At least they're being open about it, unlike so many other firms that are just throwing people under the bus.

Get back to work, monkeys!!!

At least they're being open about it, unlike so many other firms that are just throwing people under the bus.

We're in for a long year.

At least they're being open about it, unlike so many other firms that are just throwing people under the bus.

Wow. Bad times.

MoFo acting less like one than Morgan Lewis. Shame, shame Morgan Lewis. I hope people remember how you treated associates during this tough time.

What firms aren't being honest? And frankly, I'd rather my firm, if I were to be fired, quietly give me a severance package of a couple of months and give me an opportunity to find work, rather than announcing to the world that I am one of 24 associates being "laid off." They don't lay off their top associates; they lay off their associates who are not doing as well. You're branded when you go hunt for a job if you've been laid off.

Too bad firms won't just reduce salaries to something more sustainable, like 90K for first years, 125K for seventh years. They'd rather destroy the lives of these young lawyers, most of whom no doubt were first in their class at Harvard Law....

Does anyone know how the layoffs were done? Were certain class levels or practice groups affected more than others?

Anyone able to comment in more detail, it would be much appreciated. For example, please include:

--practice areas hardest hit
--class years hardest hit
--how the firings were conducted (and any justifications given)
--2008 billables for those let go
--severance package details

Best of luck to all affected.

How many layoffs in the SF office? Class years? Departments?

1. Elie, please read and edit your posts.

2. That is a huge number of staff/attorney, is that number real?

3. Anyone know how many in SV/SF?

There's a meeting right now to explain, complete with powerpoint presentation.

1. Elie, please read and edit your posts.

2. That is a huge number of staff/attorney, is that number real?

3. Anyone know how many in SV/SF?

Number 9 - you've got a lot of growing up to do kid. Sure they hang onto superstars, but a lot of this has to do with class year. Ask a recruiter - vulnerable years are 2-5 - senior enough where you aren't the cheapest labor and you aren't senior enough to be thought of as a long term asset. In better times you'd be given a chance to show you are a long term asset. Most big firm associates aren't even in good times. Given that 90% don't end up partners. So don't get all up and thinking you're something special just yet.

17 - I don't think I'm special at all, but read what I wrote again. If I were to be fired, I'd rather the firm keep the firing quiet with an opportunity to seek other work. If you get laid off, right or wrong, prospective employers will question why you were chosen to be laid off. The only attorneys who escape this thinking are those that are laid off as part of an entire department or an entire class year. That is rarely the case, even in these times.

This really sucks for those laid off now, and it will likewise suck when the next round takes place next month at the other firms still in denial as to what structural changes have taken place in the economy.

The top NYC firms with their ridiculous pay increases and bonii are going to fall the hardest, just like Bear and Lehman et al. Pay raises in THIS economy? For no business having associates?

I agree with you 17, but firms aren't letting go of the 90% of associates that won't become partner. Most firms doing layoffs are hitting more like 5-10% of the associate force, I think. So you don't have to be in the top ten percent to avoid being fired, rather, you just have to be good enough not to be in the bottom 10%. (Not that I'm saying those laid off are necessarily bad; a lot of them may have just had bad luck in being staffed poorly, not given good opportunities, etc. But they are still seen as the bottom of the barrel.)

Agreed 19. Many more firms will be doing the same thing in the days to come.

Not another SF firm in trouble!

Continues the trend that Cali firms have been hit the hardest, geez that's a lot of attorneys to lay off, good luck to them.

I have massive respect for MoFo. They not only are apparently being forthright with their employees, but with the world as will. Perhaps this will serve those that lost their jobs well as they attempt to find work.

Please don't double-post. It will take a while, but your comment will appear. Just be patient.

I just don't think it's true that "They lay off the associates who aren't doing well."

At one place I worked, I was disappointed not to be the star employee, until he got fired. Then the next two "stars" were fired too. Interestingly, all three incidents somehow had to do with the same boss.

Shit happens, and generalizations about "low performers" are just a way to handle anxiety, "It won't happen to me! I'm not like THAT GUY!"

10-why would anyone work 2400 hours a year for $90k while paying $1500/month for student loans? Might as well be a teacher and tend bar on the weekends for $75k with zero law school debt.

More info needed - which offices were affected? Any on East coast?

27 - you are very shrewd. If the firms reduce salaries, the hundreds of thousands of bright JDs will simply go back in time and make different decisions....

I am at Latham now and this is how they SHOULD HAVE handled layoffs. Shame on you Latttham!

28 - "Tipsters in L.A. report that 13 associates were let go from that office. Our New York sources say that 12 associates were let go in New York City."

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher axed 12 in NYC today.

9/18 -

First, with lateral hiring as weak as it is right now and the market flooded with outstanding resumes, most laid off lawyers aren't going to be facing the problems that you describe.

Most job searches are going to extend far past the severance period, in which case, it would be handy for employers to know that ex-MoFo people were laid off and not fired for doing a crummy job.

Associates who are hoping for stealth (vs. upfront) layoffs are delusional about job prospects right now.

27 - those that already have law school debt and can't find any other jobs paying 6 figures in this climate...

Don't kid yourselves about MoFo being honest with their employees. This isn't the first round of recent layoffs. They've been quietly laying off staff members for several months now.

Former Thelen and current Orrick partner The Glass Cock here, reminding everyone that Thelen should be remembered as a trailblazer, as Thelen was the first to engage in large scale layoffs and, if you ignore Heller (as we former Thelenites at Orrick do, since our defection pre-dated Heller's defections), the first to dissolve.

Thanks to all.

No Denver attys, just staff.

Im sure what group you are in make a big difference in being canned or not.

Is it safer to be a "star" in M&A, or to be just average in bankruptcy or patents or something like that?

Another excellent post by Elie. The ridiculous haters have been proven wrong - these postings are why this site has become THE legal blog of choice. Even the autoadmit weirdos acknowledge this.

Jesus they fired 1st years? Latham first years, you are on notice.

9, rather than arguing with the premise that the lower performing associates are always the first to get laid off, which I personally don't agree with, I think "quiet layoffs" are pretty much impossible in the internet/ATL age. Almost every ATL post has comments about various firms engaged in stealth layoffs. If there are enough comments about a firm engaging in stealth layoffs, it will eventually get its own ATL post. Then the firm may feel compelled to release a statement saying that it's just getting rid of people during its normal annual review process (usually total BS). So, would you rather be one of the many associates from a law firm that claims it just unloaded a bunch of loser associates who happens to be looking for a job or one that announced it laid off associates due to economic reasons?

[Recalls the glory days of 1986, when the money was flooding in from all directions.]

9/18 - I agree with you, and no one has addressed your question. Put another way, would you rather (1) answer questions in interviews re your being laid off with the hand wavy/bad luck/didn't get a chance/etc. answers that other posters are invoking (any or all of which may be true in certain cases, but none of which are arguments that you can have confidence will be believed by prospective employers) or (2) not face the question of whether you were laid off at all (I don't think lawyer-interviewers would ever ask the direct question of some coming out of a firm that had not done the public lay off) but instead say various truths like you aren't feeling confident about future of your current firm and like new platform better.

Strange. The time stamp on the last comment somehow got changed to 7:15 pm.

39 - I don't know if it is the news cycle or Elie taking over, but I feel like lately people are talking about stuff they read on ATL all the time.

MoFo associates and staff rocks. Real world understanding and attitudes. Latham weinies suck.

When will it end!? Won't somebody think of the children?? THE CHILDREN!?

how do they decide which first years to lay off? they've been at the job for a whopping 3 months

California firms suck especially hard, it appears.

40/48 - where is this about class years affected?

45 - all i know is Elie's postings generate a ton of comments and are "must reads" of late - I'd probably pay to have access to this site (assuming I am not laid off).

