2002 Legal Business assistant survey - wfw.com

2002 Legal Business assistant surveyI may survive…The 2002 Legal Business assistant surveyexposes evolution in some firms, stagnationin others. Here’s the lowdown: moredetails, more sophisticated analysis – andmore heartfelt criticism from the workersBY SIMON MARSHALLTHE RESULTS OF THE 2002 LEGALBusiness assistant survey generate somestartling news. For instance, judging bysome responses, the female fee-earner facesvirtual extinction at Clifford Chance. Thisdespite her being more committed to the firmand more loyal than her male counterparts.Female respondents wrote that their hoursare 50% more likely to be discounted, andthey feel that they get less interesting work.The ignominy, according to respondents atthe firm, is that female assistants at CliffordChance are prepared to work 125 hours ayear more than the men.What’s more, from the responsesreceived, a female assistant’s partnershipprospects are felt to be way down on hermale colleagues at Clifford Chance, onall her counterparts at Magic Circle firms,70 Legal Business November 2002Photography ADRIAN HOBBS

and indeed on the industry average toboot. One corporate lawyer at the firmstated simply: ‘There is no future forwomen in my department.’ Anotherclaimed: ‘Once I have children, I’ll need togo elsewhere to find partnership prospects.’Coupled with the low rankings recorded byClifford Chance (bottom place) in TheAmerican Lawyer’s associate survey lastmonth, there is clearly room for improvementat the firm.Other results are also startling, fordifferent reasons. Freshfields BruckhausDeringer’s assistants each bill ten 50-hourweeks more than Eversheds’ per year. IfEversheds matched Freshfields’ assistants’billable hours on its currenthourly rates, it would add£68.8m to the firm’s annualturnover – or £366,000 perequity partner – more thandoubling the firm’s profits perequity partner.These are just two examplesof the findings of this year’sLegal Business assistant survey,produced in association withLegalease Corporate Intelligence(for more details see the LCIbox out, ‘The survey in full’ onpage 81). The 1,300 responsesfrom assistants at 75 firms formthe basis of a powerful and timely focus onthe future decision-makers of the firm. Thesix key ranking criteria – training, feedback,interesting work, collegiality, partnershipprospects and compensation – are at theheart of good human resources management.If evolution doesn’t take place forsome of the lower scoring firms, revolutionmight be an unwanted – and mostunlawerly – alternative. It normally takesthe form of defection.The fittest‘Assistants are treated as individuals – youare awarded according to your performance,’says a respondent from Watson,If each Eversheds assistant matched each Freshfields assistant’sbillable hours on its current hourly rates, it would add £68.8mto the firm’s annual turnover.November 2002 Legal Business 71

2002 Legal Business assistant survey>Farley & Williams, this year’s top-rankedfirm for assistants (see our main table,‘Top 50 composite rankings’). Interestingly,none of the 1,300 responses that wereceived named Watson Farley as a placewhere assistants would not work. By acurious coincidence, there was no negativefeedback on this issue for this year’s secondrankedfirm, Simmons & Simmons. From acultural fit, then, these two firms missedone hell of a golden opportunity byfailing to merge, both being well aheadof their peers in terms of looking afterthe needs and lives of theirassistants and associates.Top of the treeA sign that Simmons has a levelof trust and respect for its assistantsabove many others wasthat it invited us to talk faceto-facewith some assistantsabout their working lives(without knowing how theirfirm had done in the rankings).Selina Sagayam, a PQE+6,highlighted the key things that make a lawfirm an appropriate workplace for her. Inparticular, she highlights the followingfeatures: ‘A respectful atmosphere, a trulyflat structure – evidenced, for example, bythe fact there is no preferential treatmentin room allocation, on the basis ofseniority.’ What’s more, she claims thatthe support staff are ‘encouraged andmotivated, and are made to feel part ofthe team’.That’s quite an agenda for modernmanaging and senior partners to live up to.THE 2002 LEGAL BUSINESS ASSISTANT SURVEY – TOP 50 COMPOSITE RANKINGS (1-30)We used the following questions from the surveyas the key markers for the composite rankings.They are the most representative selection of theaspects of assistants’ lives across the City andthe UK. Responding assistants gave a score ofbetween 1 and 10 in response to the statementsbelow, with 10 being in complete agreement and1 being in complete disagreement. The scoreswere totalled up, averages across each firm weremade, and the results of these were ranked fromthe 50 firms that gave the best response rates tothe survey.THE KEY CRITERIAQ1. When my work is commented on,criticism is always constructive and helpfulTop firms – Watson, Farley & Williams andField Fisher WaterhouseBottom firm – DechertQ2. The firm formally discusses with me on aregular basis any specific training or skillsneeds I may haveTop firm – Wragge & CoBottom firm – DechertQ3. My work is always interestingand rewardingTop firm – Ince & CoBottom firm – Fladgate FielderQ4. I regard the firm to be very collegiateTop firm – Norton RoseBottom firm – DechertQ5. My partnership prospects are excellentTop firm – Ince & CoBottom firm – DechertQ6. The firm adequately compensates me forthe pressure, stress, and loss of personal lifeTop firm – BristowsBottom firm – Halliwell Landau2002 composite rankFirm (with 2001 rankingwhere applicable)Q1. Feedback1st Watson, Farley & Williams 1st 13th 4th 3rd 2nd 2nd2nd Simmons & Simmons (6th) 7th 9th 5th 5th 5th 4th3rd Ince & Co (17th) 8th 13th 1st 12th 1st 2nd4th Cobbetts (9th) 6th 2nd 7th 13th 4th 11th5th Wragge & Co (1st) 3rd 1st 3rd 14th 8th 15th6th Charles Russell (48th) 15th 4th 11th 6th 10th 10th7th Norton Rose (18th) 16th 3rd 17th 1st 6th 23rd8th Field Fisher Waterhouse (45th) 1st 7th 9th 43rd 3rd 12th9th= Richards Butler (15th) 14th 28th 12th 4th 9th 16th9th= White & Case 9th 10th 17th 32nd 7th 8th11th Allen & Overy (4th) 25th 18th 14th 7th 18th 19th12th Bird & Bird (35th) 18th 27th 10th 9th 25th 13th13th Baker & McKenzie 21st 5th 23rd 24th 24th 9th14th Burges Salmon 22nd 16th 7th 17th 16th 37th15th Cripps Harries Hall 5th 8th 25th 19th 14th 46th16th DJ Freeman (14th) 20th 22nd 21st 10th 18th 28th17th Bristows 26th 25th 31st 15th 23rd 1st18th Macfarlanes (10th) 23rd 11th 24th 15th 31st 21st19th= Berwin Leighton Paisner (24th) 24th 24th 27th 27th 13th 14th19th= Shoosmiths 12th 6th 16th 29th 18th 48th21st Linklaters (19th) 37th 34th 13th 8th 27th 22nd22nd Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw (38th) 39th 36th 20th 28th 12th 17th23rd Walker Morris (30th) 35th 40th 2nd 2nd 43rd 33rd24th DLA (11th) 32nd 12th 34th 25th 22nd 34th25th Maclay Murray & Spens 45th 17th 15th 29th 11th 43rd26th Herbert Smith (27th) 28th 23rd 42nd 19th 30th 20th27th Eversheds (28th) 18th 20th 28th 31st 26th 40th28th Ashurst Morris Crisp (5th) 33rd 30th 44th 11th 42nd 5th29th McDermott, Will & Emery 45th 39th 46th 19th 15th 7th30th Lovells (23rd) 10th 31st 43rd 17th 33rd 38thQ2. Skills trainingQ3. Work interestQ4. CollegialityQ5. PartnershipprospectsQ6. Compensation72 Legal Business November 2002

2002 Legal Business assistant survey> UK. Assistants are miserable. The mainstream actively looking to move.’ Theproperty department died on the vine this assistant adds: ‘London partnersyear as a result of a false perception that only appear to have relinquished allfinance-related work can be profitable.’ power to the US. But despite allOne Dechert assistant names Dechert as this, there are still some greatthe US firm they would most like to work at lawyers here and it is not tooon the survey, before adding that this is just late to turn things around.a ‘private joke’. He goes on to insist that his Whether they do so is anotherfirm is ‘falling apart’ and that there is matter.’ Perceptions from the‘appalling morale within property’. He feels outside vary: a PQE+7 at DLAthat the firm had wasted its money on the and a PQE+3 in corporate atUS merger, and that it needed to spend Barlow Lyde & Gilbert bothmore money on ‘re-establishing itself in the named Dechert as their US firmmarket place’.of choice were they to move.He is not alone. ‘Two years post-merger This doesn’t tally with the perceptionsof those at the firmand we’re really starting to see the effects,’says a PQE+2 at the firm. ‘Morale is at an themselves who responded toall-time low; most people I know areour survey.Global issuesThe world’s largest law firm has had adouble whammy recently. Voted the worstlaw firm employer in the US by TheAmerican Lawyer (October 2002), CliffordChance comes no higher than 34th in anyof our rankings. One assistant sums it up asfollows: ‘I’m consistently amazed at how afirm can be so inefficient, wasteful andbureaucratic, and still be successful.’ Acounterpart at Freshfields weighs in withhis boot: ‘Clifford Chance – too big;Osborne Clarke – too stupid.’ CliffordChance’s lack of caring for its assistants –in our respondents’ opinion – may yethamper its progress. After all, in order toresume business as usual when the firmemigrates to Canary Wharf, any particularlyYEAR-ON-YEAR ANALYSIS2002 Firm 2001 Move High point Low pointcompositerankrank1st Watson, Farley & Williams N/A ◆ NEW Appraisal process Work/life balance could be improved. Failed merger talksperceived as ‘a waste of time’2nd Simmons & Simmons 6 ▲ 4 Remuneration and collegiality Business development training3rd Ince & Co 17 ▲ 14 Partnership prospects No formal consultation process on policy4th Cobbetts 9 ▲ 5 Training No 360-degree appraisal process5th Wragge & Co 1 ▼ 4 Training Inappropriate harassment policies6th Charles Russell 48 ▲ 42 Training and consultation Inappropriate harassment policies7th Norton Rose 18 ▲ 11 Collegiality Billable hour targets interfere with fee-earners doing a good jobfor their clients8th Field Fisher Waterhouse 45 ▲ 37 Lack of glass ceilings and feedback Firm lacks clear mission statement9th= Richards Butler 15 ▲ 6 Technical training Consistency of treatment across the firm9th= White & Case N/A ◆ NEW Culture of fairness Client handling training11th Allen & Overy 4 ▼ 7 Remuneration transparency No 360-degree appraisal process12th Bird & Bird 35 ▲ 23 Approval of firm’s strategy Approach to working mothers, no 360-degree appraisal process13th Baker & McKenzie N/A ◆ NEW Training Lack of transparency in terms of bonuses and promotion14th Burges Salmon N/A ◆ NEW Client contact Glass ceilings15th Cripps Harries Hall N/A ◆ NEW Training Too much responsibility too soon, pensions and benefits notexactly ‘first class’16th DJ Freeman 14 ▼ 2 Approach to working mother Client handling, training17th Bristows N/A ◆ NEW Remuneration and lack of stress Lack of formal consultation on policy, marketing18th Macfarlanes 10 ▼ 8 Approval of firm’s strategy Working mothers policy and bullying/harassment policies19th= Berwin Leighton Paisner N/A ◆ NEW Pensions and benefits package Secretarial support19th= Shoosmiths 24 ▲ 5 Appraisals Remuneration21st Linklaters 19 ▼ 2 Glass ceilings Work/life balance22nd Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw 38 ▲ 16 Partnership prospects Lack of formal consultation on policy, pensions andbenefits package23rd Walker Morris 30 ▲ 7 Training and harassment policies Press profile, marketing, firm takes itself too seriously24th DLA 11 ▼ 13 Strategy briefing Billable hour targets interfere with fee-earners doing a good jobfor their clients25th Maclay Murray & Spens N/A ◆ NEW Technical training Firm takes itself too seriously76 Legal Business November 2002

2002 Legal Business assistant surveyTHE RESPONDENTS AND THE DESPONDENTFirms in and outAside from the firms that appear in ourrankings, we offered the opportunity foreveryone involved in the LB100 to takepart, and a selection of the leading US firmsin London. Response rates from thefollowing firms were too low to merit fullstatistical analysis in our survey. While wemention the occasional constructivecomment from some of their assistants inthe text, the firms do not feature in our top50 rankings. These comprise: Altheimer &Gray; Bevan Ashford; Clarke Willmott &Clarke; Denton Wilde Sapte; DickinsonDees; Farrer & Co; Gouldens; Harbottle &Lewis; Holman Fenwick & Willan; Jones,Day, Reavis & Pogue; Latham & Watkins;Martineau Johnson; Nabarro Nathanson;Russell Jones & Walker; Skadden, Arps,Slate, Meagher & Flom; Sullivan &Cromwell; and Weil, Gotshal & Manges.How not to do itHowever, we had to remove Pannone &Partners from the survey, for the secondyear running. Two callers from the firmalleged that Pannones’ marketing departmentinsisted it review the responses beforethey were returned to Legal Business, andthat any negative responses would result ina ‘witch-hunt’.Pannone & Partners’ response was lessemotive. ‘Our marketing department merelycollated the responses to ensure that ourrates of response tied in with those of yoursurvey and people were told the repliescould be sent in sealed envelopes,’ aspokesperson said. ‘It is interesting to notethat in last year’s assistant survey, two ofour lawyers also rang Legal Business – it’sprobably the same two and they’re stillworking for us.’ Well that’s all right then.2002 Firm 2001 Move High point Low pointcompositerankrank26th Herbert Smith 27 ▲ 1 Formal policy consultation process Lack of client contact27th Eversheds 28 ▲ 1 Appraisal process Technical legal training28th Ashurst Morris Crisp 5 ▼ 23 Remuneration Work is boring29th McDermott, Will & Emery N/A ◆ NEW Not overburdened with responsibility Billable hour targets interfere with fee-earners doing a good jobfor their clients30th Lovells 23 ▼ 7 Client handling training Work is not intellectually demanding31st Beachcroft Wansbroughs 50 ▲ 19 Strategy briefing Firm fails to deliver fully on training32nd Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 31 ▼ 1 Pensions and benefits package Harassment policies are not appropriate or up to date33rd Barlow Lyde & Gilbert 25 ▼ 8 Market perception not peaked, formal Approach to working mothersconsultation process34th Fladgate Fielder N/A ◆ NEW Harassment procedure Boring work35th Reynolds Porter Chamberlain 43 ▲ 8 Training Lack of transparency in terms of bonuses and promotion36th Trowers & Hamlins 41 ▲ 5 Training Firm has peaked in market position37th Taylor Wessing N/A ◆ NEW Remuneration Glass ceilings, harassment policies inappropriate38th Addleshaw Booth & Co 26 ▼ 12 Firm’s clear mission statement Staff feel like part of a faceless corporation39th Hammond Suddards Edge 34 ▼ 5 Training Billable hours, faceless corporation40th Mills & Reeve N/A ◆ NEW Training Partnership prospects41st Stephenson Harwood 46 ▼ 5 Training Lack of collegiality42nd Shearman & Sterling N/A ◆ NEW Not overburdened with responsibility Firm’s attitude to training; pensions and benefits package43rd Lawrence Graham 47 ▼ 4 Training No briefing on firm’s strategy44th Clifford Chance N/A ◆ NEW Pensions and benefits package Enjoyment of job45th Manches 39 ▼ 6 Harassment policies Appraisal process, consistency from partner to partner, work isnot intellectually challenging46th Halliwell Landau 44 ▼ 2 Glass ceilings Training, client contact, colleagues given responsibility47th= Masons 49 ▲ 2 Training and harassment policies Work is boring and unrewarding, firm’s position in marketplace47th= Speechly Bircham N/A ◆ NEW Don’t feel like part of a Training, training, trainingfaceless corporation49th Slaughter and May 37 ▼ 12 Training and billing procedures Staff don’t enjoy their jobs50th Dechert 42 ▼ 8 Firm hasn’t extinguished assistants’ Management lacks partner and assistant support and isn’tdesire to get it rightdoing a good job. Staff lack commitment to the firmNovember 2002 Legal Business 77

2002 Legal Business assistant survey>overworked or unhappy assistantsmay not feel quite soamenable about catching theDLR from Bank tube station.Slaughter and May receivedthe third-worst ranking, whenits assistants were asked if it hadpeaked in terms of position inthe market place. Hardly aringing endorsement for theFTSE 100 favourite.One PQE+2 at Slaughterand May believes his firm hasan ‘archaic and unacceptablelack of transparency that willhinder the attraction forjunior assistants, despite goodtraining and reputation’. Oneex-Slaughters fee-earner, nowat another City firm, got intouch with Legal Business torant: ‘I spent three yearsworking there. They are brutalbullies who sneer at and lookdown on people from otherfirms. The treatment that Ireceived at Slaughters was worsethan the treatment that Ireceived at any of the otherthree firms at which I worked.’He says of the partnership:‘They are extraordinarilyarrogant. Certainly in bankingand finance, clients receivebetter quality advice from theother Magic Circle firms andeven medium-sized firms, atconsiderably less cost.’ Youcan see that he wasn’t on thepartnership track.Masons is another firm thathasn’t fared so well. The firmcame joint 47th, only twoplaces higher than last year’s49th. The only score that wascomparatively respectablecame with the issue of remuneration,(where it came 25th)which was the firm’s high pointin the eyes of its respondingassistants.One five-year qualifiednoted that 47th-placedSpeechly Bircham is ‘not ahappy place to work at themoment, which is a shame asthere are a lot of very niceTHE MOST INSULTED FIRMS IN THE UK2002 is the year in which assistants are beginning to fear for their positions, rather than fighting for even biggerpay increases. Talk now is of the worst of the worst firms at which to work, in the current situation. Here is theresult of the votes cast in the survey about where least an assistant would like to work.In the comments section, you can read some of the candid comments made by assistants when asked to justifytheir choice. These, one must conclude, are made with varying levels of insight. There’s some healthy professionalpoints scoring going on, although it’s more about prejudice than fact. Try beating this for bitchiness.I would not work there… Assistants vote for the firm at which they’d least like to workFirmVotes The tempestuous allegations from un-named rival assistants, andthe names of the firms where they’re now basedSlaughter and May 169 Pompous weirdos – Shearman & SterlingIts 2002, not 1970 – LovellsClifford Chance 146 Faceless, factory work – Hammond Suddards EdgeArrogance not matched by ability – Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 67 Poor reputation for management of associates and partnership promotion– McDermott, Will & EmeryLinklaters 55 Dismissal policy indicates a culture I do not agree with – Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerTheir position regarding women partners is untenable and most seniorpartners are too full of their own importance – Ashurst Morris CrispDLA 36 The poor quality of work churned out by this firm is astounding – Ashurst Morris CrispAggressive image – Bird & Bird, among othersAllen & Overy 30 I don’t like what I have heard about its culture – DechertHammond Suddards Edge 28 They are a clone of DLA – DLAI am told it is not the happiest of places – EvershedsHerbert Smith 27 Arseholes! – Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerSJ Berwin 24 Too pressurised, too cut throat, uncaring, tough, aggressive, bad toemployees – Clifford ChanceUnpleasant attitude of partners, and lack of respect for assistants –Simmons & SimmonsAddleshaw Booth & Co 18 Heard very bad reports from ex-staff about how assistants are treated – CobbettsEversheds 18 Badly managed, no clear strategy – DLAToo many unfavourable rumours for there not to be any truth in them – ShoosmithsSimmons & Simmons 14 Going nowhere – LovellsSecond-rate – LinklatersHalliwell Landau 12 Reputation for being high-volume/low-quality work and not good to employees –Hammond Suddards EdgeOlswang 12 Overrated firm that over-expanded and is now struggling – White & CaseAntithesis of style – Bird & BirdIrwin Mitchell 10 Zero respect/cowboy firm – Nabarro NathansonIt is a firm where advancement is based on nepotism rather than merit –Beachcroft Wansbroughs78 Legal Business November 2002

2002 Legal Business assistant survey>people here’. Another lawyer at the firmstates simply: ‘Everyone is too busy toengage in proper training.’Money’s clearly not everything.Shearman & Sterling came 44th whenranked on the scores resultingfrom the statement: ‘My firmsufficiently compensates me forthe pressure, stress and loss ofpersonal life.’ Not great whenyou consider that it pays betterthan Magic Circle firms.US v UK – moremyths dispelledAnother Shearman & Sterlingassistant notes that: ‘Shearmansis a good firm. However, it is notwholly integrated or sufficiently focused onpersonnel management.’ Not everyone atthe firm agrees with this summary. BeatrizMeldrum, a PQE+4 prepared to go on record,is one of them. ‘Firms always have issuesFemale assistants at Clifford Chance are preparedto work 125 hours a year more than the men.ASSISTANT SURVEY V LB100 COMPOSITE RESULTSCan rich, well-run law firms also havehappy assistants? Here, we pit the best-performingfirms in the eyes of the assistants,against the best performing firms judged byThe Legal Business 100 composite rankings.We also include the average profits per equitypartner, which exposes the issue as to whetherthe most profitable firms run businesses withfulfilled staff as well. In Slaughter and May’scase – 2nd in the LB100 and 49th in theassistant survey – the answer on these resultsis ‘no’.Asst Firm LB100 PEP*surveycomprankrank1st Watson, Farley & Williams 9th £348,0002nd Simmons & Simmons 20th £376,0003rd Ince & Co 42nd £259,0004th Cobbetts 67th £206,0005th Wragge &Co 31st £245,0006th Charles Russell 38th £260,0007th Norton Rose 18th £460,0008th Field Fisher Waterhouse 33rd £315,0009th= Richards Butler 25th £525,0009th= White & Case N/A £599,32111th Allen & Overy 11th £699,00012th Bird & Bird 64th £360,00013th Baker & McKenzie 10th £425,00014th Burges Salmon 44th £279,00015th Cripps Harries Hall 69th £164,00016th DJ Freeman 71st £214,00017th Bristows 43rd £239,00018th Macfarlanes 6th £740,00019th= Berwin Leighton Paisner 61st £260,00019th= Shoosmiths 75th £192,00021st Linklaters 12th £670,00022nd Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw N/A £481,53523rd Walker Morris 27th £446,00024th DLA 35th £452,00025th Maclay Murray & Spens 41st £222,000Asst Firm LB100 PEP*surveycomprankrank26th Herbert Smith 15th £740,00027th Eversheds 49th £287,00028th Ashurst Morris Crisp 7th £606,00029th McDermott, Will & Emery N/A £640,89230th Lovells 5th £511,00031st Beachcroft Wansbroughs 58th £195,00032nd Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 1st £715,00033rd Barlow Lyde & Gilbert 3rd £360,00034th Fladgate Fielder 36th £372,00035th Reynolds Porter Chamberlain 19th £227,00036th Trowers & Hamlins 76th £210,00037th Taylor Wessing 22nd £415,00038th Addleshaw Booth & Co 38th £275,00039th Hammond Suddards Edge 60th £275,00040th Mills & Reeve 73rd £169,00041st Stephenson Harwood 83rd £210,00042nd Shearman & Sterling N/A £658,21443rd Lawrence Graham 23rd £363,00044th Clifford Chance 4th £714,00045th Manches 85th £173,00046th Halliwell Landau 63rd £364,00047th= Masons 78th £278,00047th= Speechly Bircham 24th £310,00049th Slaughter and May 2nd £984,00050th Dechert N/A £530,035Watson, Farley & Williams is the only firm tomake it into the top ten of both surveys – 1sthere and 9th in our composite ranking for thisyear’s Legal Business 100 composite ranking,published in our September issue.For the majority of firms, the rankings in ourassistant survey vary significantly with the positioningin The Legal Business 100, whichfocuses on financial performance and partnerprofits. However, one constant is that, as a firm’sPEP grows, the assistants’ average perception ofthe firm falls.* US firms’ PEP figures are from the most recentAmLaw 10080 Legal Business November 2002

2002 Legal Business assistant surveywith managing personalities, but no moreTHE SURVEY IN FULL –here than at any other firm,’ she insists. ‘I’mMORE RESULTS, MORE STATS, MORE ANALYSIShappy here – that’s why I’ve stayed forthree-and-a-half years.’Previously an assistant at Ashurst MorrisCrisp, Meldrum believes that there are manypositives to working at a US firm. ‘You workmore closely with partners than you wouldin a bigger firm because of the lack of peopleon the deal,’ she explains. ‘You get moreexposure and learn quicker, and yet youhave the back-up of a partner if you need it.’Meldrum believes that the firm has away to go in a few areas, notably trainingand marketing. ‘In New York, practitionerswork on their own precedents,’ sheexplains, ‘whereas the UK culture is tohave know-how people. We’re headingthat way. We also need more marketingstaff, and we need partners to marketdirectly to institutional clients.’What the full LCI report providesLegalease Corporate Intelligence is a newventure from the publishers of Legal Businessand The Legal 500. Building on Legalease’s15 years’ experience of analysing the legalmarket, LCI publishes in-depth researchreports offering uniquely detailed levels ofinsight into the management, strategiesand infrastructure of the world’s leadinglegal services providers. You can purchasethe complete comprehensive comparativeKate Currie, a PQE+1 whojoined Shearmans from SJBerwin, explains that it’s allabout trust. ‘It’s a differentanalysis of the 2002 assistant survey –through LCI.From extensive commentary on currentmarket conditions to authoritative best-practiceanalysis, LCI reports are establishing themselvesas vital business development tools for adynamic, sophisticated and above all highlycompetitive market place. For more details, anda copy of the 85-question survey itself, contactSimon Marshall direct on 020 7396 5688 or bye-mail: simon.marshall@legalease.co.uk.environment – less hierarchical than I wasused to,’ she says. ‘I get more responsibility,which is good, as I like to be able to runwith something. So far, I’ve never been >

