who cares... layoffs are for losers. more BONUS news!!!

nice article lat. Good insight from the interviews.

good article

Any news from the structured finance folks at McKee?

Cadwalader is a shitty firm and everyone in New York knows it.

I don't think Lat's all that great a writer. Interesting quotes from the interview, tho.

good article -- altho i didn't get the cam diaz reference at the end???

Cameron Diaz was at Cadwalader's (or some other firm's) office a few months ago. I think she was shooting a scene for a movie.

I hope more associates leave CWT voluntarily so it really hurts CWT. The bottom line isn't just about numbers. You start treating people like shit, and your organization becomes a toilet. CWT certainly appears to be a toilet now. Who's gonna finally flush it?

11:21

Comments like that are just silly. Leave CWT to go where? In this market?

Now that the heavy structured finance firms (i.e. those without broadly diversified transactional practices, not to mention litigation) have trimmed some fat, there shouldn't be ANY more lay-offs. Continued speculation and gossip about lay-offs, however, might just give greedy and shortsighted partners at marginal firms the impression that they too could "get away with" some layoffs as the economic situation worsens (so that their average PPP's don't dip $50-100k for 2008 because their associates bill a mere 1800 on average rather than 2100 this year).

The sky is not falling; get back to work.

11:28 = partner

ARE THE SIMPSON THACHER LAYOFF RUMORS TRUE OR NOT?? CAN WE GET SOMETHING, ANYTHING? A CONFIRMATION/DENIAL/SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN?

11:21 .... While I would never argue that it a good thing to fire people, you would be wise to remember that law firms are not charities. To the extent CWT or other firm with a big structured finance department held on to people indefinitely when they had absolutely nothing to do and were billing nearly zero hours a month, it would endanger even more jobs.

How does severence work? Says it's paid every two weeks for three months. Ok - but does the pay only go until you get a new job? Is there a potential for getting double-paid? And if so, how can I get severed?

world's smallest violin

The most important thing to do is remember what firms screw their associates when things get bad and hurt them when it comes to recruiting. We don't have a union but ATL could be close. Hell, if people without skills like autoworkers can have a union why not us?

Down with layoffs! Down with CWT!

Associates of the world unite! Power to the proletariat!

Cadwalader's a good firm. People who talk shit about it are just idiots. Everyone has to take a hit in this economy.

11:36, indeed biglaw firms aren't charities, but CWT isn't the only game in town. I think that's the essence of what's being said here.

Short sightedness, much like we're seeing with the market now (especially in Europe and Asia) errs on the side of what emotionally and economically feels good NOW, long-term implications be damned. But lawyers and law students have long memories.

If CWT's "brand" becomes synonymous with downtime layoffs -- Much like Nixon Peabody's brand ealier became synonymous with a cheesy song about winning, the long-term repercussions could be devastating, far outpacing what the partners save now by laying off 35 entry and mid levels.

11:36, indeed biglaw firms aren't charities, but CWT isn't the only game in town. I think that's the essence of what's being said here.

Short sightedness, much like we're seeing with the market now (especially in Europe and Asia) errs on the side of what emotionally and economically feels good NOW, long-term implications be damned. But lawyers and law students have long memories.

If CWT's "brand" becomes synonymous with downtime layoffs -- Much like Nixon Peabody's brand ealier became synonymous with a cheesy song about winning, the long-term repercussions could be devastating, far outpacing what the partners save now by laying off 35 entry and mid levels.

Why hasn't ATL reported on Sidley Austin's slashing?

11:36, indeed biglaw firms aren't charities, but CWT isn't the only game in town. I think that's the essence of what's being said here.

Short sightedness, much like we're seeing with the market now (especially in Europe and Asia) errs on the side of what emotionally and economically feels good NOW, long-term implications be damned. But lawyers and law students have long memories.

If CWT's "brand" becomes synonymous with downtime layoffs -- Much like Nixon Peabody's brand ealier became synonymous with a cheesy song about winning, the long-term repercussions could be devastating, far outpacing what the partners save now by laying off 35 entry and mid levels.

