Oooh, bad move on O'Melveney's part. They're creating even more of a controversy by their actions. Do they think that ATL is going to let this go without any noise? Of course not. Lat is going to have a field day.

They should have learned the lesson from the Nixon Peabody fiasco... if you're a law firm that gets some bad ATL press, you need to laugh about it and not make it a big deal. If you take the bad press seriously and try to deny it or suppress it, you're shooting yourself in your own foot.

JT apologizes for his DDoS attack on ATL earlier.

lawyers are at-will employees, even in California.

So the moral of the story is, Caveat Blogor

www.polijam.com

You have no rights under the NLRA in this situation. Law firm associates are at-will and can be fired for any reason or no reason. Here, OMM can at the very least can justify your termination by saying that you revealed confidential financial information.

Of course, any decent plaintiff's lawyer can always think up some sort of BS cause of action. You could conceivably come up with some sort of weak whistleblower claim. In some states there are prohibitions against taking adverse action against an employee for engaging in off-duty conduct. There are also some free speech laws in some states. Overall though I think the associate who revealed this information is screwed.

OMM is best in Newport Beach!

Welcome to America, kids. In most states, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA). But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't, the very definition of "collective action" means at least 2 people, acting together - which isn't the case here. BigLaw has spent a loooong time defending unionbusting employers, thereby ensuring that workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor.

Maybe there'd be a 1stA claim in there somewhere, but that's not my area of expertise.

I dont think the OMM associate would have any claim if he was fired. A retaliation claim would lie only if he/she was fired for engaging in protected activity--such as complaining about discrimination. General bitching about teh firm's TTT-ness is probably not protected.

Welcome to America, kids. In most states, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA). But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't, the very definition of "collective action" means at least 2 people, acting together - which isn't the case here. BigLaw has spent a loooong time defending unionbusting employers, thereby ensuring that workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor.

Maybe there'd be a 1stA claim in there somewhere, but that's not my area of expertise.

If you're a minority, a woman, or gay, cry discrimination and let slip the dogs of war.

It was me. Sorry, boss.

Welcome to America, kids. In most states, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA). But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't, the very definition of "collective action" means at least 2 people, acting together - which isn't the case here. BigLaw has spent a loooong time defending unionbusting employers, thereby ensuring that workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor.

Maybe there'd be a 1stA claim in there somewhere, but that's not my area of expertise.

I would file a wrongful discharge claim and use Cal. Lab. Code sec. 232.5 as my basis in public policy, but that's just how I roll.

NLRA doesn't apply. Lawyers (especially at biglaw) are "highly compensated employees" exempt from NLRA coverage even if the action was collective action. Any state law whistleblower exception to employment-at-will is also likely inapplicable based on these facts (i.e. there's no illegal activity, just bad treatment of employees). But if someone gets fired and wanted to pay me on an hourly basis, I would make the arguments :-)

You could throw in Lab. Code sec. 232 also.

"But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't"

This is not true. In theory lawyers could form a union. There was even a group of associates at a firm in Arizona who tried to do this.

The problem isn't with the NLRA. That is just one law, and it deals exclusively with unionized work forces. At least 85% of workers today aren't unionized so you have to look towards other laws, namely Title VII and the common law tort of wrongful termination. And in liberal states like California you have similar state laws, with more pro-employee tilts. Regardless none of these laws would protect an employee in this situation.

I also don't agree with this statement "workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor" - the NLRA is very pro-employee. It was written in the 1930's when the country was basically socialist. Almost anything an employer does with respect to unions and organized employees is an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.

Bye Bye OMM!

Say what you will about OMM, but they have--HANDS-DOWN--the best all-firm retreat: they hold it at the Pasadena Ritz!

this can obviously be settled by burning associates at the stake or tying them to rocks and seeing which one floats when you throw them in the river

Does anyone know whether, in America, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA)? Anyone?

Seems like another great way of laying people off.

As a first year lawyer and "reformed" liberal having gone through 7 years of Private East Coast Higher Education let me ask the following: if OMM discovers that the perpetrator is in fact a minority is there a snowballs chance that they actually fire the person...esp if it came out of the NY office? I personally think it is a bad PR move to fire anyone based on blog postings, provided they were not slanderous, of this nature, especially without warning.

Wow. There is no exemption for "highly compensated" employees from the NLRA. Wow. I hope you're a law student.

You cannot be fired for engaging in protected concerted activity. Whether blabbing on a blog is protected or not is a different question. Talking to other employees about working conditions is protected. I would argue that it is impossible to talk face-to-face with all other OMM associates, so a blog is a reasonable way to get your message out. Good luck. Remember NLRA claims have a short statute of limitations.

AT WILL EMPLOYMENT!!!

Does anyone know whether, in America, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA)? Anyone?

OMM turned my into a newt!

I got better...

No way! They fired someone for using a firm computer to log onto a non-business site during work hours and post negative comments about the firm? How dare they!!

This is a very dumb move on OMM's part... trying to strong arm their employees will come back to haunt them, and result in a lot of bad press for the firm.

WTF with ATL's remarkably frequent "technical difficulties" excuse for lack of blogging?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22technical+difficulties%22+site%3Aabovethelaw.com&btnG=Google+Search

A lot of the stuff posted on here about the NLRA is completely wrong:

(a) Non-Union Workplaces still get the protection of the NLRA. Section 7 rights, aside from duty to bargain, are completely independent of having union present.

(b) Professionals are NOT excluded. In fact they are explicitly INCLUDED under the NLRA. Only managerial employees are excluded, and lawyers don't really count as such.

(c) Compensation has nothing to do with your inclusion or exclusion. (I believe)

The biggest problem here is that it must be "concerted action." If two employees sat at the computer and did this together, or if they talked about it, agreeing to send the message, and one sent it alone, that might be enough.

Under the NLRA if you are fired for engaging in protected activity- here collective concerted action- that is a violation. Being At-Will has nothing to do with it. No employer in America can fire someone to quell concerted activity (at least legally- although they get away with it routinely).

People are probably right, though, that they could merely say "leaking confidential information" was the reason.

Labor Lawyer wrote, "The problem isn't with the NLRA. That is just one law, and it deals exclusively with unionized work forces."

Wow, I wish you were opposing counsel in one of my unfair labor practice charges. You're dumber than dirt. So the NLRA doesn't apply unless the workforce is unionized. So it's legal to fire some non-union employee for discussing unionization? It's legal to threaten someone if they attend a union meeting? It's legal to tell employees that you'll move their work to Mexico if they unionize?

No. The NLRA applies to non-unionized employees engaged in acts that could lead to unionization, i.e. protected concerted activity.

Naga . . ., Naga . . ., Not gonna work here anymore, that's for sure.

same crap.. NLRA only applies to unionized workforces or workers attempting to unionize.. has no impact on anyone else

3:07, where does OMM hold its law firm retreat? I've been curious about that.

disclaimer: i am a 2L, not an employment lawyer, but i took employment law last semester.

i am pretty sure 3:04(4) and 3:05 (who i think are the same person) have it right. it would be a state law claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. i have not looked at Cal. Lab. Code 232 or 232.5, but if they are applicable, this would be the best claim because the Cal. Lab. Code would definitely be considered a proper source of public policy.

there is a possible 1st Amendment claim, but it is doubtful - very few jurisdictions would recognize it (can't remember if Cal if one). the claim would again be wrongful termination in violation of public policy, BUT the court would have to recognize the 1st Amendment as a proper source of public policy AND would have to recognize the policy articulated as very generally "freedom of speech," as opposed to "freedom of speech as against state actors." most courts would recognize the 1st Amendment policy as the latter and would say that the 1st Amendment does not give individuals any free speech rights as against private actors, e.g., private employers, foreclosing any viable claim against OMM based on the 1st Amendment policy of free speech.

note to all soon to be summer associates: run away now. o’melveny’s reputation is tanking.

note to all soon to be summer associates: run away now. o’melveny’s reputation is tanking.

Lakers just got Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown!!Maybe OMM can take its associates to Lakers games when we are in the Finals!

note to all soon to be summer associates: run away now. o’melveny’s reputation is tanking.

ATL has no power to shape opinion. During interviews and recruitment, the rumors and stories posted on ATL get zero attention. I love how important you all think you are though, it's amusing.

Latham & Watkins FTW?

Anon @ 3:24 has it mostly right.

1 - Absolutely true

2 - True - I worked with some lawyers once who were unionized. The were IBT - and worked for DEP in NYC.

3 - Comp. may be a factor, but is a very minor one. Highly compensated employees can absolutely belong to a union. Think airline pilots or baseball/football players.

Some of the 'Labor Lawyers' here should have been familiar with the recent Cintas decision. Cintas Corp., 344 NLRB No. 118 (NLRB June 30, 2005) - which held that exchanging info about comp and other terms and conditions of employment - whether or not protected by a confidentiality provision in the handbook - is protected Section 7 activity.

Also, in NY, they are likely protected by the NY Recreational Activities Act. But if they were fired for Section 7 activity, the Board can offer reinstatement (several years down the road, more likely than not) and back pay.

The Board would love to stick it to a management side firm like OMM, if for no other reason than they should know better.

3:19: "during work hours"... Working at a firm is not a 9-5 job.

Didn't anyone go to this training?

Blogging in the Workplace

http://www.ali-aba.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=courses.course&course_code=TSNU05

Anyway, the employees have no rights here. Whistleblower laws don't protect you from talking to blogs or journalists, but to the relevant authorities (government/cops/etc). And they weren't whistleblowing about illegal activities, just things they didn't like. They might not even be eligible for unemployment benefits if they get fired and the firm says that they were fired for cause.

FYI: That Board decision was upheld earlier this year, at Cintas Corp. v. NLRB, No. 05-1305, at *6 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2007).

I know for a fact that all summer associates at OMM in 2007 received an offer. The NALP forms will be out in two weeks and this will be confirmed.

I am an associate at OMM/NY and I have always thought of the firm as a nice congenial place to work until recently. I have heard such horror stories that I cannot even believe it. One associate told me that a previously "nice" partner told her that she shouldn't have ever become a lawyer because her work product was so poor. Another associate told me about a partner yelling at him, something that was virtually unheard of a few months ago.

The OMM partners are trying to get rid of people and that is very very clear.

Oh yeah, I'm writing this from my OMM account. I don't really care much anymore. This place has turned into a house of horrors.

Just get me in front of a jury with a terminated young associate against a bunch of fat cat partners. $$$$

How would they know who posted the comment unless only one OMM associate has posted a comment?

3:00: no way, LW is much better than OMM in OC. and in LA, and in NY, and in San Fran, and in DC...

