Nationwide Layoff Watch: Cahill Gordon
We are now ready to confirm some of the reports flying around the internet about layoffs at Cahill Gordon. We now have multiple tipsters who work at Cahill who can confirm that there were significant layoffs at the firm last Thursday.
Our tipsters don’t know the numbers of cuts — and the firm has rebuffed our repeated requests for comment on the story — but some tipsters report that as many as ten percent of associates were let go.
The timing of last week’s cuts seemed to rankle some of our sources. On Wednesday, Cahill announced Half-Skadden bonuses. But on Thursday associates were called in for their “annual review” and told that they were being let go … and that they would not be receiving the 2008 bonuses the firm announced the day before.
As we understand it, first and second years were spared. But everybody else was fair game.
Working all of 2008 and still not getting a 2008 bonus has to sting. But the firm did give a 3 month severance package.
Still, the firm apparently doesn’t want to talk very much about their decision to fire people without giving them their bonuses. Tipsters weigh in after the jump.
It appears that Cahill did everything it could to keep the information private. A tipster reports:
Well, [associates] were encouraged to use their office, secretary, and the firm’s resources for another three months, while severance is paid out. And most importantly, no one save the partners knows about it and “you don’t have to tell anyone” the associates were told. No firm memo was sent out informing people what had occurred and saying that the people laid off were valuable and that the decisions were hard ones. Perhaps Cahill remembers the infamous layoffs in the 1990s that have continued to haunt them, especially in the eyes of recruiters, and wanted to keep the whole affair speculative and unconfirmed.
It’s unclear why Cahill thought that recently fired employees would keep quiet about the firm, especially when they’re not receiving their 2008 bonus.
Other tipsters feel that Cahill’s response to the layoffs speaks to a larger problem:
Cahill has always strived to play with the Skaddens, the Cravaths, Sullivan & Cromwells, the Clearys of the legal world, in terms of attracting talent and bolstering its reputation. Unfortunately, Cahill does not realize that money (it pays top of the market and has very high PPP) is not everything; being a “classy” and “prestigious” firm also requires acting with integrity and in an aboveboard manner.
If you have other information about the scope of Cahill’s layoffs, please send them to ATL.
(271) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
FIRST!!!
Sucks. 1
firstyyy
wow
firstyyy
firstyyy
Are the layoffs so large that they are required by law to give the 3 months?
worst?
10%?!? Damn. What dep'ts?
Can you please provide an update on the layoffs at Paul Hastings, Los Angeles?
Thx,
C.S.
Awful news. Best of luck to Cahill associates.
I know Cahill doesn't have practice areas per se, but what sort of matters did the people work on who got cut? Is there any way to tell who got cut?
A 10% cut is big. Cahill has always been something of a pretender, never really as good as the firms that it alone viewed as its peer group. Nonetheless, this will open up the true first tier to rounds of smaller percentage layoffs, now that Cahill has taken the lead with giant 10 % cut.
I am surprised they were so quiet about it. The idea of trying to save future recruiting seasons is bogus. Law students have known that Cahill is a second string shop for years now.
Give 3 months salary, but no bonus. That is like giving a 3 week severance. The bonus was already earned. This is really poor.
For example:
3 months severence for class of 2004: $52.5K
2008 market bonus for class of 2004: $25K.
Shut the f!@#$ up.
I heard cuts were both lit & corp
7: probably not. probably 3 months b/c that's market.
7: what law? probably 3 months b/c that's market.
For example:
3 months severence for class of 2004: $52.5K
2008 market bonus for class of 2004: $25K.
Shut the f!@#$ up.
7: what law? probably 3 months b/c that's market. Maybe Gary Green will respond...
I know Cahill doesn't have practice areas per se, but what sort of matters did the people work on who got cut? Is there any way to tell who got cut?
wait, are there layoffs going on at Cahill?
7: federal WARN act only requires 60 days' notice and/or 60 days' pay. Whether the layoff was large enough to require such notice depends on the size of the employer and the number of employees laid off. A 10% layoff alone is not enough, unless it reaches one of the other thresholds in the statute.
I like that no one has to know that you were laid off, even though your office is empty most of the time and you're not staffed on any deals.
Are the profiles still up on the website? I want to check on a former classmate.
A lot of the information in this post is false. I won't comment more, but poor move not getting verification Elie, poor move.
SA headed there. Panic is setting in.
Simply a case of Skadden envy on the part of everyone. Get over it. We are better than you. Go home to your ugly wife and mediocre house in Queens.
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
CAHILL LAY-OFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now I can finally get some sleep! thank you atl.
the profiles are still up because it is hush hush--firm wants you to pretend like you still "work" there for three months!
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
Any word on Cahill layoffs?
#26 i am one of the unfortunate cahill people--trust me, this is all true.
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
Can anyone confirm the rumors about Brobeck on Greedy Associates?
"after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section"
That's what you get for going to a school that takes roll for non-1L classes. Where'd you go, Tuoro?
Cahill Gordon = the Spawning ground of Ann Coulter (never has the word spawning been such an apt description) = Forever TTT
Are any Milbank summers freaking out?
#36, I'm heading there as an SA. How can I find out if the people I met with were affected?
SA - why in the hell would you care if the people you met with were affected? Chances were high they wouldn't be there when you started work anyway, even if they were still there for your SA camp fun.
Nice, 42.
My condolences to all those laid off.
#43--the point of stealth layoffs and the way they did was to make it impossible to know (short of asking each person=not so cool).
Hogan and Hartson salaries are frozen.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REPORT ON THE PAUL WEISS SALARY FREEZE???
41, Coulter was law review at UMICH and a federal clerk. That should get you pretty much in at any NYC firm with the exception of Wachtell.
Obviously, 41 is a close-minded person who believes in making decisions on ideological reasons. Why don't you leave biglaw and work at PIRG or the AFL-CIO.
48: how do you know? E-mail go out?
32, 33, 34, 37, 38 What is going on at Milbank is they have gotten a whole lot stupider by hiring you. Learn how to use the internet!
41, Coulter was law review at UMICH and a federal clerk. That should get you pretty much in at any NYC firm with the exception of Wachtell.
Obviously, 41 is a close-minded person who believes in making decisions on ideological reasons. Why don't you leave biglaw and work at PIRG or the AFL-CIO.
what about layoffs in atlanta???
Coulter was barely at CGR for a cup of rancid 80 Pine coffee 1-2 years) . Not long enough to make an impact one way or the other.
Wait! What does "significant layoffs" mean? And what is the evidence they are layoffs? Put it in the story please!
I picked up some laidoff Cahill associates in my loaner BMW 5-series. They were pretty hammered on their way out of the bar after getting word they were terminated. Obviously they were impressed by nice ride. Can you blame them?
-BMW biglaw associate
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
Hello? Alston & Bird salary freeze? All offices. Please investigate.
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
Has anybody heard anything about layoffs at Cahill?
Where are the douchebags who say that firms like Davis Polk paying only half the 2007 bonus will be greatly hurting their recruiting and retention rates for years and years to come?
58-60, 62:
You waited too long. There's another, better, dig at 40 before you.
Rumors of big litigation layoffs at Milbank this week. We've heard corporate groups were told to shed bodies too. I think 1st years are fine (though there are definitely too many of them), but others are worried...
Coulter was at Cahill long enough to cause a major dust up when she and a now-deceased partner started doing pro bono work for an anti-choice group without telling the rest of the firm.
Wait, there's layoffs at Cahill? That's the first I'm hearing about this!
58-
Very clever. Or it would be if it took any creativity AT ALL to think of reposting my post.
