first

first

first

first

first

first

to be first was my dream and now I reach it

to be first was my dream and now I reach it

to be first was my dream and now I reach it

to be first was my dream and now I reach it

to be first was my dream and now I reach it

to be first was my dream and now I reach it

1-7 = gay racists who were fired from Cahill and have lobsterbutt and smelly insides

Cahill layoffs? Anybody?

Husband works at Latham. He's not concerned about the Pendleton head butt Latham is currently giving its associates.

Note the paragraph above the chart posted. Adjustment of NY bonuses to "market" certainly did not diminish the bonus pool available to other associates in the firm. It resulted in lower bonuses for all classes in NY except 2003.

The interesting bit of information that would make this useful is how many associates received a bonus. "Mean" and "median" don't mean much if only 50% of associates received bonuses. I'm guessing 30-40% of 2007 associates receiving a bonus is probably not too far off.

Note the paragraph above the chart posted. Adjustment of NY bonuses to "market" certainly did not diminish the bonus pool available to other associates in the firm. It resulted in lower bonuses for all classes in NY except 2003.

Bingham closing an office and staff layoffs? Anybody have more info? My info is third-hand.

Approximately 38% of associates received bonuses. And yes, the partnership is concerned about the firm's financial situation.

18 failed at math and deserves to be at Latham for not understanding what "median" means.

word on the street is that Latham ppp is down 30% or more.

I think Elie finally took our advice and went through the Hooked-on-Phonics program. 3 for 3 today with (practically) error-free posts.

Why is this bad again? Looks like they generally pay above market.

I did a deal last year with Latham on the other side. I was working at a now-deceased firm but was making roughly the same base salary as the Latham associates. The Latham associates were working around the clock as my firm was working normal business hours (i.e., 9-7). Glad to see that their hard work was rewarded.

22 - You're wrong. If you have 100 associates, and you give 50 of them $50K bonuses, 49 of them $0.00 bonuses, and the other one a $2.45 Million bonus, your median and mean bonus level will both be $50K... but 49 of your 100 associates got no bonus.

I'm sure that's what happened here.

25, because lawyers are risk-averse cowards.

27, reconstruct that scenario with median $17.5k, mean $18.5k, and maximum $30k (not $2.45 million).

Thank you in advance.

first to say LaTTTham

Looks like 22 failed math. Math is hard.

27 pwned him/her.

California firms cannot compete with NY firms. They are too into the "lifestyle" let's try to be fair and nice mentality. I heard associates basically run Latham. They have a lot of say if firm politics. They are running the firm into the ground. Why is it that almost all the negative news about large law firms is from non-NYC firms. CA firms are badly run. They want to have the best of both worlds, NY salary and bonuses and prestige, but more humane hours and environment. It can't happen. That's what happened to Heller and Thelen and it's going to happen to Bingham and Pilsbury within the next year. Mark my words most of the large CA firms are going TTT soon.

27 should be shot for stupidity

33=22=pwned.

as should 32

27 - EPIC DOUCHE

31, aka 27's mom, the "median" in 27's scenario is $25k, not $50k. Try to figure out why.

Let's look at that before looking at the $2.45 million bonus that one person got.

I'm 99% sure the average and median doesn't include people who were no bonused because they missed their hours. The bonus memo also includes a break down of how many associates got what (which isn't listed above). It doesn't list anyone as being no bonused and while I didn't run the numbers if you average out the bonus ranges that appears to be the average and median number. So the bonus number is deceptive.

I don't trust this memo. Information is being hidden, and I intend to extract it by any means necessary. Let's start with the pillory, then we'll move on to the Spanish Tickler.

It's Danger Time.

Did you hear about the guy who drowned in a river with an average depth of 2 feet? Old economists' joke.

27 = fail

If one of your competitior firms that wouldn't hire you generally pays above market, one thing you could do is say that they're inherently inferior based upon their city/jurisdiction of origin. 32 has the right idea. After that, you could go for a heel hook to close the deal, of if you prefer to remain standing, bang left elbow, bang right straight, maybe now the headbutt comes.

27 - Wrong. Median would be $50K. Mean would be $49,500. But I understand your point.

27 = fail

43, why don't you help 27 reconstruct the scenario then with median $17.5k, mean $18.5k, and maximum $30k.

28 - Lawyers make ridiculous sacrifices for rewards which seem paltry when compared to the money many made working at the top level of more rewarding professions. They were willing to do it - and in fact to behave pretty brutally toward each other - because the profession promised security.

It turns out, however, that the security was upheld by a series of lies. First, we accepted that everyone who works hard succeeds, and (even though this is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent) that those who did not succeed must not have worked hard. Then, we accepted that in order to succeed, we would have to throw a few elbows and otherwise "play the game." We also accepted that our "prestigious" firm offered "top level" work that a nanny goat could do - in its sleep. And that our efforts mostly served people who shouldn't be doing what they were doing. But no matter - our parents were proud. Finally, we accepted that the only way to protect ourselves in the shark tank our profession had become, was to completely disable any brain chip connected to anything resembling any sort of personality.

It was all so that we could say we were prestigious - we'd outlasted everyone else and that meant something.

Unfortunately, the mountain top just got a lot smaller, while the difference between people at the top and everyone else grew exponentially.

Everyone being laid off sacrificed for nothing. They gave up their time, their chance to pursue more lucrative and fulfilling opportunities, their personality, their values system, their intellectual curiosity, their relationships, and their health. In return, they got screwed.

Ha. I interviewed at Latham a few years ago to be a summer. All the fat annoying recruiter lady talked about was this Latham summer camp where the summers go away together, etc. I'm sorry. I have a life. I don't want to vacation with 50 law students I don't know. I just think it's funny. Wonder how much that waste costs them. Rather have a salary increase, It was the reason I turned down their offer. That and the free lunch associate was a douche. Just wanted to share. Wonder if that will be cancelled in 09.

Most of Latham associates received no bonus. Goooo hours requirement!

26 is racist.

42 = m-effing hilarious and dead-on

43 = closer but FAIL too.

46, who is this "the profession" that promised security? How come I did not get the memo?

Do you also invest based on past performance? Bank of America was a great stock!

Also, keep on telling yourself that you and every lawyer you know could have gone to medical school or been an ibanker.

