Yeah, getting your starting date being unceremoniously pushed back 5 weeks is certainly minimally disruptive to first year associates with tens of thousands of dollars in loans. Good call, retards. Who gives business to crappy firms like this?

I interviewed with them. Their office was very nice, but the people were about as personable as doorknobs.

The New York office wants to be a big-time player, but hasn't committed the resources it would need to become one (and probably couldn't make the leap anyway). The result is an office that features the worst of both worlds: big-firm billing expectations coupled with small-firm clients and resources.

sept. 8 is too early anyway. not a big deal.

Oct. 13 is not a particularly late start date - I don't understand why they're taking a hit for this. A non-story.

Never understood why a firm would do something like this. I could understand postponment for 4 months, but 5 weeks? Is it even worth the savings? Average salary for 1st years at Seyfarth is 150K. That's 12.5/mth * 26 associates = 325,000. Surely that figure would be mitigated by some billing during that time. For a mutli-million dollar firm - is it really worth the negative press.

I would start sending resumes out again....this speaks volumes about the firms loyalty to its associates...

man, talk about starting with a bad taste in your mouth

I also don't see how they save all that much money. I assume they're waiting to see if their business picks up, if not they'll delay further.

And to the idiots yelling TTT grow up. A firm like Seyfarth attracts lots of Fortune 500 companies, especially for employment law.

I've never even heard of Seyfarth Shaw.

Associates are pork dung to large law firms. You need rainmaker partners, not associates. Anyone who thinks law firms really need associates is fooling themselves. They can replace any of you in two weeks. There are thousands of tools waiting to do your job pushing paper for 160k a year.

The story here is not the start date change but the LAYOFFS.

How many? Which offices? Which groups?

"Seyfarth Shaw is quite sound financially, indeed most of our practice areas are on-track to meet their financial targets for 2008."

I must say, it is impressive how the firm managed to use this line of reasoning to support its decision to push back start dates.

When are these TTT going to realize that they can't pay NY v20 salaires when their RPL figures are so low and their business is so cyclical?

Is it Searfarth or Seafarts?

Amen to 5:13!

Its crazy how firms have the freedom to delay (and delay further if necessary) start dates. THEY MADE AN OFFER and candidates relied on it. They should be bound damn it. Where's NALP when you need them. Who ever created all that employ-by-will bullsh#t anyway.

5:16(1) - SIGH-FARTh

4:43 -- be happy you still have a job/offer. Investment banks, other law firms, and employers in virtually in every sector of the economy have been laying off people "unceremoniously" for these same economic reasons. Compared to that, yes, getting your startdate pushed back, while inconvenient, is not very disruptive.

Plus, I'm pretty sure you can defer those loans for another month. Take a trip, relax, knowing that you have a job lined up. And then, once you start working, grow up.

Sounds like 4:43 pissed off a Seyfarth partner.

FYI. Seyfarth is #66 on the AmLaw 100.

FYI. Seyfarth is #66 on the AmLaw 100.

5:33 - and they couldn't even weather the storm for 5 weeks. What a joke!

4:43--
Currently, more than 300 of the Fortune 500 give business to Seyfarth.

5:40, we get it. Seyfarth ranks high in the AM Law list of 100. It derives business from more than 300 Fortune 500 companies. But, how well is the firm doing if it needs to save $325K (according to the computation above) to meet its goals? I am certain that there are few firms in the AM100 that are pulling off these shenanigans.

Throw in the negative publicity from one of their associates, Esther McDonald, being caught up in that DOJ Honors Program scandal and it has not been a great month for Seyfarth.

That said, a few scattered layoffs and a slight push back in start dates is really not that bad. They could have rescinded offers to 1st years like many other firms.

What firms rescinded offers? I haven't heard of any.

5:01 - BIGGEST MORON EVER! Retard all of these Amlaw 200 firms have big clients, that doesn't in and of itself demonstrate that the firm is of a high caliber. Dude, how stupid can a person get??? Unreal.