-29
Seeing that Cahill has encouraged people to keep using their offices and secretaries, perhaps the reason for secrecy was to make the job hunt easier. It's one thing to look for job when you're unemployed, and quite another to appear as if merely wishing to switch firms. Although neither is easy in today's environment, I would still much rather be in the position of the latter.
Seeing that Cahill has encouraged people to keep using their offices and secretaries, perhaps the reason for secrecy was to make the job hunt easier. It's one thing to look for job when you're unemployed, and quite another to appear as if merely wishing to switch firms. Although neither is easy in today's environment, I would still much rather be in the position of the latter.
69--do you mean pro-life?
Seeing that Cahill has encouraged people to keep using their offices and secretaries, perhaps the reason for secrecy was to make the job hunt easier. It's one thing to look for job when you're unemployed, and quite another to appear as if merely wishing to switch firms. Although neither is easy in today's environment, I would still much rather be in the position of the latter.
This site sucks -
1) Less than 10% at Cahill
2) By exercising discretion in advertising layoffs and by giving 3 months, associates have a chance to find a position and end on their own terms. Seems appropriate and thoughtful.
3) Ask the laid off associates what their hours have been and then ask the other associates humping it all year about whether the laid off associates should get their bonuses. Bonuses have always been discretionary based on performance.
4) Why respond to Elie when she is such a poor source of information - info in/garbage out.
Seeing that Cahill has encouraged people to keep using their offices and secretaries, perhaps the reason for secrecy was to make the job hunt easier. It's one thing to look for job when you're unemployed, and quite another to appear as if merely wishing to switch firms. Although neither is easy in today's environment, I would still much rather be in the position of the latter.
vomit.
vomit.
vomit.
vomit.
vomit.
72 - firms are not oblivious. vast majority (if not all) of associates sending resumes to firms have been laid off. do you really think firms (with attrition problems of their own) think many associates are looking to lateral in this enviornment? the times of appearing to be employed after being let go are gone. doesn't work in this environment.
I heard that Cadwalader fired a couple of people over the summer. Did anyone hear anything about that?
The people digging on 29 are the same idiots who can't figure out how to correctly comment on a blog.
I know most of you here are law students and therefore have no real life experience, but there's a lot of value in being able to answer "no" when a potential employee asks "have you ever been fired."
The purpose of keeping people around for three months is so that they can find a job before then and thus be able to answer "no" to the firing question.
So - Cahill fires 10% of its attorneys but is still planning on overpaying summer associates that will become new first years? That is ridiculous! I have an idea - dump the summers!!! You don't "summer" at a JOB!!! You "summer" in the Hamptons. The whole concept of the "summer associate" is stupid. And it is certainly even more insulting to those laid off to pay those idiots for partying.
75 - Forget the hours; I keep hearing that Cahill corporate associates are billing double digits months for the last quarter no matter how hard they hump for work.
73 -- No, I mean anti-choice.
69
Did it ever occur to anyone that Cravath, etc are doing quiet layoffs and simply not getting the press . . . ?
Its true. The Cravath associates are just smart enough to not poison the well with the fact of their own termination. No one good gets terminated - even in a down market.
I've been laid off by my firm and would STILL answer "no" to the question of whether I've been fired. I was told it was an economy-based decision; that's a far cry from being fired for lousy performance.
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
Ann Coulter is not "pro-life," or pro-anything else positive. Get over it.
90, the question is "were you ever fired?", not "were you ever fired for lousy performance?"
Do you even know what "fired" means? It means you did not quit voluntarily.
You do realize firms call your previous employers as references? Good luck with your lying, idiot!
Does anyone know what impact the layoffs at Cahill will have on the Cahill layoffs?
91 - don't worry...you will still get to go to expensive lunches this summer. summers shouldn't be too concerned. program will go on as usual with some minor cuts due to the economy. just hope by the time you start the economy has turned around.
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
you people are all whacked. why not spend more time trying to be productive at your firms and less time going back and forth about unconfirmed reports on one firm's difficult management decisions. if you continue wasting time on this site, your firm will find you and you will be next on the chopping block.
What is going on at Milbank? As a summer heading there I am freaking. Can anyone comment?
Seeing that Cahill has encouraged people to keep using their offices and secretaries, perhaps the reason for secrecy was to make the job hunt easier. It's one thing to look for job when you're unemployed, and quite another to appear as if merely wishing to switch firms. Although neither is easy in today's environment, I would still much rather be in the position of the latter.
Hey 96, STFU you annoying tweed.
96
YES - you should be freaking out!!! You are entering a horrible market and you will already be overpaid the second you set foot in the door. You should be afraid - very afraid. Hopefully - you are not so stupid that you have enormous law school debt! Have a nice day.
Ann Coulter speaks truth.
Hey 96, STFU you annoying tweed.
Milbank laid off 50% of 1st years. I'm being totally serial.
97 - what work should i be doing? not a damn thing to do. why not check out ATL?
Why is the double posting so much worse today? Why is the double posting so much worse today? Why is the double posting so much worse today?
calling someone stupid for having law school debt, ouch....
It's entertaining to watch Cahill's PR spin the stealth appraoch as somehow helpful.
Why is the double posting so much worse today? Why is the double posting so much worse today? Why is the double posting so much worse today?
Milbank could let half of its 1st years go and they would still have too many. actually - the 1st and 2nd year classes were so large half of both class years should be eliminated.
84--
That repeat posting of 29's post is not an error. It's a stupid, recurring joke that you are apparently too dense to get.
105 - check out is one thing, but participating in this banter is another. And some of you are so dumb that you cannot even comment correctly. I am #97, not 96 so STFU.
93 - you're confusing the word "fired" with the words "laid off." there is a difference and that difference is recognized both legally (in terms of what's owed the employee by the employer) and in every other way that matters. whether "terminated" and "laid off" are synonymous are a different issue, but "laid off" and "fired" are different ballparks.
113, you are confusing some other alternative world with reality.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fire
fire [fahyuhr]
31. to dismiss from a job.
fire
8. To discharge from a position; dismiss. See Synonyms at dismiss.
Please show me a source where someone who is dismissed from his job involuntarily is held to not have been "fired." Thanks, Mr. English language expert.
echo 94 - how will cahill layoffs affect cahill layoffs? has anyone heard anything about more cahill layoffs? anyone? cahill layoffs?
111: Now you ruined it...
84 = Post of the Year.
115 -
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070416001148AAotgEg
http://www.boli.state.or.us/BOLI/TA/TA_COL_091107_Laid_Off_vs_Fired.pdf
http://ask.metafilter.com/6351/Fired-Now-What
http://www.123oye.com/job-articles/career/laid-off-fired.htm
Can any one here explain how to avoid posting twice?
yes, don't do it.
If you're asked, an employer will ask if you have ever been "terminated." Layoffs and perfomance based terminations would qualify. "Fired" is colloquial and not typically used by human resources folk.
Can any one here explain how to avoid posting twice?
119 and 122: Don't post at all.
119, once you hit the "post comment" button, don't hit it again, it takes a minute to load up and if you continue to hit the button while it loads, it will post your comment the number of times that you hit the button. That needs to be changed somehow.
119 - Just pretend to be a dead guy so his parents can come say goodbye before he dies, and you'll only see everything once.
118, your second source tells us that:
"whether an employer uses "laid off" or "fired" to describe the employment action can be just a matter of semantics."
and there are "a few legal distinctions between layoffs and terminations", but nothing about the word 'fired.'
Your first and third sources also tell us that "laid off" has an obsolete archaic definition, meaning a temporary furlough with an offer of returning back to the same employer when business picks up. Is that what you think was offered to the people at the law firms? Are law firms like steel mills?