43 here - I did not see 33 and 41 when I did my first post. I think 33's argument is a very good one, in that I agree that very few affected associates will be able to find jobs in the typical 3 month severance period.

That being said, I still think there is very little difference in how a prospective employer 6, 9 or 12 months from now would perceive affected associates coming out of public and stealth lay-off shops.

As has already been noted, unless you're part of a department that publicly got wiped out to a very high degree, it will still be the case that you are forced either way to explain why you were one of the first 5 - 10% to go as law firms just aren't doing whacking to nearly the extent i banks and the like are. Obviously, you can try and massage the numbers (eg "litigation was unscathed, so it was actually 25% of corporate that got whacked), but with very few exceptions (e.g. structured finance at Cadwalader), you still are stuck with explaining being on the wrong end of pretty bad numbers whether it was economy-driven or performance-driven.

50 and 51 - did you even read the post? retards.

Don't get too high on Mofo's horse...in the SF office, they gathered the laid off people in a conference room, told them the news and then had security escort them out of the building! They didn't even have the decency to let them go back to their desks and gather their belongings or bags. They told them that they will ship their items to their house! SCUMBAGS!

As a fellow MoFo, all I can say is...

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

If 54 is correct, that's a news story by itself.

Don't worry guys, all these layoffs will stop and everything will be all better once Barack Obama raises taxes on law firm partners and other business owners.

there's people crying outside the building...(425 Market St)

there's people crying outside the building...(425 Market St)

57 is bushdepressionpwn3d. As if the credit markets collapsed because cap gain rates might go up a bit in 2011.....

33 - any details on your claim? I have heard nothing negative about Gibson in this economy yet, much less Gibson NY. Source?

Which Cali tech firm will be next - Gundersen, Howry Simon, Gray Cary..?

Is that about 10% of their US based associates getting canned? ( In addition to the previous stealth layoffs and the OC office closure). They must be in deep trouble. Any layoffs in their international offices? or is that still to come?

54 is not correct. The layoffs were handled with respect.

18 - It makes no sense to say, "If the company keeps the firings quiet, no one will wonder why I'm looking for a job."

People are less likely to blame you for a decision that affected a group. But do you really want to be the 2nd year who's looking for a job for no apparent reason? That seems more difficult to explain than, "Yeah, they shut down my practice group."

Gunderson already has done the deed. Fired a bunch of 1st years last month. It was on ATL.

THOSE OF US WHO GOT LAID OFF ARE JUST THE ONES WHO DIDN'T KISS ENOUGH PARTNER ASS. THIS IS A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT. FUCK YOU, MOFO. MOFO, YOU ARE TRUE TO YOUR NAME.

Hey 80s guy, was that back when you were having whiskey with Boesky and cookies with Milken?

post #27 goes to the heart of why the US economy is in serious trouble.

54 is naive idiot who needs to open his eyes to the real world. What you described is how lay-offs occur all the time in the non-legal industry. Stop with the self-entitlement crap already.

What criteria did they use for deciding which first years to axe?

I don't think 54 is entirely true, but my friend who got laid off was not allowed to say goodbye to the co-workers in her immediate area. She was able to get her bag, but was not allowed to get her personal belongings from her desk. She was told someone from facilities would sort through everything at her desk, box it up, and send it to her.

64, 71, and 72: please detail which aspects of 54 are incorrect.

54 definitely IS correct...I suspect that Mofo is trying to cover their ass. I've spoken to a number of attys and staff who are bagless...71, tell me where their belongings went?

54 definitely IS correct...I suspect that Mofo is trying to cover their ass. I've spoken to a number of attys and staff who are bagless...71, tell me where their belongings went?

Firing seniors who aren't going to make partner -- fine. Firing midlevels who are low on hours -- it sucks, and I could be next, but I understand. Firing first years? That's just cold. Way to ruin the careers of people who believed in you.

Greedy greedy pigs. The layoffs are necessary to align the firm with "client needs"?. Bull dust!! Necessary to line the bank account of greedy MoFo partners. They just reported profits per partner in excess of $1.1 million dollars for 2008, and then layoff 53 attorneys in the US in January 2009. Filthy, greedy scum.

Elie-

What does it's still only January even mean? The economy is in the shitter, what does the calendar have anything to do with it? How do you authoratively know that february or march is going to get worse etc.? Thats just dumb reporting.

I wish everyone who has been laid off good luck in finding a new job, but I think the reality is that in the current economic environment, a small percentage of attorneys laid off from Biglaw firms, through a stealth layoff or otherwise, are going to end up getting a replacement job at another Biglaw firm. If MoFo, LW, Morgan Lewis, and countless other firms are laying off associates, do people think those associates are all going to go out and find comparable jobs at the countless other firms whose equivalent departments are doing so well that they are hiring multiple lateral associates? At my Biglaw firm, attrition was much higher throughout 2008 than it would otherwise be, leading me to believe that lateral and in-house spots are very hard to come by these days. The fact that anyone in certain practice areas, particularly corporate or finance related ones, is looking for a new job at all at the current time would kind of make me wonder whether they have been asked to leave their firm or their firm/practice group is about to collapse. I don't mean that as an insult to anyone who has been laid off, but other commenters are acting like this is just a normal legal market in which people are always out looking for lateral jobs and employers will not be suspicious that an interview candidate may not be leaving his current position voluntarily or under special circumstances.

which practice areas? how many sf layoffs?

54 is the start of an Internet legend. It doesn't even matter if it's true. It's true now.

post #27 goes to the heart of why the US economy is in serious trouble.

67, you are correct. I found MoFo to be an awful, heartless place, led by arrogant and condescending partners (at least in SF). From my observations, kissing ass is the only way to get ahead with them. Lots of other great partners there, but many are leaving/have left, and others are not given the leadership positions necessary to maintain morale.

Staff were escorted out after having 20 to 30 minutes to gather personal belongings. Attorneys were told they could leave, but were not escorted out, and have been given a few days to gather personal belongings.

67, you are correct. I found MoFo to be an awful, heartless place, led by arrogant and condescending partners (at least in SF). From my observations, kissing ass is the only way to get ahead with them. Lots of other great partners there, but many are leaving/have left, and others are not given the leadership positions necessary to maintain morale.

54 = 72-74 = 81

More info needed!! - which offices? Any in Denver, or international? Any on East coast?

86 = wrong

I was laid of today. Although the news came as a shock, they were dignified in their tactic. The severance package was fair, but it still sucks to know that when that money is used and gone, I will have to find a different way to feed my child. It is sad when profit per partner figures become more important than the workers who sacrifice their home-lives for the firm. Puts things into perspective I think.

Best of luck to all the associates and staff who got terminated today. May God bless us and everyone going forward.

54 is lying. Associates will be in the office for the next few days to wrap things up. MoFo has class.

9/18, 43:

Even if you could find a lateral job in this window of secrecy that the firm is so kind to grant you, you would have to lie in your application. As you will soon learn when you try to interview for a lateral position, every firm will ask why you are leaving the other firm. If you say, "ehh, the cafeteria sucked," when in reality you were fired two weeks ago, you are a liar.

The point so many on in these comments are trying to make (which is apparently lost on you) is that your next firm is gonna know you were terminated in some way, unless you somehow managed to lie your way into a lucky and timely lateral position in a market where realistically you will never find a job, lying or not.

If firms are going to brand lawyers one way or another anyway, they should have the class to make every effort to find the associates jobs. They can only do this by publicly saying that they are great, and then helping in the transition through their own efforts. Stealth layoffs don't allow for this.

70, self-entitlement? how about a little respect for the people who have busted their ass the firm. I understand that during this economic climate, layoffs are to be expected. But if 54 is correct and Mofo didn't even give them the chance to get their stuff, I think the entitlement question needs to be raised to Mofo, not to the recently laid off staff and attys.