@46 That's life...that's almost every profession. Being a lawyer doesn't mean you get more job security than John Q. Public. Sometimes when you work hard you get screwed.

37 - Wrong. The median is $50K. The distribution is like this:

1. $0
2. $0
...
49. $0
50. $50K
51. $50K
...
99. $50K
100. $2.45 million

You take the mean of 50 and 51, not 49 and 50.

Latham promised me some KASSHLOBSTER and I have seen nary a claw since starting there last year.

51 = EPIC FAIL

46,

All those ibankers I know are doing fabulous. . . oh wait?? Everyone's suffering. An MBA costs a lot of money and takes 2 years to obtain too. Also, the majority work long hours just like lawyers. If you hate the law profession so much, get out of it. That way some laid off attorneys can take your job. And it you're not an attorney then get a life and get off this site. This site is for doc review, bored out of their mind associates like me. Not you. MINE!!!! MINE, MINE!!!!!!!

51, 52 -- If you wanted to make a lot of money and weren't concerned with jsecurity, you would have become an investment banker instead of a lawyer.

If you weren't that concerned with making money, but still wanted security, you would have become a cop or a teacher.

But you wanted money AND security. So you gave up your life to be a lawyer. And look what it got you.

50,

So what's the answer genius? (I'm betting you can't get it right!)

Love,

43

I heard a rumor about Cahill having layoffs... can anyone confirm?

It's almost as if there's a continuum of trade-offs between money and job security, and being a lawyer is a point on that continuum that is not at an endpoint.

Anyone know how many associates got bonuses?

I want to know what the little 1 prime means in the screen shot. I also want to have sex with an amputee.

isnt latham the shop where a bunch of fugly associates were spreading some bullshit that latham hired "hot" looking lawyers? or was that some other shit hole?

27, my original point was that 18 did not understand "median" when he talked about "50%" not receiving bonuses. For obvious reasons, the median is lower if 50% get zero. Your example does not have 50% of associates without bonuses. You are off-topic, irrelevant, and probably also a Latham associate who failed at math.

That is all.
Love,
22

@ 56

A JD costs much more (in actual expenses and opportunity costs for the year of foregone pay, etc.) than an MBA considering the JD is THREE fucking years, you tool.

I dont know wtf you are talking about. At Latham NY, half skadden is market. However a lot of people do did not make the minimum hours (1900) got the market bonus. Only a few who did got below market for whatever reason.

The median bonus in the non NY offices is higher which reflects the market, but people who do not make hours are more likely to get screwed. The only people who made hours and got 0 bonuses are the ones who will probably get fired in 2 weeks. Everyone else I know got around the median.

1 prime just said that median means the same thing is usually means in calculations. Per the article update, 647 associates made their hours and got bonuses.

62 - It says that while those are the dollar values of bonuses, the bonuses will only be paid in your choice of gold bullion or the by-weight equivalent of ass lobsters or ABORTED FETUS BURGERS.

58, the "mean" (or average) is simply the sum of all the bonuses divided by 100. Now you try again. I think you'll learn it better if you figure it do it yourself, rather than me giving you the answer.

It's scary how bad most lawyers are with numbers. No wonder the economic aspect of most law firms = FAIL.

IP attorney.

62, if the screenshot actually included the footnote we would see that it references a special bonus for the associate with the most billable hours. This special bonus is . . . ASSLOBSTER!!!

65, you could have gotten the MBA right after college, just like law school, right? Or if you worked, your work experience was good enough for a non-online MBA, right?

I already gots money!

I can't believe I am commenting on this - but 50 is an idiot. 43 has the math right.

In any case, the point made by 29 and 45 (probably same person) is a good one and moots the conversation.

But 50 you are definitely an idiot. You really shouldn't comment on people's math skills unless you can do math.

65,

Stop being pissed you arent a ibanker. Most of them are tools as well. I bet you're bridge and tunnel.

SUCK ELIE'S DICK.

Everyone arguing about medians needs to re-read 38's post

What's with all this "I gave up my life" BS? Associates are still kids; their lives haven't even begun yet.

Oh no, 72 AKA I Gots Money just Gots Shot in a gang related incident.

Ok. Are you'll seriously debating "mean" and "median" ?!?!?!?!?!?!?

seriously! This is scary . . . very scary.

Thanks everyone for the footnote explanation. Now onto my second request for a Lieutenant Dan. CHOP CHOP!! I aint got all day.

73, Wrong. Re-calculate. Use a machine or a male.

43/58, I like how you subtly acknowledge your inaccuracies.

Thanks everyone for the footnote explanation. Now onto my second request for a Lieutenant Dan. CHOP CHOP!! I aint got all day.

77,

don't hate cuz you aint getting money like I gots money

69 - You are one of the few here who understand why most lawyers don't go to med school or business school -- they don't have the aptitude for math and/or science, which is why they majored in poly sci.

again, not everyone who missed their hours got no bonused.

looks like no bonus for stubs

looks like no bonus for stubs

69, "sum of all bonuses divided by 100"? How about divided by the number of people who received bonsus? Do you feel like an EPIC FAILURE?

I hope all you lathamites who didnt get bonuses really give the 2009 summers shit when they get to go to Summer academy on your bonus this summer. Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with Latham?

If 647 associates received bonuses and there are 1300+ associates, clearly the median number only considers those associates who received bonuses. Otherwise median would be $0. I'm guessing, therefore, that mean also only considers those associates who received bonuses.

@71

Good point re: timing of the degree. Nevertheless, the JD still costs more on average.

@74

You sound like one of the unemployed douches who sucked their bosses cocks hard and long and then shitcanned. Is your mouth dry?

Wow, Latham associates got royally screwed this year. Almost half, including some who "made their hours," getting no bonus. Run far far away from that place. Law students would be well advised to avoid Latham like the plague that it is.

83 - No, I didn't go to med school because blood is icky, and I didn't go to business school because I didn't want to essentially gamble on what would be good or bad investment and risk losing my job because of bad luck. Oops.

90:

Please stop licking your mom's vag.

83, a man's got to know his limitations.

I'm sitting on a gold Barack Obama dildo and it is filling my insides with hope.

80 - I did it using Excel. The math is correct, you are an idiot.

there are not 1300 associates.

the only people getting 0 bonuses who made their hours are the people getting fired.