Your fourth source is someone trying to polish a turd and trying to put a shiny spin on things.
Great rebuttal!
When you hit post comment, wait 2 seconds, then hit the stop button. Wait 2 more seconds (maybe 3) and hit the refresh button. Sometimes you will have to hit the refresh button more than once, but this solves the problem.
121 - I don't know what kind of HR people you've dealt with before, but every employer I've ever interviewed with has asked if I was ever "terminated for cause." Not just "terminated."
"Ann Coulter speaks truth."
"Truth" you call it? I thought most people called it neighing (or whinnying, perhaps).
Some good people were fired, I'm sorry for them and will miss them. couple things wrong with the post.
everyone here heard about the layoffs, and rumors they were coming beforehand, so not really stealth or an attempt to keep secret, but professional courtesy that people should be able to decide when, how, and with whom to share news of their misfortune. Everyone knows Cahill didn't pick people randomly and accidentally fire the top performers, a warm-fuzzy email wouldn't change much.
As for timing, the post is misleading. there was no official bonus announcement wednesday. non-fired associates were generally reviewed wednesday and individually told their bonus was market, many were also told there were firings (ie. not stealth), though that seemed up to each reviewing partner. fired associates were then reviewed thursday and fired without bonus. i assume the 1 day delay was to assure non-fired associates they were ok before news of firing spread, to avoid panic. good idea.
how the firm conveyed the news individually to those people, what further outplacement assistance is offered, and continued discretion determine how classy it was, not some email.
--Not Cahill PR, just sensible.
When you hit post comment, wait 2 seconds, then hit the stop button. Wait 2 more seconds (maybe 3) and hit the refresh button. Sometimes you will have to hit the refresh button more than once, but this solves the problem.
When you hit post comment, wait 2 seconds, then hit the stop button. Wait 2 more seconds (maybe 3) and hit the refresh button. Sometimes you will have to hit the refresh button more than once, but this solves the problem.
When you hit post comment, wait 2 seconds, then hit the stop button. Wait 2 more seconds (maybe 3) and hit the refresh button. Sometimes you will have to hit the refresh button more than once, but this solves the problem.
114, 121 --
Usually firms that do stealth layoffs (allowing associates to keep using their offices for 2-3 months while looking for some place to lateral) give the associates the option to officially resign before leaving, even if they are not able to find a new job. That way, the associates do not have to answer "yes" when asked if they were ever fired. As an added bonus for the firm, they do not have to pay unemployment if the associates can't find somewhere else to go. If the associates do not resign, the termination will be listed in their personnel file as being fired.
-- small firm laid off associate
114, 121 --
Usually firms that do stealth layoffs (allowing associates to keep using their offices for 2-3 months while looking for some place to lateral) give the associates the option to officially resign before leaving, even if they are not able to find a new job. That way, the associates do not have to answer "yes" when asked if they were ever fired. As an added bonus for the firm, they do not have to pay unemployment if the associates can't find somewhere else to go. If the associates do not resign, the termination will be listed in their personnel file as being fired.
-- small firm laid off associate
I agree with130. Laid off associates are in a much worse situation than associates that are merely given three months to find another job. Everyone knows that firm's only lay off their bottom performers, and an email saying that the layoffs are purely economic in nature doesn't change that. At least in the stealth situation you have three months to look for a job without everyone assuming you've been fired. I don't have any conneciton to Cahill, but I am in a really slow practice group and think I'd rather go out the door the stealth way.
114, 121 --
Usually firms that do stealth layoffs (allowing associates to keep using their offices for 2-3 months while looking for some place to lateral) give the associates the option to officially resign before leaving, even if they are not able to find a new job. That way, the associates do not have to answer "yes" when asked if they were ever fired. As an added bonus for the firm, they do not have to pay unemployment if the associates can't find somewhere else to go. If the associates do not resign, the termination will be listed in their personnel file as being fired.
-- small firm laid off associate
130 and 136 get it.
no layoff is kinder or gentler but there are better and more humane ways to do things and it sounds like Cahil went that way
I think most people would agree there is a world of difference between getting fired and being laid off.
Ann Coulter Rules!
130 and 136 get it.
no layoff is kinder or gentler but there are better and more humane ways to do things and it sounds like Cahil went that way
quadruple post
quadruple post
quadruple post
quadruple post
Elie - do you make a living off of this garbage or is it merely for your own pleasure?
I heard that some associates who did not get fired, also did not get a bonus. So much for Cahill being lockstep.
Hello guest. Edit Profile | Log Out Add RSS
赛普亚洲指南/Blog, Asia Chronicles, Bad Ideas, Big Law, Law Schools, Roundtable, »
Preview Your Comment
Posted by guest
Monday, January 12, 2009 4:42 PM
Hey, I'm a Cahill 6th year associate. The partners are super smart here, and much better paid than other firms. They were very sensitive in the way they handled this. They are letting people, who don't necessarily deserve it, save face and get jobs hopefully, elsewhere. Working here is better than at other firms on many, many levels, which is why we hit a problem with people not being willing to leave --or leaving, then returning--giving us a very large bulge around the middle--where we should be lean and trim--hence--the necessary weight loss. Notice that we retained 1st and 2nd years. We protect our young. And we protect the fiscal viability necessary to stay in business. I understand you're all unsettled and off-balance with the economic news that keeps getting worse. But you'd do yourselves a service to stop with your "But it should, or shouldn't be and accept what it is, and be super grateful if you have a job and get super vigilant if you don't.
But to whine on and on and on and on...? Wake up and get going with your life. Make the most of it, instead of deriding what it should be instead of accepting what it is. Life is tough out there now for just about everybody.
Don't worry guys, everything will be all right once Barack Obama raises taxes on law firm partners and other business owners.
147 - wrong. some bonuses are prorated.
If you look at the site, several associates don't have a picture or any real info on their profiles. Victims?.....
Since when does "everyone know" that only people who deserve it are laid-off/fired/terminated/whatever?
Entire divisions are laid off for reasons that have nothing to do with individual performance. Even star performers are sacrificed to satisfy a high-paying client who needs a gesture. And business decisions sometimes are made haphazardly. Are you really going to tell me that a firm that got into financial trouble made all the right decisions, at the right time, and then scientifically decided who needed to go based on some perfect performance metric? It seems more likely that the firms that need to lay people off would be bad at deciding who should go, to be honest.
Anyway, my main point is this:
Associates are so interchangeable, that you are kidding yourself if you think there's any real science going into the decision of who to let go.
151 - LOL. You are a dope.
can anyone still at Cahill comment how this will impact SAs?
In this economy, I just want a job at the end of the summer. I could care less about expensive dinners and ball games
153, everything you say is correct other than your main point. associates are not interchangeable. and, while there is no science, the distribution of prime assignments and scarce hours is a pretty strong indication of value
154, by the time you're a full-time associate, in 2010, Barack Obama would have raised several taxes on law firm partners. As we all know, tax hikes help the economy, so you'll be just fine.
That is the Change We Can Believe In.
layoffs will not affect SAs/lack of work will. fewer people, more work for the rest. i would not worry about cahill. i would worry about performing on the job.
154 - I'm headed there this summer, too... I thought it was interesting how they sent us all the SA roster and an offer letter right before all that happened. I guess so we'd be less likely to freak out when we heard the news?
148 - cahill may be a great place to work, but that isnt the reason why the mid levels didnt leave. There are no other jobs out there - in-house, financial, banking, etc. Face it, the model broke due to economic times and this was the only way to fix it. Hopefully, you werent one of the ones cut, but if so, good luck in finding a new job.