My firm used to have websense to block us from MP3, file sharing, adult, and other deemed inappropriate websites. For some reason, websense was removed last year. Now, I spend the first half hour after lunch watching porn and then the next half hour downloading mp3s.

3:55 Latham OC is in Costa Mesa. That was the joke...

3:58 hit the nail on the head.

3:49... oh really? did you forget about the ass grabber?

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/08/xsummers_more_on_the_omelveny.php#more

3:52 If you're so good, find us.

I am an OMM-NY associate who is on the road and I can tell you that everything horrible that has been said about the firm is TRUE.

I've heard that the layoffs are true, the poor performance reviews based on untruths are true. There is a concerted effort being made in NY to get rid of people and make people miserable and blame them for their own misery.

All the associates think the partners have lost their minds. It's turned from a great place to work to a horrid place to work with underhanded lying sneaking partners.

The partnership is going to have a meeting with the associates on Monday. It is SURE to be full of lies and half-truths and also blame the associates for anything that is wrong.

stay tuned for more craptastic news from OMM

3:49 "associate at OMM/NY" = liar

Pursuant to firm security code 257-alpha-foxtrot, I order all activities directed at finding the OMM gadfly to cease.

I would like all law students considering a job here at OMM to understand that we were merely attempt to identify this individual in order to provide him/her with a special bonus.

Very best regards,

O.

4:07: ask me a question about OMM/NY that only an associate in that office would know. I'll prove it bozo.

How about how often Bruce sends around floor plans? How about Friday morning breakfast? How about the 30 and 31 floor reception areas? What would you like to know? How about time sheet reminders and the partner reception this week? What would you like to know?

4:12 -

What color underwear am I wearing today?

Very best regards,

O.

they can tell who you are by IP address since each computer has a unique address. They can see what time messages were posted (left their server) and then narrow it down from there.

4:15 blue. To match the mood of associates.

4:07---you have been called out by 3:49. Are you going to answer the bell or does 3:49 get the TKO?

4:07---you have been called out by 3:49. Are you going to answer the bell or does 3:49 get the TKO?

3:49 -- doesn't make the shit you're selling true

Was thinking of bidding on OMM for OCI in the fall. Now, not so much.

ding! ding! ding!

3:44 has it right. I'll add that I've personally known of a law firm in NYC (since split up a couple of years ago) at which the associates were members of a bargaining unit (i.e., unionized), certified by the NLRB. So it happens.

You just need someone at OMM who'd be willing to be Norma Rae.

And there really are a lot of stupid people here masquerading (I hope) as labor lawyers.

Guys at my high school were in witch-hunts all the time. It was no big deal.

OMM partners blow AIDS-riddled goats in Hell on prime time with erections.

David: The question is not whether you have a cause of action but why you would sue in the first place. Like it or not, a filing of a lawsuit against a BigFirm is asking for a "blacklisting" by other firms. You ruin any chance of using the firm for a reference and your name will appear on any background check you ever have run on you. Not a wise move. If you do sue, you better be sure you're going to win.

That said, the THREAT of a lawsuit and negotiating an amicable departure is a tried-and-true tactic. Negotiating with an employer to get at least a neutral evaluation -- and allow for you to get another job quickly -- may be the best possible outcome.

I'll try to post more on my own blog on an interesting topic.

4:07 You don't have to believe it. It's what I've been told. I'm just reporting what I was told by other associates. The atmosphere here is horrible.

On all these OMM threads there is always some OMM apologist (partner maybe?) who says it's not true.

Yeah, all these threads about OMM are false. WRONG.

OMM's New York office is run by partners who, for whatever reason, have suddenly decided to turn on the associates.

Thanks, 4:28, for the info. I've always wondered about that. I figured even if it were relatively easy, most firms would still think it was either too expensive or wouldn't have the IT guy expertise to actually do it. But your info makes me feel even better.

3:49 gets the TKO. That was definitely written by an OMM associate.

I think any claim under the NLRA is a long shot, based on the facts as we know them. Anyway, all you're going to get on a section 7 claim is backpay and reinstatement, and who wants that? I think in California you'd be able to make out a cognizable claim for unlawful termination in violation of public policy, and then you could go after emotional distress and punis. But I don't know New York state laws well enough to advise on them.

What I do know is that between talk of "highly compensated employees", "NLRA only applies to unionized employees", and "at will employment!", there is a lot of BS flying on this board.

In response to one earlier poster, though, I do think you could get away with telling your employees you'll move the plant to Mexico if they unionize, as long as it's in the company by-laws or charter.

Maybe the OMM summer who was fired for drunkenly inappropriate comments had it right.

3:00 forgets that Irell has a Newport Beach office.

OMM ASSOCIATES WHO BLOG FROM THE OFFICE TO 190k !!!

In related news, OMM-NY is officially a TTT firm.

Why doesn't OMM just block the site if it's that big of a deal? I am told that my firm blocks porn sites. Not only that, but whenever someone tries to visit a blocked site, an email is automatically sent to someone in IT saying who tried to access what site.

4:41 is drinking the Koolaid. I can only imagine that it's sarcastic.

I know 5 people who were "laid off" and given til March to find another job. Most law firms give 6 months.

There IS a concerted effort by partners to be jerks. I have never heard of this many "no bonuses", layoffs and poor performances at the firm. In most years (I've been here several years) people are happy. There are no disgruntled meetings in associate offices behind closed doors.

4:41: You are obviously not in these meetings because either you're a partner or the other associates hate you.

4:41: stop being such a blowhard. Your fellow associates are being harmed. Take your head out of your partner's butt and figure it all out. Idiot.

Calm down. If OMM wanted to actually fire or punish the 'evil doer,' they would just do it, without announcement. My guess is that they are announcing an investigation to chill blogging.

Can those of us new to this story get a summary of the goings-on at OMM? My curiosity is piqued.

I work at OMM and the NY lottery site is websense blocked. No to gambling during work.

But they can gamble with our futures. Why is that not blocked?

WHY WHY WHY

4:46 -- if you billed enough hours to get a bonus, then you made the OMM partners very rich. Joke's on you. Thanks for playing, ass clown.

Can someone get me a job at OMM-NY?

4:48: You could definitely say that Irell is better, but they're very different. Irell is almost all litigation in Newport and OMM is almost all corporate.

4:53 Read all the OMM posts.

Layoffs, quietly right before Christmas (happy holidays!)

An extraordinary number of bad performance reviews with many instances of damned if you, damned if you don't to avoid giving any bonus. Whatever thing you didn't do well is the thing that got you no-bonus'd even if you did 99 things well that 100th thing sunk you.

A lot of no-bonus or low bonus.

Partners suddenly being nasty to associates in what used to be a nice environment.

No work for a long time which has resulted in cranky partners blaming associates and unceremoniously dumping them.

Some associates saying their performance reviews were either negatively skewed or blatantly untrue.

But we have assistants surfing the web all day and being paid and associates being laid off.

Nice.

Hahaha Mets fans. No deal and it's 5PM. Santana turns into a pumpkin!

4:41(2) - where do I send my resume, I'll take NY scale with no whining.

NO CAUSE OF ACTION. AT WILL. That's beside the point though.

Like we saw on a smaller scale with Nixon Peabody's response to ATL's jokes about the song, the way a firm chooses to react to a crisis -- real or perceived -- defines its "character."

OMM may not like its associates railing against it on an anon blog. What's the solution? Kill the messenger or try to improve assoc morale?

Use TOR to cloak your trail on the web. EFF recommends it. See torproject.org

This open source software was developed so that military people could hide the IP address (and geographic location) of where they access a site from. Technically, it is an [The] Onion Router.

I am telling you that Monday's meeting will be "Here drink this Koolaid and feel better."

It's Gargamel (the wizard) or Azriel (the cat). You're knowledge of Smurfs is not terribly very smurfy. So smurf off.

It is Azrael. www.bluebuddies.com

Hey t14 1L at 4:18:

heres an idea: GET OVER YOURSELF!

This is definitely one of the dumbest PR moves I have ever seen by a big firm. Lat, take them DOWN!

I can tell you that the OMM NY partners have this really strange "We're right and you're wrong." attitude toward associates. No matter what they do, they are right. No matter what associate at the moment does, wrong. One associate told me there was something on the performance review that em didn't even DO and they protested it TWICE And both times the partners were like well get over yourself. It's good enough for us. Oh yes, we checked, it was you. Associate: no, that wasn't me. Partners: oh yes it was. Associate: I can prove it. Partners: no need. We're not listening.

NO BONUS FOR YOU. NEXT!

4:18- you will be lucky to get a job at such a place, T14, whatever....

Query whether an associate who is promised a partnership track with good performance is an employee at will?

Second, even if an employee at will, can an associate be fired for speech?

It seems like confidentiality is so important t at a law firm an associate can be fired for publishing confidential information.

That said, this is a public relations nightmare for OMM. Who would want to work there now?

One year ago OMM would have been upset that associates were upset. Now they're upset that associates are LEAKING that they're upset. My how times have changed.

Not sure why law firm IT departments don't do the same thing that most accounting/finance shops do with their servers and severely restrict most websites employees can visit on their work computers. This is all anecdotal, but I have friends in Boston at big banks who can't visit facebook, myspace, espn.com, etc. from their work computers. I don't see any of them protesting too much because they have work to do and they have realized that work product is better and faster when one is not distracted. Anyone have an answer?

6:03

Big law firms base their business model on inefficiency, not efficiency. If an associate is distracted by emails, blackberry, phone calls, websites, etc. it will take them longer to do their work. The powers that be know that associates will not bill 100% honestly by excluding those brief internet excursions to ATL or myspace so in the end that equals more billable hours.

I recall a study out of UC Irvine a few years ago that found the average worker is distracted by an email or phone call on average every 11 minutes, and that after each distraction it takes 25 minutes to reach full working efficiency again.

In OMM's case, they represent MySpace and other major online sites and associates need to access these for various legitimate reasons too. I also don't think it bodes well to block your own client's website! Just saying.

3:44: So, is the firm's issue that the memo itself was posted on the internet or that people are posting information themselves that emanates from the memo? At-will employment issues aside, is the firm essentially saying that associates shouldn't share this information period, or that they shouldn't share it via the internet? It seems ridiculous to fire an employee merely for sharing a firm's compensation with an outsider.

I am not a lawyer. I haven't even played one on TV.

But I have been on the job market. I examine companies from all angles before considering a job.

With publicity like this, OMM would not get my application.

How long till this impacts their hiring? What goes around comes around.

Warren Christopher was secretary of state during Clinton's first term. It's much easier to see him simply retiring though than leaving back to politics. He's in his 80s.

