Wait, what the f*ck at layoff off asians and women and not white guys?!?!

Elie you better do a follow up on that.

I should have been firrst. Asshole.

Chris Rock said: Grand Opening, Grand Closing.

not everything is racially motivated, however still interesting

Wow. They really do know how to go above and beyond the rest of the market. Obviously, it's impossible to say that they chose based on race and gender, but they had to know that it would really look that way. That's terrible.

Also, I actually laughed out loud picturing Chris Rock saying that. Good job, Elie.

This is ridiculous. Why fire first years? They're cheaper and just as qualified as 2nd or 3rd years . . . seems like a bad PR move to me.

Elie, kudos on a good post, well past your dinnertime.

Nice interview over at "OBABL" too.

Good post Elie.

- Usually a Hater

In 2002, the firm I used to work cut a bunch of people clamining for "performance resons" and it just so happen the people let go made up most of the asians on staff. Years later people still affectionately called it the 'Great Asian Massacre.'

7, because first years cannot really do much (in my experience). i cannot even get decent data entry from my first years, but i am not at wachtell either

Hate to be insensitive but at this day and age, if any law grad is still gullible enough to swallow BS of "smaller, gentler, more caring firm"... well, you can figure it out.

If you think 1st years are just as good as 3rd years, then you are crazy. 2nd years, that I buy.

If you think 1st years are just as good as 3rd years, then you are crazy. 2nd years, that I buy.

7 - your nuts to think first years are as good as 2nd or 3rd years.

Still... poor form, particularly for the hero of the dot.com boom.

7, 1st yrs just as qualified as 2nd or 3rd yrs? Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. ROFLMAO

15, 16 = 2nd years lobbying to lay off the first years.

15 - why are you talking about 7's nuts?

NOT

17 = first year who finally realized that even first years are not recession proof.

Waiting for that poster to comment about money laundering.

11 - Point taken, though I would say it's a case-by-case thing. Although I agree many first years are relatively useless (still learning and all), a lot I've worked with are extremely capable and competent . . . . Putting the race/gender issue aside, hopefully the powers that be are actually paying attention to who they're firing and not just dumping the lowest person on the totem pole.

I've heard rumors from friends at a couple NYC firms (one biglaw, one mid-size) that first years are the "next in line" for the chopping block . . . I hope for their sake that's not true. Anyone else wish they'd gone for a government job?

18 made me chuckle. Nice catch.

I don't think there's much dispute that 2nd and 3rd years are more capable than first years - plus they only get paid what, 10k and 25k more/year? The only shitty thing is that if you have a first year class that's slightly too big, suck it up and let them get through a few more months of work so they can actually find jobs down the line. Kicking them to the curb is a bush league move.

"I don't think there's much dispute that 2nd and 3rd years are more capable than first years"

But many are also shown to be dead wood, and not as productive as was hoped. The first years still have potential to turn into good 2nd/3rd years.

More capable how? Doing doc review? Figuring out the firm's preferred memo format? Kissing partner ass? What exactly is a 2nd or 3rd year capable of that can't be done by a first year? With few exceptions, not much . . . .

4- that's why he said "Chris Rock might say"

Who cares if all the Asians and minorities get whacked. Its just a coincidence.

I think it has been at least a week since fat ass made a political posting. Nice work to whomever reprimanded him at ATL.

You know that fat ass is dying to make a stupid comment about the Christian giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html

I guess Obama hates fags, too. Funny, doesn't seem to affect most liberals' feelings about him.

Ta ta

2nd/3rd years (assuming you've weeded out the truly incompetent) have at least done a majority of the things they'll be asked to tackle (draft an agreement, a motion, take a depo, whatever). With 1st years you have to deal with a learning curve, which partners of course in their infinite wisdom have tremendous patience with. There's also a known quality - if I give something to a 3rd year i've worked with several times before, i know it'll get done at x quality and I can be fairly confident that all it needs is a quick read through; if I give it to a 1st year, i have to explain everything (more than once), he'll bug the shit out of me, I'll have to redo a good portion of it, and the quality might suck. Not worth the 15% premium on their salaries

laying off asian chicks is just dumb. conversely, laying asian chicks is good wholesome fun.

You don't lay off people who just got there. Sorry.

You should also not just lay off the minorities.

So let me get this straight. Some old washed up known failure of a running back, is better than a rookie running back, because the former already knows the playbook?

rofl!

