Nationwide Layoff Watch: Patton Boggs ‘Lets Go’ of ‘Eight to Nine’ Associates Firm-Wide
These days we spend a lot of our time chasing down rumors of attorney and staff layoffs at large law firms. It’s a sign of the times.
Over at Adam Smith, Esq., lawyer and law-firm consultant Bruce MacEwen has compiled a helpful tally of acknowledged layoffs by major law firms. But note his caveat, which we also adopt: “I have not been able to include firms that have implemented stealth layoffs or, inhumanely, dismissed associates for “performance” reasons when that was actually not the case.”
Many of the layoff rumors we hear turn out to be false, some of them comically so (like the one about a firm that supposedly laid off 40 associates, but has actually had just three depart, voluntarily, year to date). But some gossip turns out to have a certain amount of truth to it.
We recently heard that D.C.-based powerhouse Patton Boggs, known for its leading lobbying and administrative / regulatory practices, laid off four associates in its Dallas office. We reached out to the firm for comment.
A spokesperson for the firm, Rebecca Carr, stated that “eight to nine” associates were “let go” firm-wide. She didn’t provide a precise breakdown in terms of offices of practice areas of the affected associates (so we’re not sure about that Dallas number). She resisted characterizing these personnel changes as “layoffs” per se, chalking them up to “a combination of factors.”
“For the past eight years, we have done mid-year evaluations of associates,” Ms. Carr explained. “We evaluate them and determine whether or not there’s a good fit. This year the state of the economy is somewhat soft, which made us take a harder look when conducting our evaluations.”
“We made decisions to let go associates where we didn’t feel we’d have enough work to keep them employed here,” she said. “It’s not a reflection on their work at all or on them. It’s just that we have to take a harder look this year.”
“Given the state of the economy, we don’t have the luxury of carrying folks who aren’t going to make it here, whom we don’t think are going to be a good long-term fit,” Ms. Carr added. “Patton Boggs is having a very good year. But the economy is soft, and we have to tread carefully in a soft economic climate.”
Finally, in response to questions from us, she stated that no cuts have been made to staff ranks or to lawyers more senior than associates (like partners or of counsel).
We thank Ms. Carr for the information, and we commend Patton Boggs for its candor. We suspect that many other Biglaw shops, due to tough economic times, are ratcheting up standards when it comes to performance reviews. Most of these firms chalk up the subsequent dismissals as purely due to performance issues. But if they were going to be more honest, they’d admit (as Patton has) that the definition of “good performance” changes when the economy is weak.
If you have layoff information — not rumor, which we hear a lot of, but hard info — that hasn’t been previously reported in these pages, please email us (subject line: “Nationwide Layoff Watch”). Thanks.
Update: More info about the Patton Boggs layoffs appears over at Tex Parte.
A Modest Suggestion re Associate Layoffs [Adam Smith, Esq.]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of layoffs (scroll down)
(33) 
Comments
First. TTT
wait, what does this have to do with asian's getting married?
Patton is hardly Biglaw. Non news especially given the state (and activities) of many of the Chicago Biglaw shops
3:52 - Patton Boggs is Am Law 100.
Re: Chicago, what are the deets?
I'm tired of 2L's here calling Biglaw firms not Biglaw/TTT just because of layoffs. Are they any less Biglaw just because they're shrinking their classes and not gonna hire your sorry ass? Boo hoo.
Now, certain boneheaded actions associated with layoffs (Paul Hastings) deserve to be called out. And yeah, when Biglaw comes clean, they really need to come clean like Powell Goldstein did a few days ago.
I agree with Lat in that Patton isn't being completely forthright about performance-based layoffs, but come on, enough with the TTT meme already.
This is terrible for anyone who lost their job, as well as the thousands of other associates (and millions of Americans) worried about losing theirs.
And this won't be the end of it. Right now, AIPAC is lobbying intensely for a naval blockade of Iran, in hopes that it will trigger another war. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-van-gelder/are-congressional-democra_b_109500.html
If you don't want another eight years of war for AIPAC, raise your voice.
3:52,
Who in Chicago is laying off besides SNR? I've heard whispers about DLA for months now, but nothing concrete. Dykema swallowing Schwartz Cooper this week was pretty significant too. SCGK was much more recognizable than Welsh & Katz, and yet its "merger" didn't get any press on these pages. What gives Lat?
Co-sign 4:08. The only CHI layoffs I know of are Sonnenschein (which the firm admitted).
4:04...good luck with that. at this point, "TTT" = any school the commenter does not attend, and any firm he doesn't work for or aspire to work for. as you can see, it's a pretty reliable indicator of little you'd enjoy that person's company.
4:04(1) - Patton IS being forthright. At least they're admitting that they tighten performance standards during a bad economy (which most firms deny, saying "business as usual," "ordinary course," etc.).
Cough cough, Paul Hastings.
Dechert did, ultimately, lay off the people who were laid off then not laid off. After Bart announced that it was all a misunderstanding and the people were merely being reassigned, the laid off associates were put on doc review for three months and then quietly laid off again.
Who cares, you may ask? Well, if your resume says you are not currently working, it's better to have everyone know that you were canned as part of a general reduction. Oddly, in other words, you want your layoff to be public knowledge.
