PH ain't the only firm that's laying off associates.

PH Sucks!

I prefer asparagus over broccoli.

I prefer carrot cake over cheesecake.

--Captain Caveman

If you read her review. She was a good lawyer but not necessarily one that is going to make a partner. IIRC, she was a '98 grad making her a tenth year associate and her review said she should be given the responsibility of running a case. Umm... any 6-7th year should be able to fully run a decent sized litigation matter with little partner oversite.

She was also review on one matter which if you use hindsight would seem like a clear issue of other partners liking her work i.e. she didn't have enough people in her corner.

SECOND!! Shocking, a PR person staying on message. PH - drop the charade! You've been caught, fess up! It'll go over better than clinging to an obvious lie.

Harming the reputations of your former employees simply to try to avoid some bad PR (which you're getting anyway - even worse than you would have had you announced layoffs, in case you hadn't noticed by now) is just viewed as vicious. [Sidenote: fire the person whose idea this clusterf*ck was, be it PR person or partner - their stupidity cost you more than the dismissed associates ever did.]

Truth be told, law students can't really tell one BigLaw firm from another, when push comes to shove, especially at the beginning when they're trying to narrow down a seemingly endless list of similar firms to create their interview schedule. They can't interview with everyone. But they sure as heck know they don't want to work for someone vicious who'll toss them under the bus as a first resort.

You're making it REALLY easy for the good (even decent) students at top schools to cross at least 1 firm off their already overcrowded list of potentials interviews. This story has become the universal T14 interview schedule tiebreaker. Will bottom-of-class or TTT students still clamor at your door? Sure, because beggars for $160K can't be choosers. But what you'll be left with is an associate pool full of beggars.

Is that what you want?

Looks like you were wrong in reporting layoffs, Lat.

Okay, PH sucks! can we move on? and could you kindly remove Oh's picture already! It's starting to get annoying!

OK, so it's not that times are tough and they had to let some people go, it's that EVERY YEAR at performance review time they fire a bunch of associates just to thin the herd and make room for the new associates. That explanation should do wonders for their recruiting efforts!

Once again ATL enters "milk a story far beyond its actual value" territory and begins beating another horse to death.

Gallion OUT!

"There is always resulting turnover [after performance reviews], but we have not done any layoffs"

Very few firms do this or admit this.

"Attrition" is one of those Vietnam era Pentagon originated euphuisms (i.e., "the war of attrition") designed to sugar coat the truth but still refers to death—albeit in this context, career death.

Please anyone is caring of the Roger Lou and Shinyung Oh (now, Shinyung Lou) wedlock?

With respect,
诶比西

12:04 - They are not "milking" the story. They are correcting their prior erroneous coverage (which they should do).

For someone who constantly bitches about ATL, you have been commenting on here for a long long time, Gallion.

"anyone is caring of the Roger Lou and Shinyung Oh (now, Shinyung Lou) wedlock?"

--Uh, no.

Gallion OUT!

12:13 PM,

Why you say "Uh, no" with the hesitation when the Roger asked if you are caring of the Roger Lou and Shinyung Oh (now, Shinyung Lou) wedlock? The Shinyung and Roger entered the bonafide marriage and love each other. We registered for presents from our www.abovethelaw.com friends at Pier One Imports and Restiration Hardware -- under "Lou - Oh" wedding. Please buy presents and respect our holy matrimony.

With respect,
诶比西

My thoughts were the same as 11:52. Now that we know that she's a 10th year, it makes her "complaints" that partners, not her as an associate, should be bringing in business. If you're that senior and want to hold onto your job, you're supposed to be acting like a partner. Even in her good review, it noted that she needed to increase business development. In other words, it's clear she was not partner material, even if she was a good lawyer. And while her review was good, if you read it, you'll quickly notice that it was all based on one matter. If that matter ended, it is not surpising that her review might change dramatically in one year. Some partners like you. Some will not. If you work for the former one year, you'll get a good review. If you work for the latter the next year, even though your work has not changed, you will get a bad review. It happens.

Of course, letting this woman go 6 days after her miscarriage is simply inexcusable behavior and associates are rightly not going to want to work for a firm that thinks so little of its employees. Nevertheless, I don't think this woman necessarily has a great argument that she was fired for reasons other than not being up to snuff. At the least, it's not clear from the evidence we have.

Wait -- is it POSSIBLE that everyone has been rushing to judgment on PH and maybe there haven't been massive layoffs?

Just because she graduated law school 9 years ago does not necessarily make her a "10th year." People take a hit on class standing when they lateral. She could have been a 6th year.

ROGER LOU TO PH HIRING PARTNER !!!

"any 6-7th year should be able to fully run a decent sized litigation matter with little partner oversite."

No way, especially coming from someone who can't even spell oversight.