158 - I am at Cahill. You were sent the roster and the reviews were done the same week as every other year. no reason to freak out.
truth is probably between 130/136 and 153. some associates are obvious keepers, some obvious lay-offs, most in between. probably depends which partners one had the (mis)fortune to work for and have reviews from, etc. but, 10% reduction hitting various departments is a lot different than firing a division, easier to pick off the low hanging fruit. i bet none of them were top performers, many deserved it and a few got unlucky, wrong place wrong time working mainly for a partner whose book of business completely disappeared. firm with top PPP routinely probably good at making business decisions, no ones perfect though, especially in this market
160 - what sort of matters did those let go work on primarily? corporate?
162 - appears to be almost all corporate
REALITY CHECK
"Stealth layoffs" does NOT = letting an associate keep his/her office for awhile, and keeping them on payroll for that time. My V10 firm does that even for people being let go for performance reasons -- it's a question of how you treat your employees.
"Stealth layoffs" = trying to maintain the fiction that what are in reality economic layoffs, are performance layoffs.
Ann Coulter is to the right what Al Sharpton is to the left: a clown that no one should listen to, and a disgrace to whatever cable news channel gives them even a second of airtime.
Also, laying people off happens, but laying them off at the end of the year without bonuses is a total asshole move. People will always remember Cahill for this.
152 - I disagree. For better or for worse, associates tend to establish a reputation for themselves as they rise in class rank. This would be no less true at Cahill, given its smaller headcount, lack of formal assignment system, and that its associates (at least in corporate) are all exposed to the same type of work.
But this isn't to say that the firm's perception of its associates is always accurate. An associate that fares relatively poorly at one firm may thrive at another for any number of reasons. For the associates that were laid off, hopefully this means that they will move on to better things.
#159--#148 here. You're right about some of the why associates stayed, but many here have developed deep friendships with each other and didn't want to leave it.We've all heard stories about laterals who switch and get into political quagmires that are nightmares to crack. We have a very collegial, respectful atmosphere at Cahill for the most part. Many of us went to top schools, got offers from top firms and chose Cahill for its atmosphere; We want to do good work, brilliant work if we can get it, but we don't want to kill the next guy to get it. We value kinship here.
Now, you can say,"Well then yes but then how could you fire x,y,z, etc.?" Had to. But as # 161 said none fired were keepers, many obvious layoffs and and just a couple were iffy,in all departments. But again, the arrangement offered was kind and respectful.
Anyone know the approximate number of associates laid off and years?
161/148 - please let our media relations dep't do its job, and you do yours, which is billing. Unless you are actually them posting in disguise, in which case please continue,
Signed
Executve Committee
Any firm that needs to lay off 10% of its professionals is either in serious financial trouble or overstaffed. Anyone who thinks this is nothing more than "performance" is living in la-la land.
Yes#170, overstaffed for sure--that bulge around the middle, that in yonder years stayed trim, but in the last few years, for the various reasons already stated, had associates clinging to the Cahill vine.
Yes#170, overstaffed for sure--that bulge around the middle, that in yonder years stayed trim, but in the last few years, for the various reasons already stated, had associates clinging to the Cahill vine.
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
165, there is no comparison between Coulter and Sharpton.
Coulter-Cornell, UMICH, fed clerkship, two biglaw jobs, public interest jobs, best-selling author who says some provocative and offensive things
Al Sharpton-didn't graduate from college, doesn't pay taxes, tried to bail out of paying a defamation lawsuit that he lost, help agitate in Crown Heights, decent public speaker but that is about it, doesn't have a real job, etc.
The fact that you are even treating Coulter like Sharpton is outrageous. Coulter is more similar to Al Franken with the difference being that she is HOT.
Yeah, but Sharpton is a wackjob who embarrasses everybody on the left every time he speaks because they feel that they're associated with that lunatic just because he shares the same half of the politic spectrum they do. Coulter is a wackjob who embarrasses everybody on the right every time she speask because they feel they're associated with that lunatic just because she shares the same half of the political spectrum they do.
What-- you folks have ADD? You can't stay on topic?
How Many? From which departments got fired at Cahill?
PR fired how many a little while back, and even first years, remember?
Stay on the layoff topic! PLEASE.
174 -- I think the Coulter / Sharpton comparison is fair. Being educated, etc. only makes Coulter's invective more repugnant. In fact, brother Sharpton has done quite well for a guy with no education. And Coulter may be "hot" for a right-winger commentator, but she is not hot.
176 -
Number = a bit less than 10 percent
Departments = doesn't really work that way at Cahill, but mostly corporate and some litigation
NO first years. Those who got laid off didn't get 2008 bonuses.
174 -- You're right. She's the hottest 45 year old shemale with nobby knees and a huge Adam's Apple that I've ever seen. (I think I just vomitted a little in my mouth.)
@125, nice one yoyo
-dunbar
#179 Do you have nothing to contribute to this topic? No where to go at the end of the day?
#130, I was not laid off but had my review after Wednesday so it was not one rule per say. It depended on one's individual schedule I expect. I was not told there were firings contrary to what you say. Also, I do not delude myself that I am a top performer, just managed to become insulated by work from a few people. Cahill partners definitely play favorites and do not make an effort to spread work around, so I don't pretend that I would be above getting laid off had I been shut out of the Cahill work mill. After the way some of my colleagues have been treated, I am thinking of beginning my own non-pressing job hunt, as I could imagine myself in a similar situation in a year or less.
182 - what advice would you have for an incoming SA?
181 -- what topic, asswipe? Layoffs at Cahill? How is that a "topic"? They laid people off -- sucks for those affected, but nothing said on this board will change that. Should I pontificate on how these layoffs will "doom" Cahill? In the early 90's, Cahill lead the way by firing associates after the junk bond market collapsed -- and they've been in the top 5 for PPP every year since.
I find it much more interesting that some deranged poster thinks that Ann Coulter is hot -- so that's what I'll post about.
Piss off.
179
179 totally nailed it! Ann Coulter is a total tranny. It's totally obvious. Her Adam's Apple is way bigger than mine, and I'm not afraid to admit her schlong is probably way bigger than mine too.
181--Ann is hot. Very. Maybe she's too hot for you. Who do you think is hot? Just so we'll have a sense of your taste. Hmm?
Mann Coulter is not hot, sorry. If you think so, you should explore your sexuality just a little bit more
The Farmer’s Market on Fairfax and 3rd is a Los Angeles landmark, attracting tourists and everyday Angelinos alike, as well as many famous faces. Among the celebrities I have seen there are Muhammad Ali, Terri Garr, Tyra Banks, Laura Linney, Keenan Ivory Wayans, the guitarist for The Cult, Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs, and Weird Al Yankovic.
But Ann Coulter is the only celebrity I’ve ever spotted at Farmer’s Market that I wound up fucking in the ass, hard.
It would be fair to observe that my feeling obligated to present the list of celebrities above in roughly Black-White-Black-White order is indicative of my own carefully Liberal sensibilities. And that this sort of conscientiousness is more than a little ridiculous, on examination. But what I notice about myself only on reflection, Ann Coulter seemed to recognize and respond to in an instant, like a puma recognizes an injured giselle. For Ann Coulter is a predator. A predator with a hungry asshole.
I first spotted her sitting at a table in front of The Gumbo Pot with another woman who looked not unlike her, but a generation older (I neglected to ask her at any point subsequently whether this had in fact been her mother). I vaguely recognized her—there’s always a lag time placing faces you know from cable when unconfined to a telescreen—and began to notice, stealing furtive glances up from the copy of Steinbeck I was reading, that she was eyeing me with unsettling scrutiny.