97 - Are you talking about Cahill? You have confirmation of this?

Did Milbank raise salaries? I heard it is cold as ice over there.

Did Milbank raise salaries? I heard it is cold as ice over there.

Why do people have it in for Bingham on this site?

20 - haven't heard anything about office closings or staff layoffs, and would be in a position to know. Staff layoffs are always possible these days, I suppose, but there's nothing specific going on.

32 - Bingham isn't a California firm. Bingham is a Boston firm. We have a presence in California because of the McCutchen merger and some other acquisitions, but really aren't comparable in any way to Heller, Thelen, Pillsbury or Latham.

Seriously, Bingham seems to be doing OK. No attorney layoffs, stealth or otherwise. Bonuses are getting paid out at the Cravath scale. No word on salaries yet, so some concern there - but no more than anywhere else.

99, willing to sacrafice my love?

i heard that 99/100 likes to feed Kash's ASSLOBSTER with small fish he holds between his lips.

my butt itches

46 - In return, we got $160k+ a year. Perhaps you spend all your time in Cape Cod or the Hamptons, but I never pretended to be something I wasn't. I live frugally, save and pay down debt. Considering the hours I put in its a pretty good trade-off, especially compared with the sweatshop hours unskilled laborers in this country and the 3rd world put in. The job has brought me enough wealth to be comfortable and, at least in my case, enough contacts to move out of the legal profession all together should I decide its time.

No, my friend. We did not get screwed. We made good money and, those of us who were smart, made sure we built contacts and did not get pigeon-holed. If you personally got screwed, well than sorry. Don't presume to speak for us all though.

While EPIC FAIL dude furiously rechecks his math, 102 brushes up on "most common 2nd-grade spelling errors."

96 is awesome. And 106 is funnier for pointing out how much of an idiot 80 is.

80 is climbing into a hole and crying right about now. What an idiot.

104, I've got an Obama dildo that will make that nasty itch go away.

83: I switched from poli sci to English rather than take stats, and now have a top 10 GPA at one of CCN.

101-

People have it in for Bingham because it's a vortex of soul-crushing misery and despair

109, not good enough for Harvard, eh?

108-

i've already lost two Obama dildoes up my crevasse. better not tempt fate with a third-but thanks for looking out!

109: What is CCN?

111- Rejected. But I heard a rumor they wear you make fruity outfits. confirm/deny?
-109

Im glad all these elitist assholes are getting screwed and keep posting their elitist crapt on this website. TTT grad with a great job. SUCK IT!!!

God, 87. You just took the stupid level even further.

96, I can't explain why you are unable to handle this task. Just give up, I guess. Doc Review is perfect for you.

94, good point.

Hmm, dyslexia? need more coffee.

Latham just chumpatized their associates.

115, false. You do not have a great job. You just think you do because you are a TTT grad and thus stupid.

God, 87. Really stupid, really really stupid.

96 - doc review time. You can't handle this easy task.

113, CCN stands for Community College, Night-time.

I wanna suck on someones dick right now.

122 - You don't happen to be Tulane Law student, do you?

122 = CWT '05 Female Associate

116 - 80 - 50 - You really need to actually check your math.

If you set it up as done in 53, the median is 50K and the mean (or average) is 49.5K. That is what 43 says.

I can't believe how incredibly stupid you are.

While math is supposedly foreign to lawyers, I think that the back and forth on the stats point shows how the bonus grid might not present a very true picture of the bonus allocation.

It seems that the stats debate here is the result of a failure to specifically identify the question posited and, accordingly, a failure to identify the correct dataset for arriving at mean/median/etc. For instance, if the question is defined as "what was the average bonus given", then perhaps the correct dataset is only the associates to which a bonus was actually given (and thus the set would not include any $0 datapoints and the resultant mean/median would not be dragged down by a bunch of $0 datapoints since a "no bonus" associate would be excluded from the set). Meanwhile, if the question is defined as "what was the average amount received per Latham associate from the bonus policy" (which is probably the more informative question), then the appropriate dataset would include a set of $0 datapoints for each associate that received $0 from the policy.

I'd be curious to hear if the bonus memo described exactly which dataset it was using to determine the amounts in the grid. Based upon the assumption that only 647 out of over 1300 associates received bonuses, then I must assume that Latham has used the first dataset and not the second, because otherwise a $0 would have needed to be indicated as the median for at least one class year (although I suspect that the memo is NY only and thus the 647/1300 numbers would not be applicable to NY only).

i want someone to bend me over this desk and bang me hard from behind.

The person that posted 50, 80, 116 and 120 - I want to know what you actually think the answer is and how you came to it.

I tried it myself in Excel and I get the same thing as 43 and 96. Given that you have not provided what the median and mean are, I assume you are unable to calculate them, or that 43 and 96 are actually correct, and you feel like such a fool that you just keep posting derogatory remarks.

In any case, I think you have been discredited until you actually post a solution.

Lawyer v. lawyer smackdown! Booyah!

I believe the word diagonally watermarked and partially viewable over the partial screenshot is "confidential".

It is nice to know that the future corporate law partners of America cannot keep secrets any better than, say, congress. I mean, as long as we all benefit, confidentiality means nothing, right?

NERDDDDSSS!!!!!

116 and 120 -- Post a median or mean otherwise it is basically recognized that you are a complete idiot.

Remarking that other people are wrong, and then not posting what you consider correct (and why the others are wrong) is a clear indication that you are relying on ad hominem attacks.

So, this is kind of like law school grades--if someone works really hard and bills more hours, it takes bonus dollars away from someone else. Sweet zero sum game Latham has working here! This is the kind of scheme that actually provides reasonable support to the lock-step rationale.

122=127?

For the record, I posted 96 and I don't want to be associated with 132.

122=127= Tulane Law Student

Way to take the high road, 135!

72, 82 = EPIC FAIL

What is the median size of KASSHLOBSTER?

139, about 4 lbs.

122: Bend over. Everyone's tried it.

4 lbs is a HUGE ass lobster. She must've been nurturing that thing for years, and at this point he can't get out without serious injury likely for both of them.

Comment removed by moderator.

47- you sound like a non-trad loser who can't make friends. I am not at Latham, but going to a resort for a couple of days during the week and being paid for it sure beats sitting in an office.