2002 Legal Business assistant surveyTHE EFFICIENCY STAKES: HOURS WORKED AND HOURS BILLEDThe figures here are averages compiled from allthe respondents at each firm in our top-50 list.They reveal the true disparities going onamongst the most high-profile firms in the UK.Look at what the figures reveal: Freshfieldsassistants each bill ten 50-hour weeks more thanEversheds assistants, per year. Also, as we pointedout at the start, if each Eversheds assistantmatched each Freshfields assistant’s billable hourson its current hourly rates, it would add £68.8m tothe firm’s annual turnover – or £366,000 perequity partner – more than doubling the firm’sprofits per equity partner. There’s something fornew managing partner David Gray to consider.Alternatively, if Eversheds was as efficientat turning hours worked into hours billed as,say, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (whichbills roughly the same amount of hours), itsfee-earners could, on average, work five 50-hour weeks less a year for the same overallreturn. In other words, double annual leavefor every fee-earner.Here’s the complete set of figures, in orderof most efficient billers:Firm Hours Hours %worked billed billedSlaughter and May 2,050 1,950 95%Manches 1,467 1,267 86%Clifford Chance 2,102 1,804 86%Ince & Co 1,813 1,550 86%White & Case 2,282 1,920 84%Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 2,319 1,935 83%Shearman & Sterling 2,283 1,900 83%Lovells 2,025 1,678 83%Macfarlanes 2,096 1,734 83%Ashurst Morris Crisp 1,967 1,617 82%McDermott, Will & Emery 2,142 1,758 82%Linklaters 2,246 1,838 82%Herbert Smith 1,966 1,606 82%Reynolds Porter Chamberlain 1,831 1,490 81%Watson, Farley & Williams 1,863 1,503 81%Simmons & Simmons 1,976 1,593 81%Richards Butler 1,845 1,483 80%Allen & Overy 2,308 1,851 80%Barlow Lyde & Gilbert 1,869 1,496 80%Addleshaw Booth & Co 2,088 1,671 80%Dechert 1,937 1,537 79%Field Fisher Waterhouse 1,785 1,412 79%DJ Freeman 1,735 1,365 79%Hammond Suddards Edge 1,835 1,434 78%Baker & McKenzie 2,107 1,627 77%Firm Hours Hours %worked billed billedWragge & Co 1,804 1,391 77%Burges Salmon 1,844 1,407 76%Beachcroft Wansbroughs 1,865 1,413 76%Berwin Leighton Paisner 1,890 1,431 76%Bird & Bird 2,017 1,514 75%Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw 2,019 1,508 75%Halliwell Landau 1,935 1,425 74%DLA 2,117 1,559 74%Norton Rose 2,144 1,578 74%Speechly Bircham 2,161 1,590 74%Taylor Wessing 1,823 1,317 72%Trowers & Hamlins 2,020 1,458 72%Maclay Murray & Spens 1,911 1,375 72%Lawrence Graham 2,158 1,549 72%Masons 2,079 1,482 71%Bristows 1,827 1,300 71%Eversheds 2,087 1,470 70%Stephenson Harwood 1,999 1,352 68%Mills & Reeve 2,088 1,410 68%Cobbetts 1,845 1,239 67%Charles Russell 2,046 1,367 67%Shoosmiths 1,908 1,220 64%Cripps Harries Hall 1,810 1,150 64%Fladgate Fielder 2,365 1,450 61%Walker Morris 2,610 1,500 58%>asked to take on too much.’ In particular,assistants at US firms mention in the surveythat the long-hours culture that peopleassociate with New York, is not fully replicatedover here. ‘People say that we’reslaves,’ Meldrum believes. ‘Yes, we worklong hours when there are deals, but we’reno worse than the English firms.’Reasons given for joining a US firmnormally centre on the proportionatelyhigher remuneration rates. But antitrustlawyer Currie has her own reasons. ‘Iwanted more exposure to merger work,’she explains. ‘I also joined becauseChris (Bright) came here and I wanted tobe part of a start-up practice. What’s more,I liked the idea of a secondment,which is written into ourcontracts and is an automaticright after two years withthe firm.’Meldrum wanted to ‘dointernational work in a moreinternational environment. Iliked the environment atAshursts, but it’s not internationalenough, and it was avery difficult offer to turndown. Shearmans is simply abetter firm.’Better, but by no means best.After all, despite the glowingcomments from the assistants who went onthe record, it still only comes 42nd in thecomposite rankings.Missing linksFirms in the middle of our table are gettingsome things right, and missing the point onothers. This middle ground is inhabited bythe national firms, some Magic Circle firms,along with regional firms and boutiques,and includes Lovells, Beachcroft Wansbroughs,Freshfields, DLA and Linklaters.There is no prevalent theme that explainswhy these firms have not further evolved intheir treatment of assistants, but some havegiven it a good try.82 Legal Business November 2002