Mets got the deal done. No details yet. Fuck off 5:02.

mlb.com

5:59, yes, an at-will employee can be fired for speech (by OMM, though possibly not by a government employer). State action much?

I'm wondering where all of this is coming from. I work at OMM and, for the most part, I like both the work and the people. The only place I hear most of this shit is on ATL. Am I unbelievably out of the loop AND crazy lucky? I'm not saying it's a perfect firm, but nowhere is. Seriously, where the hell is all of this coming from? I really want to know.

6:49: what office?

6:41,

Government employers can terminate employees for speech on basically the same terms as private employers. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

OMELVENY HAS BECOME A TTT IN DECLINE.

Dear 6:49 pm:

If the investigation leads to the ID of the tipsters, we will all know the answer soon.

Anyone with the poor judgment to transmit an OMM memo to ATL using the firm servers/computers might not be cut out for big law in any event.

Maybe OMM can start giving all associates lie dectector tests on a quarterly basis.

Official list of firms not to work for:

1. Cadwalader
2. O'Melveny
3. Shearman & Sterling

7:38 - Why not Shearman? 2001 layoffs?

6:49 - don't be a dbag....i have buddies at OMM who are desperately searching for new jobs...That ship is sinking - I suggest you get the fuck out while you still have a job...

6:49 - are you for real?? I don't know about the crazy lucky, but you sure are unbelievably out of the loop, or a partner.

HOW IS IT THAT THESE IDIOT LAW FIRMS DON'T GET IT???

IF YOU DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU WON'T GET CALLED OUT (SEE LATHAM BONUSES). AND IF YOU DO GET CALLED OUT (SEE LATHAM SPECIAL BONUS TALK CIRCA NOVEMBER/DECEMBER), DON'T DEMAND THAT THE INCRIMINATING INFO BE TAKEN DOWN (SEE NIXON PEABODY), DON'T SEND AN E-MAIL FULL OF EXCUSES TO THE BLAWG (SEE QUINN EMANUEL), AND DON'T GO ON A WITCH HUNT (SEE O'MELVENY). BECAUSE YOU WIND UP LOOKING WORSE THAN BEFORE.

IF YOU SCREW UP, FIX IT WITHOUT MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT AND MOVE ON. OR IF YOU THINK YOU DIDN'T SCREW UP, STICK TO YOUR GUNS.

PS YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU POST FROM WORK (SEE GIRL THAT FORWARDED BONUS E-MAIL FROM WORK ACCOUNT WITHOUT REMOVING HER NAME).

6:49 is working in some other building or just so out of the loop that no normal associate talks to him or her.

6:19 I work there and this is my experience. Someone else wrote that someone got dinged and no bonus'd on something on their performance review that wasn't even their work. The rest of the year's work meant nothing. When people bring this stuff to the partner's attention, the partners get very mean.

Partners are going out of their ways to make associates unhappy and unwanted.

The world is changing and partners have no idea how to deal with it. That said, I don't think I'll be applying to OMM this summer.

I'd like to see the partners explain this on Monday but no one will and no associate will ask. The ACAC are ass kissing wussies.

where's the witch hunt coming from - DC or NY?

Is this all going down in DC or NY? Are they having these problems (layoffs and witch hunt) at their LA office?

Hahaha. Hard to believe that OMM didn't envision their latest strategy would end up on ... Abovethelaw!

Unsubstantiated rumours from unamed sources. Why not post something about defamation law, Lat?

Will the Cloverfield monster spare OMM NY?

Lat, I have looked at the Privacy Policy and have a few questions in light of the OMM story.

What is ATL's policy about providing firms with information about a person posting on the site?

Has a firm asked ATL to provide information that could disclose the identity of someone posting on the site?

Does the information that ATL gives/sells to 3rd parties include information that could disclose the identity of someone visiting or posting on the site?

Lat might have to institute the Autoadmit policy of deleting all IP addresses so that people will still post/tip him off.

I CALL BULLSHIT! Omm is going to waste money enlisting people to find some monkey who wrote sh-t to ATL - no way.

Because Shearman is a terrible, terrible firm.

3:32 - the "2l" I think I speak for everyone: "SHUT THE FUCK UP" Take your employment class and shove it up your ARSE...

To 5:00PM

"But we have assistants surfing the web all day and being paid and associates being laid off."

Maybe its because an unproductive first year associate costs five times the amount an assistant does to employ.

Fire five staff members or one first year attorney. Fire ten staff members or two first year attorneys.

Hmm. I wonder which one will affect work product more?

Or, hell. Maybe its just because an intelligent and experienced paralegal is worth more than an empty headed first year associate?

As a past tipster I have been assured of confidentiality.

What you have to worry about (if you work for OMM) is your hard drive.

If you delete a file from your computer you are essentially deleting the directory entry for the file--the file remains on the HD until overwritten with new data (meaning in most cases months or years from now or never).

Only with a program that periodically (or on demand) BOTH deletes all temporary files, browser cash, and other files AND then overwrites the empty space on your work computer's hard drive with random zeros and ones with sufficient passes to meet DOD specifications are the deleted files "gone".

BUT, if an e-mail the information will still be retained in the firm's server for a period beyond your control.

AND, if you install an erasure program on your work computer W/O authorization from the sytem adminstrator you are probably in violation of another firm policy and subject to termination. (This would include email retention policies and executible file and software download policies.)

BOTTOM LINE: Never write an email that you don't want someone to read--especially at work.

11:25, based upon your logic, I'm guessing you'll never have to worry about being laid off by BigLaw. At least not until they let the contract/temporary attorneys go.

11:31

I hope that I don't act like a petulant child who whines about the staff getting to keep their (much, much lower paying) job if I'm ever in the difficult situation of possibly being laid off.

OMM is a gutter rat law firm. Management is run by a bunch of losers.

Uh, it's interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that they replaced all of our laptops very recently. All attorneys got new ones and the old ones went up to IT. They are having a buyback program to allow interested employees to purchase them for something like $200. Before they are sold they will surely be wiped completely clean (everything must go or confidential client information could linger), but for the time being who knows what they're doing with the hard drives? Could be forensic investigations for all we know.

I agree with the posters who think it would be a tremendous waste of resources on the firm's part to bother with trying to figure out who posted what, but in retrospect the timing of this computer swap thing is interesting.

Related: check out the recruiting video they've posted on the new firm website. It's insane. It's amusing if you don't work there, and it's hilarious if you do.

5:23: "Your"

Fool.

It is true that they took all of our computers and I was surprised because a lot of 1st and 2nd years just GOT new computers so why get even newer ones? It did seem weird. My guess is that they've already got the goods on people SURFING ATL (which in NY is just about everyone except the few associates no one likes or talks to--ie butt kissers/gunners). They can't figure out who posted this way though so it would be a HUGE expense for nothiong.

If OMM looks at our emails they will find, especially right after the holidays, ATL links about OMM stories were emailed all over the firm.

WHY? Because the firm did not tell us about the layoffs and outlandish number of poor performance reviews. I know the 15 in NY who were laid off and only one or two make sense (there is actually a "bad" associate or two in there but the rest are garbage.).

One associate who was not promoted to counsel this year asked about a bonus because em worked very hard all year and said "Okay, I get that you don't want to promote me based on [small matter] and I disagree with that, but I worked hard and gave good work 99 percent of the time, why don't I get a bonus? My review is overwhelmingly positive." The associate tried to say "Okay you don't want to promote me for small matter x and I'm not going to win that one but how about some of my bonus for working hard and doing a good job with other things." They said "We don't see you as a good associate so you do not get a bonus."

It's very Twilight Zone where rationale and reason has gone out the window. They threw no bones this year except to a few. They went out of their way to keep people back and to deny bonuses. No rhyme. No reason. Except to get rid of people which is their goal. Obviously.

My guess is that the firm spin on Monday is a crock of BS and everyone will nod and say thank you OMM gods for not firing me and then we will go back and have secret meetings of 3 and 4 associates and go "This place sucks." which is what the weeks since Christmas have been like with one horror story after another coming to light.

Run away! Run away!

DON'T go to OMM if you are a law student. The NY office SUCKS!

Here we go again. Further evidence that the decision makers in NY (former O'Sullivan partners) have no clue how to run a legit firm. OMM tried to take on a TTT for a little transactional business and it obviously didn't work out. Maybe it's time to move on?

Don't post anything from a work computer you don't want your boss to know about. The things you can do to try to erase something permanently from you computer are very obvious to any IT forensic person that that is exactly what you did. And they do nothing about the company e-mail server and IP records.

And I can assure you that installing encryption, I{ blocking, erasure, or other software that tries to circumvent employer controls or records will get you fired just on its own.

I call total BS. The partners at OMM who could order something like this are either too nonchalant or too arogant to go to these lengths.

I will agree that the recent power reshuffle smells like the Tokyo Fish Market (the new no-three-positions rule mysteriously exempts only the specific positions currently held by the new office heads . . . hmm . . . ), but this seems beyond the pale.

What would they do with the info? Confront a known whistle blower with unequivocal proof that they're paranoid and aggressively mining associate computers? Unlikely.

And the new computer roll out has been planned since AT LEAST MARCH. The new associates got new computers because the ones they had were last generation, and (unlike with blackberries) the Firm changes computers all at once. If the new associates didn't get an upgrade, they'd be stuck with the last generation for like five years.

The former O'Sullivan partners are indeed the culprits, especially in Litigation. Their treatment of associates is deplorable.

AB needs to get rid of them, reinstate bonuses and promotions and make associates happy again. Short of that, the place is going downhill fast and will never be a power in NY.

I would tell ALL top students at top law schools to STAY AWAY from O'Melveny so long as the former O'Sullivan partners are in charge. Stay far away.

I have printed out all the recent OMM postings in the past few months along with comments and mailed them to the powers that be in DC and LA from a hotmail account and a snail mail copy for those partners who don't do email that much.

The way the NY office is being run is a complete black eye to O'Melveny world wide and it does not deserve such a bad rap.

Please let the big guns in LA and DC know what is going on and how everyone is being mistreated and maligned in NY.

These are careers that these power hungry ridiculous NY (mostly former O'Sullivan) partners are toying with. It has to stop.

Associate power. Get some cajones today. Email the Office of the Chair partners in LA and DC. For good measure, print these out and highlight the important comments and send those too. It's like OMM/NY are the killing fields and the rest of the OMM offices are turning a blind eye to the slaughter.

ACT NOW!

Wahh wahh. Lat, you're seriously the biggest whiner on the internet. "Oh I run a gossip site and it's wrong for the subject of my gossip to get upset about it!" You're a tabloid, a member of the papparazzi for folks who haven't yet realized that, by becoming a lawyer, they are destined to be more like their family dentist than like atticus finch-meets-patrick bateman. One of the consequences of being a tabloid is that people think you're sleazy. Get over it.