12:24 - A rush to judgment on the internet? That NEVER happens......

Paul Hastings = Roger Clemons

PH no layoffs, Clemons no roids. They are equally as believable.

If PH is an "up or out" firm, they should say as much. Associates should take heart in knowing that PH would take her back in 3 seconds if she walked in the door with a $5 million book of business. Her only performance issues seemed to be in generating business. She would have made partner 2-3 years ago with some business.

I think you mean Roger Clemens. Non-sports fans should not try to incorporate sports into their analogies.

"OK, so it's not that times are tough and they had to let some people go, it's that EVERY YEAR at performance review time they fire a bunch of associates just to thin the herd and make room for the new associates. That explanation should do wonders for their recruiting efforts!"

Firms don't admit this, so I agree it's bad publicity, but it happens. People who can't hack it, don't bill enough, or are raving psychos are quietly ushered out nearly every year.

Nope...it's Roger Clemons...famous power lifter from the 40's. You probably have never heard of him.

Thanks,

12:35

Schulte layoffs and Heller layoffs....?

Any news on the decrease in salaries for 1st year associates in NYC?

NYC to 145K!!!

Funny how some firms (Paul Hastings, Sidley, etc.) keep repeating that they never lay people off for economic reasons, only "performance," but that "performance" based firings only seem to happen when work starts to slow down.

If anyone feels compelled to dispute this, please provide numbers of firings for each year 1997 through the present. And if you see peaks around 2000-2002 and 2006-present, ask yourself, do you really believe this isn't meaningful?

12:49 - why would you want to go and ruin my day? Now I need to go drink heavily at the thought of such a thing.

Many offices of many firms don't "usher people out" every year.

does "normal" attrition usually come w/ a three-month severance package? i was under the impression you got notice and some time to find a new job, but not a chunk of cash in exchange for a release and non-disparagement agreement.

This is utter non-sense.

So what they are saying is that they will fire a few of you every year no matter what.

Sounds like a lot of fun.

How much do you think she was making as a tenth year?

I am guessing she was very profitable; high billing rate and no profit sharing. If she was billing out at $450 and only taking home $250k....just saying.

So much for the firm not commenting on personnel matters.

Chicago might be cutting salaries too.

1:22 - She would have been billing at more than $450 as a 10th year at PH, I would guess. The problem with someone in her position is that people stop being willing to pay that for her. For the $600 or whatever she was being billed at, you can (almost) get a junior partner at comparable firms, and clients like that. Clients don't want her, as a 10th year, and a partner staffed on the same cases billing at nearly the same rate.

what a snore.

NO ONE KNOWS AT WHAT YEAR SHE WAS BILLED OUT.

Are firms really thinking about cutting salaries????

"Wait -- is it POSSIBLE that everyone has been rushing to judgment on PH and maybe there haven't been massive layoffs?"

No, it's not possible. PH has definitely been laying off people, and not for performance reasons. Look at PH's litigation group lineup in SF. There's not a single associate between the years 1998 and 2003. Why? Because they were all laid off--you can't tell me that every single associate in those years was let go because of poor performance.

"For the $600 or whatever she was being billed at, you can (almost) get a junior partner at comparable firms,"

Yep, and PH has created that situation because its billing rates are too high. It wants to sell itself as comparable to Latham, but none of its clients see it that way.

To 11:52, I would not want a 6th or 7th year running a major litigation such as a major patent litigation. This is not insurance defense we are talking about. There are junior partners who have not really run cases at firms where they only do big ticket lit.

Anyone care to comment on what firms like PH bill out their 7th, 8th, 9th year type associates out at? If it is greater than $480 to $500, they are definitely creating a problem.

1:22,

It isn't called up or out for nothing.

2:56,

6th or 7th years can handle the day to day operations on most litigations if they are going to become partners. I am not talking about bet the company types litigations worth tens of millions of dollars (like an ANDA patent infringement action) but 10-15 million dollar cases, regardless of insurance defense or patent litigation, are mostly run by senior associates.

I am not disagreeing that each case has its own individual staffing needs but smaller cases for biglaw are handled by those 6th and 7th year associates all the time with only minimal partner oversight.

2:57

7th, 8th and 9th years definitely bill out at more than $500.

Lat, her bio's been gone from website since late last week.

11:52(3) - think that her review noted "mid-level" at top. just she graduated in '98 does not automatically make her a 10th yr at PH (or any other firm).

(sorry - should be "just b/c she graduated...")

2:19 - anyone working at PH definitely knows or can look it up. They are very open (internally) about billing rates.

4:11 - I recall seeing her bio still up on Friday night.

"Look at PH's litigation group lineup in SF. There's not a single associate between the years 1998 and 2003. Why? Because they were all laid off--you can't tell me that every single associate in those years was let go because of poor performance."