The next thing I knew, her companion (mother?) had left and Coulter was standing over me, looking skeptically at my reading material.
‘The Grapes of Wrath, huh?’
‘Yes’ I said, faking composure. ‘It’s fantastic.’
‘It’s a fantastic primer for vacuous proto-Communists everywhere,’ she said dismissively.
‘I don’t know about that..’
She sighed. ‘I don’t have enough ink in my pen to keep a running list of what you don’t know. May I?’
She motioned to the empty chair next to me.
‘Of course.’ It would be fair to say my voice trembled a little.
She sat and said nothing. Ann Coulter evidently takes an unappreciative view of small talk. That she was eager to continue antagonizing me became evident when I re-opened my recently-insulted book to resume reading. A young man passed in a t-shirt proclaiming ‘Iraq Nam’. She stopped him.
‘1. Haircut. 2. Shower. 3. Get a job, you sniveling hippy,’ she glowered. ‘You’re probably too high to remember that, so write it down--if you can write.’
He looked at her with dismay and scampered away like a kicked cat. She turned to me with bloodlust.
‘What do you think of the war: complete success, or very nearly complete success?’ she asked.
‘Well, in no time—barring the strong possibility of Civil War--we’ll have a democratically-elected anti-US Islamicist government in charge of the world’s second-largest oil reserves, so I’d have to say only very-nearly, on the complete success scale, at a hysterically distorted best.’
She showed her teeth. ‘It sounds to me like you don’t support our troops.’
‘I think that ‘Support Our Troops’ business is the most crass, craven cowardice ever to go unquestioned by the allegedly Liberal media.’
‘Yes? Yes?’ There was oddly growing excitement in her voice.
‘It allows the Administration to absolve itself of responsibility for its own flawed policy. It’s no different than if you sent a classroom of 2nd graders into a burning building, and when anyone objects you throw in their face that they "don’t support our 2nd graders"’
‘Where do you live?’
‘A few blocks away.’
‘Take me there.’
When we got to my apartment, she looked around glumly.
‘I was thinking you’d have half-burned American flags up on the wall,’ she said, disappointed.
‘That’s ridiculous. I love my country.’
‘Whatever you think that means,’ she said, rolling her eyes. ‘Don’t you have anything nasty to say about the President?’
‘Like what?’
‘Like he’s an imbecile, or corrupt, or a corrupt imbecile—the usual sore-loser bitter chatter.’
‘To be honest, I didn’t like the nasty things that were said about Clinton, and I’ve decided to have respect for the Office, no matter who holds it. I don’t think President Bush is corrupt or an imbecile anyway. Would you like something to drink?’
‘I think maybe this was a mistake,’ she said, starting to go.
‘That’s not to say I don’t disagree strongly with many of his policies and objectives.’
She seemed to reconsider. ‘Like what?’
‘I don’t know. Name one.’
‘Get me a drink first.’
With every point I expressed that ran counter to a view she held, she removed one article of clothing. Soon she sat on my couch naked, gently pulling at her untrimmed pubic hair, staring intently but not quite invitingly at me. The growing hard lump in my throat was just outpaced by the one in my pants. I was a little nervous because we had agreed on the last two points—the need to reconsider the option of nuclear energy, and drilling in the Arctic—and I noticed her oversized nipples were no longer hard. Luckily, she was, by this point, determined.
‘What do you think,’ she began provocatively, ‘of the President’s plan to privatize Social Security?’
I sighed with relief; this was as sure a promise to seal the deal as her asking if I had a condom.
‘I think it’s a payoff to the Americans the President has always been most intent on pleasing: the richest 1%.’
‘What do you mean?’ she cooed. I noticed her nipples hardening once more. She dropped to her knees in front of me. She pushed me backwards and positioned my legs up in the air.
‘A stock’s value is even now only partially tied to the actual value of any publicly traded company. But who’s going to profit from inflated valuations when stock prices swell irrationally from the forced, artificial injection of capital?
Her breath was hot on my ‘taint as she lifted my scrotum. ‘Yes? Yes?’
‘You might as well shoehorn billions of dollars into the Baseball Card market. The price of a Derek Jeter rookie will be driven up to hundreds of thousands of dollars—before the bubble bursts and the whole market crashes massively.’ It was getting hard to stay on point as she tongue-fucked my shitter vigorously.
‘Don’t..Stop!!’ her contorted mouth pled from my butthole.
‘The top 1% will sell stocks at the inflated valuations to the novice investors-by-necessity, the market will swell and crash, and the same 1% will come back and re-purchase their holdings at pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, Social Security will go bankrupt and all the novice investors will be eating catfood for the duration of their "golden years,'’ barring a massive Federal bailout several hundred times in excess of what the Savings & Loan scandal cost us.’
She sprung up on the couch on all fours and looked over her shoulder at me. She pointed to her twitching, puckered anus. ‘See this?’
I nodded eagerly.
‘I want you to wreck it.’
I spit on my skeezer-pleaser and, prying her ass cheeks apart like a hot dinner roll, drove it home, into the biggest browneye I had ever seen. She gurgled contentedly. Every thrust of my babymaker was met with a wrenched squeal as I grabbed her by the hips and began really leaning into it.
‘Harder!’ she begged, ‘Harder!! Tell me what you think of Chomsky!’
‘I..think..he’s..brill..iant..but..I..don’t really agree with much of his stance on Israel, and--’
‘You’re slowing down!’ she snapped. ‘DON’T SLOW DOWN!’
I went back to punishing her asshole, giving no thought whatsoever to compassionate conservatism as her chocolate socket gnawed on my pork pipe. She was babbling now, as out of a delirious reverie.
‘Feed it,' Ann Coulter rasped. 'Feed my hungry asshole!'
I buried her face in a throw pillow and she swiveled her hips back on my fuckstick with obvious appreciation. My pace quickened as my man-magma built towards eruption.
‘Wait!’ she gasped, sensing the fuse on my yogurt cannon was burning quick. ‘I want to take you ass-to-mouth!’
I withdrew from her puckerhole with an audible ‘pop’ and she scrambled around, gulping at my wang-dang-doodle as though the lives of all her loved ones hinged on her marks for enthusiasm. Her eyes rolled up pleadingly as she threw her head down again and again on my magic johnson. I knew what she wanted.
‘There is a specter haunting Europe,’ I began, and she started to convulse spasmodically with her own thrashing orgasm, her head now dribbling in a blur against my groin. I repeated every Karl Marx quote I could think of until I reached my own ‘historic inevitability’ and launched surge after surge from my hairy boda bag. I ejaculated with what seemed like enough force to blow out the back of her head--but her head was made of stronger stuff. She sputtered, gobbled and gulped what I’d have to call a very liberal, even radically so, quantity of hot splooey.
Once she caught her breath, she wiped her mouth, stood, and took me by the hand.
‘Let’s go to the bathroom.’
‘Why?’
She seemed surprised I had to ask. Her tone was that of someone reminding another of something too obvious to need mention.
‘Uh, so I can get in the tub and you can piss all over me?’
I sat in a robe and watched her as she dressed.
‘Will I see you again?’ I asked tentatively.
‘Sure,’ she said, pointing to the TV. ‘On that.’
Some moments passed. I tried to dispel the awkward silence.
‘Well, nice meeting you,’ I offered.
‘You’ve really got a gift for tedious small talk,’ she shot back.
I was a little hurt and, recognizing this, she softened just a shade as she reached for her purse to leave.
‘Hey.’
‘Yes?’ I asked.
‘Thanks for not staring at my adam’s apple.’