Really, 11:51? Even the CWT partners? Doesn't look like it.

I think the shittiest part is not letting the laid-off associates pretend like they still work there. CWT is paying them anyway, so why make it more difficult for them to find a new job?

11:28 = 11:51?

No reporting on Sidley Austin??

11:36, indeed biglaw firms aren't charities, but CWT isn't the only game in town. I think that's the essence of what's being said here.

Short sightedness, much like we're seeing with the market now (especially in Europe and Asia) errs on the side of what emotionally and economically feels good NOW, long-term implications be damned. But lawyers and law students have long memories.

If CWT's "brand" becomes synonymous with downtime layoffs -- Much like Nixon Peabody's brand ealier became synonymous with a cheesy song about winning, the long-term repercussions could be devastating, far outpacing what the partners save now by laying off 35 entry and mid levels.

Coincidentally, CWT bonus letters come out today.

Really, 11:51? Even the CWT partners? Doesn't look like it.

Hey, 11:56, 11:57(1), 11:57(3), and 11:58(5)... Are biglaw firms charities? How's that 'post' button working out for you? Feeling a little impatient today?

CWT partners deserve not to take a hit now. They worked their asses off to get there.

Please Please stop referring to yourself in the plural!!!!

11:57/58: What Sidley "slashing"?

LOL @ 12:03

When will commenters learn to use this site?

Wonkette today referred to the The New York Observer as "a lovely 'other option' for New Yorkers.

I guess they don't like the paper so much.

Correction, 11:51: associate underlings worked their asses off to get the CWT partners there; for the most part, those partners just lateralled in.

12:10: Yes, partners are lateralled in from other firms where they worked hard for many years. It makes complete sense to lay off people for whom a firm has no work. Why let them add friction to the flow of business? Associates are not so cemented in their career paths that they won't be able to find good work elsewhere. Cadwalader is a good law firm, but more importantly, they're a smart company.

Repeat: What "slashing" at Sidley?

I haven't heard of a single layoff at Sidley (and have been told there weren't any in the early 90's or dot-com downturns either). Lat, you should get official confirmation at do a post, lest the rumor mongers on here destory what's left of ATL's utility for quality insider info.

"The firm is a new player on the scene, in terms of prestige and partner profits, and nobody likes the nouveau riche mentality."

Awesome quote. Very accurate.

Why do people always come here and type "What about Sidley's slashing?" or "how about that secret meeting at Sidley tomorrow?" and, yet, there are never any actual stories about Sidley on here. I agree with 12:30 -- maybe someone at ATL should contact Sidley and find out why they are constantly being attacked in these threads but with nothing supportive following.

Hey, 11:56, 11:57(1), 11:57(3), and 11:58(5)... Are biglaw firms charities? How's that 'post' button working out for you? Feeling a little impatient today?

@ 1:02 - I get the irony. Ha. If only I had actually posted twice...

Sidley did slash some people. The alleged reasons, actual reasons, number of people, severance, bonus, etc. are all unclear, so I won't say any more. But Lat, I would recommend looking into it.

@ 1:02 - I get the irony. Ha. If only I had actually posted twice...

I call b.s. on the Sidley "slashing" rumor. Lat, as you did with the Kirkland layoff rumor, please resolve (i.e. demonstrate that associate departures were due to bad reviews, etc. - not economic layoffs).

Hey 1:02 pretending to be 12:03. Your imitation double-post came over an hour after the original. You are obviously just some douche.

1:22 = partner or Sidley's version of Dwight Schrute

I work at Sidley and have not heard of any slashing. It's not their style - they would probably rely more on attrition - which is high everywhere. But I could be wrong - if anyone has details, share them.

Hey there, 1:16:
Where did Sidley slash people? Which office? Which office are you in?

1:45 - Some associates (10-15) have been let go from Sidley's Chicago office. One buddy of mine was let go because his work was "poor" (hint, hint and he just happened to work in an area that has slowed down). Since everything was so hush-hush, word hasn't gotten out much. Lat we need a post on this...