I never quite understood the vitriol on this site to certain non-notorious firms. Seyfirth or whatever is an amlaw 100 firm, its not ttt. However, just like law school prestige has a notable drop after the top 14 or so (sorry GW, UT, UCLA, et al), there is a notable drop in law firms after the first 20 or so as well. The rest of law schools and firms do good to very good work, but they just aren't the Cravaths and Harvards of the world. There just isnt enough high quality work to go round (though nowadays with the credit crunch, most deals are limited to the few hundred million range, so maybe we can all be jones day now?).

Anyway, I hope for their associates sake they dont law off. An extra 5 week hiatus, with nothing more, however, is not so bad. Prob some dumb management decisions involved, but that is how it goes.

And yes, my spelling sucks.

doesn't seyfarth pay below market to begin with?

They'll save more than the salary -- between taxes, benefits, offices, secretaries, various perks, etc., I've heard your cost to the firm can be up to double your salary. I'm no accountant, just saying they save more than 325k.

Back when salaries were at 125k I heard that it cost a firm about 300k a year for each associate (counting salary, office space, secretaries, payroll taxes, and all the other crap). Now you' re probably looking at 350k a year.

And Seyfarth's 5 week push back is just the start. Those associates are going to be starting till Jan. Seyfarth is just waiting to make the announcement, hoping that the economy gets bigger.

And no large firm is doing well right now. By "well" I mean compared to how things were just two years ago.

Rule of thumb for associate expense: 1/3 of billables is comp. Other 2/3s to overhead and profit. Total billables should be at least 3X salary (more for a better bonus). I've heard this structure from a couple different MP's at a couple of different firms along with a pretty reputable consultant.

Big law firms are miserable hellholes. Do yourselves a favor and find another line of work.

Seyfarth to $0.

5:03

"associates are pork dung" (?)

one would think jr associates are pretty fungible given how brainless most of the work is. but the amazing thing is the only a fraction of the people hired by these big firms actually turn out to be good at the job (i.e., never "out of pocket" and consistently turn in good work). these associates are not pork dung to firms. and even the mediocre associates who make it past second year are not pork dung either because they start billing at a pretty high rate, so they earn back their cost quickly.

Doing "well" two years ago meant breaking revenue (and profit) records; firms had been doing so for years (and without many increases in associate comp). Once the post-bubble recovery was under way, firms saw astonishing gains (again, with only minor tweaks in associate comp for the most part).

To those who hate it when certain (mostly Autoadmit influenced) posters call firms like Seyfarth, CWT, TPW, SNR, PoGo, etc. "TTT," while I agree that the "TTT" attitude toward schools and firms is most unbecoming of so-called attorneys, I'm afraid they have a point when it comes to how certain firms are responding to the current downturn.

Yes, such firms have "Fortune 500 clients," but as has already been noted, so do most of the AmLaw 200. What makes those firms "TTT's" is that (i) the writing has been on the wall for nearly a year now and any decent firm should have reoriented its practices and modified its hiring; (ii) they don't have broad, diversified practices (i.e., with nearly equal revenues from lit v. transactional) - - - WLRK can get away with being a corporate powerhouse - - - that Seyfarth thrives "especially in employment law," not so much; (iii) many firms have been pressured into punching above their weight class in response to the (long overdue, at least among the truly elite firms, be it the V20, V50, or whatever) recent salary increases; (iv) some firms borrow too much to pay their ongoing expenses, the interest on which ultimately depresses PPP's; and (v), speaking of PPP's, whether at the high end (CWT) or the low (Seyfarth), some firms (i.e., TTT's) simply have a partnership culture that would rather screw over their associates than take any hit to their profits, based on the craven belief that "there will always be law students willing to work here." Only one firm - Shearman - has gotten away with having such a disregard for associates and short-sighted outlook; SNR, etc. is no Shearman, and why anyone with other options would choose such firms truly beggars the imagination.

