, you have been warned!) mid-way through the ‘Germany 2006 - World Cup Babes Australia Gallery’ isn’t also a Mallesons lawyer.

Have you been watching the soccer? Have you been thumbing through 2010 World Cup Babes Galleries?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

We reported a couple of weeks ago that judicial commentators were criticising the corporate billable unit. Well, the chorus of condemnation directed at the profiteering of major law firms became a little louder on 4/6 when the AFR reported that:

I WANT ALL OF THE CHEESE

Victorian Chief Justice, Marilyn Warren, is concerned that mounting commercial pressures may be causing lawyers to forget their primary duty to the court. These include alliances between firms, incorporation, firms listing on the stock exchange, the use of litigation funders and the current national profession reforms with a focus on consumer rights.

…Warren told an ethics forum recently that firms have become ruthless money-making machines that force out experienced partners as young as 50 while young lawyers “are actively pursued or recruited”, only to be “exploited by the firm as reflected in their high attrition rates, especially young women…In the middle of the law firms are the associates, senior associates and prospective partners struggling to meet the profit demands of the modern practice… Their incentive for unfailing, relentless commitment to the firm’s profit is that they too may be made a partner, one day.”

Chief Justice Warren then went on to tie these comments into her appraisal of the recently released draft bill to create a nationally regulated legal profession:

…national profession reforms could diminish lawyers’ primary ethical duties to the court, because they were so consumer focused… “external regulation may be welcome but it must not come at the expense of the traditional role of the profession… [the proposed national reforms] do not, unfortunately, rise to the occasion”.

Warrem CJ’s comments are likely to come as a direct slap in the face to Mallesons Chief Executive Partner Robert Milliner, who also heads the Large Law Firm Group - the primary body calling for national legal regulation. Milliner told the ALB recently in respect of the draft reforms:

“The primary driver is to promote efficiency and uniformity in the regulation of the national legal profession. There is a desire to ensure that the regulatory framework facilitates the provision of best practice at the best price and in a consistent way right around Australia.”

We don’t blame you if you just spat your coffee over your computer screen. We sure did! Mr Robert Milliner… concerned to see that a regulatory framework exists that facilitates the provision of best practice at the best price. Like the Chief Justice, we smell a rat. A corporate rat!

If you had forgotten, let us remind you that Mallesons reported revenue that was $58million higher than its nearest competitor last financial year. Each equity partner reportedly took home between $1,400,000.00 and $1,600,000.00. Incredibly, Mallesons managed this remarkable profit feat despite having apparently less employees than its two nearest competitors in terms of revenue.

To join the dots for you all, we think this means two things:

1. the Chief Justice’s comments about corporate law firms (let’s use Mallesons as an example) being “money-making machines” are correct; and
2. People, including the Chief Justice, should be dubious of Robert Milliner when he professes concern that laws be introduced in order to facilitate the provision of best practice at the best price when the current state of the profession has enabled him to amass such an incredible reported profit take.

We’ve taken it upon ourselves to create a very rough, and slightly less dubious, draft bill of reforms that we think Mallesons could implement to achieve “best practice at the best price”:

• Charge less money for legal services. This will mean clients get a “better price”. Possibly the “best price”;
• Give consideration to whether “best practice” occurs at 3am, or on weekends. Or at 3am on weekends.

Can you think of any corporate rat reforms? Please tell us in the comments below.

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

At various times in the last year we have reported rumours that Clifford Chance and Mallesons have been toying with the idea of a major international merger. As recently as May we reported the rumour that Mallesons was in renewed discussions with Clifford Chance, following the breakdown of merger talks in late 2008 by reason of the then emerging GFC.

Today, we can report the most compelling (and in our opinion most logical) rumour yet - that Clifford Chance will open shop in Sydney later this year, on its own terms.  And yes folks, the bidding war for profitable Australian partners is set to begin.

We received the following anonymous comments from a Clifford Chance spy a couple of days ago:

‘which magic circle firm is now well past the due diligence phase of orchestrating it’s very own Aussie assault? Allen & Overy? Wrong. As an employee working very closely with the project, I can tell you that Clifford Chance is coming to Australia, sooner rather than later.”

We then received the following comments from another anonymous Clifford Chance spy yesterday:

Rumours wildly circulating London offices this week that Clifford Chance will soon go public with its plans to make a foray Down Under. Investigate.

The Firm Spy’s immediate gut reaction to this news was, well, wouldn’t a magic circle firm considering an assault at least wait for further clarity on the RSPT? Sovereign risk in Australia is being blamed for a recent weakening in domestic markets, so wouldn’t they wait to see if the “Mad Monk”, Tony Abbott, has the mettle to take out the election and reverse Krudd mining tax policy?

Perhaps not, if the European economy is facing a prtotracted economic struggle and Australia is seen - at least by one of it’s major competitors - as a profitable destination (albeit a conclusion reached pre-RSPT).The rumour is also buttressed by the very credible report penned by our friends at RoF.

So where will the Clifford Chance partners come from? RoF speculates that Corrs will be targeted. We beg to differ.

As early as February we have heard credible reports that Clifford Chance is targetting young, dynamic Mallesons partners to head up it’s Australian office. Given the close affiliation existing between the firms, this is not hard to believe.

But the primary hurdle to getting these partners across, in our view, is the likelihood that access to the Clifford Chance equity pool will not represent a major economic windfall in the same way A&O did to the defecting Clutz partners (the weakening Euro doesn’t help either). However, this “hurdle” is tempered by the fact (we think, at least)that the Mallesons lock step model is exasperatingly long and populated by regular “performance reviews”.

So if Clifford Chance either promised prospective Mallesons defectors a set wage for, say, three years, or guaranteed quicker ascension (compared with that at Mallesons) up the equity pile, it might suddenly become an attractive bargain.

The appeal of Australia to magic circle firms is a topic which has been overwrought by commentators (including us) in 2010. But now, more than at any other stage in this year or during the GFC, the urgency is clear. And if you’ve already exhaustively considered the prospect, got ready access to the top talent who’ll be enticed by the right bargain, then why not?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

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!