Yeah, it's LAT not the sleazy lawfirms.

11:04: you are so a non-entity.

Despite all this bad coverage, OMM is still a fun place to work and associates are treated extremely well and with respect. Last summer we didn't have to work past 5pm ever and the firm put on all kinds of events for us. I still believe in OMM and I am glad I accepted my offer, despite all you jealous posters say.

11:15 - You are basing your opinion of the firm on your SUMMER experience? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No views on OMM in particular, but the premise underlying your opinion is entirely false.

11:18, OMM prides itself on giving summers a realistic view of what working at the law firm will be like. Therefore my reasoning is sound. Thank you.

Hey 11:15: you are a tool. I frigging work at OMM and I am telling you NOW that you will be sorry.

11:15 must be a troll. 11:15, please say something even more outrageous (if that's possible) to confirm. Please don't allow me to think SAs could be so naive.

This is ridiculous. I work at OMM NY. The O'Sullivan partners are awesome. The other partners are awesome too. It's the only big NY firm I know of where people have personalities and become real friends with each other. Most litigation 4th-yrs to 7th-yrs say they couldn't imagine working anywhere else. Yeah, litigation is slow now, and that's not fun, but every single firm is suffering that. And there's enough interesting pro bono at OMM to keep you busy for years. But apparently some people aren't taking it on. My guess is people thought this would be a laid-back firm and woke up to a rude surprise when they realized OMM NY expects as much from its associates as other top firms do. So stop whining and go back to work.

11:15 - you should disabuse yourself of any notion that upon your return OMM will be the place you worked at this summer. It's hardly the place it was six months ago. It's not even the place it was two months ago.

The firm is embroiled in political infighting and dogged by extremely low morale from near the top to bottom. The cause of which is a massive loss of clients, the loss of some key partners to rival firms (K&E, Mofo, etc.), supposed "rainmakers" getting tons of guaranteed money yet barely generating business, and so on and so forth.

As a result, there's people engaging in behavior that it would have been impossible to imagine just a short time ago.

The public and private faces of OMM are on very different trajectories. Meet the new boss - not the same as the old boss.

12:40 - what are you even talking about? what new boss?? your whole rant is baseless puffery.

Umm, 12:44 - I'm not qualified to say whether 12:40's post is "baseless puffery" - but the "Meet the new boss - not the same as the old boss" is not literal - it's a line from the Who - "Won't get fooled again:

Umm, 1:00, tell us something we don't know. Something relevant to the conversation. Thanks.

12:32: you must be a partner or a very out of the loop associate. It is NOT a fun place to work anymore and I don't know of anyone except the first and second years who summered together who are FRIENDS. Most 4th to 7th years are actively looking outside OMM for new jobs. You are delusional. Do you not know about the layoffs? Do you not know about the incredible number of poor performance review and no-bonus'd associates? Do you really think it's all true that these associates simply didn't work hard enough? Do you think the firm has no responsibility toward any associate seen as "lacking" (if there are any) to tell them BEFORE their performance review BLOWS THEM OUT OF THE WATER completely unexpectedly?

There is infighting and a big push to get rid of associates. This was evidence by poor perfomance reviews reported WIDELY by people who were given no bonus and a poor bonus review for ONE negative comment and told "We can't possibly advance you given this." There have been multiple reports of people getting dinged on their reviews for things that were not even theirs.

I've heard from several people that they were SPEECHLESS during their performance reviews because they worked hard and thought they were well liked.

I've heard from others that they couldn't believe they lost their ENTIRE BONUS or a promotion to the next salary level over one or two things when the majority of their work was viewed as solid.

There seems to be a very concerted effort on the part of partners to do whatever they can do, even use feedback from PRIOR YEARS, to deny associates raises and bonuses.

If you don't know this it is because no other associate trusts you enough to tell you.

And to the person who suggested printing this out and sending to DC and LA, I'm right there with you.

In fact, a group of NY associates are believed to be doing something similar (telling LA and DC just what the heck is going on in NY) now. Most of them did receive decent reviews and bonuses but they know they're next if this keeps up.

1:31 - but who are you? do you even work there? you've heard this; you've heard that. but none of what you've heard applies to you? I call bs.

11:15, Your writing made me cringe.

I have heard that OMM has had flat earnings for two years in a row. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, that might explain part of what is happening.

Smmers posting here need to understand that you never have a real view of what is happening at a firm until you get there. And things can change pretty significantly from one year to the next. So you might have had a great summer in 2007, but that does not mean the firm will be the same when you arrive in the Fall of 2008 (ask the summers who worked at Mudge Rose in 94/95). In addition, during your first real year as an associate, you are still somewhat sheltered as the firm does things to keep you in a blissful state because they need you to help recruit, etc. You really do not get a real sense of things until after one full compensation cycle, which is when you will learn more about whether the firm will honor past statements about what activities count towards billable hour requirements, whether the review criteria makes room for people who need time to grow or cuts them out of the firm for insignificant mistakes, the types/attributes of attorneys that seem to be happy and valued, and basically whether the firm had a good year. So, while no one doubts that you might have had a fun summer, that is not a proxy for how a firm will behave when it is faced with a lousy year.

One more thing -- don't freak out. Odds are that the firm you summered with will still be around a year later. Firms like Mudge, Testa, Brobeck are the exceptions, not the rule, and there were plenty of early warning signs if you paid attention. Firms might delay start dates to save some money, as some firms did after the dot-com bust. But you only need to get one year under your belt at a big firm before you can easily make a jump to a firm that is more stable or that offers an environment that better fits your needs. So, if you can find another job this late in the game at a "better" firm or perhaps a clerkship, that is great. Otherwise, lay low and take your cues from associates with more information about how to survive.

I'm not willing to call bullshit yet (because all of the other ATL reports have proven correct before this one). If this is true, it's hilarious in a really depressing way. So OMM is willing to screw everyone on bonuses, but then they're willing to launch an IT investigation. Resources well deployed OMM, resources well deployed...I really, sincerely hope that OMM isn't this dumb.

When I took my offer from OMM it was considered a difficult place to get an offer from and seemed to have a great work environment. I think this is a great warning to law school students that one biglaw firm is not equal to another biglaw firm.

I enjoy my colleagues at OMM and really like many of the partners (who I assume are the subject of these attacks). It seems to me that they are actively trying to remedy problems (i.e., new work coordinators, etc.). That said, it is tough to know what to believe...b/w the ATL posts and the stories floating around behind closed doors.

Rumors that something was afoot were floating around in November, but it seems like there is something new and worse every day. Hope this isn't true, but who knows? Why would someone leak this if it wasn't?

NY office just made three new partners, have great clients and people like each other. It's a nice place, much nicer than the top firm I came from. Partners actually care what associates think. Looks like associates who received negative reviews did not like the honesty. If they receive negative reviews at their next firm they'll probably blame that firm too.

Re TPW---word is several associates were told to start looking and that others will be pink slipped next week after ASF West. most of the first years have left as have the "99%" group of first round laid off associates. "farewell" emails are disseminated two or three per day these past few days and the tension is severely unnerving.

1:12, 1:00 p.m. was responding directly to 12:40's "what new boss?" query. No need to douche out.

4:15 p.m., you're either a troll, a gunner, a partner, or out of the know Jackie Harvey-style. The New York office making three new partners has no bearing on the issues that the OMM associates are currently worried about. "Great clients" is a massive, subjective "whatever," and people apparently DON'T like each other so much these days.

I'm a second year lititgtaion assoiate at OMM NY. Things are awful - I billed just 12 hours all of last week and I wasn't alone! I went around asking a few partners for work, but it just isn't there. Morale is unbelievably low and partners are being especially nasty. Calling OMM NY a TTT would be doing a disservice to the real TTT's like CWT....

On the positive side, the complete lack of work did give me time to brush up my resume. I am so looking forward to purging my 2 year stint at OMM from my memory...

I'm at a firm that has a fair share of OMM escapees, all of whom more or less confirm this thread's more depressing allegations.

3:27, Thank you for your input. That was well written and not in a negative manner like most of these posts have been. My point was that last summer at OMM was amazing and the senior associates and a few partners I became close with assured me that my time as an associate would be just like the summer experience. So all this nonsense is really hard to believe. Like seriously, why would somebody make up a bad review for no reason? It's not OMM's fault all these attorneys did bad work. I received impeccable reviews as a summer.

You have much to learn 6:19...

One day while walking down the street a highly successful attorney was tragically hit by a bus and she died. Her soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter himself.

"Welcome to Heaven," said St. Peter. "Before you get settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely enough, we've never once had an attorney make it this far and we're not really sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," said the woman.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have higher orders. What we're going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an eternity in."

"Actually, I think I've made up my mind, I prefer to stay in Heaven", said the woman

"Sorry, we have rules..."

And with that St. Peter put the executive in an elevator and it went down-down-down to hell.

The doors opened and she found herself stepping out onto the putting green of a beautiful golf course. In the distance was a country club and standing in front of her were all her friends - fellow executives that she had worked with and they were well dressed in evening gowns and cheering for her. They ran up and kissed her on both cheeks and they talked about old times. They played an excellent round of golf and at night went to the country club where she enjoyed an
excellent steak and lobster dinner.

She met the Devil who was actually a really nice guy (kind of cute) and she had a great time telling jokes and dancing. She was having such a good time that before she knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved goodbye as she got on the elevator.

The elevator went up-up-up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates and found St. Peter waiting for her.

"Now it's time to spend a day in heaven," he said. So she spent the next 24 hours lounging around on clouds and playing the harp and singing. She had great time and before she knew it her 24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got her.

"So, you've spent a day in hell and you've spent a day in heaven. Now you must choose your eternity,"

The woman paused for a second and then replied, "Well, I never thought I'd say this, I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time in Hell."

So St. Peter escorted her to the elevator and again she went down-down-down back to Hell.

When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. She saw her friends were dressed in rags
and were picking up the garbage and putting it in sacks.

The Devil came up to her and put his arm around her.

"I don't understand," stammered the woman, "yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate lobster and we danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland of garbage and all my friends look miserable."

The Devil looked at her smiled and told...

"Yesterday we were recruiting you, today you're an Employee.... !!"

I call BS on the IT/computer consultants trying to hunt down and stifle ATL informants.

When I was at the firm, it was a great place to work. Maybe those who have said that there has been a drastic change in the last 2-6 months are right. Low morale and stealth layoffs at a biglaw firm would not surprise me.