‘No problem.’
She let herself out without another word, and I sat in the late afternoon silence alone. I considered how it felt to be a disposable instrument in someone’s personal debasement fantasy.
All in all, it didn’t feel too bad.
The Farmer’s Market on Fairfax and 3rd is a Los Angeles landmark, attracting tourists and everyday Angelinos alike, as well as many famous faces. Among the celebrities I have seen there are Muhammad Ali, Terri Garr, Tyra Banks, Laura Linney, Keenan Ivory Wayans, the guitarist for The Cult, Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs, and Weird Al Yankovic.
But Ann Coulter is the only celebrity I’ve ever spotted at Farmer’s Market that I wound up fucking in the ass, hard.
It would be fair to observe that my feeling obligated to present the list of celebrities above in roughly Black-White-Black-White order is indicative of my own carefully Liberal sensibilities. And that this sort of conscientiousness is more than a little ridiculous, on examination. But what I notice about myself only on reflection, Ann Coulter seemed to recognize and respond to in an instant, like a puma recognizes an injured giselle. For Ann Coulter is a predator. A predator with a hungry asshole.
I first spotted her sitting at a table in front of The Gumbo Pot with another woman who looked not unlike her, but a generation older (I neglected to ask her at any point subsequently whether this had in fact been her mother). I vaguely recognized her—there’s always a lag time placing faces you know from cable when unconfined to a telescreen—and began to notice, stealing furtive glances up from the copy of Steinbeck I was reading, that she was eyeing me with unsettling scrutiny.
The next thing I knew, her companion (mother?) had left and Coulter was standing over me, looking skeptically at my reading material.
‘The Grapes of Wrath, huh?’
‘Yes’ I said, faking composure. ‘It’s fantastic.’
‘It’s a fantastic primer for vacuous proto-Communists everywhere,’ she said dismissively.
‘I don’t know about that..’
She sighed. ‘I don’t have enough ink in my pen to keep a running list of what you don’t know. May I?’
She motioned to the empty chair next to me.
‘Of course.’ It would be fair to say my voice trembled a little.
She sat and said nothing. Ann Coulter evidently takes an unappreciative view of small talk. That she was eager to continue antagonizing me became evident when I re-opened my recently-insulted book to resume reading. A young man passed in a t-shirt proclaiming ‘Iraq Nam’. She stopped him.
‘1. Haircut. 2. Shower. 3. Get a job, you sniveling hippy,’ she glowered. ‘You’re probably too high to remember that, so write it down--if you can write.’
He looked at her with dismay and scampered away like a kicked cat. She turned to me with bloodlust.
‘What do you think of the war: complete success, or very nearly complete success?’ she asked.
‘Well, in no time—barring the strong possibility of Civil War--we’ll have a democratically-elected anti-US Islamicist government in charge of the world’s second-largest oil reserves, so I’d have to say only very-nearly, on the complete success scale, at a hysterically distorted best.’
She showed her teeth. ‘It sounds to me like you don’t support our troops.’
‘I think that ‘Support Our Troops’ business is the most crass, craven cowardice ever to go unquestioned by the allegedly Liberal media.’
‘Yes? Yes?’ There was oddly growing excitement in her voice.
‘It allows the Administration to absolve itself of responsibility for its own flawed policy. It’s no different than if you sent a classroom of 2nd graders into a burning building, and when anyone objects you throw in their face that they "don’t support our 2nd graders"’
‘Where do you live?’
‘A few blocks away.’
‘Take me there.’
When we got to my apartment, she looked around glumly.
‘I was thinking you’d have half-burned American flags up on the wall,’ she said, disappointed.
‘That’s ridiculous. I love my country.’
‘Whatever you think that means,’ she said, rolling her eyes. ‘Don’t you have anything nasty to say about the President?’
‘Like what?’
‘Like he’s an imbecile, or corrupt, or a corrupt imbecile—the usual sore-loser bitter chatter.’
‘To be honest, I didn’t like the nasty things that were said about Clinton, and I’ve decided to have respect for the Office, no matter who holds it. I don’t think President Bush is corrupt or an imbecile anyway. Would you like something to drink?’
‘I think maybe this was a mistake,’ she said, starting to go.
‘That’s not to say I don’t disagree strongly with many of his policies and objectives.’
She seemed to reconsider. ‘Like what?’
‘I don’t know. Name one.’
‘Get me a drink first.’
With every point I expressed that ran counter to a view she held, she removed one article of clothing. Soon she sat on my couch naked, gently pulling at her untrimmed pubic hair, staring intently but not quite invitingly at me. The growing hard lump in my throat was just outpaced by the one in my pants. I was a little nervous because we had agreed on the last two points—the need to reconsider the option of nuclear energy, and drilling in the Arctic—and I noticed her oversized nipples were no longer hard. Luckily, she was, by this point, determined.
‘What do you think,’ she began provocatively, ‘of the President’s plan to privatize Social Security?’
I sighed with relief; this was as sure a promise to seal the deal as her asking if I had a condom.
‘I think it’s a payoff to the Americans the President has always been most intent on pleasing: the richest 1%.’
‘What do you mean?’ she cooed. I noticed her nipples hardening once more. She dropped to her knees in front of me. She pushed me backwards and positioned my legs up in the air.
‘A stock’s value is even now only partially tied to the actual value of any publicly traded company. But who’s going to profit from inflated valuations when stock prices swell irrationally from the forced, artificial injection of capital?
Her breath was hot on my ‘taint as she lifted my scrotum. ‘Yes? Yes?’
‘You might as well shoehorn billions of dollars into the Baseball Card market. The price of a Derek Jeter rookie will be driven up to hundreds of thousands of dollars—before the bubble bursts and the whole market crashes massively.’ It was getting hard to stay on point as she tongue-fucked my shitter vigorously.
‘Don’t..Stop!!’ her contorted mouth pled from my butthole.
‘The top 1% will sell stocks at the inflated valuations to the novice investors-by-necessity, the market will swell and crash, and the same 1% will come back and re-purchase their holdings at pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, Social Security will go bankrupt and all the novice investors will be eating catfood for the duration of their "golden years,'’ barring a massive Federal bailout several hundred times in excess of what the Savings & Loan scandal cost us.’
She sprung up on the couch on all fours and looked over her shoulder at me. She pointed to her twitching, puckered anus. ‘See this?’
I nodded eagerly.
‘I want you to wreck it.’
I spit on my skeezer-pleaser and, prying her ass cheeks apart like a hot dinner roll, drove it home, into the biggest browneye I had ever seen. She gurgled contentedly. Every thrust of my babymaker was met with a wrenched squeal as I grabbed her by the hips and began really leaning into it.
‘Harder!’ she begged, ‘Harder!! Tell me what you think of Chomsky!’
‘I..think..he’s..brill..iant..but..I..don’t really agree with much of his stance on Israel, and--’
‘You’re slowing down!’ she snapped. ‘DON’T SLOW DOWN!’
I went back to punishing her asshole, giving no thought whatsoever to compassionate conservatism as her chocolate socket gnawed on my pork pipe. She was babbling now, as out of a delirious reverie.
‘Feed it,' Ann Coulter rasped. 'Feed my hungry asshole!'
I buried her face in a throw pillow and she swiveled her hips back on my fuckstick with obvious appreciation. My pace quickened as my man-magma built towards eruption.
‘Wait!’ she gasped, sensing the fuse on my yogurt cannon was burning quick. ‘I want to take you ass-to-mouth!’