I was laid of today. Although the news came as a shock, they were dignified in their tactic. The severance package was fair, but it still sucks to know that when that money is used and gone, I will have to find a different way to feed my child. It is sad when profit per partner figures become more important than the workers who sacrifice their home-lives for the firm. Puts things into perspective I think.

Best of luck to all the associates and staff who got terminated today. May God bless us and everyone going forward.

70, self-entitlement? how about a little respect for the people who have busted their ass the firm. I understand that during this economic climate, layoffs are to be expected. But if 54 is correct and Mofo didn't even give them the chance to get their stuff, I think the entitlement question needs to be raised to Mofo, not to the recently laid off staff and attys.

70, self-entitlement? how about a little respect for the people who have busted their ass the firm. I understand that during this economic climate, layoffs are to be expected. But if 54 is correct and Mofo didn't even give them the chance to get their stuff, I think the entitlement question needs to be raised to Mofo, not to the recently laid off staff and attys.

72 here. That report was from a staff person in SF and I stand by it.

Any insight on what MoFo '09 summers should expect? Should 2L's prepare to be no-offered, or is this likely the worst of it?

Firing seniors who aren't going to make partner -- fine. Firing midlevels who are low on hours -- it sucks, and I could be next, but I understand. Firing first years? That's just cold. Way to ruin the careers of people who believed in you.

Companies have to stop laying off people at some point and think of creative solutions to be fiscally conservative. If companies don't, then nobody will be able to buy anything because most people won't be working and the ones working will be supporting everyone else. How about some creative thinking, people, rather than just figuring layoffs will do the trick??

I hear that the most recent lateral hires were the first to go.

any word on what is going to happen with the incoming 2009 class, or judicial clerks?

If you have been laid off and are a good attorney, you should have no trouble getting hired as a lateral at a different firm. Instead of complaining, why not start applying? This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

102- you are a fucking douchebag and clearly out of touch with reality

60, when law firm partners see their take home pay go down 5-10% because of higher income and payroll taxes, I'm sure they will keep on the same number of associates as before. It's not like the pressures of lower PPP ever cause partners to lay off people...

Firing 50 or 100 associates is not the solution. Here are some ideas:
1. sack the current "management" team. Useless.
2. eradicate the "ass kissing culture"
3. focus on litigation/IP
4. shrink the "business" practice. ( i.e. scrap it)
5. close the foreign offices.

93, self-entitled in terms of how one gets laid off. Being escorted out immediately is standard practice at many companies outside the legal sector. Why should we expect special treatment? Because we are lawyers, a "profession" higher and mightier than the business world, which many of us forget that we are part of?

Really? "...from a position of financial strength???"

Whothafuckreukiddin?

D

what's the severance from mofo for associates?

RIP MoFo. Another North Cal firm going under. The "deep bench" just got a little shallower.

67, 83, 105--

Define what you mean by ass-kissing?

what's the severance from mofo for associates?

Despite bad headlines, some indicators show that the economy may be loosening up - Pfizer acquisition, lower housing inventories, earnings that aren't depressionesque. If so, these same firms will be looking to hire in 6-12 months. Out of work associates will have the opportunity to make employment decisions bearing in mind which firms were fair and which were not. This seems to be the biglaw cycle. Granted, this is a particularly brutal one.

67, you are correct. I found MoFo to be an awful, heartless place, led by arrogant and condescending partners (at least in SF). From my observations, kissing ass is the only way to get ahead with them. Lots of other great partners there, but many are leaving/have left, and others are not given the leadership positions necessary to maintain morale.

What are you going to do to pay back those huge student loans? Don't you wish the law schools were honest with you?

http://endofesq.com/?p=896

54 is completely incorrect.

54 is completely incorrect.

First years?

seriously?

KILLSELF

LISTEN UP, PEOPLE.

Hundreds of thousands of people all over the country have their lost jobs. Just because you went to law school doesn't make you any better then them.

Suck it up, get off your high horse, lose the sense of self-entitlement, and move on with your career. Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life. Do something with it.

By the way, think of the lay-off as a blessing in disguised. You are now freed from the crappy lifestyle of an associate. There are more important things in life than billing. I learned it, and so will you.

They are not finished with layoffs yet. More stealth layoffs ahead, plus layoffs in foreign offices. And the partner cull starts soon. Junior partners, lateral partners and "tolerated non-believers" will be in the nuke zone. Any guesses on MoFo headcount on 1 Jan 2010??

The title of this post is "Nationwide Layoff Watch: Morrison & Foerster Suffers Significant Layoffs."

"SUFFERS?" SUFFERS?!!

WHO IS DOING THE SUFFERING HERE? IT'S THE ASSOCIATES AND STAFF, NOT THE MOFO PARTNERSHIP.

I REALIZE LAT IS DOING THE SPEAKER CIRCUIT WOOING THE "WHO'S WHO" IN LAW FIRMS, BUT COME ON! WAY TO RAT OUT TO THE OTHER SIDE!!

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ASSOCIATES' BLOG, AND INSTEAD IT'S TURNED MORE AND MORE INTO ONE REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTNERNSHIPS.

ELIE/LAT - BE MORE PRO-ASSOCIATE AGAIN OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN EVENTUALLY EVERYONE LEAVES FOR A GREEDYASSOCIATES-STYLE BLOG.

The title of this post is "Nationwide Layoff Watch: Morrison & Foerster Suffers Significant Layoffs."

"SUFFERS?" SUFFERS?!!

WHO IS DOING THE SUFFERING HERE? IT'S THE ASSOCIATES AND STAFF, NOT THE MOFO PARTNERSHIP.

I REALIZE LAT IS DOING THE SPEAKER CIRCUIT WOOING THE "WHO'S WHO" IN LAW FIRMS, BUT COME ON! WAY TO RAT OUT TO THE OTHER SIDE!!

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ASSOCIATES' BLOG, AND INSTEAD IT'S TURNED MORE AND MORE INTO ONE REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTNERNSHIPS.

ELIE/LAT - BE MORE PRO-ASSOCIATE AGAIN OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN EVENTUALLY EVERYONE LEAVES FOR A GREEDYASSOCIATES-STYLE BLOG.

MoFo is a stable firm, unlike Heller or TRP. All the comments to commentary are inaccurate and reckless. People who write this are spreading fear and in this case, it is completely false.

122 - You are totally correct. ATL has turned to the other side.

A better title for this post would have been "MOFO destroys the careers and lives of 53 Associates and 148 staffers"

MoFo sux ballz. Like majorly sized ballz.

MoFo is doomed to collapse. It is the next Titanic, an unrepairable ship taking the inevitable dive to the ocean floor. Get out while there's a life raft available.

My heart goes out to everyone who has been canned over the past few weeks. These pretextual performance/review-based layoffs are awful for them, and they're also bad for us lucky associates who still have their jobs. Not just because they kill morale (which they do), but because, even if they finally prompt us to take concrete steps towards leaving the firm, they make it very difficult, if not impossible, to convince prospective employers (biglaw or not) that we weren't canned ourselves. Everybody has an interest in firms being transparent.

127- You are a f*ing idiot.

126- You are a f*ing idiot.

Mofo management made it clear that the cuts were not based on performance but on projections of busy-ness of the practice group. It was also based on billable hours as well as other factors such as critical skill sets.

I know a couple of the attorneys let go and they were very competent and well liked.

I heard from rumors that PerkinsCoie is next. All offices will cut within the next couple of weeks.

GIMME GIMME GIMME -greedy associate

131, if you think "next" is in the next couple of weeks, then don't read ATL tomorrow. This will continue to be a daily event.

MoFo needs a white knight to survive. It will not stand on its own two legs for very much longer.

LateralLink?

Well, I just got my gradplus loan money for this year.

Sounds like I should just buy a boat with it and sail away.

- 2L

Morrison FoersTTTer

Also:

FIRST*

* in this thread to make portmanteau of Morrison Foerster and TTT.