However, it is ridiculous to think OMM would try to hunt down people for posting gripes on ATL. It is a rumor that is outside the bounds of credibility, especially considering the vagueness of the disgruntled informant's tip.

When I interviewed with OMM, one of my interviewers was a dick about my grades. I'm really getting some enjoyment out of this whole thing.

6:19, I really don't want to burst your bubble and I don't really care whether OMM implodes or takes over Wachtell as the best firm ever, but I can tell you from experience that it happens.

At my firm, an associate got bad reviews about how she handled a client issue. The partner said that the client was not happy. The associate then asked the partner to explain the circumstance because she did not know and was mortified that someone was not happy. After the partner described the situation, she reminded the partner about how the partner and client had sent e-mails thanking her for the great work. Partner said he forgot and must have been thinking about the wrong project or associate. People do not always invest the time they should when doing reviews and forget that people's careers are at issue. So they say stuff they shouldn't and it is very hard to unring the bell because the partnership has already seen the review and believes it was correct. The review mistake in this instance was never corrected in the person's records and there was hardly an apology.

Another fact is that attorneys suck at management issues. Think about all the jerks you know at law school. At least some of those people will become partners at big law, but never learn to become managers. They keep on being jerks. Other partners become jerks as they do the job a while. The stress changes you. It has changed me.

Third, firms like to tell summer associates that the summer is like the real thing. That might be a bit true for firms that are committed to letting summers do real client work, but believe me when I tell you that everyone is on their best behavior with the summers because firms cannot afford to have a summer return to their schools and complain about the firm. It makes recruiting at that school, and maybe in that city, hellish the next year. The better the school you attend, the more careful people are to make sure you feel that everything is great. The mentors/buddies/recruiting folks are run ragged making sure that there is a buffer between every summer and the a-holes at a firm. They do this even for the jerks in ever summer class that really should not get an offer.

The problem right now is that people make mountains out of mole hills when times are bad. When firms need bodies, they cut everyone some slack and work to help people do better. When firms don't have enough work to go around, firms start to look for things to weed people out. My firm has been pretty good about this, giving people plenty of warning that they are on thin ice and presenting opportunities for in-house jobs. But out they ultimately go. Associates can protect themselves by doing great work all the time, which is harder than you think. But even very good associates can be victims of work slow downs. Firms may try to place a cherished associate in another group if there is unmet resource demands. However, times are tough now and some people will get cut for things that a year ago would have warranted a passing comment that the associate may want to spend a little time working on issue X. There is something unfair about this because you feel blind-sided when something that has never mattered in reviews suddenly does. The harm is compounded when partners wait until review time to provide an associate with feedback. When the firm sees a "problem" it should at least tell the associate so that the person has a chance to make some changes. Again, I am telling you that this happens less often than you think.

Every firm has their fun/great groups. Maybe you lucked out and worked with such a group at OMM and will have a terrific career there when you get out of school. If you are happy, that should be enough for you. My note of warning is that, although I take everything posted on ATL with a grain of salt because we cannot know all the facts, I also know that rumblings on this board about my firm have generally been true so maybe the same can be said about the other postings. Food for thought....

6:19, one more thing on those impeccable reviews. There is grade inflation in the summer review process. The standard at most firms is: Is the summer pleasant enough that I would want to work with them when I am crazy busy, does the summer seem to possess some degree of judgment, and did the summer provide work product that we know we can fix with a year or two of hard work once we have them as an associate. So being steller as a summer does not equate to being steller as an associate. It is just a guage that suggests that you are a moldable piece of clay. No offense. I really am trying to be helpful. I was a great summer, but it took a ton of work before I become a good attorney.

Every action has an opposite reaction. First year salaries go to $160k. The pendulum has swung the other way.

You made your bed. Now lie in it. Life would have been much better at the $145k scale.

Does anyone really think that law firms just let go of good associates? The bitter posters here are obviously not the ones who received good reviews so we can all take these posts for what they obviously are -- complaints from associates who did not do well. Instead of spending your time here, maybe brush up on your legal skills so the next job will be better.

7:40, yes, in corp finance and trial. The groups had been so slow that they finally said sorry, you should be looking. It was not a harsh "you're fired." It was "we really can't keep you so do what you can to look out for yourself." Most took the message and were out by the end of the year. This happened at the 2-4 level and at non equity. First years did not really get hit because it is easier to move them around.

200 - double comment clusterfuck

7:27, your guage is off

7:55, yeah, so is my steller, but I have no clue how to spell check on this site so you just have to suffer.

Big DC, thank you for your words of wisdom. If Big Law is as you say, what can an incoming associate like myself do, to protect him/herself from things like these "bad" reviews happening. Even more, what does one need to do to be objectively known around the firm as a good attorney and be one of the so-called "protected" and perhaps even on the partnership track? It is evident from these posts that just doing great work is not enough. As if Big Law uses you for your goods, milks it for all its worth, then throws you away when they are done with you. How can I be part of the "protected"?

3:27, SO true.

Firms treat you well as a summer, and it slowly wanes as you complete your first year.

The curtains come up after your review/bonus time.

I know of some naive 2007 OMM summers. I hope they read this thread.

6:19: Find someone who is influential and get them to like you.

6:19 is a troll. Dummies

sadly, some summers do have this attitude.

6:19, It is really tough to say because each firm has its own personality. I would look for a couple of people at OMM that can mentor you and teach you the ropes at your firm. You also want at least one of these people to be someone that will advocate on your behalf behind closed doors. These people are hard to find and you have to careful about who you trust. Trust the alarms that go off in your head about whether someone has your interests at heart. Here are a few things you can control.

First, learn everything you can because this is what you will sell to OMM as the reason to keep you or to some other firm should you need/want to jump. Knowlege is power in our business.

Remember that the billable hour is king so try not to turn down billable work because you never know when it might dry up. Obviously, you don't want to take on work if you can't do a good job or complete the assignment on time. But part of the way you gain knowledge is by doing work and every hour is experience that you have that someone else might be lacking.

Have a great attitude, including hope in your future and confidence in your ability to work hard enough to learn what you need to know.

Try to keep your grades up and graduate with honors. It makes firms perceive you as more valuable. If you are at a top 25 school, then all the better.

You may come out of this unscathed because things may be on the upswing by the time you get out. In the meantime, you can't fix what's ailing OMM specifically or big law generally, so just focus on enjoying your last year and passing the bar.

Come on 8:19, didn't you once believe in the great Oz? Give the newbies a break.

i know one clown at OMM that always brings up the fact that he got into HLS but didn't go.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to be a summer associate at OMM LA for the summer of 2008, should they be worried? Or are most of these problems at the NY and DC offices?

8:52, go, have fun, get an offer and interview as a 3L if you need to.

8:52: the only think I'd att to 8:59 is that you should find someone at OMM who will give you the straight dope. They exist, but you have to be discriminating; if someone sounds like theyve drank the kool-aid, they're either drinking it our pouring it. Grab coffee with the associate who makes your memo blead with red-lined edits; that person is trying to make you better and understand what it takes to succeed. That person will not sugar coat it. That person is your ally, not the smiling heads in the recruiting department.

One other quesion, is OMM's summer class for 2008 oversubscribed? It seems like a lot of firms got more acceptances than they had planned this year (e.g., instead of 1 acceptance out of 5 or 6 offers, they got 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3). Does the firm expect to be able to give offers to all summers or will there be pressure to weed with fewer offers to join the firm?

Lat, why do you let google post prostitute and fake weight-loss ads on this site? How about a little more class.

In DC, OMM's 2008 summer class is decidedly not over subscribed

7:39,

Not so. Associates don't set their salaries. Also, there were problems with BigLaw long before the salaries were at 145.

9:42; In the LA office, a lot of the UCLA and USC students with offers chose greener pastures. As usual, our summer class is stocked with a lot of Loyola, as it is Loyola's single largest feeder school.

11:31, I think you meant to say that Loyola is OMM's largest feeder school, but you're right about this recruiting season. Almost all of the UCLA 2Ls I tried to recruit did not come, and most chose Gibson instead.

That being said, I still like it at OMM, but it is definitely worse than it was before.

guys, I'm sending this from a Starbucks in San Diego. Once I hit [send] I'm going across the border and I won't be coming back. Anyway, get out. Get out NOW!. I held on as long as I could but a few hours ago they strapped me to a board, wrapped a cloth around my head, tilted me back and poured water on my face. I tried, I really tried not to talk but I had to make it stop. I begged them to shoot me but they did it again and again so, finally, I talked. I gave you up. I gave them the names of every associate who'd ever dissed the firm. Every last one! I'm sorry. So sorry.
Run! Run!!!

Big DC and the others: it's really great you're giving advice, really.
Unfortunately there are too many people in this profession who need that kind of advice. Too many people who may be able to issue spot the hell out of an exam, or who can write a damn good research memo, or who can scrupulously check a 300 page contract for typos and errors. The unfortunate part is that these people have never learned how to deal with people, how to make communicate effectively, and how to make others happy. The more unfortunate part is some, if not most, of these people will never learn. They will be cogs in a machine, great cogs at that, but they will never be truly successful. The most unfortunate part is that they may never figure out why. They will look within in an attempt to figure out what went wrong, but they will neglect to look around, at the effect they have on other people. That is why there will be bad reviews, that is why there will always be gripes and complaints, and that is why there are so many unhappy lawyers (well that and because they're a lot of whiny wet blanket complainers).
Sorry to get all emotional, but Saturdays are my public service announcement days... and I didn't go out tonight, so I am pretty bored.

This is the problem with ATL - anyone can post just about anything. I am a third year corporate associate at OMM's New York office and I'm stuck here laaate on a Saturday night and will be here all of tomorrow b/c of the amount of shit I've gotta get done. What's more there are 5 other associates with me here right now and more will join us tomorrow...There is PLENTY of work at OMM - OMM is anything but a sinking ship, unlike what a poster here alleged...Douchebags, get your facts straight!

12:44,
"how to make communicate effectively"? I realize you're writing this on a saturday night, but still ...

1:45 - hear, hear!

i happen to know that OMM SF has planned to double their number of associates and move into a larger space.

I'm an associate at OMM NY who got my bonus and my special bonus. How? By laying low, doing what I was told and billing a billion hours on one clusterfk case. So I'm not sour but I can't ignore what is going on here. I know more than one associate who protested his review and was totally surprised by the anger of the partners when they questioned it. I know of another associate who told the partner "THAT WASN'T ME" and the partner went back and asked the reviewer who said, "I'm pretty sure it was." and the associate said, "NO IT WAS NOT." and they said well mistakes happen, YOU take it up with the reviewer. Mistakes happened to the tune of a 40k bonus.