104 Mine too. You think it's appropriate to scratch if I share an office? You think this may be an epidemic?

144, I'm not 47, but you are retarded. I (and anyone with real friends) would MUCH rather sit in an office and then go home at 5pm and hang out with them then have to hang out with my douchy co-workers at night. Hanging out with work people at night (and NOT getting paid for it) is the worst result of all.

96 must = 125. this is not that hard, guy. You don't need Excel to do this. Just try using your brain. I hope your firm doesn't allow you to review bills. Actually, I hope no firm employs you.

((0.00 x 49) + (50 x 50,000) + 2,400,000)/100

Really, just stop. You are the biggest idiot in the world. 128, 132, you are tied with 96 and 125 (unless you're the same person).

146, yeah. summer associate events are horrible. what law student in their right mind would want to take advantage of free food and free booze at the expense of talking to people?

146, why don't you make friends with the work people too?

148, I agree, free food, booze and taking advantage of hot, drunk, female summers is aweful. Whats worse is when partners actually start liking me when I tell them about banging the SA they won't touch for fear of getting fired. Oh wait, that doesn't suck, thats how I got my job.

147 -- I think the original number was 2.45 million (not 2.4 million). WHO CARES!!! Are we arguing based on a hypo where someone gets a $2 million bonus. This is stupid.

If you had to use an Excel spreasheet for this, you are a retard. That's all I'll say on the matter.

This is hands-down the funniest comment thread ever posted on ATL. Next week let's add some standard deviation calculations to the mix...

Thanks for the laughs guys (and gals)!

- Math Ph.D.

FYI, Latham told all of the summers they were cancelling the trip to Scottsdale in an email that came out in early December, well before this pay freeze debacle.

148 - you must either not have any friends or be a 1L Trust me, getting free food and booze is a small drop in the water to your income. What is precious is your time, and while I do have some friends at my law firm, they certainly aren't my "real" friends. And they certainly weren't "real" friends when I'd only known them for a few weeks (when a shitty getaway resort trip would happen). I can't believe you guys would rather spend time with the people you work with then your real friends, all just for free beer and food. So, as I said, you either don't have any real friends, or you are a 1L that thinks free booze is the greatest gift ever.

147 AH HA HA HA HA HA!
Everyone else, did you ever think that half these math posters are trolls messing with you?

Or else they're all UPenn State Philly grads...

penn st. has the best math program in the ivy league, right?

Is it true that Latham has cancelled the Scottsdale event this summer? I didn't receive any email to that effect. :(

158 - yes, they replaced it with (mandatory) advanced math classes at local CCNs.

The median bonus at Latham is zero.

Kinda says it all about the place, really.

151 - My 2006 bonus was well over $2M -- like, multiple times that -- so it's certainly possible.

-- Former Bear Stearns trader

158, the email didnt say that specifically, but it it said something to the effect of they are no longer doing their summer associate, 1st year, 3rd year and 5th year programs in a centralized location...i.e. you aren't going to Scottsdale.

When you think about it, sending all their worldwide associates from each year to one location must be a massive money suck.

162 - You actually need to "think about it" to realize that? Some firms are making people re-use old coffee grounds, and you're needing to "think about" whether it costs a lot to fly people from all over the globe to a getaway retreat?

Yes, the average bonus for people who got a bonus in the class of 2007 was $17,500. However, if you factor in the 60-70% that didn't get a bonus, then the average is closer to $7000. Latham just didn't include the people that didn't get a bonus to make their numbers look respectable.

161 - I hope you kept some of that bonus in a coffee can under your mattress. In your case, it will probably have to last a long, long time. And, we're talking about law firm Associate bonuses on this thread, d-bag.

Hey 101 - did you miss the memo? The closing of Bingham's Walnut Creek office was announced today. Oh yeah, and a salary freeze too....

Bingham McCutchen has announced a 6.4 per cent hike in profit per equity partner (PEP) for the 2008 financial year.

The US firm grew PEP from $1.335m in 2007 up to $1.42m in 2008.

Global revenue at the firm saw a 3.2 per cent increase in the same period, to $767m from $743.5m last year.

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136419&d=415&h=417&f=416

101 may have to re-evaluate whether he or she is "in a position to know" about office closings.

L&W=sinking ship

Evidently 101 was the victim of a "stealth layoff" just prior to that memo being circulated.

Latham screwed alot of associates. People who made their hours didn't get bonuses.

LW is planning layoffs.

I joined Latham as a lateral. One of the worst decisions in my life. I hate this firm.

I said it once and I'll say it again - friends don't let friends work at Latham.

This bonus memo is downright deceptive and shows what douchebags L&W are.

If you're going to exclude MORE THAN HALF of the associates in the entire firm, what the hell, why not give the "average" bonus of only the top 5% and describe it as the "average" without noting the sample size?

Still more amazing is being stupid enough to think people wouldn't figure it out. Oh, and associates who made your hours and STILL did not get bonuses - consider that your pending layoff notice.

I really don't get this post. Yeah, the freeze was terrible and they should be bashed for that, but how are these bonuses terrible? Latham has always had an hours requirement, as do pretty much all California firms - that's not news. For those who made hours, though, these bonuses were at, and in some cases well above, market. It sounds like in New York they are right at market.

To me, it appears that Latham did what many predicted it would - it froze salaries, but compensated the big producers above what they'd be making at other firms.

I'm all for bashing firms when they do stuff that's bad for associates, but bashing them when they do things we want them to do (e.g., pay above market bonuses) doesn't make much sense to me.

here's an idea - work hard, smart and move up. become a partner. make money. and hire someone recently fired from Microsoft to hack sites like this to figure out who is posting from my firm and then show them what a donkey Cravath looks like.

That median and mean stuff was really interesting. Nice to see that even with the anonymity of online posting douche bags can't admit when they don't know something or have made a mistake.

53 - you are a typical law douche. enough with the bickering over numbers for a hypothetical. get a fucking life. nobody cares. really, nobody

Latham has started layoffs that will continue over the next week. If they try calling it anything other than layoffs, they're liars.

This is what all these california firms that thought they could play with the big boys deserve.

Question for any CA labor law types:

Can a CA firm that in 2008 announced a very specific bonus program, with clearly defined performance and hours targets tied to particular bonus amounts, retroactively change that program to reduce bonuses?