7/26 - Some third-years are capable of basically running deals (especially those who've only done one type of deal since they've been working. (You know, back when there actually were things called "deals.") Some first-years aren't capable of keeping closing docs in order. There's a huge difference.

30 - Right on. WGWAG 4 lyfe.

Anyone want to compare penis sizes?

7" long
1.75" thick

32 - If your post does not meet the laugh test, don't hit the "Post Comment" button.

HTH

Ouch. Hope this news goes out to every law school career services office where they do OCIs.

Another problem is 3rd years hog work that should be going to first years.

Eventually we'll see a 3rd year billing $400/hour to do secretarial work.

Move along dead beat third years. We know what you're up to.

Why don't Asians go back to they're country?

America is already bankrupt because of chinks taking are jobs.

31 - minorities should always be laid off. they're dumb and lazy, and in the case of women, have smaller brains to boot.

Damn. I really feel for those stubs- flooded market and nothing on your resume except your bar admittance. Good luck.

38, because some americans like you don't know their own f*cking language. Or basic economics, for that matter. Seriously, son, go get that GED. Might do you some good.

38 - you deserve asians taking your job. You don't even know second grade grammar.

ME SO SORRY!!

hello meow

i think it might be because asians have a harder time integrating into firms . . . well, that also applies for all minorities, including latinos and blacks, but the latter are so scarce that they are held onto desperately. clients like to see latinos and blacks, but asians are rather a dime a dozen in biglaw.

women are let go because they are seen as not as committed to their careers, have less endurance for billing, and are seen as more apt to leave biglaw for work/life balance or some other inane excuse.

when the economy is flush, women and minorities are hugged with love, but when times are lean and people are hungry, there is less sympathy.

Wow. I am really disappointed by Gunderson, and also very sorry to hear they've fallen on such hard times. I had a summer offer from them as a 2L that I turned down for a bigger shop with a more diverse practice - but I loved the people I met there, it really did seem like a "different kind of place". There have been times I regretted not starting out there, but not today.

My sincere best wishes to the associates affected. I can imagine, at least a little bit, the shock they must be feeling. Hope everyone lands on their feet ...

I wonder why they got rid of the asians? Were the asian associates native English speakers, or were they second language English speakers?

44,

Go to hell.

Let's blame the Asians "for not integrating themselves." Right. It is the fault of the minority lawyer. They could so easily become the pet of the partner, because old white men love to hang out with Korean 26 year old children of immigrants. They are not a "dime a dozen" in biglaw. Especially not in the partnership ranks.

Yes. Women have kids. That means it is okay to lay them off because they might not be "as committed," not "hugged with love," which is what most female biglaw lawyers really crave (not!).

44: Ummm, no, don't think so. But applaud you on synopsis of prevailing basic stereotypes.

My firm just hires Jewish and Anglo Saxon males.

The approach may have been to lay off the first years, and gradually do cuts based on performance for second years and upwards. That way your layoff numbers look small.

It may have been that the Asians and minorities happened to not have gone to as good law schools. That is an objective criteria for laying off people who haven't had an opportunity to show what they are made of yet. Anyone know if this may be the case?

On the other hand, I do know someone who works there and apparently they just got their first female corporate partner when Heller dissolved. There is only one minority corporate partner (male). And very few women and minorities in the associate ranks. Zero women and one male minority in the senior associate ranks. They obviously have some issues to work out. Anyone who works at Gunderson know more about this?

The approach may have been to lay off the first years, and gradually do cuts based on performance for second years and upwards. That way your layoff numbers look small.

It may have been that the Asians and minorities happened to not have gone to as good law schools. That is an objective criteria for laying off people who haven't had an opportunity to show what they are made of yet. Anyone know if this may be the case?

On the other hand, I do know someone who works there and apparently they just got their first female corporate partner when Heller dissolved. There is only one minority corporate partner (male). And very few women and minorities in the associate ranks. Zero women and one male minority in the senior associate ranks. They obviously have some issues to work out. Anyone who works at Gunderson know more about this?

people, let's keep in mind that post also noted that "unknown number of more senior attorneys" were canned.

7, I used to think like you. Then I graduated from law school and started working at a law firm. I'm a second year now. I cannot begin to explain how much I've learned and improved in one year. A first year is far less valuable than a 2nd or 3rd year associate. It's actually remarkable how much you don't know when you graduate from law school.

Good luck with finals.