4:04 - why would this be bad for business - haven't you ever heard "war is the best thing for business" Think Bechtel, Raytheon, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, etc.
In case you don't know you're history, the New Deal reduced unemployment from 33% to 25%. WWII ENDED unemployment.
War is good for business. Also, Obama's leftist, dovish, pacifist agenda would harm us interests domestically and abroad.
From the WSJ:
“But in a deal making year like this — fraught with recession worries, a drop in deal volumes, and skittish credit markets — those guys in finance want to know what they’re getting when they vote. Are they prepared for an Obama administration that would make deals even harder to do?”
New here -- what does TTT stand for?
4:34-Top Tier Talent
Thank you, 4:37!
4:34(1) - learn "your" from "you're".
Nevertheless, YOUR point is valid.
The war has been good for the economy. Without a war we'd be really screwed. Thus AIPAC is helping America.
Thanks 4:37,
So, what is the big deal about calling PB TTT? Seems like quite a compliment.
4:34
4:34(1)...other than a ton of openings for enlisted infantry, how many jobs has this war created?
the fact that a short list of gov't contractors may benefit from a war is far different from the proposition that the economy as a whole benefits. I think the current status of the economy bears that out.
that saying assumes that the country's economy, particularly the manufacturing sector, is needed to help support the war effort. in WWII, the entire country was engaged; the troop mobilization and equipment needs of WWII dwarfed the current war. this situation couldn't be more different...for one, the US isn't nearly the manufacturing center it was in the early 40s.
what finance people dislike is uncertainty. they can work in whatever conditions exist, but not knowing what those conditions will be is what makes people hesitate.
Between 8 and 9? Did they fire a midget?
4:58 - We're not talking about some puny half-assed little war like Iraq. We're talking about starting up a REAL war. That should get the deal flow going!
Does anyone know what groups at PB got hit with the layoff?
the reason that in the past war was good for the economy, think WWII. Is that it took a lot of people out of the workforce and into the military, and boosted production across a larger number of industries, all because of a draft. As this country does not have the political will for a draft at this point, this is likely to be another covert operation along the lines of our support of the Taliban in the 1980s. It might cost as much as a war, but it is possible that this war will never be declared. If it is declared, I must wonder where on earth President Bush thinks he is getting the men and women to fight this war, unless he institutes a draft. As our military is stretched incredibly thin at this point
4:34
TTT actually stands for Third Tier Toilet and it is not a compliment. Use it liberally against foes.
4:04(2)
Even if you have J-street or CARE sympathies, it is hardly accurate to call Iraq an AIPAC war. No evidence of that in the slightest. You, sir/maam, are flaming! And the Sarah Geller article is entirely too sanguine about the ambitions of Iran to get nukes.
Maybe it'll be a Clinton-style war - just bomb them into the stone age.
What is happening in Chicago. I have only heard of more layoffs at McDermott Will.
From what I know there have been no layoffs at McDermott, or any other big Chi firm for that matter (other than SNR)
So these layoffs are not about performance at all, but they were provoked by reviews in which people who weren't on track were let go. Slightly circular reasoning there.
The firm basically told associates this a few weeks ago.
The management said that some groups, esp. corporate, were very slow, and that there wasn't enough work to go around and that they did not see it changing anytime soon. They said that historically productive associates has nothing to worry about - but they implied that if you were the type over the past couple of years that has missed their hours, missed their pro bono, had few hours of training, and got mediocre reviews, then yes, you were in jeopardy if you were in corporate, esp. if you were not willing to drop down a tier or so on the billable hour tracks.
I think that's the reality at every BIGLAW (or AmLaw 100 or whatever) firm - lousy associates are not going to be given any leeway when business is slow.
Firms tend to have a big PR machine to downplay the negative affect of the economy on their finances. Simple truth is that there is less work to be divided by the AmLaw 100 today than when times were flush. Firms like Wachtell, Skadden, etc. will always have high profile big fee generating matters, but firms lower down the Amlaw will not be able to carry all their associates while maintaining PPP. Clients tighten their belts by doing their best to minimize legal fees, e.g. bankruptcy "prepacks" which means a lot less billable time for some bankruptcy departments. Products liability cases that had dozens of associates doing endless discovery for Vioxx, Seroquel, etc. had clients clamp down. Now that the work in some areas is more scarce, look for a lot of nervous counsel and non-equity partners hoarding work at less busy firms.
Patton at least had the good sense to blame the economy for its layoffs unlike a lot of firms. Hopefully the downturn will not be long and drawn out, but firms certainly feel it will be long enough that the CBA favors trimming associate ranks and eating the recruiter fees whenever they need to refill their ranks.
so, no further word about the impact on Dallas corporate associates?
Did these laid-off associates get a severance package? Is three months pay the standard for lay offs?
Re: 7/2 at 2:40: Work has been down significantly in PB Dallas' transactional practice since December. Big clients aren't doing as much lending, and the work has been slow. Litigation has stayed busy, but major defections have been occurring there for months, largely due to partner infighting. Three of the four associates let go by the Dallas office are transactional.
That the associates who were let go were a "bad fit" for the firm is misleading, at least in the Dallas office. The people I know who were let go were comparatively busy and had generally good reviews, but weren't close enough to the right partners. My guess is that a partner meeting was convened and unless you were an important partner's sacred cow, you were at risk.