Keep in mind, I am not talking about changes going forward -- I know they can reduce salaries, reduce or eliminate bonuses for 2009, etc. I'm talking about a retroactive change in bonuses that have already, in some sense, been earned for 2008.

Keep in mind also that I am not talking about a NY-style bonus program where the firm announces bonuses in its discretion at the end of the year. At my firm, the bonus program, with performance and hour targets, was clearly stated in April 08.

Associates were, presumably, incentivized by and worked towards those targets for the entire year (at least I was and did). Now the firm is talking about changing the program retroactively.

Can they really do that?

182 - yes. Now quit whining and be happy you still have a job.

- a CA labor law type

182/183 - I'm not so sure. It's one thing to say your employment is at-will, and we can fire you or change your comp whenever. But I'm not at all sure they can refuse to pay earned incentive bonuses that were specified in advance without hedging language, as to which the period has already passed, and for which the stated performance targets were clearly met. 182 - talk to a real labor lawyer if the bonus amount is substantial and you're willing to get fired over this.

175 is correct...if you made hours and didn't get a bonus better start updating your resume

182, from the CA DLSE manual:

The Promise Of A Bonus Becomes A Unilateral Contract. The California courts (Lucien v. All States Trucking, supra) have adopted the view explained by the Oregon courts in Walker v. American Optical Corporation (Or.1973) 509 P.2d 439, 441: that a
specific bonus plan normally becomes binding as a unilateral contract when the employee begins perform ance, in the sense that the plan then cannot be revoked by the employer. (See discussion of unilateral contract at Section 31.2 .10.1 of this Manual)

Latham is doing layoffs. That they want to slime associates on the way out just proves they are too chickenshit to admit it.

LWU in Scottsdale was hilarious and anyone who didn't have fun is socially awkward. Who doesn't like a weekend of booze camp?

In addition, people who have to delineate between "real" friends and friends they meet through work must either (1) work with a ton of d-bags, and/or (2) have shameful secrets to hide from their co-workers.

188: Pity LW cares more about its summer associates then its actual associates.

Latham gets a shout-out in the New York Times for freezing salaries:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/jobs/25lawyers.html

friends at latham tell me they're not too upset about bonuses; was expected. The median/average figures are with respect to bonuses actually paid, not with respect to all associates. there was another chart which showed the scale of payouts to all associates; the bulk received around the median. bonus info only reflects bonuses to full-year, full-time associates, so doesn't show all the pro-rated bonuses to laterals, folks on leave, etc, which I heard were quite a few.

187 is wrong... no word about layoffs. Firm is taking measures to avoid that scenario.

any word about start dates for incoming associates?

I know for a fact Latham has started layoffs. If you made your hours and didn't get a bonus you are being laid off.

158,

LWU in Scottsdale has been cancelled. LW summers received an email touting the wonderful training that associates receive, and somewhere in the middle discuss that the training has been shifted to regional offices.

ENJOY!

193 is correct - there are stealth layoffs going on

LWU was fun other than the alleged incident of sexual harassment rumored to have happened there.

Confirmation of cancellation of LWU:

The chair of the hiring partner sent along this email to all incoming associates: "In an effort to remain prudent on costs while preserving the essential training components of our program, we will be reformatting the academies to be held in each local office (or, for certain smaller offices, regionally) instead of in one central location."

-Unfortunate incoming associate regretting his decision to go with L&W rather than other firm he split with.

Latham lawyers are known for selling the firm in terms of fun culture, associates committee, fun people, blahblah in showing how they are superior to all other firms.

Where are the defenders of LaTTTham now? I guess all those supposedly awesome intangibles go out the window when more than 1/2 of all associates got no bonuses and when they are freezing your salaries.

I can confirm that Latham is conducting stealth layoffs. It is laying off both associates who didn't make hours and associates who did, and not paying bonus to the latter group. Only a month ago we were told, to our faces in a meeting, that Latham would not conduct stealth layoffs because it "had too much respect for its associates to treat them that way." Not only did Latham do exactly what it said it would not do, it did one better and did not pay compensation to people who earned it. Real. Classy. Shit.

I don't enjoy using obscenities, but fuck this place. I used to chuckle when I saw Latham haters on this site (probably some boring troll who didn't get an offer, I thought), but you guys were dead on. I have spent hundreds of hours recruiting for the firm, on top of breaking my back doing client billable work. No more. The salary freeze was not a morale killer. This is a morale killer.

To the Latham associates on the receiving end of this move, you guys deserved better. At least you get to see the firm's true colors and move on from this place.

To the Latham associates still around, I don't know about the rest of you, but I am taking the first opportunity to walk out of here. Any firm that conducts stealth layoffs (there seem to be a lot out there) has proven that it does not care one iota about its associates and views them as milking goats. I may be delusional, but there have to be better firms out there.

To anyone considering working at Latham, don't do it. It is the worst paying V10 firm, and if you can get a job here, you can get a job at another V10 firm and get paid more.

To the incoming summer associates, be smart, work hard, go to all the events, have fun, get the offer. Then recruit your 3L year, apply for clerkships, but do not come here. If I am still at the firm during the summer, I will take you out to lunch and tell you this to your face.

To the editors of this site, I hope you have collected enough information over the weekend (I am guessing that you received more than a few emails) to post an article about the stealth layoffs at Latham.

I apologize for the rant, but this has been bothering me, to put it mildly.

I can confirm that Latham is conducting stealth layoffs. It is laying off both associates who didn't make hours and associates who did, and not paying bonus to the latter group. Only a month ago we were told, to our faces in a meeting, that Latham would not conduct stealth layoffs because it "had too much respect for its associates to treat them that way." Not only did Latham do exactly what it said it would not do, it did one better and did not pay compensation to people who earned it. Real. Classy. Shit.

I don't enjoy using obscenities, but fuck this place. I used to chuckle when I saw Latham haters on this site (probably some boring troll who didn't get an offer, I thought), but you guys were dead on. I have spent hundreds of hours recruiting for the firm, on top of breaking my back doing client billable work. No more. The salary freeze was not a morale killer. This is a morale killer.

To the Latham associates on the receiving end of this move, you guys deserved better. At least you get to see the firm's true colors and move on from this place.