34 is not only off-point, but really really small

Can anyone confirm any layoffs at GD in Silicon Valley or San Diego? Or Is this just confined to what's left of the New York legal market? ... just want to know how close to home this is hitting.

Agree with 45. I've regretted turning down Gunderson quite a few times. However, their practice is narrowly focused on an area that will take a few years to recover. Great group of attorneys, though, and one of the few firms I've been to where everyone genuinely looked like they were having fun. No pretension, intelligent, laid back, very cool work -- I loved it. Gives me hope to join a place like that in the future but, for the now, I made the right choice.

34 is not only off-point, but really really SMALL-minded

It doesn't matter that a second year might know more than a first year. You don't lay off someone who just joined the firm. That is just wrong.

Maybe the women and minorities only got into law school because of AA, and when the rubber hit the road at a real law firm, they couldn't hack it.

Don't call it racism if they were underqualified to get into law school, underqualified to get the job, and now can't handle the work.

elie, please investigate more on this minority/women angle.

59,

That is right. The rubber hit the road for two months. They didn't integrate themselves. Fire them. Let them go work at the liquor store with their parents.

59,

Fire all legacies!!!!!

59 - Yeah, asians get tons of AA. *rolls eyes*

I miss the days when I had three martinis for lunch, attractive secretaries, and my associates were nice Americans that were members of my country club. The only Orientals we ever dealt with worked at the chop suey joint down the block.

-Old School Partner

59 here - they had 2 months, and probably 2+ months as being summer associates.

58- um... except the firm has nothing invested in those associates, and hundreds of thousands invested in the other, more seniors....

59, take it that you got rejected by every law school because underqualified minorities took your seat? oh yeah, go look up some stats re: asian students - they'll blow you away.

rolling eyes with 63

Latham is next

Cleary is next

59, Asians don't get affirmative action.
See, e.g.,
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/arizona-arizona.html

HTH

Your mom is next

thanks, 70. i couldn't find locate similar study for cali.

67

thanks, 70. i couldn't find locate similar study for cali.

67

I agree that Latham is next. I'm a first year and have already started sending resumes out, but my prospects are dismal

I was going to tell 7 how ridiculous they are, but I guess im late to the party.

66,

You don't get it. Partners make money off associates. They don't "invest" in them (unless if they write most of their time off).

Associate bills 2000 hours at $300. This equals $600,00. Said associate gets paid $160k. Add in money for benefits, share of overhead etc. As you can see, if an associate's hours are invoiced and paid, the partners make out like bandits.

Wow, that is horrible. Gunderson has established itself as a real shithole, I graduated from HYS last year and those little tools were all about selling themselves as a "kinder, gentler" firm. I almost bought it, and some of my friends did. Fuck them, laying of first years means they were at the very least contemplating doing so after these people had been there for a whopping 8 weeks. Layoffs are bad enough as is, but to axe people who haven't even had a chance to do anything of note (and multiple first years means it wasn't just a situation where they hired one bad apple) is terrible.

Chinks come here and they forget what it was like in China, with master Mao whipping them as they assemble lead toys.

The women/asian/minority bashing on this site is getting old. The white guy anger is just boring now. *yawn* Yeah, yeah, you hate women... yeah, yeah, AA, whatever.

76, you're an idiot. You are grossly underestimating the cost of "overhead." The math isn't as simple as you make it seem. Most firms break even with associates during the first year.

Good luck with finals.

I wonder what the butt cheeks poster thinks of this?

Asian women generally don't have butt cheeks, just flat asses, so I'm guessing butt cheek poster is against hiring them.

FIRST to say that the Michigan 2L comment thread should be reopened.

Any Vandy people get laid off? What about UCLA people?

So how do avoid being the next first year horror story?

--Class of '10

I agree with 83. Oh, what a poor little victim she is. And really, what's with protecting her identity? It's a matter of public record... takes 2 minutes to locate using the court's case search.

If it's ok to name him, it's ok to name her. At least where both voluntarily participated in the crime.

Step one: stop making retarded typos.

^you

--85

86: right on. How can people feel sorry for a prostitute who feels regretful, and then plays the rape card?

with regard to the 1st year vs. 2nd/3rd year question, people aren't also acknowledging that the 1st years aren't going to get any real experience the next year while 3rd years have a SOLID 3 years of experience because of the boom.