113, are you a first or second year? If you think this has a serious impact on the ability of firms to hire in the future you are clueless. The list of the most hated firms is constantly changing. Memories are short. Not to mention, by the time this is over there likely will be very few, if any, big firms who didn't take these and other actions that are unfriendly to associates.

GDC, MTO, Quinn & PHJW >>> OMM, MOFO, Latham, et al

135 = comment of the decade

MoFo made $1.2M profit per partner last year. Couldn't they reinvest some of that profit in retaining and/or retraining the people they let go?

Can we ban the "endofesq" guy? It's getting really annoying.

Can we ban 141? He's just bitter about being laid off for poor performance and a lack of hours. We don't need his bitchfest here.

PPP is going to decline quite a bit this year. If a partner sees a 300K loss in income,that is substantially more than an associate who goes from 160K to whatever they pay at bestbuy...so have some perspective.

#140: if they cut into partner profits to keep associates, the good partners will leave for other firms with higher PPP, thus resulting in more layoffs, more partner departures and ultimately the demise of the firm.

The partner apologists are just really bizarre at this point. Isnt there a Greedy Partners blog somewhere where they can post?

140, that is hilarious.

143, you will go far in biglaw.

If you think it's not going to happen at your firm, think again. While my coworkers got the good news about their bonus, I got the axe . . . from Skadden, along with plenty other fine attorneys. Some of us just don't need to whine about it all day on a website. Suck it up and keep moving. And don't pretend that your firm is immune.

The MoFo partners trawling on this blog should get back to work. Get on the phone, and out on the street in an effort to drum up some business.

LOL @ 143.

144, that sounds like a trickle down economics argument. Are you in favor of paying CEO's hundreds of millions based on that same logic? With the exception of a few rainmakers who get paid considerably more anyway, do you honestly think that most partners aren't replaceable?

Concept of marginal utility > 143

Social graces > 143

I'm so sorry to all those laid off today. And to those who think the choices are made solely based on getting rid of "dead weight"- you're a bunch of fools. Decisions are made based on a ton of factors that don't always make sense. First years and 7/8/9th years are vulnerable. Law firms that are firing people do not think the economy is going to turn around in a year- or even two. Keeping senior associates that long means there are too many people up for partner once the economy turns. A first year billing 1200 hours for two years means they wont gain enough experience to be good midlevels. As for why firms do "stealth" layoffs as opposed to announcing economic cuts- its all about client management/marketing. When clients read their firm has let go of people due to economic reasons- it sends the signal that the firm is doing poorly. Doing stealth layoffs means firms never have to admit to clients that their firm is hurting. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
For any 2Ls that have summer jobs- work your ass off- don't get drunk at events and don't think you're entitled to summer lunches. Even if you have an offer- I say apply for every judicial clerkship you would realistically take just in case your firm calls you and says "sorry-no offer." If you don't have a summer job- work for free- ANYWHERE. The only think that can help you get a job as a 3L is experience. Something you can talk about. Work for a charity or NGO or some other organization that has a somewhat high profile. Write and get published if you can. If you have the money- and still no job- get that tax LLM or think about enrolling in your school's JD/MBA program. Another year is school may not be the worst thing right now.
Again- good luck to you all.

Layoffs?? Is Cahill next?

143 was being ironic, 152-53. Pretty funny, imo.

Whether they escorted associates out of the building immediately or permitted them to stick around a few days is not about "class" or lack thereof, but malpractice. You don't have to be very senior to be working on some significant part of a case that, if not handed off properly, would expose the firm to claims of malpractice at worst, or pissed off clients at best. I'm just a run of the mill biglaw midlevel, and I am on more than one case where the partner has not needed to pay any particular attention for many months. You can't just escort someone out when they have fiduciary obligations, and you are on the hook, unless you are an idiot, which, in this case, might be true.

MORRISON & FOERSTER SUCKS BIG-TIME!

The implosion of the largest debt bubble in world history is going to affect these law firms transactional practice areas. There is no way to keep on associates making $180k a year who are doing nothing. It sucks but the whole economy is resetting to lower levels.

A question asked in all seriousness from a technologically-challenged lawyer -
How airtight is the anonymity on ATL? Is there any way a firm can find out who is posting by somehow accessing a poster's IP address or something?

LAYOFFS?? Don't talk about -- LAYOFFS?!/!? You kiddin' me??? LAYOFFS?!@?!?!

Man....I heard Jayce got popped at MoFo in Richmond. WTF!

120 - what do you know?

160 - they could always subpoena it in a defamation suit. That's why you should be clear that it's just your *opinion* that MoFo is full of MoFos...

Whoever has that news about GDC NYC firings posted here needs to come clean with that. That is no joke. That would be the self-destruct siren for the top tier. GDC, if you believe the koolaide/numbers, is strong as a bull and not at mercy of its lenders now. But that's exactly what everyone at Latham thought 6 months ago.

MoFo, Latham, Orrick all used to pride themselves as being relatively nice places to work where people cared for each other, selling themselves as the alternatives to the ruthless capitalistic New York alternatives, i.e. S&C, Cravath, etc. Whereas the ruthless New York firms never pretended to be something they weren't, the recent actions of MoFo et. al. reveal that deep down, money trumps culture, each and every time.

Even though I don't work at any of the firms, given the choice of which firm to work for, I would not even flinch in picking the "evil" firms over any of the supposedly "nice" firms--at least the former are upfront with their intentions and true colors and won't stab you in the back like the latter.

I summered at Skadden. They are some cold, heartless bitches. I wouldn't trust the partners at Satan Arps any farther than I could throw them.

166 - very true. I'm a 2L that picked a firm like one you mentioned for culture and location reasons over multiple Vault 10 offers. I probably should have known better, but I didn't see the economy hitting these depths. I'll definitely have more restless nights than I otherwise would have (though I'm guessing the entire profession, at any firm, will be having some) until things turn around. MoFo did well by coming forward, but that doesn't change just how sad it is. Good luck to the affected.

I'm at MoFo NY and can tell you no 1st years were fired. I haven't heard of any in any other offices. Personally, I don't believe it. No firm would fire 1st years. They've already spent a load on 1st years that they need to recoup, there's always dumb crap work they need people to do, 1st years are the cheapest attorneys, and the partners can charge whatever they want to clients for first years.

Plus, partners know that no firm will hire an associate who hasn't had at least two years under the belt so unless they're just completely heartless, they wouldn't fire someone when they know that'd basically be the end of the kid's career.

9 - You asked who's not being honest. See the Latham thread and 500+ comments.

Of course, Latham frat boys are generally douchebags so one should really expect this kind of thing from them, but witness how many of their own current and former associates claimed to have been surprised and disappointed by the disingenuous way their latest mass cast-off was handled.

After doing it over and over again, everyone should know LLL - Latham Lives/Loves/Leads Layoffs.

143 here. Anyone too stupid to realize I was not being serious is probably too stupid to keep his/her job...start saving the shekels kiddos...

Saul, please post your thoughts about the half-Skadden bonus structure. TIA.

148-

I'm sorry you were laid off at Skadden. Can you tell me class year? Practice area? How many attorneys?

169- I don't know if MOFO did or did not, but there have been several firms that have canned 1st years. Trust me, I doubt partners care about ruining a kid's career. If it was not for the huge reputational hit a firm would take, most BIGLAW firms would probably have cut most of their 1st years already.

Why keep them around for the slowest economy in decades when a fresh crop will arrive later this year? Not to mention that for most firms that have done salary freezes, 1st years are getting paid the same as 2nd years, except 2nd years have experience and somewhat know what they are doing.

If anything, 1st years should be getting canned left and right

GDC gave solid raises and did not freeze. Why would they lay off now?

159, except law school tuition.

