Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Confesses to Lawyer Layoffs
Last week, we reported on rumors of layoffs in the Atlanta and D.C. offices of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. The post has amassed over 400, um, informed comments.
The fact of layoffs has now been confirmed by the firm. Although Sutherland never responded to ATL's inquiries, it did talk to Meredith Hobbs, who has this article in the Fulton County Daily Report. The number of firings was lower than rumored, with maybe 8 attorneys let go from the Atlanta office and maybe 7 from the D.C. office. (Managing partner Mark Wasserman uses a lot of modifiers: "fewer than," "about," etc.)
The legal tabloid AbovetheLaw.com sparked a firestorm of rumors when it reported Friday that Sutherland Asbill & Brennan was laying off 30 to 40 associates firmwide.Sutherland's managing partner, Mark D. Wasserman, acknowledged that the 480-lawyer firm has cut its associate ranks. But he said the firm has asked fewer than 15 associates to leave, with about eight associates affected in the Atlanta office.
Wasserman said the cuts were based on "several factors," "including the slowing economy, plus associate and practice group performance."
The firm says it still plans to bring in all of its summer associates and attorneys starting in the fall. But there's this warning about the future from legal recruiter Melba Hughes:
“I think we're going to see law firms tighten their belt throughout the region. It's a natural course of events given the period we've just gone through,” she said.That could mean law firms reduce head count through layoffs, attrition, more cautious hiring and “by looking for new and creative ways to manage their workloads,” said Hughes, which could mean using more contract and staff attorneys instead of partnership-track associates.
The firm did not comment on the herpes rumors.
In The Trenches: Sutherland trims associate ranks [Fulton County Daily Report]
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
(61) Comments
13th
14th
good job lat. sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Here's my question - were these particular associates told:
A. Clear out your desk, you'll get severance;
B. You need to be gone by June 1 (or some other date); or
C. Something else.
They were told C. You were stupid or desparate enough to join this TTT, and now you're screwed. Get out and don't expect severance.
I love how all these TTTs, you know like OMM, CWT, SAB say that these associate firings are occuring due to poor reviews. YEAH RIGHT!
I love how everyone on this site is so psycho over only caring about "Biglaw" and then a post about this TTT laying off a few associates gets 400+ comments. We are just lemons. Firms will squeeze as much juice as possible and then discard the rind. Get over it.
Kudos to SAB for talking to the media. I wonder why the firm declined comment on the herpes rumors?
HEY LAT, HOW ABOUT SOME COVERAGE ON THE AMLAW 100 2008 RELEASE. ALSO HOW ABOUT SOME COVERAGE ON THE SHEARMAN RAISE IN LONDON AND WHAT THAT MEANS IN NEW YORK.
10:48. I see it as the firm trying to blur the line of causation. If only I remembered anything from logic class.
The firm determined it had to fire 15 people because of the economy. The firm then claims selected which associates to fire based on lowest reviews. The firm is trying to suggest that, had all reviews been equal (or not poor), it would not have fired anyone. This is obviously not the case.
If nothing else, the firm has the power to label someone "poor" after having made the decision that it needed to fire someone.
10:59, obviously you're right.
The problem is the attorneys laid off may not have gotten bad reviews. They may have been average or even good, just (the firm claims) lower than everyone else. This is why firms shouldn't disguise economic layoffs and performance layoffs.
Are these attorneys that would've been kept on if the economy was still strong? If yes, then it's purely an economic layoff and shouldn't reflect poorly on the specific associate.
Any other rumors of layoffs around Atlanta?
NY to 190!
11:08, all firms have been subtly laying off associates or with increasing frequency making associates so miserable that they leave (A&B!!!!) .
Anyone know who is advising on the Mars Inc buyout of Wrigley?
Apparently the article is all LIES too. Mid-year reviews haven't even been done.
@11:26
The blue M&M.
Any truth to the rumor that Morgan Lewis missed payroll?
SAB dinged me at OCI!!!!! LOL!
