What's Up at Latham & Watkins?
(Morale - thanks to a 'no layoffs' promise.)
Here's a round-up of interesting items pertaining to Latham & Watkins, a favorite firm among ATL readers.
1. Latham makes the "no layoffs" pledge. Just like Milbank, Latham has promised that it won't be laying off lawyers in response to the current economic crisis. From an LW tipster:
Last Wednesday, managing partner Bob Dell gave his State of the Firm address via videoconference. Dell went over the firm's great financial success for 2007 (firm revenue went up a whopping 23%, far exceeding all other major firms).He also addressed the challenges ahead for 2008. He specifically addressed the issue of layoffs. He said multiple times that he believed it would be a bad business decision to lay off associates. Latham made that mistake in 1990 and Dell said the layoffs hurt their profitability after the recession was over. Dell said "there will be no layoffs" and that it was not even on the table for discussion.
The firm is definitely slower, but things have picked up a little bit. Firm pace is around 100% [based on 1900 billables] for the first time this year for March. It's not going to be a banner year like 2007, but I don't think that it will be a disaster, either. Dell did note that it would be challenging and that "partners would be making a lot less money." I thought that was a bit of candor that was welcomed (and unexpected).
Dell also stressed that the firm was diversified and well positioned to handle any coming recession, even if it deepens. He also felt that Latham was well positioned to take advantage of the post-recession period as well.
So that's the good news. Considering how phenomenally well the firm fared last year, the partners can afford to take a hit if necessary to avoid layoffs.
More Latham news, after the jump.
2. No D.C. office retreat. Not all news out of Latham is happy. From a source in the Washington office:
We [recently] received word at our all-associates lunch that they are probably going to cancel the annual office retreat that the D.C. [office] has had for years. It's been around as long as I've been here, but is a part of belt tightening for the slower year this year. This is not major news, but disappointing, and may foreshadow more changes.
The firm issued this statement, through a spokesperson:
We periodically review our expenses, as does any responsible business, particularly in a more challenging economic environment. Where sensible, we will look to curtail certain expenses, and the annual retreat seems a sensible area to do that. We look forward to this event in the future.
3. No plants for L.A.? In Los Angeles -- where Latham was founded, but NOT its headquarters, as Lathamites consistently insist (because LW is now a global firm) -- the firm is getting new digs. It's moving out of the U.S. Bank Building -- "aka Library Tower, that thing that gets nuked in Independence Day, sometimes called the 'Big White Target'" -- into new quarters.
Will the new office buck the "green" trend? From an email that made the rounds:
Plants. Other Latham offices have discontinued their plant programs. Similarly, we will not permit plants in our new space. If you have purchased a plant and would like to take it home, please do so by April 30th as we will no longer have a maintenance program. If you have been paying a monthly fee, we will make sure you are no longer charged. Also, we will be giving away all plants and containers in our departments and common areas. I will be sending more details about this process with the plan to have them completely out of our space by the end of April.
We're not quite sure why Latham is so anti-plant. But for the record, their new L.A. office will be very "green," in terms of being environmentally friendly. From a statement the firm sent ATL in response to our inquiry:
Based on feedback and further consultation, the firm is reviewing a number of options vis-à-vis these initial recommendations [about plant policy].Latham & Watkins is committed to a very environmentally-friendly office space and the new location is expected to be LEED-certified, the nationally recognized standard for the design and construction of green buildings.
Personally we don't have a huge problem with a "no plants" policy. When we were at a firm, we had a plant in our office, but it died from neglect (much like our social life). Biglaw life and plant life may not be terribly compatible.
Latham Leads Strong Year in L.A., Could Surpass Skadden as Top-Grossing Firm [The Recorder via Law.com]
Earlier: What's Up at Milbank Tweed?
(44) Comments
Will this reduce summer associate expenditure budgets?
NY to the Milbank promise!
THIS STORY IS BULLSHIT.
LATHAM DOESN'T LAY PEOPLE OFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FAR MORE DIRTY WAY OF GETTING RID OF PEOPLE. THEY BLAME YOUR PERFORMANCE, GIVE YOU THE TALK AND OUTPLACE YOU.
FIRMS WHICH LAY YOU OFF ARE HONEST ENOUG TO ADMIT THAT YOU'RE BEING LET GO BECAUSE OF THEIR WOES, AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHIGN YOU DID.
FIRM LIKE LATHAM NOT ONLY LAY YOU OFF, BUT THEY ALSO DESTROY YOUR REP IN THE PROCESS.
But they save their own in the process, 2:55.
When they're already making their millions off your rapidly dissipating youth, why would you expect anything more from them?
Makes me think of when I worked for O'Sullivan Graev and the managing partner called an associate meeting at which he stated categorically that OGK would not be merging with another firm, which meeting was followed the very next day by a meeting with another honcho who indicated that OGK may in fact be merging, which meeting was followed a short while afterwards by a merger between OGK and O'Melveny.
2:55
Wasn't Latham the only firm during the last round of layoffs to own up to the layoffs rather than pushing them under the table as "performance related?"
Re: "Biglaw life and plant life may not be terribly compatible."
Possibly, unless said plant is of the cannabis varietal, in which case the statement is downright wrong.
3:00, i thought the last round was post 9/11....S&S laid off then i've heard, but L&W only last laid off in the early 90's apparently.
What's the point of banning plants in individual offices?
Gallion will not be laying anyone off in 2008, and had a RECORD year, with high-profile case(s).
Gallion OUT!
tytytyty
2:49: This is the mentality that is so annoying about summers. In this economy, you are lucky to have a job -- with or without activities.