To the Latham associates still around, I don't know about the rest of you, but I am taking the first opportunity to walk out of here. Any firm that conducts stealth layoffs (there seem to be a lot out there) has proven that it does not care one iota about its associates and views them as milking goats. I may be delusional, but there have to be better firms out there.

To anyone considering working at Latham, don't do it. It is the worst paying V10 firm, and if you can get a job here, you can get a job at another V10 firm and get paid more.

To the incoming summer associates, be smart, work hard, go to all the events, have fun, get the offer. Then recruit your 3L year, apply for clerkships, but do not come here. If I am still at the firm during the summer, I will take you out to lunch and tell you this to your face.

To the editors of this site, I hope you have collected enough information over the weekend (I am guessing that you received more than a few emails) to post an article about the stealth layoffs at Latham.

I apologize for the rant, but this has been bothering me, to put it mildly.

200, thank you for what appears to be a very earnest post.

What is the magnitude of these layoffs? What do you mean by "stealth"? Do you mean they have been cast as "performance based" (as opposed to economy based) or that they have been done without public announcement?

Does anyone know what Latham's severance policy is?

200 - well said

Why are partners panicking and laying off associates like this? Profits per partner are still healthy and 2009 revenues are not expected to fall by THAT much. Why no just try to ride this out? You take a relatively modest reduction in your profit draw for 2009 (and possible 2010), but avoid the headache of layoffs and retain a reservoir of associates if business picks up again.

So 200 - do Latham's stealth layoffs come with severance? Are they being characterized as performance based?

201 and 204-

The layoffs are being characterized as performance based, at least the ones I know about. They happened on Friday, so we should get more information during the coming week. The Latham gossip mill is pretty efficient.

Associates who got cut are given three months to cycle off matters, collect a paycheck, and look for new work. So, in effect, three months severance.

Can we please remember (and could ATL do an independent post on the fact) that Latham won a survey as the most popular firm to work for BY A LANDSLIDE, and LESS THAN ONE YEAR AGO, no less!

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/04/featured_job_survey_and_your_f.php

206,

What's your point?

Having 3 months to "cycle off" matters does not sound the same as severance. Does that mean they still expect you to show up to work just to drink the free coffee and sync your blackberry while searching for a job? that blows. Are you given the option of just taking a check for the 3 mos. and leaving? What if you want to start a new job right away - would they consider that a resignation and not pay you the 3 months?

"Performance related"? In other words, LW associates suck more when partners' profits go down?

191, it's obvious based on the posts by actual Latham associates that you're a recruiter there (or partner perhaps?). How would someone with "friends" there know about "measures to avoid" layoffs that the firm is taking? Or how many people are on leave, getting partial year bonuses after lateraling in, etc.? LIAR.

Posting that there are not layoffs going on when associates are saying they have first hand knowledge to the contrary is BS enough, but worse yet is saying things like "the bulk received around the median" about bonuses - sure they did, the median was ZERO! Can your boosterism be any more transparent? Apparently even some people who made their hours are getting screwed! (It seems you have to suck the right cocks in addition to putting in your time to get your money at Latham.)

There's nothing more obnoxious than firm recruiters coming here and posting BS about a place (well, I guess other than the hate-posters). But it does have one positive side effect - it lets everyone else know what douchebags and liars the people who work there are. Thanks for clearing that up.

199 is basically saying, "Those of you who got laid off are lucky because you get to see how bad the firm really is and get to pursue another opportunity. You, without a job, are better off than me, who has a job, because I still have to work at this miserable place."

What is your beef 199/200?

If the firm had told the laid-off associates that they were being fired because business was slow, rather than for performance, is this then okay? Isn't the reason given rather insignificant, so long as Latham does not make any public announcements to the effect these were performance based?

ATL: Please do a post on the Latham layoffs.

ATL: please look further into the Skadden layoffs. For example, NY seems to have laid off 30 staff attorneys, but how many staff attorneys were laid off in other large offices offices? 10 legal assistants were laid off in DC. Were there other legal assistant lay offs in other offices?. Finally, how many associates, and in which practices areas, are being strongly encouraged to look elsewhere for employment. How much time are the being given to find a new job?

ATL: please look further into the Skadden layoffs. For example, NY seems to have laid off 30 staff attorneys, but how many staff attorneys were laid off in other large offices offices? 10 legal assistants were laid off in DC. Were there other legal assistant lay offs in other offices?. Finally, how many associates, and in which practices areas, are being strongly encouraged to look elsewhere for employment. How much time are the being given to find a new job?

ATL: please look further into the Skadden layoffs. For example, NY seems to have laid off 30 staff attorneys, but how many staff attorneys were laid off in other large offices offices? 10 legal assistants were laid off in DC. Were there other legal assistant lay offs in other offices?. Finally, how many associates, and in which practices areas, are being strongly encouraged to look elsewhere for employment. How much time are the being given to find a new job?

Latham is laying off people. 3-month severance indeed. No idea how many are being told to go, but they have been making the rounds, at least in the NY office.

Latham & Watkins: Leading the BigLaw world in layoffs, pay cuts, and douchebaggery for two decades, and into the future...

212-

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your post is not a joke. Let me try again.

Lying through your teeth = wrong.

Stiffing a person who made hours because you are going to fire him anyway = wrong.

Telling someone to her face that she is a bad lawyer when she is a good lawyer = wrong.

Disrespecting a person's contributions and sacrifice for the firm = wrong.

If you do not understand the significant difference between a firm that conducts a stealth layoff and a firm that cares about associates enough to be honest, you need more explanation than I am able to provide.

I'm one of the people who got the axe. I frankly don't know any more about what just happened to me than has already been posted here, but I think I did good work and I know I wholeheartedly contributed to the firm in many other ways. It certainly feels like a stealth layoff to me. What's interesting to me is that several of the comments here about LW's actions seem to be coming from people inside the firm who are actually concerned about their fellows, and not just snark (see, e.g., 219). I feel incredibly betrayed by the firm, but at this moment I still feel like at least my fellow associates cared about decency, which was why I enjoyed being there.

220 what year are you? Amy additional details?

ATL is sleeping at the wheel.

220,

How was your termination explained to you? What reason were you given?

any word on cuts in SF?