7:46 = an Autoadmit poster after a remedial writing class.

Why do you do these stories Lat. They're of interest only to law students and the occasional first time visitor who doesn't know any better. Comments are predictable and uninformed (even predictably uninformed). If you can't help yourself, at least give the kids some new acronyms to work with. TTT is getting old. How about SDLS?

actually, Shearman did not get away with it.

Why is this forum filled with such snobs? Yes, not all law firms are "big hitters" in the legal market. Most attorneys do not practice at NY firms like Cravath; so why do we act like mid-tier firms are so terrible? Shaw is a decent firm. I do not work there but would not be ashamed if I did. You all need to get over yourselves. And yes, I do work at one of the top firms in the nation. Blast away.......

Why is this forum filled with such snobs? Yes, not all law firms are "big hitters" in the legal market. Most attorneys do not practice at NY firms like Cravath; so why do we act like mid-tier firms are so terrible? Shaw is a decent firm. I do not work there but would not be ashamed if I did. You all need to get over yourselves. And yes, I do work at one of the top firms in the nation. Blast away.......

Why is this forum filled with such snobs? Yes, not all law firms are "big hitters" in the legal market. Most attorneys do not practice at NY firms like Cravath; so why do we act like mid-tier firms are so terrible? Shaw is a decent firm. I do not work there but would not be ashamed if I did. You all need to get over yourselves. And yes, I do work at one of the top firms in the nation. Blast away.......

It will be interesting to see how law students feel when they are on the inside looking at not enough work because some baby summer wants real assignments or when that $325K would have been allocated to them as a bonus. The economy has turned. Suck it up.

Why is this forum filled with such snobs? Yes, not all law firms are "big hitters" in the legal market. Most attorneys do not practice at NY firms like Cravath; so why do we act like mid-tier firms are so terrible? Shaw is a decent firm. I do not work there but would not be ashamed if I did. You all need to get over yourselves. And yes, I do work at one of the top firms in the nation. Blast away.......

Oh sorry for the multiple post............

Firms are letting people go right and left. Of course they get away with it. Law school students keep coming for associate jobs. YOU NEED THE JOB AND ALWAYS WILL TO PAY OFF YOUR DEBT. I am seeing the resumes flooding in to my "TTT" firm even though we let people go. All the same Michigans, Harvards, GTs, NYUs, UVAs, etc. with law review and grades.

Should I blast away?

One side effect of this site is associate fatigue. You get so sick of the whining and sense of entitlement that it makes you feel less bad about making someone move back in with mom.

Please do. Thanks........

I agree with 9:22, top 14/20 schools churn out hundreds of top 50% students that need jobs. The economy is looking bad, especially compared with a couple of years ago when people were taking the opportunity to lateral out of a TTT after 6 months for granted.

Make a solid effort to do good work and don't ever act entitled (don't set boundaries, don't refuse to check your b'berry), and you'll pass your junior years with flying colors. That's a tough way to live, but it's the best you can do to ensure that you won't be laid off, short of walking a big client through the door. Nothing else, including office politics, matters, at least as far as I can tell.

lets be honest - it does suck that their start dates were moved back. but in this economy, its a blessing to have an offer to look forward to. it could be worse.

of course it sucks. but when you see a post like 4:43's, I find myself thinking I wish so much worse on him because he is so obviously an idiot without a clue that clients do not give a crap about this.

9:50, there's no guarantee it won't be pushed back again.

I think firms should just abandon the summer program altogether and use all the lunch money to keep existing associates employed

Seyfarth:
- did not take all of their 2007 summers
- delayed that class's start date
- reduced the number of 2008 summers
-**has been doing a lot of stealth layoffs lately...

Stealth layoffs = 6-8 associates/counsel of which I am aware (could be more) in the past two months in the Chicago office.

This is probably more about when they pay, rather than how much they pay.