2:55: Typos aside, there is one thing you should learn:
"FIRMS WHICH LAY YOU OFF ARE HONEST . . . ."
should be
"FIRMS *THAT* LAY YOU OFF ARE HONEST . . . ."
3:29, take your pick:
1) need someone to water/clean them
2) sometimes mistakenly used as trash can
3) potential to cause jealous rage if plant thrives in office while associate slowly turns to dry husk
4) provide oxygen to resident associate = greater possibility that associate will come to senses and quit
5) all of the above
Latham is a class act. Given the fact that Milbank has already laid some people off (pre-"promise"), the new standard is thus the "Latham Promise." Any firm that fancies itself as "prestigious" or "leading" (or even remotely prosperous and stable) should issue a similar promise.
2:55, grammar advice #2 is to re-learn comparatives. My #1 pet peeve:
"FAR MORE DIRTY WAY"
(also, Latham as firm = singular = it, not they)
Wonder if they'll put a similar guarantee with offers to summers
Amen, 2:55!
Latham is quite possibly the best firm. It's under-ranked because of Vault's east coast bias. If rankings reflected realities, Latham would be #1.
According to my friend who used to work at LW -- There are a lot of really great things about LW, but it still has some work to do to in order to better retain women, minorities, and new parents. I guess that's true of all firms, but if LW better address this one demographic issue, it'd get a near perfect score in her book.
For something like $6/month (or per week, don't really pay attention), someone waters your plant for you in the LA office. I've heard in light of the no layoff policy, this task will be handled temporarily by finance associates rather than an outside company. Performance firings will occur only if my plant dies...
I will gladly spearhead the L&W plant-watering initiative for free this summer in exchange for a summer associate spot next summer. I'll be waiting by the phone.
How does a 23% increase in revenue "far exceed" other firms? A quick glance at the chart on thelawyer.com proves otherwise.
As 2:55 noted, Latham NY has definitely canned around a dozen assocs. in the last two months, telling them to find new pastures pronto. If that is simply business as usual and not a "layoff", they should make clear what amount of forced attrition is normal.
Who is representing Bear Stearns in its upcoming litigation?
Um, 4:25, what article did you read? Latham posted a 23% increase. Show me something close for a big firm (the only one similar is QE, but they're how much smaller than Latham and works on contingency sometimes).
4:28, i call bs
Sidley mentioned during their year end meeting that they do not and will not layoff associates during the economic downturn or challenging year that may lie ahead
wonder how the firm's GC likes them making promises to at-will employees
4:16 that's hilarious
w00t! LW = 1337
I heard the same promises when I summered at Brobeck. Latham is a great firm, but there are no sure things in this business.
Can we please be clear that layoffs are different from firing an individual for poor performance?
Just as a reminder, Paul Tsvetenstrand at Thacher Proffitt said the exact same thing to the associates, adding that the partners would take the hit themselves before they resort to layoffs. They have since had two rounds pf layoffs, but in neither case were they really layoffs because the affected associates were given the "option" (ahem) to voluntarily (ahem ahem) buy out their contracts. In other words, total BS. Kind of like Ken Lay's assurances to the employees and shareholders of Enron that all was glorious. Next thing you know, shit hits fan and everyone cries.
Lots of BS in these posts. Don't work for Latham, but have a lot of friends who do and a good memory. First, although it has many of the problems all BigLaw firms do, Latham's open and colaborative culture really does set it apart from most, if not all top firms. Second, when firms were performance reviewing assocaites out in the 90s, Latham made it clear that the people they let go were good workers and were only being laid off because of the tech bust/economy. Compared to everyone else, this was a very classy move, as is Dell's promise today.
By the way, STB and several other firms of their ilk have a "no layoff" promise given to all incoming associates.
Probably should have accepted my Latham offer...
I have an offer at LW and just felt like gloating. Out.
Good thing NYU Earl got rejected at CWT and wound up at Latham! Earl to employment!
Milbank and L&W already "laid" people off by any normal construction of that word.
11:41. I call bollocks
5:16, I call bollocks. Sidley laid people off in the dot bomb after claiming they had never in their history done so and wouldn't. This year, reviews of folks who are now likely on the list for potential "performance" related dismissal received lower than expected reviews in substantial numbers. Look into it.
Da Bears: People do, even in good economic times, receive poor reviews, some of which lead to dismissal. In poor or uncertain times, it's not surprising that associates who are not giving 100% would end up on such a "potential" list and would be more readily let go. But to say that Sidley is intentionally or strategically lining up associates (who are otherwise giving it 100% and performing well - provided there is work) for performance related dismissal because of the credit crunch and worsening economy...I call bollocks. What 5:16 was told, and what is indeed the case (as to the early 90's, dot bomb, and today), is true.
A bit more on the "performance" layoffs: In some slower Latham offices, associates were given mid-year performance "messages" from the firm (ie, summary statements --- you're doing great, okay, poorly, etc.) right after the credit crunch hit, even though messages are typically just an annual part of the review process. Almost across the board, the mid-year messages were unjustifiably more critical than the messages the associates received just 5 months earlier, even if the underlying reviews remained the same. Not all messages were catastrophic, but nearly all had gentle warning language about future performance. In other words, Latham saw the writing on the wall and wanted to start laying the performance groundwork.
2:55 and 4:28 have it right. latham doesn't want to hurt its own reputation by laying people off, so when the economy tightens, reviews are more critical. critical reviews = "transition" for the associates receiving them. this way latham can trim the fat without losing face. sucks for the associates for obvious reasons. latham should call a spade a spade. 2:58 makes a good point, too - probably best not to expect anything different.