I'd wager most of you are first years and second years. YOU AREN'T DOING SHIT RIGHT NOW. Since you are so ridden with greed and would not want to spare the cost, please allow me to buy you some rope so you can hang yourself and end your woe-is-me-miserable-life.

Fuck you,
one of your secretaries.

225-

You are out of touch with reality if you think the secretaries at Latham read ATL comments (as opposed to the Superficial, for example).

You are an unhappy partner whose spouse is sleeping with your best friend. I hope you enjoy the taste of his penis when you kiss her goodnight when you get home at 2 in the morning.

Try coming up with a more plausible post next time.

220 Sorry to hear your news.

226 -

You are the one that brought up the taste of penis in mouth...just saying. It's a taste you should get used to if you want to make partner.

And what probably should be most galling to the LW associates being hosed is that the firm made several mistakes by grossly overpaying for lateral partners, some of whom are very mediocre. The fact that they continued to do this just a month or so before instituting a pay freeze and axing associates is mind-boggling, but not unexpected of course.

Never made a comment on this board before--and never will again, latham layoff happened today to me as well.

No idea how many this affected. Never got a bad review--didnt even think my job was in danger. wow, still a bit shocked at it all.

In any case, enjoyed working here and will definitely miss the people (its not just the koolaide, there are some great great people here). Everyone always talks as if only the weakest threads are let go--so easy to say, so easy to say. Guess I'm the weakest link.

When layoffs came to Cadwalader
I remained silent;
I was not a Cadwaladite.

When layoofs came to Heller Ehrrman
I remained silent;
I was not a Heller person.

When layoffs came to Cahill,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Cahiller

When layoffs came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Just how bad is the health of the firm that they are doing this to associates who made hours?

230 - what class year?

Every year firms let go a certain percentage of each attorney's for poor reviews/underperforming, etc. If the number of attorneys lw ends of firing this year isn't higher than previous years, are these still stealth layoffs? What's the defining factor here?

Every year firms let go a certain percentage of attorneys for poor reviews/underperforming, etc. If the number of attorneys lw ends of firing this year isn't higher than previous years, are these still stealth layoffs? What's the defining factor here?

Usually when someone claims they're an insider, I take it with the grain of salt that should accompany anonymous comment posting.

But those of you who claim to be Latham associates who were fired on Friday sound convincing.

I hope it's a joke, though. I'm at Latham and I haven't heard anything. Then again, I'm not hooked into the gossip wheel and wouldn't know the latest anyway.

I hope the layoffs are just an ATL rumor to try to make things sound worse than they are. And I hope no one at Latham is fired. Everyone I know here is pretty cool.

Can we get some more info on the Latham layoffs? What offices, classes, practice groups?

I'm in the DC office and haven't heard anything.

230,

Many firms regularly do a cull of underperforming associates. What did the partners tell you about your performance when you were told you were being terminated? Also, what were your hours last year?

Any word on which offices and classes are affected? Or on the extent of the lay-offs?

235-

This is 200/219. I work at Latham, the first post on the Latham intranet home page talks about how the Chinese offices are closed for Lunar New Year.

The stealth layoffs are real. This is a fact. Figure out who the connected associates are in your office and ask them for information.

200/219/239 - Can we ask what office you're at?

I can confirm stealth layoffs at Latham. It's a well known fact. It has been going on the last few months.

I've never heard of this firm. But I feel bad for all the laid off attorneys. Good luck!

Extent of lay-offs? And where? Is it just New York?

I hope the people that were drinking the LaTTTham "better a salary cut than layoffs" Kool-Aid now see the light. I recall sitting in Ass Comm meetings where it was painfully obvious how determined the firm was not to raise salaries last year. It's no wonder they're leading the race to the bottom. V10. Yeah, right.

The big question is why ATL is not covering this. Also AlsTTTon and Bird is laying people off too.

Assuming the news about stealth layoffs at LW are true, I think the firm had no choice.

I think the firm did a "no-layoffs" pledge early in 2008. Doing public layoffs after that would make the firm look horribly incompetent.

The sad thing is this totally screws over associates, and for what, so the firm can "save face"?

ITE, getting laid off for economic reasons (which many firms have admitted) would not be that bad. But getting laid off for "performance" would make you look that much worse in an ever-growing pool of associates looking for work.

Assuming the whole "3 months to look for a new job" thing is true, then LW associates basically got the same deal as laid off associates from Cooley. Except Cooley admitted they were laid off due to the economy, and they were given 3 months severance, instead of making associates come into work for 3 months.

Again, I hope these are just false rumors.

lawdragon interview with managing partner during better times:

"LD: Latham endured some of the highest profile layoffs during that (early 90's) recession. Did you and the firm draw any lessons from that?

BD: The reality was that many firms were laying off people before we did. We were the first to be open about it and that we were doing it for economic, not performance reasons. One good thing about our doing it that way is that some firms doing layoffs now are being more open about it. "

http://www.lawdragon.com/index.php/newdragon/fullstory/picking_bob_dells_brain2

246.....lol

latttham is a tttoilettt

200/219/239 -

It's 235. I'm so sorry. Was there any warning at all? Do you still have to come into the office during these three months? Ugh.

235/249-

200/219/239 here. Thanks for the condolences, but I did not get laid off, but I know good lawyers who did. I think it is fair to say that there was no warning, much like the salary freeze. I don't know the answer to your last question. Take care.

I've never posted on this before but feel like I should to set the record straight for the attorneys whose honor has been attacked today.

I'm a second year at Latham. One of the features of the NY Daily Bulletin was about how you can tell which side of the car the gas tank was on.

From what I know, the layoffs were in New York and were focused on fourth years and above. The layoffs were called "performance" related - at least some of them. But the lawyers I know who were laid off were damn good attorneys, damn good supervisors and damn good people. The firm told them in their mid year performance reviews not to worry about pace and to do the best job they could. And so they did. And they didn't hit pace. They didn't push harder because they didn't think they had to.

The reason why ATL isn't posting on this, is because it's probably NOT TRUE. Otherwise, you better believe there'd be more than a few commenters every few hours filling us in on the details. Funny also how the people who were layed off never mentioned their class or any other details. *Yawn*

Comment removed by moderator.

