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 perhapd 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!

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!

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!

On Friday, the AFR published yet another article speculating on an imminent announcement of a merger between Mallesons & Clifford Chance. This follows articles we published in mid and late October 2009 which also speculated that Cliffords would finally take a chance in Australia.

Mallesons partners in a CC video hook-up

In Friday’s article, the following things were noted:

Mallesons is … in discussions with international counterparts over [a] potential merger or strategic alliance… Beaton Research & Consulting confirmed [it] was involved in advising on merger talks between some of Australia’s leading firms and “magic circle” firms in the UK… Mallesons‘… Robert Milliner said [the firm] “maintains an ongoing dialogue with a range of firms on both sides of the atlantic and regionally… we’ll move if and when the time is right in terms of our strategic objectives”… A … merger would force Mallesons into further cuts to staff numbers, having already completed a redundancy program last year to shed some 110 staff.

We received the following comments from an anonymous Mallesons spy on Friday (our comments appear in square brackets):

Mr Milliner sent us the following email this morning –

“A story appears in today’s Australian Financial Review that speculates on merger activity involving leading Australian law firms [FS: note, this is not a denial]. Contrary to the excitable tone of the story and the focus on Mallesons, a merger is not imminent [FS: so it’s going to happen, just not next week?]. The story is irresponsible for suggesting otherwise.

Like some other firms referenced in the article, we maintain an on-going dialogue with a range of firms globally [FS: note, this is not a denial that merger talks are afoot] but it is as simple as that [FS: as simple as what?]. Additional speculation in the article about staffing levels in the event of a merger is ill informed [FS: but not incorrect?].”

I would ask the Firm Spy to place the following question on your website – why should we prefer Mr Milliner’s email to the article published by the Financial Review when the authors who wrote the article were part of the same legal affairs team that Mallesons advised of the voluntary redundancy program before any staff had been informed of it? Is this just another case of the Financial Review being tipped off ahead of any of us?

The language chosen by Milliner, which calls to mind the anomalously transparent mud review, plus the revelation that the firm allegedly tipped the AFR off to its voluntary redundancy program ahead of its own staff, would ordinarily compel us to agree that perhaps there is more to this overwrought story than first thought. However, we received the following compelling comments on the weekend from another anonymous Mallesons partner spy:

Firm Spy, as our last reasonably objective editorial, can you please do your bit to set the collective minds of Mallesons staff at ease. There is no merger currently contemplated with Clifford Chance or with any other international firm. Neither Robert Milliner, nor the board has the power to unilaterally declare that a merger will take place. Rather, a long period of consultation must take place, over which period partners might be invited to consider expert, independent views and reports on the merger. A a partnership vote must then be taken. This consultation process was in operation in 2008, when it was last reported that a merger would take place. I was a part of it then. I am not a part of it now. This is because the consultation process has not yet begun. Nor is there any suggestion that it will begin any time soon.

So if it is true that Beaton Consulting has been involved in advising on an international merger, and that merger doesn’t involve Mallesons & Clifford Chance, then who is it? Do you know? Tell the Firm Spy first!

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

When you’ve implemented a redundancy scheme that has given rise to a 25% constriction in the number of senior associates populating the office, it is time to speak out in media, ramp up the PR machine, and sell to staff/the public the rationale of such action.

Accordingly, we saw Mallesons Chief Executive partner Robert Milliner quoted in yesterday’s AFR as follows:

‘Milliner said the size of the firm had been adjusted to reflect falling work volumes and a recovery was not likely in the medium term… “most of our clients here and overseas have gone through cost constraints, or because of the disruption of the debt markets have not been able to raise leverage to do the [M&A] activity they have done before”.

This comes just a few days after Mallesons spokeswoman Kate Rimer was reported to be:

cautious about the recruitment market’s likely rate of recovery, particularly given prevailing conditions in former recruitment hot spots overseas. “I think overall we will see a gradual pick-up in recruitment activity, but nothing significant until at least the middle of next year,” she said. “Historically we have lagged much of the economy going into and coming out of downturns. We are seeing a similar pattern with the GFC, where law firms are lagging many of the economic indicators by six-plus months.

Err… ‘Busta’

The Australian economy added near 100,000 jobs between September and November

Putting Milliner & Rimer’s comments in the context of justifying major staff departures is one thing, but putting them beside the comments, made in today’s AFR by Freehills Chief Gavin Bell, makes them look like something of a piss-take:

”[Freehills] took the view that we were going to retain people, that we were not going to lay off people, that that was a last resort. And we kept recruiting. It will probable take a while for full activity to return but I think the trend is up, rather than down. It is a trend up from a plateau that was nowhere near as deep as we thought it would be.”

And while the Mallesons workforce has been reduced considerably, Freehills has increased non-lawyer staff by 8.5% this year. Mallesons, a firm that posted revenue that exceeded Freehills by $58million in 2008/2009, despite having less partners and apparently less staff, is forshadowing no recovery in the medium term, while Freehills thinks the trend is up.