So if you lay off the midlevels in a year you will have a bunch of 1st years who still don't know what they are doing because they haven't had enough work. If you keep the 2nd and 3rd years around at least their experience from the good times will help them get stuff done.

89 -

While I'm obviously reluctant to condone laying off first years who haven't even had a chance yet to prove themselves, I think you make a good point - they're not going to learn anything from being there, and they're not going to build any experience by sitting in their offices playing solitaire (and reading ATL) until the market recovers and the firm actually has work for them to do. Now, if the market were better and these kids had someplace to go when they got laid off, then this would be pretty good for them. But when the choice is between getting paid but very little experience and not getting paid and having no opportunity to go somewhere else where you will get experience, it's a pretty easy choice. Really low on Gunderson's part.

I lately was an Associate at Gunderson, but have since moved on, and I can assure everyone this: The lay offs were in no way racially or gender biased. All the attorneys at Gunderson are smart, honest, and progressive. I'm sure this was a terribly hard decision for the management at Gunderson, but this economic slowdown is relentless.

Good firm, but bad planning. They had to know months and months ago that they'd not have enough work. Would've been better to let the first years know before they started. They probably wanted to get them in the door, so they didn't have to pay some severance or some other unscrupulous reason. Bad form.

91: Unless the "smart, honest, and progressive" attorneys at Gunderson take a huge hit in PPP this cycle, then I'm going to call their "terribly hard decision" complete bullshit.

Anyone disagree that these people are fucked forever (to quote Pete Doherty)? They won't find a job anywhere in this economy and, as is common knowledge, no job equals no experience equals never ever again a shot at Biglaw equals a shit-load of debt to be paid off on a Starbucks salary...I'd stay away from their offices these days if only for fear of someone going postal.

That "firing asians and women" email is bogus. Either some bitter d-bag who got laid off sent it in or Jabba here is trying to stir the pot.

Second years will think they're better than first years, third years will think they're better than second years, etc. Why? Because juniors just haven't done something more senior people have? I'll concede that a more senior person is better than me at writing some motion that I've never written. But put me on a desert island with one of those bastards and I'll go Lord of the Flies on that ass.

p.s. 10002 - didn't realize ATL lives in my hood. No wonder I saw some fat slug that looked MysTTTal going through my trash the other morning.

94, you think it's really hopeless? What about temping for a year or however long it takes for biglaw hiring to pick up again and trying to get an entry level position then (i.e., giving up a class year)?

The current market is absolutely brutal. Any old timers or historians want to weigh in on how bad things were during the last recession (2001-2002)? Was it this bad? Please tell me yes. I need some hope that things will pick up substantially in the foreseeable future.

Viva Bob Gunderson?

A nickel for anyone who remembers that rallying cry.

Bob should always have a spot in the hearts of associates everywhere for orchestrating the "great raise of 00".

Respect.

Fat slug - classic.

I feel bad for those first years, it sucks. But if those peeps got to Gunderson Detmer - a pretty good accomplishment considering they had to get good grades throughout high school and undergrad, get into a decent law school, and do well there - they will figure something out. That's why they get paid (err, got paid) the big bucks - they're smart people.

The Titanic is sinking, hang on to the flotsam and the jetsam.

55, these are Silicon Valley layoffs, not NY. NY office is too small to have 10 first-years to begin with.

Somebody must be billing tonight!

GM and Chrysler Reopen Talks on a Merger
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122957294608617461.html

Chrysler, Ford Idle Plants; GM Halts Engine Factory (Update1)

If you capped PPP at $750K for one year and kept your first years and gave them training and organized moot court typ venture deal negotiations to teach them how the game is played, wouldn't you be considered...the biggest dumbasses in BigLaw?

To 94 and 96, I would be very surprised if many victims of this economy ever get back into Biglaw. That's not to say they won't have fulfilling careers and I hope they all land on their feet, but I don't think firms are going to hire from the ranks of temps or contract attorneys when the market picks back up.

The Gunder dipshits were the first to prove that a business model predicated on grossly overpaying associates is, simply put, retarded. Why anyone would work there is beyond me - the putrid smell of gangrene coming from that place has been overwhelming for 5 years.

91 = Gunderson partner.

Firing stub first years is unspinnable.

I hope they didn't sign waivers,

Gunderson's business model is based on the full life cycle of a company: (1) start-up advice -- won't make any money there; (2) financings which you are forced to do for $25,000 these days or otherwise your clients will download the forms from the National Venture Capital Association's web-page; (3) mergers -- not happening; (4) IPO's -- last seen in 1999.