252-

I don't know why I am even answering you, since you are obviously a Latham recruiter and not an attorney (layed, *Yawn*), but:

Getting fired hurts. A lot. Getting fired for fake performance reasons hurts even more. Many (if not most) people are not comfortable exposing themselves emotionally on such a public forum, even with the anonymity. Kudos to those who did and are giving people information.

Also, people are still in shock about what happened. They are trying to figure out what they are going to do in three months.

As for failing to give details, a person may not want to out himself or his colleagues. Latham has proven to be a petty, petty place.

This is 200/219/239, by the way. If you've read my posts, you know I am an attorney at Latham.

I'm really sorry....I didn't mean it to belittle the situation or be offensive. I just thought that the lack of information meant that it wasn't true (and it was just a few people trying to start a false flame). After reading your posts though, I see it differently. I'm sorry again, and I truly wish you the best.

Question for 254 - do you think that the stealth layoffs have at least one advantage: being able to search for a new job with LW still on your resume (i.e. you are still employed, so you don't have to explain that you have been layoffed, for whatever reason)? My apologies if this is a stupid question ... but I think I would prefer stealth so that at least when I'm applying elsewhere, no one knows I've been layed off (at least for the first three months)?

I doubt that there is still debate about whether these lay-offs are real or not, but I wanted to add my 2 cents. I am a Latham associate. I had heard from a partner that associates who did have good reviews were going to be pushed out, and that during a tighter economy that "the bar would have to be raised."

Ultimately, the difference between stealth and open lay-offs is not that great in terms of who gets cut. However, it would be best for everyone involved if we knew what was going on. This is causing some serious stress for those who have not had reviews yet. (and more serious stress for those layed off). I still don't know any names yet, but feel bad for anyone looking in this economy.

There were terminations, for cause, on Friday on Monday. I was one of the associates who was terminated for cause. I had only a few minutes notice before two partners came into my office. Once inside my office, my termination was swift. No small talk. I know of several others who were also terminated on Friday and Monday.

I have been quiet about this at the office because I need to find a new job (this is now my first priority, as per my "separation" letter), I have been given three months to represent myself as a Latham attorney while I conduct the job search, and I was fired for cause, and not laid-off, so its tough to keep my head up around the office about this.

Attorneys at Latham will know the extent of the firings shortly. Terminated mid-years will start removing themselves from cases without warning or explicit reason. I have already begun the process.

As per yesterday's NY Daily Bulletin, the gas tank on my old car is on the left, because the gas pump icon appeared that way on the in-dash display.

258: I am sorry you are in this position and hope you find something else very soon. If I may ask, what was the "cause" that was used to justify your termination? Not meeting pace?

258: I am sorry you are in this position and hope you find something else very soon. If I may ask, what was the "cause" that was used to justify your termination? Not meeting pace?

258: I am sorry you are in this position and hope you find something else very soon. If I may ask, what was the "cause" that was used to justify your termination? Not meeting pace?

If "not meeting pace" is the reason for layoffs, we're all in trouble this year. I'm officially terrified.

If "not meeting pace" is the reason for layoffs, we're all in trouble this year. I'm officially terrified.

Were those laid off give any bonus? I wonder this on two fronts. First if people hit their hours and all of a sudden are told they are being let go for performance reasons and not being given their bonus out of the blue, that is pretty shitty. Second, if Latham is paying bonuses to those laid off, which are being paid to reward good performance, how can they justify on one hand telling people their performance is not up to par but on the other hand paying them a bonus for their performance.

Latham associate here - i know a few people who were terminated over last couple of days and none of them received a bonus (and none of those that I know made hours as well).

265: Do you know why these people were terminated? There are always people who are let go at all firms for performance issues when annual reviews are done. This might not be obvious to first and second year associates who haven't been around that long.

257-

There is some truth to the statement that there is not that much difference to who gets cut in a stealth versus an open layoff, but there is a world of difference in the manner of the cut (the "how"). Good attorneys are getting cut. They are being told they are not good enough for the firm and their work product is not up to par, when in actuality we simply have too many good attorneys and not enough work. This is dishonest, and it shows that the firm is willing to insult its own attorneys in order to avoid admitting a layoff.

258-

I am sorry this happened to you. And I am sorry you got fired for cause. This is complete garbage.

264-

There were people who made hours who got fired. They did not get a bonus. You are correct, this is wrong.

266- no. I'm a former LW atty (thank GOD I got out when I did), and I know from talks with friends that people are getting cut right and left, across offices. The people I know about are midlevels (4-6 year), worked their asses off, got good reviews, and are getting canned. And it's not just the NY office, FYI.

Are there layoffs in the LA office? If so, is it also midlevels?

269- yes.

269- yes.

Why isn't there a real post about this? Does someone in this office need to file a wedding announcement in the Times to get a post?

Former LW associate here, bailed for a non-profit a couple of years ago. I feel terrible for my former colleagues about this. I sincerely hope that all of you guys land on your feet sooner rather than later, but have confidence that all of you will be ok in the long term.

If these cuts are as substantial as they sound, they are by far the most important thing happening in BigLaw right now. And we can't get a post on ATL, a so-called "Legal Tabloid."

These comments are very important--thanks to all who have shared. If anyone is able to elaborate on (1) how many may be laid off; (2) practice groups most affected; (3) class years most affected, I think the ATL community would be very interested to hear it. I understand if this is impossible given the layoffs' "stealth" nature.

I agree with 274. I'm baffled this isn't getting more attention.

Agreed. Apparently stealth layoffs = insulated from reporting. Mission accomplished.

so far there are several that I know of at the LA office that have been laid off... all women and all mid-levels... each of them were amazing attorneys that worked their asses off. I'm sure some men will be let too so LW doesnt look like the sexist bastards they are. Anyways, to cut down these individuals as 'performance' related fires is a bunch of BS. Does LW really think all their associates are that naive not to see the true nature of these lay-offs? Way to pick up moral LW!! The review board is filled with a bunch of morons

so far there are several that I know of at the LA office that have been laid off... all women and all mid-levels... each of them were amazing attorneys that worked their asses off. I'm sure some men will be let too so LW doesnt look like the sexist bastards they are. Anyways, to cut down these individuals as 'performance' related fires is a bunch of BS. Does LW really think all their associates are that naive not to see the true nature of these lay-offs? Way to pick up moral LW!! The review board is filled with a bunch of morons