Couple of things:

1. The number was 9 in NY.
2. Severance was on a sliding scale-2 months for people there two years or less and up to 6 months for people who have been there for a long time (6+ years maybe). Was told that in all cases it included 3 months of cobra. Staff severance was based on time at the firm and went up to 52 weeks.
3. Heard that 1st years were not being included, but can't confirm.
4. Attorney told to take the rest of the week off unless they really needed to come in. Are being asked to finish up by the end of next week. Staff told to leave by end of the day.
5. I doubt any practice group was immune other than BK and a few others like debt trading but one can imagine where the layoffs were felt the heaviest.
6. The firm is saying that they expect 2009 to be like the last half of 2008 and if that is the case they need to prevent the drop in hours from continuing and if you think that mofo is the last firm that is going to do this you are crazy (my words not Wetmore's).
7. No announcement re associate comp was made but should be made in "mid Feb" acording to Keith W.

The layoffs really sucked.

I don't work at MoFo and don't have any insider info but I do have some market insight. MoFo didn't take this action lightly and most firms are fighting for their survival. Like all other BigLaw firms, MoFo needs to keep up its profits for partners, otherwise partners will defect to other firms that pay more and MoFo will fold like Heller, etc. Marco Adelfio and Bob Kurucza are big rainmakers. They left for more $$$. I don't think its a coincidence that MoFo lost a large amount of its biz and launched a layoff shortly therafter. If MoFo folded because of excessive partner defections, how many more would be hurt??

My God, stop the complaining. Be upset, disappointed, and sad that many lawyers and staff are losing their jobs, but stop complaining at the unsurprising fact that these businesses are acting like businesses. What do you think is going to happen when the market collapses and business need to cut costs? If you think you can run the firms better, then start your own damn firm and work your ass off to attract clients, service the clients, pay the lawyer and non-lawyer staff and the rent, etc. Don't tell us it can't be done -- there are plenty of lawyers who do it every day, and some of them create very successful firms. It is not easy, of course, because generating business is hard to do -- that is why partners own the business and keep the biggest slice of the profits. It sounds harsh, I know, but capitalism is harsh. Grow up.

Saul, are you here?

160-assuming atl isn't run by a bunch of douches who just hand things over, a firm would need a subpoena. so firms that are p.o-ed about something posted could not get the info. fear not.

177, the two month severance isn't entirely accurate. Everyone gets 60 days notice (meaning they get paid for the next two months) and then the sliding scale kicks in for a lump sum. This means that at a minimum you get 4 months of severance.

And there was a first year fired in the LA office.

180...won't disagee in large part, but when partners inherit institutional clients and never did much to gain the business (other than giving a great rusty trombone)...it's a little absurd to suggest that these folks were the impetus for the success of the firm in the first place.

"Images by Tyrone Greene"

Dark and lonely on a summer's night.
Kill the partners. Kill the partners.
Watchdog barking. Do he bite?
Kill the partners. Kill the partners.
Slip in his window. Break his neck.
Then his house I start to wreck.
Got no reason. What the heck?
Kill the partners. Kill the partners.
C-I-L-L the partners!

3 first years in LA.

Mo' money, mo' problems. Also, no money, mo' problems. Medium amount of money is best probably.

NY to $90k! LA to $75k!!!

169 - the heartless management you speak of happens to be the management at Cooley Godward Kronish

184 -- there are almost no "institutional clients" anymore. Clients are always reconsidering their options, and business moves to new firms all the time. Lawyers need to keep their clients happy every day or they risk losing them. See, e.g., Heller's long-time relationship with Visa, which dumped the firm after a new G.C. took over. The kinder, gentler times of the legal profession are over.

180

169 -- 1st years are not being spared in this economic climate. I know several 1st years personally who were laid off from the New York offices of firms featured on ATL in recent weeks. While you're right that doing so is pretty "heartless," it's simply further proof of how bad the situation really is.

191 - Well, regardless, IT IS GOOD NEWS FOR ME!

191 - Well, regardless, IT IS GOOD NEWS FOR ME!

Kill the Partners
By Tyrone Green and his Reggae Band

I was laid off from MoFo,
had to move to a shantytown.
Now we have no money
so we have to sleep on the ground.
I went to top 14 law school. And now I dig a ditch.
My wife she do laundry, life sure was a bitch.

But 'till we killed the partners.
Ooh we gonna make them hurt.
Kill the partners yeah.
But pay my severance first

We sing of fair reviews and equality.
But we really don’t care
we just want money money money.
We want to drive in a big black limousine.
Get so high off ganja we cant even see.

And then we kill the partners.
Ooh we gonna make them hurt.
Kill the partners. Yeah.
Ooh but pay my severance first.

When they come for my review.
We gunna wait outside.
We gunna hit them in the head with a bat
and make them cry.

And then we kill the partners.
Ooh we gonna make them hurt.
Kill the partners. Yeah.
Ooh but pay my severance first.

55 - You are right.

IT IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR ME!

187 - You are right. That is why IT IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR ME!

How long will it take for the democrats to generate enough regulation to make lots of new lawyer jobs in DC?

187 - You are right. That is why IT IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR ME!

189 is pretty funny

Thoughts go out to those who got laid off -- any word from mofo summers?

what did they give 4th years with regard to severance?

202 - They didn't give you any time to copy all of the documents you worked on over the years so you can add them to your form files or erase the porn from your hard drive?

How barbaric.

169 - Proskauer fired a whole bunch of first years in November. Firm management has had meetings with the remaining first years and told them that their jobs are safe for another 6 months, but that if the economy does improve by then, there might be another round of layoffs.

Wetmore sent an email to the summers saying that the layoffs "will not affect your joining us as a summer associate this summer."

200 - mofo summers were sent a timely, "assuring" e-mail by keith wetmore

I mean 187 is funny
--199

Does anyone know how this will affect John McCain?

They are greedy, selfish, heartless, spineless and gutless. But put this behind you and move on. They are not worth a jail term or the chair. Stay safe.

Scary thought: I've had first years laid off from a number of firms sending me resumes... for a $45K paralegal position.

CWT NYC dissolution? anyone?

Question: Am I a douche if I pop the collar of my overcoat? What if it is cold and damp? Thanks.

180 = Marc Dreier (wifi courtesy of d.o.c.)

211 - yes, but that doesn't mean chicks won't bang you. i'm assuming that's your primary concern, which it should be.

pop it.

In MoFo Palo Alto, I counted 5 associates laid off. (3 lit, 2 corp) How about some actual numbers from other MoFo offices (since management won't tell us the break down). As for the post above re a cattle call announcement, that's complete bunk. It was all very humane, individual discussions. Laid-off attorneys have until Monday to wind up matters in the office or remotely. Godspeed to everyone getting the axe.

211, were you an attorney or staff? If an attorney, I can't help but contrast the way MoFo handled this, along with other firms recently, with the way CWT handled its August layoffs. Despite all the crap CWT gets on this board (some of it deserved), that firm set a gold standard for how it treated attorneys laid off (me among them). Five months severance and COBRA on the firm's dime, a week and a half to settle our affairs and to vacate our offices. After that, a few more weeks to use the firm's conference center, plus outplacing services that continue (informally at least) to the present. In the end, I'm happy to have worked for a no-nonsense sweatshop, than a hippy-dippy lifestyle firm. Real deal, meet real fake.

Okay. I was there. I was laid off. They did not haul everyone into conference rooms. They did not make people leave without their bags. They did ask people to leave and take what they needed, and that facilities would send the rest. Was it great? No. Were they horrible? No. It was a layoff, it is no party, any way you try to do it, there is no way to do this easily. Were first years hit? Yes. It sucks to be laid off. But, in this economy, it is reality. So, there you have it.

this is a sign...get out of law while u can...yeah u people talk about how u have a family to support and all that BS.....u know that no one forced you to get married, have kids, take out a 6 figure student loan and get a mortgage right? get a life...

Can someone confirm this as the severance: 2 months + 1 month per year of tenure at the firm? Sounds better than most packages.