In other words, this is as shitty a model as it can possibly get in this economy. At least Wilson and Cooley have some IP litigation -- although, wouldn't want to be a corporate associate there right now either.

Not that Brobeck, ehm, Gunderson, hasn't been there before -- wouldn't be surprised if the entire firm is history in a year from now.

I also turned down a summer offer from Gunderson to go to a bigger shop. They were too focused in one segment (venture capital) and too much like a frat house with the foosball and everything. I know Gunderson shut down their Texas office after the bubble burst and their entire NY office just almost went to Cooley, so I would think this is just the beginning of the cuts and/or office shutdowns. The venture capital work isn't coming back for 12-18 months and they don't do anything else.

Good luck to the first years laid off....that is brutal and proves how screwed Gunderson is for them to take this drastic measure.

105 - they also represent a ton of VC firms (kept them alive during the last downturn). Whether VC is going in the tank is another issue, though...

105 is correct....Heller / VLG proved that this business model isn't sustainable. Gunderson might be the next firm to fold.

Can't believe this hasn't been said yet:

BITCH SPREAD THE BUTTCHEEKS SO I CAN SMELL THE JUICY INSIDES!

Good luck recruiting!!!!!!

Why would anyone go there now???

Fire 1 service partner making $1M instead of 5 first year associates.

Such a bad PR move.

104 - I am NOT a Gunderson partner.

DIE 109!!!

112 = Bob Gunderson

5

5

5 1st Year Associates Laid Off !!!!!!!!!

At Gunder Mifflin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, I propose a "boycott ATL day" in protest of Elie Mystal still being employed by this blog. His posts have not only been riddled with grammatical errors, but they have also been astoundingly irresponsible and misinformed. ATL readers, please unite in a boycott this Friday. Maybe then Lat and others will get their heads out of their collective asses and realize that MysTTTal deserves nothing more than to be "laid off."

LAME

LAT, LAT, Where are You!!! This is your moment. You built this blog into an enterprise by tracking increases in compensation in the good times. If you were at the helm now, you could solidify ATL as the virtual equivalent of organized labor. Don't miss the opportunity!

Is this a real firm? Do they have a Fargo office?

What kind of severance package, if any - if Gunderson DeTTTmer will fire stub first years, to quote KG "Anything is Possible!!! - did they get?

Say what you will about the Asians, but we owe over a trillion dollars to China. At the rate we're going, we're gonna have some difficulty paying them back. Your kids and grandkids will be kowtowing to some of those Chinese kids real soon...

The debate over whether 1st year are as productive/useful as 2nd or 3rd years is dependent on the department and firm. General corporate first and second years (and even third years) that have been doing diligence are as useful as general litigation associates that have been clicking a mouse for 2 or 3 years. The problem with the BigLaw (hopefully the BigLaw of the past) is it allows deadwood to sit around for way too long and thus jeopordize everyone's jobs in times like these. All these individuals who joined BigLaw for the paycheck but didn't think it required the sacrifice are the individuals killing the rest of us right now. I would be interested to here if people think this problem is more likely to occur outside of New York- idea being most BigLaw New Yorkers are prepared to make the sacrifice. BTW- I am not a BigLaw New Yorker.

120 = Yao Ming

122 = shaq

121 = don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

124 = retarded love child of 122 and 123

Gunderson was a shining light in the otherwise dark world of Biglaw. Showed what work could be with intelligent people, a relaxed atmosphere, top notch work and pay, and an otherwise enjoyable culture. Unfortunately, it is also a firm only invested in VC, and is likely not diversified enough to ride out this horrific economic downturn. Great firm, but it very well might be another sad casualty to this recession.

What a TTT. All these newly fired 08 grads are in deep doodoo. Many of them may never land another decent firm job.

Firms do not owe first years a career.

Save for a precious few, we are all fungible.

128 they can at least not ruin it by keeping these people for a year and giving them some experience. Most of them probably could have gone to a firm that wasn't a rancid toilet.

Has Mudge Rose announced yet?

PLENTY of Asians and white women get AA--they just try to distance themselves from those programs as soon as they get their tickets punched, but they're happy to take full advantage of programs for those with "disadvantages" that they in no way suffer. Don't feel sorry for any of them.

filthy poors.

In California, asians are anything but a minority.