If they layoff all the people they have planned and have already laid off (by the way, NO ONE at the firm has officially acknowledged any layoffs) and they no-bonus'd a bunch of people and gave crappy reviews to so many (not all of them can really be crappy and most were completely surprised since no one had ever said a negative word to them), is it going to stop?

Are they going to just go back to being the kinder, gentler law firm they were 6 months ago? I doubt it. The sackings will continue. And guess who will be squarely in their sights? The people (like me) who are left and who thought they were doing a good job like the people currently on the chopping block thought they were doing.

Pollyannas of the koolaid drinking variety: don't fool yourself. You are next.

1:45: try litigation. Go see how many adversarial associates are there on a saturday night. Another koolaid for you sir?

this is a very interesting thread.

keep them coming.

I don't think anybody really thinks OMM will cease to exist in the next five, ten or even twenty years. But the inescapable truth is that its complexion has changed and everbody is losing. PPP and associate satisfaction are both down this year.

Unlike many firms who have clients that were willing (even if grudgingly) to go along with the increased rates that went along with the increase in salaries (see Latham and Gibson for instance), OMM has had a great deal of clients defect for firms with lower rates. The engagements are getting bigger and bigger and the chance for meaningful first chair opportunities are getting fewer and fewer.

So while the firm will continue to chug along it's simply going to be more difficult to enjoy. There are pockets left and some offices are doing better than others, but it's becoming a less fun and interesting place to work.

To a large degree this is emblematic of big law generally, but OMM is in the uncomfortable place right now of having its quest to become Skadden stalled out and being stuck in the mud (or even moving backwards slightly).

12:44, what if law schools did what bus. schools do -- make it a priority that people work a year or two before letting them into school. I think people need some real life experience to be able to manage -- with part of that experience being low man on the totem pole. The partners and senior associates that I most respect are those that seem to have some empathy. They are still tough, but you get the sense that they care even when they are telling you that you f'ed up. I also think the time would allow people to mature a bit. If you get the crap beat out of you in an analyst, paralegal or assistant manager position, I think you remember that when it is your turn to supervise.

Big DC - your assessment of reviews/firm politics is about the best I've read on this blog. In my experience, the people best able to "protect" themselves were those who were, as 7:28 pointed out, staffed to enormous, frenetic, cross-office cases. Generally speaking, if you're on a large case and you're junior, you're working in a cast of thousands on product that's either seldom scrutinized or scrutinized by somebody who will never review you. Also, I found the work much less analytically demanding, if more voluminous, on larger matters. You're just not in the spotlight as often. I found it far easier to game the system on large cases than on smaller matters where I was the only accountable associate. Of course, this means that "protection" may come at the expense of professional development because the only way to learn and grow is to challenge yourself.

As to Big DC's advice about having a good attitude, I've found that being well-liked cannot be underestimated at these places. Very few people will stay at the firm beyond a few years and fewer still will make partner. The vast majority of associates you're working with now will be working outside the firm within a few years. You never know who you will need in the future.

Lat! Do an article on firms that imploded, like Mudge Rose and Testa and Brobeck. What were the warning signs, how quickly did it happen, are any NY firms currently showing these signs, etc. tyia.

Can any associates who have been at one firm for more than two years give me advice on how to use office politics to my advantage? I'm getting paranoid that I will not be able to control my career in this crazy world of Big Law.

Know what I was doing last night when all you losers were posting on ATL: having sex with my wife.

Know what I was doing this morning when you losers were still posting on ATL: playing with my kids.

Oh yeah, I'm an OMM associate, I barely billed 1900 hours last year, and I still got a full and special bonus...

But you guys are totally right, OMM sucks. I mean, what kind of TTT firm pays their associates basically the same as all other firms, but actually lets them have a social life???

All you bitchers, go ahead and leave OMM for some sweatshop for the exact same pay, and you'll be begging to come back within 6 months.

Morons.

Good for you 11:42. Maybe one day you'll make partner and then you can start having sex with somebody else's wife.

Big DC - that would probably go a long way in a few ways. One is exactly what you described - accepting the fact that you have to pay your dues. It will also help with realizing that what lawyers have is not such a bad gig in comparison with some other positions that entail more stress but less pay. Another may be that people might end up on the other side of a lawyer and find out what is actually most important - people skills.
I also completely agree with you that maturity is a big part of the process.

11:42, what office do you work at?

8:07: I know all of the 2007 OMM NY summers, and I don't think of many of them as very naive.

8:53. OMM is not alone on clients bailing for lower rates. This is a trend everywhere. Clients like Wal-mart have talked about this in many articles.

First, clients are being more demanding about not wanting to pay to train. So you see more clients saying they won't pay for summer time and first year time, and even some second year time. They might pay if someone has a skill set that is ready to go. For example, an engineer that gets into patent prosecution and can hit the ground running. The clients also want to know who is staffing a matter so they can ask why you elected to use a junior attorney and veto if they want. You can often get a client to make exceptions, but this practice is putting a lot more pressure on firms to figure out how to give people meaningful work, keep profits up and make clients happy. Regional firms with lower billing rates and lower PPPs sometimes have an advantage because they can charge less than, say, a big New York firm especially if they have specialty niches like tax, healthcare, OSHA, energy, antitrust, IP, FDA, where they really stand out. Clients are looking for these kinds of options. So, although clients are trying to cut back and consolidate the number of firms they want to use -- a trend that benefits big national firms -- clients are looking for value.

Clients are instructing that they want a partner to do the work on the theory that it will be cheaper in the long run. This is painful because partners need to push work down to give associates good work experience, to provide time to generate new business and basically to stop having to do the work they once did as an associate (e.g., research and initial drafting).

Clients are asking for discounts across the board. If the firm declines, some clients will walk.

Clients are more than willing to pay high rates for expertice. For example, if you are doing a huge deal, do you hire Wachtell or Davis Wright? Even though DW may have great attorneys, clients want to know that if things go bad they won't be blamed for picking the wrong counsel. So Wachtell, with its vast experience and reputation, will be a safe bet everytime and clients will pay the freight. The same is true for most premier practices. The clients might grouse about rates, but they won't cut corners when the project really matters.

So this is an industry-wide phenomena and everyone is scratching their heads trying to figure out how to manage to a profitable bottom line, which necessarily means that you have to manage costs.

Doc review/due diligence work has some training value. You get familar with documents commonly used by the client/industry in question, you see how stupid correspondence can come back to haunt you, you learn about how privilege applies, and you learn how to organize a case/deal. You just don't want to make a career of this.

I think it is a mistake to hide from accountability if a respectable supervising attorney is involved. They should have your back so that you can learn while knowing that you are not going to be screwed for asking lame questions or making dumb mistakes. If you come to learn that the supervisor has a reputation for not backing their team, then it is smart to try to stay away, doing so quietly and diplomatically. At my office, there are about 15 of these partners and everyone knows who they are.

Remember too that the people who will back you are not always the people that seem the nicest. In my group, there is one guy that everyone likes and confides in. But he is a terrible advocate when the doors are closed and when review time comes. He is the first to trash attorneys and to disclaim accountability for his own contribution to a mismanaged project. The associate is always the scapegoat. Instead, as someone pointed out earlier, the attorney who tells you point blank when you are on track, when you have made a mistake, and who pukes all over your work is probably the person that you can at least trust to tell you how you are doing during the year (including what others might be thinking). When reviews come out, you will be able to confirm who really had your back. If you were suprised by anything, then you need to ask yourself if the comment is fair and if you actually got feedback that you just failed to give proper weight when it was given. If so, then take it like a pro and commit to improve. If the comment has no basis in reality, was something that happened a long time ago and should have been water under the bridge, then those attorneys are probably people to avoid.

One last thing, you should be asking for feedback if you aren't getting it. Periodically asking if there is anything you can do to improve and doing so in front of others makes it much harder for someone to hose you later because they remember that you kept asking. The same is true with demanding billable work. If you are slow, ask for work from anyone you can and document the request (e.g., by making the request in an e-mail). Again, it makes it much harder from someone to accuse you of just sitting around.

1:45, don't you think that in light of the situation, you might want to view and/or post to ATL from, oh, I don't know, anywhere but your desk at OMM for the next little while? They can't tell whether you posted or just viewed, let alone whether you posted a big yay-rah "nothing wrong here" for the firm or slammed it. If things really are going through the looking glass over there and they're looking for any reason to dump associates, why give them an opportunity to reward you for a late night with a pink slip?

Big DC, you have been the best ATL poster I have ever come across. Thank you for your words of wisdom and do post more whenever you get a chance. Did anybody teach you these things, or did you just learn on the job how to survive?

2:30, thanks. School of hard knocks. I swore after some unfair things happened to me that I would be open so others might avoid my mistakes. For what it is worth, I came out of law school during a weak economy when it was hard to get a firm job and harder to keep them. But my class of friends all survived, making partner or finding great in-house gigs even though there were times like these when we felt underpaid, undervalued and unsure of our futures.

Rimshot for 11:48 - that's how it works my friend - and sometimes it's an associate's wife - happened at my firm. Made things very awkward for the poor bastard so he left, divorced her - then she married the partner (after he cashed out his 40-something wife). Allegedly the management committee has come up with a rule against partners hitting on associates' wives.

I work at OMM NY and did okay 2100 hours and bonus and good performance review but anyone who did okay and thinks all the bitching and whining is from a bunch of losers is delusional. Things are bad for a lot of people who don't deserve it. I had lunch with someone last week who was so down about the whole thing and what was said to him at performance time. Someone who thought they were doing well and came to find out that the mistakes that all associates make were magnified and his good work product ignored.

Partners had an agenda and it was to thin the ranks. And I, for one, am very upset that I work at a firm like this.

I'm also upset that the firm never told anyone about layoffs or no-bonus'd associates. Every other year they make a big deal about how it's fair and that hours have nothing to do with it.

I'm really upset that my firm would be so underhanded and be getting bashed on ATL.

I'm also sorry that some OMM associates who weren't treated poorly don't care that others were.

What's that saying, I said nothing when they came for....

Well, keep saying nothing.

Big firms raised rates. Partners had to keep their $1m plus profits per partner.

All these rumors do is harm the firm's reputation. Gibson doesn't do this. OMM has lost some of its luster now.

I guess people in the top 10% of Loyola and Pepperdine should take a closer look at Gibson.

For those who show no mercy to their fellow associates, your time will come eventually. Karma is a biznatch.

And for the guy who billed 1900, got his bonus, and banged his wife last night, good for you. I bet your wife has a fat a$$.

Does anyone know whether this situation is limited to OMM right now?

Is this sort of thing happening at a lot of firms now that the economy is not looking good?