I withdrew from her puckerhole with an audible ‘pop’ and she scrambled around, gulping at my wang-dang-doodle as though the lives of all her loved ones hinged on her marks for enthusiasm. Her eyes rolled up pleadingly as she threw her head down again and again on my magic johnson. I knew what she wanted.
‘There is a specter haunting Europe,’ I began, and she started to convulse spasmodically with her own thrashing orgasm, her head now dribbling in a blur against my groin. I repeated every Karl Marx quote I could think of until I reached my own ‘historic inevitability’ and launched surge after surge from my hairy boda bag. I ejaculated with what seemed like enough force to blow out the back of her head--but her head was made of stronger stuff. She sputtered, gobbled and gulped what I’d have to call a very liberal, even radically so, quantity of hot splooey.
Once she caught her breath, she wiped her mouth, stood, and took me by the hand.
‘Let’s go to the bathroom.’
‘Why?’
She seemed surprised I had to ask. Her tone was that of someone reminding another of something too obvious to need mention.
‘Uh, so I can get in the tub and you can piss all over me?’
I sat in a robe and watched her as she dressed.
‘Will I see you again?’ I asked tentatively.
‘Sure,’ she said, pointing to the TV. ‘On that.’
Some moments passed. I tried to dispel the awkward silence.
‘Well, nice meeting you,’ I offered.
‘You’ve really got a gift for tedious small talk,’ she shot back.
I was a little hurt and, recognizing this, she softened just a shade as she reached for her purse to leave.
‘Hey.’
‘Yes?’ I asked.
‘Thanks for not staring at my adam’s apple.’
‘No problem.’
She let herself out without another word, and I sat in the late afternoon silence alone. I considered how it felt to be a disposable instrument in someone’s personal debasement fantasy.
All in all, it didn’t feel too bad.
183: Not 182, but I do work at Cahill. You have nothing to worry about. No one from the classes of 2007 or 2008 classes were laid off. And, contrary to what 182 said, I think Cahill did it with class. While it does suck to be one of those let go, almost every firm lets people go after yearly reviews, Cahill is no different. Each person who was let go was done so for a reason, and it really didn't have much (or anything) to do with hours. I won't elaborate on that, but you can figure it out.
188 -- 179/181 here. If that was original prose, and not stolen from somewhere, then you are wasting your time here. Fucking brilliant.
188 -- 179/184 here. If that was original prose, and not stolen from somewhere, then you are wasting your time here. Fucking brilliant.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
The non sequiturs in this post are all Cahill PR people. Anytime they can do something stealthily, they will.
188 - My what a fantasy. So much better than thinking about losing one's job.
I see why the Cahill talk petered out, it was nothing special, just some annual needed pruning that was actually done with great thought and care. The thing that gave me and other 3L's great pause, is the recent Proskauer-Rose firings of first years. That was brutal and had us all a buzz, it still does. Anyone heard of any other firms firing first years?
202 -
several firms have fired 1st years - people who started in 08 - but ProsK is the only one which did so openly - or at least enough people outside were told about it.
#203 -Really? Do you know which firms? And under what circumstances were the first years fired?
Yikes!
ATL - Please do a report on who is firing first years. Please. Please. Please. We are heavy with student loans and need to know. THANK YOU!
Elie,
A modest proposal (call it Proposition 193 to 201):
Have your webmaster create a popup screen that shows up as soon as someone hits "Post Comment" informing the poster that hitting "Post Comment" again will cause the poster's message to show up multiple times (and the poster's peers to assume that the poster is a moron).
A Busy Reader
A six month severance would have bought my silence.
The best way to avoid multiple posts is to click FIVE times. If you click only one, two or three times, it won't work, but if you click five times, then the system overloads and it will only post once. . . . Trust me.
The best way to avoid multiple posts is to click FIVE times. If you click only one, two or three times, it won't work, but if you click five times, then the system overloads and it will only post once. . . . Trust me.
Cahill runs on money, period. If associates are going, taking equity from partners is sure to follow.
209: What the hell does your statement even mean? Every company is run on money. Are you implying that just because Cahill fired people they will de-equitize partners? Or that they will require capital contributions from partners?
You do realize that almost every firm in the country fires people after reviews. Your comment really makes no sense.
First Years Fired = Brown Rudnick.
188/189 - thank you for an entertaining contribution. But before we assume the next Bukowski is toiling away somewhere in biglaw obscurity, behold the source material: http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
Oh #212 you outed the faker...I'm so disappointed. I thought we'd found real HONEST blazing talent here.
Whatever, it was fun to read. Thanks for sharing even though you lifted it and failed to attribute it--But, what's a lawyer to do?
I work at Cahill, and what is unfair about the lay-offs are that the affected associates were not paid a bonus for 2008. Bonuses at Cahill have traditionally been lock-step. Cahill was slow last year - both corporate and litigation. Several associates who were kept on had 2008 hours as low, if not lower, than many of those who were laid off. Therefore to not give bonuses to laid off associates just seems cheap and classless.
The firms don't care whether they look "classless" anymore. When "classy" firms like Cravath can cut 2008 bonuses and consider giving none in 2009, and top biglaw firms are firing (stealthly or en masse), it is obvious that even the white-shoe firms have given up "class." V50 to TTT!!
The firms don't care whether they look "classless" anymore. When "classy" firms like Cravath can cut 2008 bonuses and consider giving none in 2009, and top biglaw firms are firing (stealthly or en masse), it is obvious that even the white-shoe firms have given up "class." V50 to TTT!!
ATL PLEASE--PLEASE--PLEASE Tell us which firms have fired first years this year.
Cahill is a good firm, but 75% of their business is leverage finance and cap markets.
Not exactly the place to be in this economy.
THE LIST: This list does not include "redeployments," mergers, staff, or staff attorneys.
Announced | Firm | Location | Total | "Review-Based"? | Acknowledged?