1. #132, you state "PLENTY" of asians and white women receive AA. I want to focus on the first group. What is your support for that statement? In general, in the top undergraduate programs there are so many qualified east asians and south asians that many qualified students, who otherwise may have been admitted, are denied. There have been numerous articles written about this phenomenon in the past. I haven't read anything specifically about graduate schools, but I think its highly plausible the same phenomenon would be present. Go back and check out the AA mission statement for your law school - it probably says that the school is committed to presenting a diversity of views by admitting a diverse class, including URMs (under-represented minorities). That is the key to AA. In order to benefit, one must be under-represented. To argue that there are not numerous qualified asians to enter any academic program in the U.S. would be ... silly, considering the general academic success of a significant number of asians in the U.S..

2. The entire discussion re: Asians seems a little alarmist. 5 of 10 first years were laid off. "All the asians" could be 1 person for all we know. On the other hand if "all the asians" composed 4 of the 5 people laid off, that might mean something.

3. The comments on here that assume every asian just moved here from China, India, etc., last year are hilarious. Where do you live? There are plenty of asians who were born in the U.S. or have lived the majority of their life here and are just as capable of talking about sports, beer, apple pie, or whatever else you think is reserved only for white males.

vomits, shuts office door, shivering in fear

Number 7 - "This is ridiculous. Why fire first years? They're cheaper and just as qualified as 2nd or 3rd years . . . seems like a bad PR move to me."

That is probably one of the stupidest comments ever made on this blog. Don't you know that some clients won't even allow you to put a first year on their deal team? Don't you know that a good second or third year will often be the primary point of contact for a client on a deal, which you just can't do with a first year because the first year has no freaking experience? Third year is the money year for a firm, a firm should never fire a third year.

bingo

first years are worthless, and those who think they know anything of value actually can do more harm than good

135- I believe they did a study of that in Grutter, it actually showed that asians had a higher chance of being rejected than a caucasian with the same GPA/LSAT hence the term "reverse AA."

What about the incoming first year's for next year? Has ANY firm let them go?

In loud, Texan voice: "Return to Innocence guy ... you're alllll rightttt!"

1. #132, you state "PLENTY" of asians and white women receive AA. I want to focus on the first group. What is your support for that statement?
__________________________________________

The fact that PLENTY of schools (inlcuding virtually all state schools that have AA programs) include Asians in their AA programs--Asians who then pretend they got in exclusively because they were so "qualified," and loudly distance themselves from the same URMs whose "disadvantages" they rode into the school in the first place.

And Asian doesn't just mean affluent Chinese, Koreans, and Indians, so don't just focus on them--talk about the Vietnamese, Laotions and other smaller Asian-American populations as well--you know, the one's whose LSATs and SATs aren't that impressive, and who didn't come here with plenty of money and education to produce the "impressive" test scores that any tiny, elite group could produce.

If you want to play this game you better know what your talking about, instead of drawing on the latest "model minority" article from your local paper. Asians and white women happily pimp AA, then try to play the "we're so qualified role" with white men. Get over it.

142 -

Name one school or program, graduate or undergraduate, that includes Asians in its AA program, and cite a source to back up your claim. A statement of the school's program, standardized test scores, GPAs, anything.

It seems that many posters think the bloodshed / layoffs will continue. If so, are firms that are waiting to do so hurting the soon-to-be-free associates by misleading them about their need to get their resumes out there now. Since competition for the few positions hiring may intensify if the layoffs continue, should savy associates start sending out resumes just in case? Or is it so bad out there with respect to new hirings that one should simply sit back and enjoy every day that presents the opportunity to continue working for a paycheck?

#142, see #139's reference to Grutter. You are the one lacking evidence, choosing to rely on broad generalities that have no support, and if you re-read your post, you'll see that your logic contradicts itself.

You say that individuals from Vietnam and Laos (countries that, by your own allegations, have smaller populations than India, China and Korea) receive AA, then you turn around and state that Indians, Chinese and Koreans are the "tiny" elite population. That logic doesn't make any sense. If anything, the opposite would be true, there are probably more Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese (adding them in), the "tiny" elite population in law schools, than the smaller group of asians who are less qualified.

Just because some asians are admitted because of AA doesn't mean PLENTY are admitted because of AA. You haven't produced a coherent argument proving otherwise.

#142, see #139's reference to Grutter. You are the one lacking evidence, choosing to rely on broad generalities that have no support, and if you re-read your post, you'll see that your logic contradicts itself.