Have laid off associates been removed from the firm web site?

Attention prospective law students:

taking on six-figure debt to become a lawyer turned out to be a bone-headed move.

Don't make the same mistake we did.

Biglaw is a MoFo.

I was a first year laid off at mofo.

Today is history. Today will be remembered. Years from now the young will ask with wonder about this day. Today is history and you are part of it. Six hundred years ago when elsewhere they were footing the blame for the Black Death, Casimir the Great - so called - told the Jews they could come to Krakow. They came. They trundled their belongings into the city. They settled. They took hold. They prospered in business, science, education, the arts. With nothing they came and with nothing they flourished. For six centuries there has been a Jewish Krakow. By this evening those six centuries will be a rumor. They never happened. Today is history

I owe $135k in college and law school debt. What's the best way to get out of it? I know I can't discharge it in bankruptcy. What if I leave the country for a few years and just stop paying it? Will they forget about it?

Well one good thing comes out of these layoffs....

Tyrone Greene.

Also, piecing this post together some people say 1st years and senior associates are vulnerable. Some say mid-levels. Can we all agree that everyone is fucked?

222 - It's a myth. Get over it.

I summered at MoFo in 2008, and Wetmore's email unsurprisingly assured us we still have jobs. It did mention, however, that the earliest possible start date would be in November. My understanding is that normally new associates have the option to begin sometime between September and November, so I'm not clear on whether they're going to stagger the start dates or just start us all in November. I don't see how two months makes that big of a difference to their bottom line. Can anyone comment on the value of having a new attorney start two months late?

I summered at MoFo in 2008, and Wetmore's email unsurprisingly assured us we still have jobs. It did mention, however, that the earliest possible start date would be in November. My understanding is that normally new associates have the option to begin sometime between September and November, so I'm not clear on whether they're going to stagger the start dates or just start us all in November. I don't see how two months makes that big of a difference to their bottom line. Can anyone comment on the value of having a new attorney start two months late?

I summered at MoFo in 2008, and Wetmore's email unsurprisingly assured us we still have jobs. It did mention, however, that the earliest possible start date would be in November. My understanding is that normally new associates have the option to begin sometime between September and November, so I'm not clear on whether they're going to stagger the start dates or just start us all in November. I don't see how two months makes that big of a difference to their bottom line. Can anyone comment on the value of having a new attorney start two months late?

Why can we no longer post comments on the thread about firms that have not frozen salaries?

To echo 207, it was fairly well-handled. Most associates (ATL readers) and some staff were expecting something and seemed relieved it finally happened. I appreciate the announcement because I think it makes a difference if an interviewer has heard about the layoffs. The generosity helps their reputation as a decent place to work, even though I think that's an exaggeration based on boom times, a few hippie partners who are mostly gone or sold out now and the summer program (Napa trip = $$$). They benefit from a diversity halo effect because the chair is an out gay man. But as a friendly place to work? It's a BIGLAW FIRM, people, and busting ass in law school gets us big $$$ and a lot of ass to kiss to get good work. In some areas people just don't talk to each other or live in fear. Partner mentoring? HAH! It's more of a "you do it and I'll tell you if you fuck it up" approach that leaves you wasting hours trying to do a good job and never hearing anything until your review. But some associates rave about the cool partners - I don't know them. Management? Nice people, I guess, but I don't know what they're managing. Some great staff people, who will probably leave once the market goes up. In the end, it's another law firm and they did it the way it's supposed to be done. Good luck to everybody.

Good luck to all those who didn't make it through the week. Some guys here are massive douchebags, but the vast majority of associates feel for ya. I really hope that you guys can find your way back when things turn around. Keep your chin up.

#185, Too Dang Funny. C I L L!

You second post was lame.

MOFO in Da Houze!
Sorry about the layoffs

Latham sucks MoFo's balls!

Correction to my post above (230) - I meant to echo 216. Shit, maybe this WAS performance-related... but then I'll still benefit from the public announcement. It's the economy...

Kirkland also canned first years. they're doing stealth layoffs as well.

I'm doing my 2L SA at mofo.

first!

No, first!

169- Generally you are correct about first years. But, currently firms are facing clients are aren't allowing additional staffing on cases (which restricts work to mid to upper levels), clients are not necessarily itching to pay for first years on all cases. So if things are slow, there might not even be enough client billable scut work to hand out to first years. So the reality is, some firms may have first years, think '08 class, who may not have billed much since starting in oct/nov and may not have anything foreseeable on the horizon. A firm may only have enough work, and expect enough work, for the same number of associated in each class, including first years. Still sucks though.

"A firm may only have enough work, and expect enough work, for [a certain] number of assicates in each class, include first years." 239

Anything left over is just excess expense.

Is Gibson NY the new Skadden DC? Is blood running down the stairs of Grand Central?

169 -- you're obviously clueless, Proskauer fired at least 7 first years. And not just those who failed the bar

This underscores a good point, stated here a few times but worth reiterating, the only associates safe are asserskissers who have no life or personality

169 -- you're obviously clueless, Proskauer fired at least 7 first years. And not just those who failed the bar

This underscores a good point, stated here a few times but worth reiterating, the only associates safe are asserskissers who have no life or personality, or family connections ...

169 -- you're obviously clueless, Proskauer fired at least 7 first years. And not just those who failed the bar

This underscores a good point, stated here a few times but worth reiterating, the only associates safe are asserskissers who have no life or personality, or family connections ...

169 -- you're obviously clueless, Proskauer fired at least 7 first years. And not just those who failed the bar

This underscores a good point, stated here a few times but worth reiterating, the only associates safe are asserskissers who have no life or personality, or family connections ...

what did I say that was clueless? I generally agreed, that in general first years are not getting hit as much as mid-levels, butI said that it is totally expected and justifiable or first years to have to go like other years.

How do you avoid being released in a down turn?

The real test for MoFo will be how it addresses its bonuses for 2008. On April 7, 2008, MoFo distributed its bonus memo for 2008 (it can be found on ATL by searching for "MoFo"). Per the memo, associates were to receive a merit based "bonus rating" at the end of the year and were to paid bonuses calculated according to their rating and factoring in their billable hours. The numbers in the memo were at the time considered to be quite reasonable, and were determined by the firm after much thought and in consideration of the fact that MoFo's bonuses for non-NY offices in prior years had been significantly lower than MoFo's "peers" (including Orrick, Cooley and Latham, among others). If you read the memo, you will see that the numbers are not meant to be "guidelines" and there is nothing to suggest that they are subject to the firm meeting its budget at the end of the year. It is very straightforward and looks an awful lot like a promise - i.e., if you do "x", then you will get "y". Obviously, all associates relied on this memo in their approach to their work and their hours in 2008. In December, associates received their bonus ratings per the memo. On December 23, 2008, Wetmore notified all associates via a voicemail that, with hindsight, the firm is commited to paying associates "at market" and now considers the bonus numbers in the memo to be "above market", and that the firm was seriously considering scaling back the numbers, but that it could not provide associates with anything concrete until late January. Wetmore also said that the firm is seriously considering a salary freeze. Today, Wetmore said that the firm was still looking at bonuses for 2008 and compensation for 2009.

It will be interesting to see how the firm comes out on these two issues. Regarding 2008 bonuses, it will be very dissappointing if the firm doesn't live up to its promise to associates and pay the bonuses per the April 2008 memo. While the firm, like its peers, is facing tough economic times, it has always held itself out as an associate-friendly place with great partners. Further, partner profits were down only 10% or so from last year. It seems pretty disingenous for them to now take back bonuses that were promised to associates more than 8 months ago. If they do this, it will show that the firm primarily cares about making its partners rich in the short term, which makes it no different than any other big firm. Regarding the salary freeze, it's different from the bonuses in that the firm hasn't made any promises, but we do know that the firm hasn't "frozen" associate billing rates to clients for 2009. Stay tuned.