2002 Legal Business assistant surveyWHO WANTS TO MERGE?‘I’m in favour of merger.’ Here are the firmswith the top ten ranking highest scores inresponse to this statement.‘I’m not in favour of merger.’ Here are thelowest ranking ten firms.1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th10thTaylor Wessing (survey conducted just beforethe Wessing merger)Watson, Farley & Williams (surveyconducted just before the Simmons non-merger)Addleshaw Booth & CoAshurst Morris CrispFreshfields Bruckhaus DeringerBerwin Leighton PaisnerCobbettsStephenson HarwoodLovellsDLA41st42nd43rd44th45th46th47th48th49th50thMcDermott, Will & EmeryTrowers & HamlinsMasonsCripps Harries HallInce & CoBurges SalmonMacfarlanesBaker & McKenzieSlaughter and MayShearman & SterlingShearman & Sterling is the lowest ranking firm of the 50 – assistants at the firm gave an average scoreof only 1.2 – only marginally above the absolute minimum of 1. If the assistants have any say in thematter, it’s bad luck, English firms.>At last year’s bottom dweller, BeachcroftWansbroughs, more than one assistant feelsthere’s a way to go. ‘Assistants are beingmade redundant whilst fat cat partnersTHE 15 MOST ADMIRED FIRMSFirm Votes – 1,017votes in totalAllen & Overy 147Clifford Chance 130Linklaters 81Slaughter and May 79Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 74DLA 48Wragge & Co 46Herbert Smith 36Ashurst Morris Crisp 29Addleshaw Booth & Co 23Lovells 23Macfarlanes 23Olswang 23Osborne Clarke 23Eversheds 20There were just six firms from our top 50 that received novotes at all from assistants who were asked: ‘Which law firmdo you most admire?’ They are: Cripps Harries Hall; Dechert;Halliwell Landau; Speechly Bircham; Stephenson Harwood;and Trowers & Hamlins.billing nothing rake in thecash,’ he says. ‘There has got tobe a better way of doing thislaw firm stuff.’ A seniorproperty assistant sadly notes:‘I work with pleasant people ina relaxed friendly atmosphere,but the firm lacks drive, visionand focus, and ultimately I feelwill go nowhere.’Over at Freshfields, thingsaren’t so dissimilar to CliffordChance when it comes to perceptionsof gender-bias fromamong the responding assistants.Female assistants atFreshfields are, on average,more loyal to their firm thantheir male counterparts,although often they receivefeedback ‘entirely randomly’.The female respondents believethey work longer hours, areless consulted on policydecisions despite wanting tobe more involved than the men,get invited to less marketingevents, and have their billsdiscounted twice as often astheir male counterparts. Whatbrings the sexes together atFreshfields is their sheercapacity to get the work done: the firmheld the top five spots for billers – £5mbetween them last year, from four PQE+6s,and one PQE+5.Standing tallBelieve it or not, assistants and associatescare about more than just money andstatus. In fact, if they don’t, then you’veprobably got the wrong kind of assistantworking for you. The level of trust andinclusivity at firms like Simmons may meanthat people don’t get access to the ‘work allhours’ deals that Magic Circle firms get.However, it might also mean that the firmhas a sound cultural base to build on whenthe work/life balance that has been muchtouted becomes the number one differentiatorbetween firms. It’s really a matter ofthose firms that are further down the dealchain, but with healthier cultures, sellingthemselves to aspiring assistants. Get thosedeals on the front pages of the FT a bitmore often and let the market know that,yes, you can work hard when you need tobut, yes, you respect that people have lives,and you will have achieved the ultimatetarget. Your firm will stand the tallestamong the competition in the eyes of assistants,which, in this market, is sayingsomething indeed. LBsimon.marshall@legalease.co.uk84 Legal Business November 2002