You say that individuals from Vietnam and Laos (countries that, by your own allegations, have smaller populations than India, China and Korea) receive AA, then you turn around and state that Indians, Chinese and Koreans are the "tiny" elite population. That logic doesn't make any sense. If anything, the opposite would be true, there are probably more Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese (adding them in), the "tiny" elite population in law schools, than the smaller group of asians who are less qualified.

Just because some asians are admitted because of AA doesn't mean PLENTY are admitted because of AA. You haven't produced a coherent argument proving otherwise.

To fire incoming first years after a couple of months in a down economy is a career ruining event - and they did it not because the firm was going bankrupt like GM, but so that the partners could keep $900k each instead of $850k (substitute real numbers as you like, knowing that the amount saved per partner is not large).

These associates gave up opportunities at other firms that would have at least given them a year before doing such a thing, if not allowed them to prosper indefinitely, and now their prospects for the entire rest of their lives have been seriously damaged.

Hopefully one of them will go back there with a few cans of gasoline and a match - until there's a price to pay for partners who treat associates like %"#&ing dirt, things will not improve, and these selfish f---s need a few guys killed to remind them that somewhere, somehow, there's a line that can be crossed.

The value of 1st. vs. 2nd or 3rd has to be judged case by case. As a 7th year I can say that the undergraduate university associates attended seems to make the big difference in the quality of the associates. It doesn’t seem to matter what law school they went to, most at my firm went to T-15. But we have first years here who went to Princeton, who can write, well researched, superbly organized, complex memos better than most of our partners, These first year associates are super-smart, emotionally intelligent, well schooled in important social graces and good looking. Others in the class are ungainly, pleasant, but awkward and write and organize their work so badly you can’t imagine how they got out of college, not to mention into law school. Social graces and the ability to write and communicate matter, everywhere, but especially in downtown Manhattan.

In thinking about these lay-offs and Proskauer Rose, I’d like to see a pictorial and biographical list of those associates laid off. Are there any good-looking, white males from T-3 undergraduate universities on that list?

The value of 1st. vs. 2nd or 3rd has to be judged case by case. As a 7th year I can say that the undergraduate university associates attended seems to make the big difference in the quality of the associates. It doesn’t seem to matter what law school they went to, most at my firm went to T-15. But we have first years here who went to Princeton, who can write, well researched, superbly organized, complex memos better than most of our partners, These first year associates are super-smart, emotionally intelligent, well schooled in important social graces and good looking. Others in the class are ungainly, pleasant, but awkward and write and organize their work so badly you can’t imagine how they got out of college, not to mention into law school. Social graces and the ability to write and communicate matter, everywhere, but especially in downtown Manhattan.

In thinking about these lay-offs and Proskauer Rose, I’d like to see a pictorial and biographical list of those associates laid off. Are there any good-looking, white males from T-3 undergraduate universities on that list?

96-class of 2002 here. this is far far worse than 2001/2002. different class of "slowdown" altogether. when i was summering in 2000, the associates at firms would talk about how bad it was in 1996 when they graduated. in my class, a few people had their offers reneged in the spring, right before graduation. but all of my class of 2002 is still in their biglaw jobs, if they want to be. layoffs like this are unprecedented in my time.

149 = Princeton undergrad, 4th tier law school.

151 - +1

It all comes down to this: It doesn't matter only on seniority whether someone is valuable to the firm or not. A second or third year can be as useless as a bad first year if he/she is not good.

And by the way, all you racists/sexists on this blog make me sick

66 - you should go to a high school economics class. You'll learn about the concept of "sunk cost."

Am I missing something?

Why don't firms ever seem to offer pay cuts instead of cutting people loose completely? I'm sure those first-years would gladly have taken "temporary" 50% pay cuts just to maintain appearances and get experience, rather than be excluded from Biglaw forever....

132- See
The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities (Espenshade & Chung, Social Science Quarterly). While the findings of this paper has been debated (Asian Americans would get 4/5 of all resulting seats if AA were eliminated), what has not been debated are the specific findings that Asians Americans, as a whole, are rejected at a higher percentage than caucasians with the same numbers.

155 - because they are trying to preserve the illusion that the cuts are about merit, and that they keep the best associates. If there were pay cuts, clients would wonder both (i) if they got the cheap & crappy guy who stayed on at half pay because he had no other options, and (ii) why the hell they are paying a $600k annualized rate for an associate who only makes $80k.