11:32 - what does 'missed payroll' mean?
What's an assbill? Does it hurt?
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/04/simpson-skadden.html
10:48 -
for the record, CWT did not say the firings were due to poor reviews. they came out and said, very conspicuously, that their layoffs were totally market-related and had nothing to do with poor performance.
"The firm did not comment on the herpes rumors."
WELL PLAYED. Welllllllllllll played.
As an SAB associate, I can confirm that in fact mid-year reviews HAVE NOT YET OCCURRED. We just received an email last week stating that in addition to first and second years (the only folks who get mid-year reviews around here), this year everyone with less than 1750 hours will get one too. However, as the mid year review process has not yet begun and the 1750 hours thing is a recent development, how are they laying off people, especially anyone over their second year, based on mid-year reviews?
As of the end of December, about 80% of associates were below the firm's target of 1950 hours for Jan-Dec, so the associates laid off were not exactly alone, and they can't be blamed for the firm's over-hiring and lack of enough work to go around.
They do send out monthly hours reports in the Atlanta office for all to see. Year-end reviews included salary cuts for many attorneys (that's right, not just no deferred comp, but they took money away), and so we all thought that was the end of it. No mention of impending layoffs - the only consequence laid out was a salary cut, which was done very quietly and without reference to any standard system. This was also done to first and second years who are supposed to be lock-step.
And associates are getting a few months pay while they're "outplaced." With the summers arriving they won't be around the office. The secretaries they're firing are getting about ten minutes' notice.
Also, I count more than 8 associates in Atlanta being told to find something else to do. Wasserman isn't including the associates who were given some other variation of "maybe you should start looking" or otherwise given a clear signal that they need to pack their bags before last week.
SAB used to be a great place to work, but they've really done a lot this year to damage their relationship with their employees. The sense of loyalty and trust is gone. There are still some good people there, but the atmosphere has totally changed.
11:32,
I am at Morgan Lewis and my direct deposit is showing in my account (although I can't access it until tomorrow, which is how that always works). Thanks for the heart-stopping moment, though!
11:57 here: Correction. Money is actually in account now--I was looking at the wrong page. Carry on.
I work for Schulte and have not been paid in 3 weeks and I am getting fat. What should I do?
Everyone repeat after me: "BIGLAW and "the rest" is not a hard choice between interesting work and slightly higher bonus potential, versus the same basic for less hours: this is a no-brainer where one choice means your life is secure and the other means you're going to get axed or be scared of the ax for the next few years."
We mock those who chose lifestyle firms because "hey, the pay's about the same for less hours and a smaller firm!" Suckers.
12:44,
You should explain how you're getting fat while not getting paid.
Hey 1:10 - If I was a betting man, I would bet you are obese. No?
11:13, how bad is the situation at Alston * Bird? Are you speaking of the Atlanta office or another field office?
1:13 -- I eat when I am nervous. I get nervous when I don't get paid. Now I am obese and have started to absorb my desk chair.
"I eat because I'm unhappy, and I'm unhappy because I eat. It's a vicious cycle." - Fat Bastard
HERPES and SAB -- like birds of a feather...
1:10 you are wrong.
I am at a top ten law school. I have friends who chose "lifestyle firms" and smaller firms i.e. <200 attorneys and they have had their start dates delayed and it is looking shaky as to whether they will be able to start at all.
The difference is that their firm really can't afford to keep them around and some of the large firms can afford to do it, but choose not to in order to keep ppp high. I would rather hope for a partner to take a cut in his pay and save my job than be going into a situation where a downturn makes it impossible for me to keep my job.
neither one is a good situation, but hey take what you can get.
RE: 2:33's "I would rather hope for a partner to take a cut in his pay and save my job ..."
Keep hoping, dude. Never gonna happen but hey, "hope springs eternal".
1:10 here:
First, nope, not obese (male, little over 6', around 170lbs, probably 6-7% body fat these days).