214: In addition to the five Palo Alto associates you mentioned (3 litigation/2 corporate), three members of the patent group were fired: one student associate, one patent agent, and one patent associate. Apparently the news was delivered to individual attorneys/agents by the managing partner, accompanied by the Professional Development Coordinator.

ATL: "According to a firm-wide memo that was just released, 53 associates have been laid off across all MoFo offices. "

Actually, the memo says: "Morrison & Foerster has reduced its legal and non-legal staffing in its U.S. offices to align our firm with client needs in this extraordinary economic downturn."

Mofo has offices across Europe, Asia, and Israel. When you have info on layoffs there, you can say "all offices."

207 - THIS WILL BE EXCELLENT NEWS FOR ME!

248 -- bonuses are not the issue. MOFO is on death watch. Firing 200 people is sign that the firm is in a dire situation. Their cash flow must be awful. Any partner with a sizeable book has to be wondering if it is time to go

From what I saw, they didn't walk people out the door. In fact, from what I hear, in some offices, people who were laid off even stayed for the meetings from the chair the followed that evening...

"MoFo, Latham, Orrick all used to pride themselves as being relatively nice places to work where people cared for each other, selling themselves as the alternatives to the ruthless capitalistic New York alternatives, i.e. S&C, Cravath, etc. Whereas the ruthless New York firms never pretended to be something they weren't, the recent actions of MoFo et. al. reveal that deep down, money trumps culture, each and every time.

Even though I don't work at any of the firms, given the choice of which firm to work for, I would not even flinch in picking the "evil" firms over any of the supposedly "nice" firms--at least the former are upfront with their intentions and true colors and won't stab you in the back like the latter."

this comment is ridiculous. those "nice" firms are laying off because CA has been hit hard, when NY starts to feel the pain a little more don't think Cravath and S&C aren't going to performance shitcan as many asses as they can.

MoFo's London office is also letting go of some associates and support staff... It's a very sad day for us here in London.

MoFo's London office is also letting go of some associates and support staff... It's a very sad day for us here in London.

228 - yeah, unspoken understanding is that if your dumb-bass fails the bar, you don't start in November. It's an insurance policy, designed to see if you can handle the bar with the extra stress of knowing your entire life rides in the balance (the bar is a joke - they test minimum competency - so don't sweat it).

also, before you pass the bar you are distracted and don't work very hard. makes economic sense to keep you out until results are announced.

I hear some of the attorneys were notified before xmas.

172/181 : google autoadmit lawsuit, and then calm down with your fucking stupidity.

"No firm is immune to the 2009 market crisis. And it's still only January."

David, it's may be true, but you bring sooooo much bad luck, seriously. it's a good thing that Americans aren't superstitious, because you would definitely be banned otherwise....

119: "Just because you went to law school doesn't make you any better then them."

--Yes it does.

We are in the worst of this downturn this quarter.

Many firms will be cutting a lot of associates, including first years.

This is part of the creative destruction in our economy. It sucks to be laid off but such is life (as the French say, but they say "c'est la vie").

252, partners with book are happy to see firms making tough choices and doing what is necessary for the firm to survive. No book having partner wants to see hundreds of highly paid associates billing 50 hours a month.

Have the laid-off attorneys' profiles been removed from MoFo's website? Concerned about a friend.

260: Why are you insulting Lat like that? Look at the byline above.

They be layin' off like a Mofo.

/apologizes for lame joke

So sad/

The profile of the one attorney I can confirm has been let go is still up.

It sucks people are getting fired.

However, nobody should complain. This is not an argument based on "every sector of the economy is getting laid off." Rather, it is an argument based on "you were greedy and went to the big leveraged firm." You could have sent resumes to 20-50 lawyer sized firms (not talking Keker & Van Nest firms, I'm talking family law practice, small business practice, insurance defense practice). However, they don't pay $160000, which means you cannot go out to $100/meal restaurants for two and other things that people like to do with their money (referring to the "discussion" on the Latham post). Remember folks - it isn't money for nothing. Taking the high-pay, high-risk, high-leverage job almost always ends in misery. The sad thing is nobody bothered to save any money and assumed the gravy train would run forever. Hopefully future generations of lawyers will learn accordingly.

This is in reference to the poster WAY back (low 20's I think, not going to go sort through it, might have been another post entirely) asking about why Elie pointed out "it's only January."

Yes, the indication there is that in the legal community, voluntary attrition numbers, as well as more traditional performance-related firings, tend to continue on through the spring into at least March, April, or even June.

Many firms (including some of the "big boy" firms at the very top of the V100) will not be done with their associate review processes until March. If those firms engage in large-scale forced attrition, the total number of attorneys getting let go could be massive.

I think everyone with a serious eye on the legal economy believes that 2009 associate (and partner) layoffs will greatly exceed the numbers from 2008. The scarier part is that, as 2008 showed, many firms will find their fiscal situations to be subject to extremes in sudden change. That means that unlike in prior years when there tended to be a "layoff season" and more of a "safe season" for attorneys, that firms will be subject to sudden layoffs (stealth or open) all year long.

This has a deleterious effect on associate morale, perhaps even more so than the mere fact of layoffs itself. In past years those who "survived" layoff season could at least breath a bit easier and get down to business the rest of the year (and perhaps begin thinking about voluntary attrition / career change). In the current fear-based economy, this safe-zone of time seems gone.

With firms continually engaging in stealth layoffs, and thus often spreading their attorney-dismissals out over long stretches of time (in an attempt to avoid coming under the scrutiny of places like ATL), no one can truly feel safe at any time this year. It is entirely possible that, especially for more junior (2-4th year) associates that evaluations may occur on a quarterly basis. Firms are in such a rush to "trim the fat" that some will likely not wait until the normal review season to layoff associates whose numbers are low.

And the numbers, as so many of us know, are VERY low. January is ridiculously slow for many firms, with some junior associates struggling to bill ANY client hours this month. I personally know associates who may finish January with only 1/10th of their billable budget filled for the month. In a climate of uncertainty, where firms can say X one month and then do Y the next, everyone is going to spend all of 2009 with one eye aimed squarely over their shoulder.

One of the best solutions for many people will be to begin seriously considering your other job or career options now, rather than waiting to see if you survive the year-long war of attrition. Increased voluntary attrition (ever wanted to enter small-town practice? now is as good a time as any to try) would cut down on the need for firms to engage in forced attrition. Not to mention that seeing other people leaving under their own terms (and presumably to gainful employment) would provide a substantial improvement to firm morale.

270:

"One of the best solutions for many people will be to begin seriously considering your other job or career options now, rather than waiting to see if you survive the year-long war of attrition. Increased voluntary attrition."

While sensible, this would require a premature ending of $100 dinner-for-twos that many associates have become accustomed. Thus, while it makes sense to try to get ahead of the curve, no one is willing to risk the nice dinners to make it happen.

- 158

I don't understand how the $100 dinner for two became the benchmark of a new gilded age. So you go to a relatively upscale mexican restaurant (which still isn't that nice), have fajitas, a couple of margaritas and the queso, and that makes you a robberbaron. Go figure.

Fajitas: $12/person
Chips/Salsa: Free
2 Margaritas/person: $12/person

This dinner-for-two is $48. And that assumes you cannot make your own margaritas before you go out for dinner. This was strictly a concurrence with 269's reference to the Latham thread about "$100 for a decent meal for two people" was beyond reproach. You cannot get to $100 unless you are having some degree of decadence, which is fine when you are debt free and have savings for six months of living expenses. Until then, live like a college student.

It's the Triangle Shirtwaist jokes that keep people coming back. Woohoo Elie!

273,

A dinner at Chevy's will cost more than that. Sorry.