First, the 325k figure is way off. General rule of thumb is that an employee costs a company salary + 1/3 (benefits, etc). So the cost to the law firm is at least 200k (assuming 150k base salary) per lawyer per year. So 5 weeks for 26 associates = 500k at the very least, not a small sum for anybody.

Additionally, a fair amount of the non-salary costs are probably paid around the start date, meaning that Seyforth probably has to pay out more than 500k over those 5 weeks. If any of their major clients are behind in paying Seyforth's bills, they could be in a situation where they are doing fine financially (i.e. in terms of revenue), but may anticipate not having the necessary cash on hand at the time of the original start date.

From a cash perspective, the advantage of pushing the start date a mere 5 weeks could be huge for Seyforth. That would make this an issue of timing of payments, not of savings.

4:43/5:21 et al who are whining about the injustice being done to 1st year associates need to grow the F up. Get over your rediculous sense of entitlement. As an incoming 1st year associate you are a worthless commodity - you know nothing and are about as valuable to a law firm (or any business for that matter) as a warm bucket of hamster vomit. You should thank your lucky stars that ANYONE is hiring you to do anything. The economy sucks, the job market sucks and is flooded with JDs, and you have nothing to bring to the table except a law degree (which is not much). Where does this sense of entitlement come from in your generation? Seriously, who raised you? You made the decision to go to law school and take all of those loans. Maybe if you were a responsible, thoughtful and mature person at the time you would stopped to consider the fact that you are not guaranteed a high paying job just because you have a pulse and graduated from law school. And imagine getting laid off instead after years working there and actually practicing law. Imagine you have a family to support and real bills to pay (I'm assuming of course that most law students don't). In the real world, these kinds of things are little more serious than your start date.

BTW - I'm on my firm's hiring committee and if I ever caught a whiff of a whiny DB like you whining about a late start date I would vote to no-offer and save you and us the trouble....

10:58 - Let me extend my arm to fully pat you on the back.

Feels better? Ok, you can go back to being a dick now.

10:58 - you kinda creep me out.

whoa . . . they moved the start date from my parent's wedding anniversary to my sister's wedding anniversary. weird.

10:58, some of us (incoming associates): (i) had choices as to which law firms' offer to accept (for a summer associate job), (ii) gave it 100% during our summer and neither felt nor acted entitled (and in fact, despite having worked rather hard during 1L to acheive competitive grades, felt extremely fortunate to have landed the summer job), and (iii) do indeed have families to support.

Would a delayed start date be vastly superior to being laid off? Of course. Should struggling law firms (whose partnerships had reaped record profits for years until only months ago) be immune from criticism regarding how they are handling this downturn? Of course not.

Law firms, especially so-called "white shoe" or prestigious firms, pride themselves on being more staid and conservative than, say, investment banks and, though associates (and certainly partners) can make a fine living at a major law firm, their compensation reflects the fact that job security - even in troubled times - is a part of the package (whereas ibankers make much more, but without the stability).

If I'm ever on a hiring committee, I too might vote to no-offer a summer who demonstrated an air of entitlement. But it won't be at a firm that thinks its new associates are "worthless commodities." If I'm ever a GC, I certainly won't send any business to a such a firm.

Now back to bar prep, lest I, in a very real sense, end up a worthless commodity...

What's the big deal about loans? Loan repayments usually don't start until November or December. Why would mid-October make any difference?

Lat, ever consider making a list of the firms that have decided to push back start dates (along with the length of delay). Maybe that would give incoming 2Ls that will be interviewing an idea of which firms are more likely to honor their offers.

I wouldn't call a first year "worthless", but their value added is extremely low and an overall drain on attorney time. Also, its pretty funny when law students and lawyers wring their hands about not sending business to firms that do this "if they become GCs." The decisions about where to send legal work are not dictated by a firm's recruiting practices. Relationships, price and results determine hiring decisions. You think a CEO or GC gives a damn about Seyfarth pushing back a start date? Think again. Most clients already hate having to pay for first years.