Since the subject of partner philandering has come up, I've decided to toss in my anonymous two cents.

I'm an 4th year associate at a firm in NY - not OMM. But I've been seeing a partner at the NY office of OMM for the past year or so and finally decided to ask him to elaborate a bit regarding what's going on over there. He may have flaws, but this evil behavior being described on the board sounds nothing like him.

We have an agreement not to talk about work issues since he knows partners at my firm and I have a couple of acquaintances at the associate level at OMM NY. Since I broke the agreement and asked him questions anyway, I want to defend him against these blanket accusations.

He said that he personally would have preferred a more up-front approach and he was not sure who pushed so hard for this stealth dismissal policy, but it is happening. He wouldn't get into the business/client aspect of things with me but I did not get the impression there was a lot to tell. I did get the very strong sense that this is the first round of layoffs for the year, and they're hoping to staunch the financial losses by the end of the second quarter. But if that doesn't happen, there will be more layoffs, probably done in the same way these happened - they'll give the people a couple of months to land elsewhere.

Query whether they will attempt to tie it to poor performance, but it sounds to me as though those who being fired now are going to end up glad it happened sooner rather than later. I would be pissed to have been busting my ass for months thinking I had been spared only to end up shopping for a job in September or October and missing out on a bonus on both ends. He also hinted at potential partner defections although he personally has no intention of going anywhere.

Oh, and he hadn't even heard of ATL. He's not that old, either -- so I don't know if they're all this out of touch with the blog-gossip or if he's just too busy with other things to care. In any case, he would probably be a bit paranoid about me posting since he mentioned it's more-or-less an open secret that a major partner in another OMM office is having an affair with one of his associates who is clearly getting preferential treatment. He seems to think that partner is protected in a way most others would not be, but I don't know if it's because that person is very senior or just a serious rainmaker.

I suppose this information doesn't provide very much insight, but frankly neither one of us likes talking about business when we spend time together and since I'm not at OMM I'm not invested in what is going to happen to OMM beyond how it affects his professional life. But there you go.

4:46, earnings were not flat at my firm, but some groups are really slow and good people were encouraged to look for something else.

Ms. Tress eh?

Big DC: Have you heard anything about other DC firms? No need to name names. Just curious about how things look in DC on a general level right now.

In DC, there is still work but things are a bit slow in typical DC practices. For example, I think people hoped there would be a lot of antitrust work with people trying to get deals through Justice/FTC during a business-friendly presidency. But the economy slowed down deal flow so less antitrust. Other admin areas can be busy. For example, if you do environmental, there is climate change work thanks to Congress and the Supreme Court.

Then there is the issue of things just sort of stopping in anticipation of an election. The Republicans that head the agencies now might be instructed to push through some last minute initiatives. This assumes a Republican majority at the agency. If you need a Dem to get something passed under agency quorum rules, then those kinds of projects tend to sit dormant until after the election because the Dems are hoping they will be able to set their own agenda. As is obvious, this can impact work flow for a DC practice.

What I am hearing from friends at other firms is that people are being very careful to monitor work flow. If it is short 100 hours/atty from budget, no big deal. But if it drops 200 or more, then some juggling might be in order. DC has some wiggle room because the firms don't all hire huge summer classes. There are not many DC firms/offices with associate classes the size of Skadden NYC. For example, you can cut back by 1 or 2 people and redistribute work to other associates so that everyone hits 1900.

It seems that any cutbacks in DC now are 4th/5th/6th year ranks who do not look like they are going to make partner. Firms will try to place them in-house or with an agency. In my humble opinion, the people that I know who are going through this process have know for at least a year that they were off track and have had some really interesting opportuntities presented to them that fit their skill set or life circumstance. Those that have transitioned are doing great and are happy, notwithstanding the fact the whole thing was really stressful until they landed something. So I think that the DC experience might be a bit more humane than what people might experience in NYC. I also hope that some of this weeding effort will mean that firms won't have to make real cuts later.

Big DC,

re: funneling folks to inhouse counsel.
My firm has a placement program as well. I

Lat, maybe a thread on this?

I'm Spartacus!

I know of people in OMM NY who were given poor performance reviews and no one ever talked to them about helping them find a job or whatever. They aren't told they're "off track" they are just being given BS excuses.

No one is trying to help the associates who are considered "less than". No one is trying to help anyone stay and no one is helping them to make going easier.

Maybe they're doing that in DC but they're not doing it in NY.

4:46, yes, many firms affected by the market will be doing their best to push people out and hasten attrition. Much like CWT isn't the only firm who no-bonused many associates, OMM isn't the only firm employing these tactics.

The reason why OMM is being picked apart like this is because they have always given the impression of being the laid back kinder CA firm even in New York.

But there were ruthless O'Sullivan partners just waiting for performance to dip and then they decimated the mid levels.

OMM said things it didn't live up to. LIke if you were having a problem, they would help you. If you needed help with writing or getting practical experience the firm was THERE to help you succeed and it turned out that none of that was true.

Now they just want you gone. yes, they never told you there was a problem. Yes they led you to believe you were okay and you never had a CLUE until you were either laid off or no-bonus'd. And they never told any associates what was going on AND it went on the week before Christmas. Poor.

They handled it very very poorly and that is why people are making such a big deal about it. Who they said they were and what they turned into are two different things and associates got screwed.

Wow - I guess one thing is settled till the end of time or the end of OMM, whichever happens earlier. Anyone with any decent option but OMM, will choose the other option...Don't think OMM will EVER be able to recover from this dirty laundry...

This is worse than Cooley's lay-offs after the tech bubble burst. They will be scarred for years.

Being an associate at OMM is like being a player for the Patriots. You think everything is going well, and then the rug is pulled out from underneath you.

Guys in my high school used to get laid off underhandedly all the time, 'twas no biggie:)

At least the Cooley lay-offs weren't couched as performance. It was: dude, we've got 85 lawyers too many and we're going to dump the lot of them.

Losers

I'm an employment lawyer in biglaw and have had to write a few blogging policies for employers. Some states do have laws protecting employees from engaging in lawful activities outside of the workplace (i.e. you can't be fired for getting trashed Saturday night if you do a good job Monday-Friday). There is an argument that this applies to blogging. Here is an excerpt from the Electronic Frontier Foundation Website:
Legal Off-Duty Activities
Some states have laws that may protect an employee or applicant's legal off-duty blogging, especially if the employer has no policy or an unreasonably restrictive policy with regard to off-duty speech activities. For example, California has a law protecting employees from "demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." These laws have not been tested in a blogging context. If you are terminated for blogging while off-duty, you should contact an employment attorney to see what rights you may have.
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/blog-anonymously.php

This is all rank nonsense. I'm a 4th year at OMM and I've heard none of this. I'm happy at OMM, it's supportive, and you all should be so lucky as to even be considered. I don't know what ATL's OMM fetish is, or what that is of the nameless malcontents who likely are just randoms from nonfirms posting pretending they're OMM (note that ATL doesn't bother confirming any of them), but it's all spurious maleficent falsehoods. I've heard nothing of witch hunts, I've heard nothing of layoffs, and I'm a right good gossip at the firm and would be astonished if this were happening and I weren't aware.

It's spurious and a falsehood? I see that OMM isn't economizing on its word count.

2:58 - STOP BEING A DOUCHE-BAG RETARD. FOR ONE, WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE'S FIRE. AND SECOND, PERSONALLY WORKING AT OMM, I CAN CONFIRM MOST OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE...

I HATE GOING INTO WORK AND I AM SEARCHING FOR OTHER JOBS LIKE MY LIFE DEPENDED ON IT...WISH I HAD STUDIED A LITTLE HARDER AT COLUMBIA - WOULDN'T HAVE ENDED UP IN A TTT LIKE OMM...

2:58

[sticks head in sand] If *I* don't know what's going on, then OBVIOUSLY, nothing is going on.

Uh huh. Riiiiiiiight.

2:58- Are you an internal OMM PR flak, or did they hire RepDefender?

"I for one have reported other associates to partners that do not pull their weight or make small mistakes that should be highlighted in reviews."

Associates tattling to partners about small mistakes that should be highlighted in reviews.

Sounds like a great place to work. Or not.

As a first year who has been there maybe five months, you feel you are in a position to critique others' "small mistakes" to partners? Beware: what goes around comes around.

And as someone who has just left, I can assure you, 10:36, that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are so busy critiquing your fellow associates that they clearly don't trust you enough to share any information with you.

10:36 really sounds like a DBAG, doesn't he? If those are the OMM trolls, then that really cements its reputation as a TTT.

"If you are a law student thinking about coming to OMM -- you should evaluate whether you are a DBAG, slacker or ingrate. If so, go to Gibson or Latham where you will be a better 'fit'."

Is this advice necessary? I was unaware that people chose OMM over GDC or Latham in the first place. I might just be clueless though. Who knows.

10:36 is hoping IT scans his computer and finds his ridiculous post.

"I for one have reported other associates to partners that do not pull their weight or make small mistakes that should be highlighted in reviews." D-BAG Alert! Holy crap, man, you're a first-year associate! Chill the f out. I'm sure OMM has got some really great people, and I agree that these rumours are likely overblown. But your rant only makes your firm look worse.

Any OMM associate who does not know that people were laid off the week before Christmas and FIFTEEN others were given til March to find another job are gunners that no one talks to.

People who keep apologizing for OMM or saying that it's not true should tune in to what is actually going on in their law firm. There was no OMM bad mouthing before the past 2 months.

The OMM partners tried to figure a way out of bonus's and special bonuses and they did so by trumping up performance reviews as negative and laying people off.

They will suffer, as a firm, for this for years to come and those who work there and are convinced the emperor is wearing shining new clothes, might want to take a second look.

Best new word of 2008: "Lasvascious" @ 10:43

"I'm a right good gossip"

Is ye, Jethro?

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=131034

O'Melveny & myers

Credit crunch not to blame for associate exitsThe managing partner of O'Melveny & Myers' New York office denies that the credit crunch has precipitated the layoffs of up to 15 associates ......

Gunners at OMM,

Keep arranging chairs on the Titanic. Your time will come.

10:36 = Gunner

"I am the king of the world!"

One man's "gunner," is the d-bag that carries another man's briefcase, and then is let go at year 7, because he is a d-bag sycophant who no one likes.

I think the IT people that the tipper noticed hanging around were actually the people making the schnazzy new OMM.com

Almost there! OMM to triple cluster-f#ck!

We should really try for 300 comments before this gets pushed to the second page.