155 - there's a strain of thought that if you have to do something harmful to morale, it's better to excise the affected people asap and move on.

Any word on severance terms for these layoffs?

Does anyone know how many lawyers they have? Their website sucks. It looks like 30 partners, but how many associates?

76, the statement "Associate bills 2000 hours at $300. This equals $600,00" is based on the presumption that there will be 2000 hours worth of work this year for that associate to complete. That's a big assumption.

I would like to learn more about whether the layoffs did have a disparate impact on minorities and women. It does seem odd given that Silicon Valley has a ton of successful start-ups founded by Asians and Asian Americans and there a lot of networking that goes on in the community. I would be a little surprised if Gunderson would make SUCH a dumb PR move. Also, women are the fast growing growing segment of the entrepreneur pool.

Elie, please investigate.

I would like to learn more about whether the layoffs did have a disparate impact on minorities and women. It does seem odd given that Silicon Valley has a ton of successful start-ups founded by Asians and Asian Americans and there a lot of networking that goes on in the community. I would be a little surprised if Gunderson would make SUCH a dumb PR move. Also, women are the fast growing growing segment of the entrepreneur pool.

Elie, please investigate.

Gunderson is a known boys-will-be-boys place, so the fact that women / minorities were fired doesn't surprise me.

Elie, If you can please give us a breakdown of those 1st yrs. in both firms that were let go: Race, Sex, Law School, Undergraduate school. BTW, I am an African American female, I went to a T-3 University, am now in my second year at Fordham, I am considered quite good looking, poised, etc. After all my SA interviews I didn't get one BL offer. Not one.

People say in this climate, we'll be lucky to get jobs in government, which is where all the law students I know are now looking.

165, you're at Fordham - most BigLaw shops could barely give a ---- where you went to undergrad (and apparently did not do very well, given your law school). You're not at a tier 1 law school, and in this economy, that means your likelihood of a BigLaw job is very low indeed unless you're there on scholarship and valedictorian of your class.

Hey morons: "fucked forever" if you get fired? Are you people stupid or something? Don't you realize that not all of the world rotates around BigLaw?

Look, sucks if you get fired now but there is more to this human world of ours than being a BigLaw peon. Lots of the people that will get/have gotten fired will go on to do other, very possibly better things.

The fearfull, pessimistic posts in this blog show the paranoid, dull, pack-mentality of lawyers in BigLaw!

And by the way, for all you haters, I am a gainfully employed V15 associate billing 2000+ plus this year so don't think I am a bitter grapes case here . . .

#165. Do your homework Fordham is a tier 1 school, rated #3 in New York. They turn out fine lawyers and are hired by many BL firms.

Yes, BL is not the end-all to anything. But it is a carpet many of us wanted to rest on while we pay off our loans, learn the business and start to build our lives. We have debt. we thought we had a plan. Now we have to make new plans.

Berating others is not only dumb, it's mean spirited, and many of you sound like spoiled little brats. Grow-up.

Stop you complaining and griping and start thinking of how you can hold on to your jobs, while you think of other ways to live your lives. Hot Tip: People hate pessimistic whiners. Oh, they'll nod and agree when you share your latest gloom and doom report, but they'll duck you if they can, roll their eyes once you've walked away, they won't want to take you out for a drink. And, they sure wont want to put you on a deal.

Sorry #165, I meant #166.

165/168/169 - Sorry you're at Fordham. It's not in the top 25 by either Vault or US News, so however much you wish it were so, no one else thinks of Fordham as tier 1.

Kiss My Well Muscled T10 Black Ass,
165

What an awful thing to do. What a terrible place. Seriously, folks, law firms suck a$$ and this is the worst of the bunch. This ruins the start of the young attorneys' careers.

Gunderson will forever be on my $hit list.

I was there in 2002 and got laid off as a first year. Best thing that ever happened to me. They delayed half our class then pink slipped over half of us a few months later.

Worst still, there were people being tapped (partners on down) and told it was performance based when clearly it was just a lack of billable work. Some good people -- I don't think those tapped would have been as pissed if they were told the truth and let go. It was a horrible atmosphere as they allowed these people to "pretend they were employed for an additional 3 months". They'd sit around with their doors closed and not do anything. Hilarious.

Awesome place to work -- NOT. The partners there are snakes.