There was no "slashing" at Sidley. We just finished our firm-wide semi-annual reviews. Some lawyers didn't receive bonuses and some were asked to leave. To my knowledge, those lawyers weren't concentrated in any particular departments. I'm not aware of any more than a handful or so of lawyers that were asked to leave. Stop calling that "slashing". For an office of over 400 lawyers, that is completely inappropriate. If you think it isn't inappropriate, then you need to provide detail for the "slashing" that you claim has occurred, such as the number of lawyers in each department that were asked to leave.

Not that big a deal if it's just a couple of firms. Any insider predictions about more widespread impact - firms passing over most associates for partner, not giving offers to the still huge summer classes, more firms letting go of their senior (or even junior) ranks but not calling it layoffs (OMM?).

I tend to agree with Sidley lawyer at 1:55. There's a big difference between saying "There may be something going on" (hint, hint) and saying "there was a slashing".

If there was, then you should be willing to put down some numbers, departments, reasons, and severance information. If not, then maybe you should stop spreading rumors.

My prior post (1:55) related to NY since we have been the subject of a lot of discussion on ATL. I am less familiar with Chicago but I do note that Sidley Chicago has over 500 lawyers in the office. Please provide numbers and departments for the 10-15 who have been let go.

I do transactional work at Sidley Chicago and haven't heard of a single person being let go.

1:55 = Sidley partner.

The fact that associates are being let go right now, if true, could hardly be dismissed as coincidental, and it's also drifting through the grapevine that reviews were skewed downward from previous years to prepare for more "performance" based dismissals. The firm was also very quiet about firings after the dot bomb, so this should not be that surprising, but people considering working here need to know.

This place used to pride itself on having a more genteel and friendly practice than the big NY firms, and on taking care of its people. Now it's become just another PPP mad sweatshop, only without the bonuses to make up for it.

Recruits will not be blind to this indefinitely.

2:10 :
What type of transactional work? Are you an associate or a partner?

Why don't you get back to work?

Should 2L summers be worried about no-offers?

So what is a review that would set one up for a later dismissal? All ratings of "average"? How about a mix of "average" and "above average"? Should one expect to have all "above average" ratings in order to feel secure?

2:16:

No. Only if you really mess up.

What was the impact of the buyout offer from McKee? Is the SF department still overstaffed?

"2:10 :
What type of transactional work? Are you an associate or a partner?

Why don't you get back to work?"

Why so angry at me for reporting what I (haven't) heard? Associate.

"He’s getting three months of severance, paid out every two weeks, just as when he was employed. But he’s no longer able to tell prospective employers he’s still at the firm, which he predicts will make his job search harder."

That's very harsh - Cadwalader deliberately made this way harder on the associates being let go than they had to. They could just as easily have told those people to start looking and that come time X, barring a change in circumstances, they would probably be let go. Law students take heed - CWT will not go one millimeter out of its way to make things easier on you in a downturn, even if doing so would cost it nothing. After reading this, I can't imagine why anyone would go there...

2:10:

Yeah. That was just a joke. I guess I'm sorry -- I didn't know you'd take it so seriously.

Hope the rest of your day goes better!

For those who are new to this site, or new to the practice of law: there can be legitimate performance-based firings, but they are rare. Often, "performance-based" firings roundabout way of laying people off. Thankfully most lawyers (like 2:12) are smart enough to realize this and question the true motives. Unfortunately, there are too many gullible types who keep saying things like "I haven't heard anything" and demanding that any tipsters back up their claims.

Lat, if anything is clear from the recent posts, its that (a) Sidley fired a few people and (b) nobody really knows why. I'd say it something to look into on a slower news day in the future.

For those who are new to this site, or new to the practice of law: there can be legitimate performance-based firings, but they are rare. Often, "performance-based" firings roundabout way of laying people off. Thankfully most lawyers (like 2:12) are smart enough to realize this and question the true motives. Unfortunately, there are too many gullible types who keep saying things like "I haven't heard anything" and demanding that any tipsters back up their claims.