Is Milliner ‘buying time’ to keep the pay freeze in place? Is a Freehills pay thaw on the way?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Last Friday we reporte that the Mallesons partnership had decided to give staff a Christmas bonus, of sorts. In response to the Mallesons December Pay Run of the Milliner, we received the following comments:

get gandalf now

Actually many of the good staff, i.e. the solicitors that are above budget are extremely mad that a 3% one off payment is being made to all staff. It is true now there is a 7k gap between graduates billing 30% of a 6 hour budget and third year lawyers billing 145% of a 6.5 hour budget and working late nights and weekends while others toddle along at 5 to enjoy their lives.
We were told the pay freeze would be reviewed based on how the firm is tracking to budget. Now we are told the firm is not tracking to budget so the pay freeze stays but everyone is getting a 3% rise. How can MSJ justify paying those below budget the same as those smashing their budgets in a GFC? It is a slap in the face to those putting in the hours to build the firm.
MSJ may be a great place to work, in terms of the people and the work we do, but that doesn’t keep junior lawyers earning less than people at other firms happy. Add to that people billing heaps so those well below budget getting the same bonsuses - seems like a recipie for losing good junior lawyers and keeping the useless pricks.

We also received the following comments on Friday:

I am cynical enough to believe that the bean counters did the analysis and decided that this was the absolute minimum that they could get away with to prevent a mass mutiny next year.

It’s the bonus you have when you don’t have a bonus - more importantly, it doesn’t address any of the structural and cultural issues which they have created (by way of salary freezes) by paying lawyers who’ve been in the game almost 2 years now about 20c per week more than they’ll be giving to the bright but clueless young things coming through the door in Feb. Don’t expect that these people won’t notice this, Mallesons.

As such, they are probably wasting the money - people will still be pissed off because it just comes across as tight.

That said, this is a great sign for the industry as a whole and I predict will be the first of many such moves over coming weeks. Remains to be seen whether other firms are slightly less scrooge-like leading up to the Xmas period. I suspect some firms in particular will still be handing out lumps of coal in the stockings, though…

How is your firm tracking? Is it bonus season? Let the Firm Spy know first!

We reported last week that Mallesons’ pay freeze is apparently showing no signs of thawing. This remains true, despite encouraging news received earlier today that the firm is giving staff a Christmas bonus, of sorts.

Thanks to the anonymous Mallesons spy for the following information:

Warlock Milliner has just delivered some long overdue good news - we’re getting some money out of the partnership and just in time for Christmas! Not that it is very much, mind you. “3% of your wage” in the form of a bonus in the “December pay run”. Is this the “pay run of the milliner”?

It is interesting that the partners have chosen to carefully calibrate the bonus as a one-off payment, rather than a more permanent increase in our wages, annualised in each monthly pay.  This means that when the time comes for our annual (and much anticipated) salary review in June/July 2010, the raises, if any, will come from a lower base. Clever, Gandalf!

Yes, very clever indeed! Still, some money is better than no money, even if it is only 3%. Hat tip to Mallesons for showing some merriment as this increasingly festive time of year.

Apparently even necromancers celebrate Christmas!

Send the Firm Spy your news and views.

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

When the Mallesons pay freeze was introduced it was implemented on the basis that it would be reviewed in December against how the firm was tracking against budget. In recent centre by centre reports on a detailed employee survey (the Vibe) Mallesons undertakes every two years, presenters were at pains to point out that the firm was NOT tracking towards budget, with the hidden implication being that the pay freeze will continue. This is of course news to those lawyers in some sections who are exceeding their budget consistently and are being paid well below people in other firms who get to go home at 6 each night.

6pm?! Who leaves the office at that unreasonably early hour? Certainly not Mallesons lawyers. How else are partners able to boast revenue that is a whopping $58,000,000.00 higher than its nearest competitors, despite having apparently less employees?

In our most recent poll (see to the right), we asked precisely this question - inviting your views on how Mallesons manages this incredible revenue feat. You responded as follows:

Mallesons outperforms its competitors (by $58m!) despite having apparently less employees because:

a) Mallesons lawyers work harder, longer hours than at competitor law firms (95 votes);

b) Charge-out rates are higher than at competitor law firms (52 votes);

c) Chief Exceutive Partner Robert Milliner is a part-time warlock (116 votes)

So if lawyers are working hard, beating budget, leaving well after 6pm, and the Chief Executive Partner is actually gandalf the grey, shouldn’t more money just appear? Will lawyers, who have their pay frozen, watch as Mallesons partners earn more than their reported 2008/2009 wage of between $1,400,000.00 and $1,600,000.00?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

If you’re still doubting the imminent prospect of a Mallesons/Clifford Chance global merger, take one look at the Run of the Milliner.