Second, what the hell are you trying to say, 2:33? "The difference is that their firm really can't afford to keep them around and some of the large firms can afford to do it, but choose not to in order to keep ppp high." You'd rather be canned by someone who felt bad about it? Who cares.
My point was that the biggest, nastiest, and most "prestigeous" of the BIGLAW firms are vastly superior due to their ability to weather economic downturns without having to choose between PPP and the associates, as well as having a reputational incentive to not fire people. You let me know if you seriously think Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Paul Weiss, etc. will fire associates to maintain PPP.
3:17:
Are you f'ing kidding? How long have you been an attorney? All the big boys get rid of folks. It may not be through official layoffs, but through shabby treatment or lack of work. Even the top firms don't want to lose their partners to other top firms or investment banks. PPP is king at every firm, not just the weaker ones.
WAIT! Did no one else notice that 11:53 wrote that at Sutherland, year-end reviews included salary cuts?!! WTF is up with that and why the silence?
4:42: The silence is about management thinking that if they tell everyone on a one-on-one basis during reviews and make it sound like this is a special arrangement in your case only, everyone'll be too embarassed to even mention the cut to friends, and therefore the firm never has to deal with the backlash when everyone finds out. Summer recruits: beware, this is not the same firm you interviewed with last year. In fact, most of those people you interviewed with are probably already gone!
4:42 is right re 11:53.
As another SAB associate (sorry, I guess that is now officially Sutherland associate) that has heard nil about PAY CUTS, I consider myself lucky. And nervous. Please share some more info including any numbers. That is WHACK!
Salary cuts suck, but I want to know what practices were affected by acknowledged layoffs, and why anony poster on original thread keeps hinting at additional layoffs. Anyone?
right, but why didn't wasserman comment on the herpes issue?
probably took the fifth
Kash & Lat just pwnd SAB & the Wass. Well done.
6:51: I've heard anything from 2,500 to 10,000. And I've heard that while corporate and IP have been hit the hardest, litigation has largely been spared, but maybe not for long if things don't turn around soon. Litigation partners have been going to bat for their people, but a few more crappy draws and it won't last.
Posted by guest | Permalink
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:30 PM
"right, but why didn't wasserman comment on the herpes issue?"
What's an Asbill and why do SAB partners use them to assult their associates???
You let me know if you seriously think Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Paul Weiss, etc. will fire associates to maintain PPP.
This made me laugh! Baby lawyers are so cute! And it is so hard to find them before they have been disillusioned.
OK, I give up - what the hell is "pwnd"?
pwnd courtesy of urban dictionary: An internet chat language variety/version of the word "owned", used in the sence of beating/defeating/outclassing someone. Usually used in games such as Counter-strike or on messageboards when a user posts arguments or insults that can't possibly be counter-argued.
11:53. there are no salary cuts.
obviously you have a lot of time on your hands. you probably won't make 1950 this year either.
i can't imagine what NY viewers think reading associates complain about 1950 (billable+pro bono) requirements. talk about east street.
wasserman is a wusserman, that's why he didn't comment on the herpes issue. he also exposed the firm to huge malpractice exposure which will come out soon. the associate costs will pale by comparison.
Malpractice exposure? How so? Does he practice AND serve as managing partner?
Just kidding. No malpractice. Sutherland does a wonderful job vetting all the associates, partners and staff and only lets the best and brightest work with their valued clients, you can be sure of that!
"wasserman is a wusserman, that's why he didn't comment on the herpes issue. " / malpractice???
HERPES ISSUE? Care to share? I work at SAB and have never heard anything about us working on/botching a herpes-related case. Nonsense.
12:10. you obviously do not work at SAB. if you did, then you would know exactally what people are talking about re: herpes. it has nothing to do with malpractice and everything to do with dirty male partners passing around a dirty disease to dirty female associates.
I thought the partner with herpes was gone. The scorpion gave it to the frog ("a little romance") and then the frog who was really a horny backed toad gave it to all the girls who thought they were kissing prince charming.
herpes is all over sab.
Sab is a highly respec-- HERPES