Lat, if anything is clear from the recent posts, its that (a) Sidley fired a few people and (b) nobody really knows why. I'd say it something to look into on a slower news day in the future.

Mayer Brown made up quite a few partners this year, but none of them got pay rises (ie they're still on senior associate comp)

Mayer Brown made up quite a few partners this year, but none of them got pay rises (ie they're still on senior associate comp)

This Sidley thing needs its own thread.

Questions worth figuring out...

How many people total are we talking about? 10? 20? 30? More?

Are they spread across offices or located in just a few? Chicago? NYC?

Is Sidley screwing the associates by passing them off as "performance based" instead of being upfront about ala CWT?

3:12 -- There is nothing gullible about requiring that posters back up a dramatic claims that a law firm is "slashing" people.

Sidley has over 1800 lawyers worldwide and I haven't seen anyone mention a total number of "fired" lawyers over 20 or point to any specific departments. That's barely 1% of all lawyers and it is not concentrated to a city or practice area. Cadwalader has 720 lawyers and laid off 35 from 2 practice groups over two offices. That's roughly 5%. McKee has 200 or so lawyers and has seen a couple dozen leave, pretty much all in structured finance. That translates to over 10% of firm lawyers. TPW has several hundred lawyers and let 24 go, if I'm not mistaken, all in particular practice areas. By my math that's between 5 and 10%. If Sidley laid off 90 to 180 lawyers (5 to 10% of all lawyers), believe me, people would hear about it.

Mayer Brown made up loads of partners this year, all as salaried partners. Sadly, none were given pay rises from their senior associate levels. I guess that's another way for the plantation owners to maintain their profits (ie bill out as partners and pay as associates)

4:19:

Fair point. It sounds like you know quite a bit about this, since you have been hearing numbers and seem to know how spread out these firings/layoffs were in terms of groups. Previous posters apparently know a lot less about what's going on, which is probably the reason for all the suspicion about Sidley. If you have some additional info to provide, either provide it here or tell it to Lat.

Thanks

Im an 08 summer associate at sidley. should i be nervous? should i have gone with a stuffier but more "secure" firm?

If I were an '08 summer at Sidley, I would not be nervous. If you go, do your work, and don't make a fool of yourself, I'm sure you will be fine.

5:05 - Sidley has already responded to the pending economic downturn (which, by the way, is not affecting Sidley any differently than every other law firm) by hiring a much smaller summer class than last year. Will there likely be less work in the foreseeable future due to the economy? Probably. Will that make it harder for you to get an offer? No, because although there will be fewer spots available, you'll be "competing" with a much smaller summer class. And I say "competing" in the loosest sense of the term, meaning that as long as you do an average quantity of good quality work assignments, and don't make a fool of yourself, you'll be fine.

5:05 - Sidley has already responded to the pending economic downturn (which, by the way, is not affecting Sidley any differently than every other law firm) by hiring a much smaller summer class than last year. Will there likely be less work in the foreseeable future due to the economy? Probably. Will that make it harder for you to get an offer? No, because although there will be fewer spots available, you'll be "competing" with a much smaller summer class. And I say "competing" in the loosest sense of the term, meaning that as long as you do an average quantity of good quality work assignments, and don't make a fool of yourself, you'll be fine.

Anyone have news regarding potential layoffs at Kaye Scholer?

So is the general consensus that 2008 summers should not be worried about not receiving an offer?

2:00 - Every summer associate should be "worried" to the extent that no job offer is ever guaranteed, and the economy seems poised for a downturn likely to create additional unemployment in many fields (not just law). But there's nothing particularly bad or mysterious going on at Sidley Austin that should make you worry more than if you were working at any other comparable firm in the same region.

Every time I settle a large Personal Injury case I like to call partners at Biglaw and call them sissy fags and ask how it feels to be a completely one dimensional asshole when guys like me make millions and party like rockstars.. :) Just sayin'...