Listen, I work at OMM NYC (ok, really, I don't but wanted to make a convincing post and thought the bona fides would help), and I want every one to know, particularly you law students out there, that OMM is the worst place in the world to work, bar none. I have worked some pretty crappy jobs, janitor, Taco Bell line cook, male prostitute, gladiator, and I would gladly go back to those simpler days if I could. Unfortunately, the golden handcuffs have me tied, and I am just trying to keep my head down and my nose to the grindstone, and maybe all the carnage will pass by.

OMM NYC used to be great, with all the harp playing, nectar, and honey one could want. Now, it is a dog-eat-dog place. Partners are indiscriminately firing people, right and left. Walking down the hall yesterday, I saw a partner fire two associates and then the FedEx delivery guy in not so much as thirty seconds. He, of course, made up some performace-related excuse for the associates, something about violating client confidences and improperly using client funds. He threatened to report them to the state bar unless they "left quietly."

If you are thinking about coming to OMM, I would rethink the whole thing. It is just downright scary. I hear they may cut out electricity every odd hour to save money if these performance-related layoffs don't shave enough to the bottom line.

Beware!

let's go triple dipping:)

From the meeting today: we always lay off. There were no more layoffs this year than usual.

Apparently they are saying we always treat people like sh%% but this is the first time we got called out on it!

So I asked the following question of friends at one DC firm, one Texas firm, one Chicago firm and two California firms, all with more than 500 attys: Why aren't firms telling people about layoffs. The single most common answer: this is an employment law issue. The associate can confide in anyone they want, but the believes it is appropriate to keep dismissals/lay offs confidential.

6:35 - are you kidding me? companies announce layoffs everyday... employment law... what a joke.

7:14, assume you are going to be let go. Do you want the firm to have a meeting with everyone saying times are tough, so we are letting people go. We used the following criteria to make the cut: slow group and lowest performers in each such group. The following people are done: 7:14, etc. Or do you want the firm to call you into a private meeting and say, hey 7:14, times are tough and we need to make some tough decisions. So we need to let you go. You have 3 months before we cut you off from your e-mail, voicemail etc. We will keep this confidential so that your colleagues don't know we think you are at the bottom of the performance pile and we won't say you were shitcanned because we don't want you to have to disclose that you were fired on every job application that you fill out for the rest of your life. Our way will give you some room to find something and to preserve some self-respect.

I am not saying the latter is better, but I can see why firms would think that it is preferrable/less risky to let the attorney control the message rather than the firm.

Also, it is at least point of view, so I shared it.

So, if you're getting fired, you would rather have your firm announce the firing? Really? Firms like OMM do associates a favor by not announcing it to the world, they can seek other employment without it being known that they were fired. Only an idiot would want the firm to make a public announcement of his firing and then go looking for a job.

This site is a joke.

8:00: 7:14 seems to say he/she would want something more public. My point is merely to understand the details of when public is better than private from 7:14's point of view.

Also, if firms are going to do layoffs, maybe people that are upset about how things have been handled to date - which includes some surprise reviews and dismissals that seem unfair to me - can provide some input on how they think firms should handle cuts if they need to be made.

8:00, you really think you can go out and interview and not let your potential future employers know why you are leaving/have left your former job? You don't think they are going to ask, or are you suggesting fraud? You don't think it will be well-known that firm X, your previous employer, just laid off some underperformers?

I think you should figure out how the real world works. It looks like the only joke on this site is you.

Big DC -- I think the big OMM issue is that the layoffs were stealthy internally as well. The issue (at least for me), isn't that some fat had to be cut and that was "kept secret" from the outside world, it is that layoffs were dressed up as firings in order to keep it stealthy internally as well. That approach engenders fear and distrust (and doesn't help stifle rumors of a second wave of layoffs).

Lack of candor breeds distrust toward the decision makers (with the ATL field day being the result). Ultimately, from my perspective, all of this information about OMM being open for discussion is a bit disconcerting.

All things being equal and 8:44's comment notwithstanding (b/c I think it is a bad point), my preference would be that any layoffs be dealt with openly with the associates (and come what may in terms of negative publicity / ATL leaks, etc.). The partners pay us, yes. But, the partners are also our mentors, professionally and sometimes personally. There should be some sense of a duty to deal with associates openly and honestly.

I think that if layoffs were REALLY the same as other years there would not be the big deal and noise on the line that there was this year. I don't think that people were fired in other years and so many were given poor performance reviews and no-bonus'd.

The OMM partners simply cannot be honest with the associates. Its a terrible development

9:23, I really do appreciate the point about why OMM people are not happy and it is one that has been well made throughout this discussion. Only time will tell if firms have learned the lesson that doing things in a fair and honest manner is the best course, just as it is in other aspects of life.

J. Swift @ 2/4, 4:44, thank god for your post and your sense of humor.

8:00

ATL is our way to punish firms. Since firms hate to show any sign of weakness. The only way is to hit where it hurts - recruiting.

And the hate is not so much against OMM, it's the deplorable methods used. Hopefully, the vitriol and subsequent hit in recruiting prevents OMM and other firms from this despicable behavior.

Wow. 10:36 shows what happens when you're tossed in a locker one too many times in high school.

As for small mistakes, you reported associates "who" didn't pull their weight, not "that" didn't pull their weight. Sure hope you haven't made that mistake at work.

I'm late to party here, but I just read this article on OMM:

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=131034

Seriously, I've never heard of any firm doing 15 "performance based" firings/layoffs at one time. Has anyone else?

What could possibly be their rationale for handling it this way? I would think the destruction of goodwill and the damage to their reputation amongst rank and file lawyers is far worse than any (perceived) bad PR the firm would take if it announced 15 layoffs based on market conditions and the like. Why are some law firms so poor at public relations?

11:27: Is that really the reason the so-called "tipsters" are posting all this stuff about O'Melveny? If so, this "punishment" for O'Melveny's supposed misdeeds, whether they're true or not, will probably have some limited impact on recruiting for the next year or two. It won't stop qualified law students from applying there altogether, especially if the economy tanks and top law firms cut back on their summer classes for 2009.

You know who is really going to suffer from this punishment? The tipsters and their fellow O'Melveny associates who are now looking for jobs.

I guarantee that these postings are only making it harder for people trying to leave O'Melveny because every single recruiter knows about them and is going to assume anyone leaving O'Melveny's New York office is not leaving by choice. In effect, the most damaging "punishment" is not to O'Melveny but to these tipsters and their friends as the value of having O'Melveny on their resumes drops like a stone.

My (unsolicited) advice: shut up, stop trying to make your firm look bad, hope you're lucky enough to get a new job, and stop ruining your friends' chances of doing so.

i'm looking now and am having a hard time finding enough time in my schedule to take all the interviews the headhunter has to offer me. i think both recruiters and other firms see through this kind of crap. if they need good people they're not going to let the panicked partners at OMM decide for them which candidates are valuable or not when making hiring decisions.

regardless of whether they were let go, any associate with any sense in that office is looking at other options. really, do you think other firms are going to read that article and think, "well, OMM says it's doing really well, so it must be! obviously they've been keeping dozens of completely worthless associates around for no reason and it's a giant coincidence that they're letting them go right now when they also happen to have no work and are hemorrhaging clients."

as for the impact on recruiting, people still refer to shearman's incident from like ten years ago and that was before this kind of blawg gossip was google-able for all time. people might still apply to OMM in CA, but NY is hosed. it simply does not have the institutional reputation to weather this kind of storm.

it isn't people on this board who are harming reputations, it's OMM deciding to deny its own woes. i never thought cadwalader would make OMM look shady, but here we are.

ps: i'm posting this from the office right now, so i suppose we'll see if they're trying to hunt witches or not.

12:36: If you get an offer from a good firm, more power to you. Regardless of what the recruiters may be saying, I'm telling you from experience that associates from O'Melveny will need to overcome the perception that they were pushed out for performance reasons, even if they were total stars. The recruiters clearly smell blood in the water, and it's no skin off their backs if you get shot down after they send your resume out. Some firms may "see through this crap," but don't forget that there are hundreds of comparably qualified associates from other firms looking, too.

Yes, people still talk about Shearman, but plenty of qualified law students still end up there. I'm not saying this doesn't hurt O'Melveny; it does. I'm just pointing out that it will not hurt O'Melveny all that much in the long run, even if everything posted on ATL is true (an altogether different question).

On the other hand, individual O'Melveny associates are much more likely to feel the effects when they go on interviews and the first question they get asked is, "so are you one of those 15 associates that got fired?" Or, "are you running away from O'Melveny because of all the stuff they're saying about it on ATL?" Even if the answer to these questions truly is "no," you're wasting valuable interview time trying to convince the interviewer that you're making a move because you love firm X and not because you hate or were forced to leave O'Melveny. My guess is that no matter how convincing you are, the doubt will never be completely erased from the interviewer's mind.

If you want to help yourself and your friends, I would stop writing all this negative crap about O'Melveny. Of course, you should feel free to ignore my advice.

i've honestly told everyone i've interviewed with exactly what happened, and then moved on with the interview. if anything, i underestimated the extent to which partners at other firms would find such honesty refreshing. i've had second rounds with four of the firms, so the fact that i was "pushed out" doesn't seem to be harming me. maybe it has with some firms, or will in the future, but i don't want to end up at a place where underhandedness or lying are rewarded, anyway. that's why i chose OMM in the first place, and that's why this current environment is so outrageous to me and to so many others in the office.

shearman recovered because shearman is shearman. everyone still wants to work at S&C even though we're all well aware that their attrition rate is staggering. OMM NY is no S&S or S&C.

i can't control what anyone else writes on this board, and clearly not everyone on this board is from OMM - except, of course, you.

cat's out of the bag on the negative crap, unfortunately. the only people who will benefit from a reduction in the airing of grievances at this point are the partners who are trying to scare/shame associates into not publicizing their dirty laundry.

that said, no one has come banging on my office door yet, so i presume the IT guys aren't monitoring my activity at the moment.

12:36/1:37: You may be right, and I may be underestimating how people react when they hear you've been pushed out. If that's true, interviewers are more open minded than I thought (or than I am, frankly).

In terms of controlling others, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you could, only that you should be careful about what you're doing on ATL. And in terms of being at O'Melveny, I guess I wouldn't mind if that were true, at least from what I know about their LA office (not so sure about New York city, of course, so I guess these posts are having some effect).

Good luck with your second round of interviews. I hope you post on here with some good news soon.

I wasn't asked to leave and I had a good performance review. I have told recruiters about the OMM situation and let them know I'm not one of the 15. I've also told people in my interviews (I've already had FIVE) that I'm being selective and will only move for the right place. No one thinks I'm being forced out. People at OMM who have half a brain WILL be looking now. The idiots will be looking in May when the opportunities have dried up and OMM is still on a witch hunt.