What's your basis for concluding that "they were all laid off" (and didn't leave to go in-house, etc)? Do you have inside knowledge, or are you just jumping to conclusions like everyone else?

So someone posted some rumors about layoffs and now everyone's running with it? Should lawyers really be so uncritical, so susceptible to groupthink?

I don't work at PH, nor do I have any affiliations. But from what I can tell reading these threads, the lawyers who actually work there are not NEARLY as negative about the firm. I'm just surprised to see such low-level, uninformed gossip among the lawyer masses.

For law students who are no longer planning on interviewing at PH -- my guess is PH would rather not have associates who would make such important decisions based merely on gossip. And if the actless and heartless handling of Ms. Oh's layoff is enough make up your mind, then maybe you should consider how many a-hole partners you will find at every other Biglaw firm.

So this story turned out to be a bunch of law students and junior associates pointing and shouting "TTT" over what amounts to nothing? Laying her off a week after the miscarriage was rough, but she doesn't allege pregnancy discrimination. She was a 10th year associate with, as she put it, a high billable rate and low billable hours who got fired, but this story has generated 1100 comments??

Seriously, this blog is the TTT.

I so wish the firms ip addresses weren't generic.

These last few comments are not even subtle.

5:37 -

I have no affiliation with the firm whatsoever. I'm a 1L at a T6 school. See what you want in this story, but there's nothing here.

5:29

I get "heartless"... but what's "actless"?

5:01 - You are far, far overestimating the ability of litigators to go in-house. It certainly happens, but a firm the size of PH isn't going to lose every associate in years 2003 and above to in-house opportunities. There just aren't that many in litigation.

5:29 & 5:46 -

My apologies, I didn't realize that you no knowledge of the subject matter

- 5:37

" my guess is PH would rather not have associates who would make such important decisions based merely on gossip"

Yeah. Don't make decisions based on gossip. Make decisions based upon the lies that firms tell. That makes much more sense.

Harvey's a c#*ksucker

5:01: "What's your basis for concluding that "they were all laid off" (and didn't leave to go in-house, etc)? Do you have inside knowledge, or are you just jumping to conclusions like everyone else?"

Insider knowledge. Whatever, you're either a PH partner or you won't be persuaded anyway.

One wonders why firms even bother trying so hard to keep layoffs secret when it's evident that the law schools are filled with tools like 5:29 / 5:46 who will drink any kool-aid they dish out.

The point is that PH gave her a strong review, then later terminated for performance reasons. I think most of us can agree that if all was well from economic perspective, Ms. Oh would probably have a job. Ms. Oh's point was that PH should just be honest and say they are making more cuts because of economics. But Ms. King again says these are just performance based cuts. Clearly there is a disconnect. Please stop bashing Ms. Oh. She does not seem to b a grandstander, but someone who felt wronged and felt the need to speak out. There are people who make partner at PH with no business. There's no rhyme or reason over there except for laterals who need a big book. As to whether recruits should shun the firm, that is each person's individual choice, but I read enough discontent on the boards especially regarding women's issues that as a woman, I would think twice and would focus on those firms that have many women in management/partnership.

Looks like Paul Hastings is going Testa...

Maybe it's not as bad as all the comments suggest.

But do I really want to roll the dice?

Not unless I have no other choice.

9:02 - looks more like PH is going the way half of the other firms are right now.

These law firm PR hacks are worse than those that work at Wal-Mart. It would actually be fun to be one of those dolts. I would love to say:

"We can neither confirm nor deny that report."

"The firm's policy to to not comment on personnel matters."

"While the firm is in no way responsible for what happened to XXXX, it truly regrets this incident and expresses its sincere condolences to the victims."

"The firm's financial information is confidential."

Paul Hasting SUCKS.

1:36 ---> funny

Paul Hastings SUCKS!!! and the SF office is not alone. having worked for them for some time, i can honestly say they treat employees like crap, make up reasons for firing people, and engage in some pretty shady tactics to avoid "firing" people and having to pay unemployment!!! if you work there, sorry. if you got out, i'm sure you are happier regardless of where you ended up.

I heard that kneepads are a standard issuance at the PH first year orientation program.

Yes, that is true. I know from experience.

Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations for Paul Hastings, is a liar. On May 12th she claimed publicly that Paul Hastings is not laying off associates. The truth is that Paul Hastings partners were advised at their annual partners’ retreat in Palm Beach on April 3rd and April 4th last month that they would be required to lay off senior associates in each of Paul Hastings’ offices worldwide in order to deal with slumping business in Paul Hastings corporate department. In addition, Paul Hastings began laying off corporate and real estate associates last fall and has thereafter continued to stealthily lay off associates, approximately two at a time, to avoid media attention.

Last! (YES!)