158 is missing the big picture. It isn't good for the legal profession to require those from modest backgrounds that would like to become lawyers to "live like college students" for a decade or more just get get back to even. It sets a barrier to entry that is so high that many talented people that would otherwise be an asset to the industry (including many women and minorities) decide that it just isn't worth it. And the cycle of biglaw being dominated by boring, talentless upper-middle class douchebags continues...

275,

I'm so glad this ridiculous discussion will continue. To put in my two cents:

Portabello and Steak Fajita (at Chevy's): $11.45 - http://biggestmenu.com/rdr/NJ/Morris-Plains/Chevy%27s-fresh-mex-1592774/portobello-and-steak-fajitas-24428

Margaritas during happy hour (4:00-7:00): $3 - http://www.ontaponline.com/hhnew.php?order=bname

Margaritas at full price (I admit during working biglaw it will be unusual to make it for happy hour): $6

Add in tax and tip and you are right - the meal comes to about $55 even assuming non happy-hour prices.

Then again, perhaps 275 likes to order the crab legs on the side...

276 -

It all depends on what you want in life. If you have a choice between paying $60k/year for Cornell or getting a free ride at UC-Hastings or Illinois or Iowa, why would you go to Cornell? If you get the full-ride at UC-Hastings and are in the middle of your class, you can go work for a midsize law firm earning a decent wage. How is this person deterred from entering law?

People want BIGLAW for one reason only - straight cash homey. However, people only look at the salary and don't look at the (a) effects on your family life, (b) effects on your personal time, (c) the staggering debt that is required to go to most schools to get a BIGLAW job, and (d) the fact that most people burn out of big law or are fired by the time they finally get their loans paid off. Which begs the question: why start at the large law firm?

Also - whoever said that people would only be interested working for BIGLAW is delusional. If you want to do something interesting, become an academic, join peace corps, or something else more meaningful than working BIGLAW. Being a junior associate on a big deal or a litigation matter is far less intellectually stimulating then running your own insurance defense case, your own divorce, your own criminal prosecution for a firearms offense, or defending a drug dealer in court. The fool who made this comment wants the intellectual window dressing to hide his real motive - Its all about the $$$ baby - and you are all about the bottle service and slapping around the bitches with your big wad of cash.

Had the same thought as 272. It's been years since I've had a nice dinner for 2 cost less than $200. If you order a decent bottle of wine, you're already at $100 (including tax and tip) before you order any food at all.

Then again, I go out maybe 5 times a year and my wife is also a biglaw attorney, so we're pulling $400k plus bonus.

Nonetheless, $100 for two is not luxurious.

Wow... Chevy's is the new gold standard for "a night out." Some of us like to eat our Mexican at places that do not have rats in the kitchen, or at least keep the rats in the kitchen and out of the dining room.

Let's try an ACTUAL date that has some hopes to end up getting a second date to follow. Dinner at Rosa Mexicano for two:

Guacamole en Molcajete for two-- $12
Arrachera con Camarones for him -- $20
Alambre de Camarones for her -- $24
la Clasica Margartia (times 4) -- $36

Dinner for Two at NICE mexican restaurant -- $92 (not counting tax & tip, which likely brings total to $116)

Save $18 if you go for one margarita apiece. It's amazing that so many people from small towns or who are still in law schoo post on this board pretending to be big city lawyers. Life gets expensive after 24, get used to it.

What's the point of not balling it up a little to the extent possible if you have the cash at this point. So you pay off your loans 2-3 years quicker, not everyone finds this super attractive. People spending time trying to prove you can have a fajita dinner at chevy's for under $50 never mentioned things like travel (2 week vacation at least $3000-4000 for two people), flying home to see relatives ($200-500 a flight depending on when you fly), attending things like the weddings of your friends (which can easily cost $1,000 for a couple if you factor in flights, hotels, car rentals, gifts), throwing a party with friends or birthdays once in a while ($200-300 at least), the occasional vegas trip where you lose a bit too much money at the blackjack table, flying in your parents from out of town and showing them a good time for a few days, etc.. Maybe some don't do any of these things and work 12 hours a day and enjoy ham sandwhiches for lunch and a boiled egg in the morning and get by on $28 dollars a day and don't have friends and their family lives 10 miles away but what is the point of your life if you can't enjoy it once in a while. Note that I'm not saying the only way to do that is by going to Per Se once a week or dropping a G at Tenjune on the weekends. These same people who don't even think to account for joy or human interaction in their lives are the same who will wait until age 60 to take their first 10 day vacation, a cruise in the Carribean, only to have to spend it in the bathroom the entire time trying to pass kidney stones or tending to their hemorrhoids. Enjoy treating yoruselves to a Chevy's dinner every 3 months and paying off $150K in loans in 2 years dudes/gals. (Still think it is an impossible feat unless you live in a flyover state or have no rent/expenses cause you parents conveniently have a 2 bedroom upper westside/lincoln park/georgetown/santa monica apartment you and your girlfriend can live in rent and utilities free while you pay off your loans).

Unlike 280, not everyone has to bribe women for a chance at a second date. Besides, 280's "dates" probably charge more by the hour than he spends at his nice Mexican restaurant.

Hookers to 190!

281 nailed it on the head. couldn't say it better

169-
Skadden canned a first year who failed the bar.

I can't even afford the five, five dollar, five dollar footlong at subway.

Hey associates, lurking laid-off Mofo staffer here. Our salaries as paras, admins, etc are nowhere close to yours, and many of us are supporting families with kids in school, etc. While I know student loans are no picnic, you are blessed to have passed the bar, attended top-tier law schools, where you have no doubt made a network of good contacts. To the many of you still living at (parents) home, enjoy the roof over your heads. Many staffers like me have lived through other recessions. All blessings to all of us as we try to keep afloat.

Dear Newly Fired Associates: I am en employment attorney in CA. I am interested in talking to you about your experience. Call me at 1-877-352-6400 or email at ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com.
Ed Wynne

I disagree with those who think getting quietly fired for trumped up performance-based reasons is better. That is how Mofo used to do it when I was there (I have been happily in-house for years) and it was pretty awful. Even though they gave people 3 months to find jobs, they didn't always find them and who is going to be able to find a job in today's market anyway? Not to mention that for some reason, almost every attorney "quietly fired" was an attorney of color. At least this way there is more candor and transparency.

286- some associates have families to take care of too.

Dear Newly Termed Associates: You need to talk to me. I am very interested in hearing about your work experience at MoFo, Skadden, Latham, etc. Contact me at 1-877-352-6400 or ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com.
Ed Wynne

I think that people who are being layed off should think of saving their retirement investmants if this comnpany offered any. If this company offered 401k's what I can do is roll it over to an investmant that will do better in the long run. If any of you are interested please call me at 347-743-4926, or you can call my business number at 718-630-3807 and ask for yony.

I think that people who are being layed off should think of saving their retirement investmants if this comnpany offered any. If this company offered 401k's what I can do is roll it over to an investmant that will do better in the long run. If any of you are interested please call me at 347-743-4926, or you can call my business number at 718-630-3807 and ask for yony.

I think that people who are being layed off should think of saving their retirement investmants if this comnpany offered any. If this company offered 401k's what I can do is roll it over to an investmant that will do better in the long run. If any of you are interested please call me at 347-743-4926, or you can call my business number at 718-630-3807 and ask for yony.

I think that people who are being layed off should think of saving their retirement investmants if this comnpany offered any. If this company offered 401k's what I can do is roll it over to an investmant that will do better in the long run. If any of you are interested please call me at 347-743-4926, or you can call my business number at 718-630-3807 and ask for yony.

I think that people who are being layered off should think of saving their retirement investmants if this comnpany offered any. If this company offered 401k's what I can do is roll it over to an investmant that will do better in the long run. If any of you are interested please call me at my Nigerian office, 347-743-4926, or you can call my Lagos business number at 718-630-3807 and ask for yony. He'll take your money and you will never have to worry about it again.