Our favourite Chief Executive Partner, who a remarkable 58 of you think is a part-time warlock (see poll, to the right), featured in an article earlier today in The Australian about changes to lawyer remuneration in which the following was said:

Mr Milliner said the speed at which Australian firms abandoned “lock-step” salaries for all employed lawyers with the same years of service would be strongly influenced by international practice.

He said the use of lock-step salary setting had been declining at major British law firms before the global financial crisis and there was no reason why this trend should not continue once the global recovery became entrenched.

“Over time I think you will see movement (in Australia) away from lock-step towards greater degrees of performance-based salary-setting,” Mr Milliner said.

Hmmm… a remuneration change to please an international suitor, perhaps?

Since our article a couple of weeks ago in which we published a rumour suggesting a merger is set to take flight within weeks, the Firm Spy has been literally inundated with emails and tips from readers corroborating various parts of the anonymous quote we published. We have chosen not to publish these additional quotes because they add little value to what is already known. Of course we appreciate you sending them through.

The eurocentric, British slant informing Milliner’s comments above, however, must surely be the clearest sign yet that Mallesons Clifford Chance will set the legal world alight at some point in 2009.

Watch This Space.

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

You’ll recall the announcement on July 30 that Mallesons was calling on employees to volunteer for redundancies. That announcement was accompanied by a categorical statement from Chief Executive Warlock Partner Robert Milliner that “despite contradictory reports”, the market for legal services would “remain subdued” into the future.

Gandalf preparing to cut the staff

Those “contradictory reports” appear to have been the comments from an impertinent little hobbit going by the name of Glenn Stevens that the economy was getting better. Stevens also happens to be Governor of the RBA.

We subsequently received comments from an anonymous source that such was the incredible popularity of the voluntary redundancy scheme that the firm in fact had to reject many applications.

A sign that even the relevant employees could see an economic uptick and an easing job market, perhaps?

The AFR reported last Friday that the redundancy scheme affected “about 110 staff, or 5% of the workforce”. That estimate seems dubious, however, when considering the following anonymous comments we received from a Mallesons spy yesterday:

Dear Mr Firm Spy,

I’m one of the Mallies employees who took the VRP [voluntary redundancy package] and I thought that because I have enjoyed reading you so much over the last few months I would give you an insight into the state of affairs here in the Melbourne office.

….there has been much speculation about the number of employees who have taken the VRP but until today, everything has been kept completely confidential. Tomorrow everyone will be able to check the intranet to see who has left… Approximately 65 employees (over 10%) in the Melbourne office  took the VRP… many of my colleagues who … chose to stay on are now worried that there wont be enough people left to handle all the work coming in…

With all this rumoured work coming in, is this a case of cutting too deep, too late?

David Fagan, the chief executive partner at Clayton Utz, would certainly say yes. Fagan told the AFR last Friday:

Over the last few months we have seen a significant increase in activity across the firm and we are optimistic about the outlook heading into 2010.

At the same time, our favorite necromancer Mallesons spokesman Robert Milliner said:

Now is perhaps the least productive time as you wait for the market to improve and clients are more cost conscious.

Hmmm - Milliner the “bear” and Fagan the “bull” - surprising that the partners have such a divergence of opinion when senior equity partners at both Clayton Utz and Mallesons are reported to have taken home the same wage of between $1,400,000.00 and $1,600,000.00. Both firms also reported fantastic increases in overall revenue.

This begs the question, why would Mallesons chief executive soothsayer partner Milliner give such a comparatively pessimistic opinion on the state of the Australian legal market? John Weber CEP of Minter Ellison is ‘cautiously optimistic’ about the next financial year (AFR 18/09), while Freehills CEP Gavin Bell ‘said there were increasing signs of confidence in the market’ (AFR 18/09). But what of Mallesons’ Milliner? Is he trying to sell his voluntary redundancy scheme to the media?

Finding the answer to this cryptic puzzle is made easier by other comments quoted in the same AFR (18/09) article where Milliner says:

Law firms always lag the market into recession.

Always? Has Mr Milliner established a behavioural pattern out of the two or three recessions that the world has experienced in the last 100 years? Was the corporate duplex of Gandalf there on Black Tuesday in 1929 when The Great Depression kicked off? Was he was there in 1981 and 1990 too? Or, like his immortal middle-earthman brother Gandalf the Grey, has Gandalf the Corporate actually been deathless for thousands of years? If so, one imagines that Milliner would cultivate a formidable appreciation of economic patterns, and perhaps we shouldn’t doubt his bold assertions about recessional behavioural patterns.

But the similarities with Gandalf certainly do not stop at this incredible longevity.

On Gandalf’s wikipedia-page for example, a quote direct from J.R.R Tolkien describes our favourite wizard as:

the last to appear in middle-earth who … seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and grey-clad, and leaning on a staff”

Yes, even the great wizard leans on staff! And If the comments from the anonymous Mallesons spy above are true, the few of remaining staff will doubtless be leaned on increasingly by Gandalf the Corporate in the weeks and months ahead.

Shall we call those left behind The Fellowship of the Very Hard-Working?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!