1/11/2007 Kenyon & Kenyon US 16 No Yes
10/1/2007 Thacher Proffitt & Wood US 24 No Yes
10/17/2007 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 6 to 8 Yes No
1/10/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft Charlotte 9 No Yes
1/10/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft NYC 26 No Yes
2/14/2008 Winstead PC Dallas ~3 Yes Yes
2/29/2008 Dechert US 13 No Yes
3/20/2008 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner US 26 No Yes
4/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Jacksonville 10 No Yes
4/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Hartford 22 No Yes
4/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Austin 16 No Yes
4/25/2008 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Atlanta 8 Mix Yes
4/25/2008 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan DC <7 Mix Yes
5/12/2008 Paul Hastings US 22 Yes Yes
5/28/2008 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal US 37 No Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome Philadelphia 6 Yes Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome NYC 2 Yes Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome DC 1 Yes Yes
6/11/2008 Thacher Proffitt & Wood US 36 No Yes
6/23/2008 Powell Goldstein US <10 No Yes
7/1/2008 Patton Boggs Dallas 4 Yes Yes
7/1/2008 Patton Boggs US 5 Yes Yes
7/14/2008 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LA, SF, San Diego 15 Unk No
7/16/2008 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman East Coast <10 Unk No
7/30/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft NYC, Charlotte, London, DC 96 No Yes
8/4/2008 DLA Piper London 1 No Yes
8/6/2008 Sullivan & Worcester Boston & NY 7 Yes No
8/12/2008 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett global 30 Yes No
8/21/2008 Morgan & Finnegan NYC ~4 No Yes
9/22/2008 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer unknown <5 No Yes
9/25/2008 Heller Ehrman US ~600? No Yes
10/2/2008 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal US 25 No Yes
10/14/2008 Clifford Chance NYC & DC 20 No Yes
10/20/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Charlotte 8 No Yes
10/20/2008 Katten Muchin Rosenman US 21 No Yes
10/21/2008 Jenner & Block US 10 No Yes
10/22/2008 Dechert US 10 to 30 Yes No
10/23/2008 O'Melveny & Myers LA 5 Yes Yes
10/27/2008 White & Case Milan 14 No Yes
10/28/2008 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner US ~500? No Yes
10/30/2008 Bell Boyd & Lloyd Chicago 10 No Yes
11/3/2008 McKee Nelson NYC 13 No Yes
11/3/2008 McKee Nelson DC 4 No Yes
11/11/2008 Loeb & Loeb US 8 Yes Yes
11/11/2008 White & Case US, London 70 No Yes
11/12/2008 Moore Van Allen Charlotte 20 No Yes
11/13/2008 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe US 40 No Yes
11/14/2008 Greenberg Traurig NYC unk No No
11/19/2008 Brown Rudnick US 20 No Yes
11/20/2008 Mayer Brown US 33 No Yes
11/20/2008 Squire Sanders US <30 Yes Yes
11/21/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf NYC 5 to 11 Unk No
11/21/2008 Fried Frank US 15 Yes No
12/1/2008 Fried Frank US 15 Yes No
12/3/2008 Reed Smith UK 11 No Yes
12/4/2008 Proskauer Rose US 35 No Yes
12/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf NY 11 No Yes
12/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf LA 1 No Yes
12/5/2008 Seyfarth Shaw US 30 No Yes
12/10/2008 Pircher Nichols & Meeks LA, Chicago 8 No Yes
12/10/2008 Howrey Unk ~10 Yes Yes
12/15/2008 Wolf Block US 15 No Yes
12/15/2008 Drinker Biddle US 20 No No
12/17/2008 Gunderson Dettmer US Unk Yes No
1/7/2009 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 15-25 Yes No
1/7/2009 Dickstein Shapiro NYC & DC 10 No Yes
1/8/2009 Parker Poe NC/SC 13 No Yes
1/8/2009 Baker & McKenzie NYC 6 No Yes
1/8/2009 Clifford Chance London ~80 No Yes
1/8/2009 Cahill Gordon Unk Unk Unk No
1/9/2009 Wildman Harrold Chicago 10 Yes Yes
1/9/2009 Loeb & Loeb US 4 Unk No
Cahill layoff was last Thursday, so it doesn't appear at the end.
The other thing that sucks about all these comments is that it assumes that EVERY firm goes through a "weeding off" and laying off process every year. That isn't true -- at least it wasn't true at Cahill. There, you always had a home until you were up for partnership -- unless you were terminated for cause. (Especially since, let's face it, an associate's salary is paid in the first 600 hours or so billed.) If these sorts of layoffs happened before, they happened incredibly, incredibly quietly.
not true 220. anyone who was an associate at CGR in 2000-02 (after the dot-com bubble) knows that many were openly fired.
220, they did happen before, just never with such a large number of people. Typically there was more natural turnover, so the "layoffs" were much less visible. This year there were few turnover opportunities and less work to do (i.e. less incentive to get out), so a higher number had to be laid off to maintain the natural order.
Look at it another way... every year there are just as many summer associates, yet the total firm headcount stays roughly the same. That is impossible without some kind of attrition. In good years that attrition comes mostly naturally, in bad years that attrition comes mostly from "layoffs."
"The other thing that sucks about all these comments is that it assumes that EVERY firm goes through a "weeding off" and laying off process every year."
Where you you live? Candyland? Do you vacation on the good ship lollypop? You are a maroon, and I'm sure you will be shocked (shocked!) when you are told you don't have a future at your firm and are given a squishy timeline for departure (if times are good and your group is busy) or ~3 months (if times are bad).
Agree with 223. Firings do happen every year at almost every firm. They give the associates X number of months to find a new job, which hasn't been difficult in the past. Then the attorney quits before the time line expires. We're business, you fire under-performers to stay strong. I don't understand what is controversial about this.
I#224 is correct. We always fire under-performers, every year. BIlling hours aside, we also start watching in January for all those jokers who stare at their computers planning trips or scanning celebrity web-sites instead of hustling work or at least picking up some worthy Pro-Bono. Another thing we don't like is unshaven 1st & 2nd years. This sort of "cool;" unkempt look gets points-off that stay in our heads come review time. Some of these associates think they can come to work every other day looking like they just fell out of bed and then dress up when the client shows up. Like it's Sunday School. Consistent daily good grooming is essential. No run down heels. Ever. Show up slightly before you should everyday. Never procrastinate. When I tell you I want it soon, I mean now. Not in three days. If you are having a problem with the assignment, call me and tell me when I can expect it. If I have to go after you--more--big points-off. If you are inconsistent in your grooming, time you get into work, which effects the work you actually do, that starts the "Substance Abuse Bell" in our heads. That bell is loud. Those are the associates that might be fun to kick-back with on occasion, charming, and smart, but they are unreliable and dangerous as they go over the top on a regular basis, always in a state of ascending to their highs or descending to their lows. They have no regard for the strength and necessity of stability, the bedrock of good business. So associates if you don't want to get fired next round, sharpen up, sober up and get busy doing all you can to be necessary.
225 - If you're a partner at Cahill, I can assure you that you're 100% wrong in your assessment.
#226 This is getting interesting. How is #225 wrong? Is Cahill that different than other firms? My firm, not Cahill, operates pretty much the way #225 called it.
So no one can confirm the actual number of associates laid off?
227 - Without outing him, there's an extremely beloved, partner-tracked midlevel associate at Cahill who does all of the things 225 bemoans -- comes in at 10:30 every day, shaves on occasion, does a lot of drinking and partying, spends a lot of time at the office procrastinating -- but he also creates exceptional work product, stays at the office until well past midnight far more than he has to, has absolutely no problem taking on assignments on Friday afternoons and working on them over the weekend, etc. In the end, effort and work product are what matter, not appearances.
Is 225 for real? There are plenty of unkempt partners at Cahill who look like they still hit the bong. And there may be a couple of guys at Cahill with long hair or beards, but every one pretty much looks professional around the office. Looking professional has never been a problem here except maybe when it comes to the staff (secretaries regularly show up in jeans or looking disheveled). Cahill is not about face time or always wearing it suit. It's emphasis is and always has been on doing your work and doing it well.
Is 225 for real? There are plenty of unkempt partners at Cahill who look like they still hit the bong. And there may be a couple of guys at Cahill with long hair or beards, but every one pretty much looks professional around the office. Looking professional has never been a problem here except maybe when it comes to the staff (secretaries regularly show up in jeans or looking disheveled). Cahill is not about face time or always wearing it suit. It's emphasis is and always has been on doing your work and doing it well.
193-201 here. Wow, how embarrasing - an ultra-mega double post.... and the post should have been phrased as conjecture/opinion. I recant.
"it's what you wear from ear to ear not head to toe that maaaaaaaaaaattters"
Success is built on stable, constant, occasionally brilliant effort, not on a snorters nose, who having no life but what goes up his nose or down his throat will work whenever. These are not the guys who hold the ground and make it pay.
They're Combustibles. These are not people you admire, even if indeed they are brilliant sometimes. These guys are married to their addictions, first, last and always, more than to their own bodies, wives, children, and certainly more than their jobs, not to mention their reputations. Yes, everyone feels something (usually get-away-from-me pity) for these guys. I guess every firm has one or two. But don't for a second confuse the disciplined, solid individuals who hold the ground and make it rain for their firms, with the impulse driven combustibles. They make different choices and live completely different lives.
234 - You're either a mormom or the most boring party conversationalist of all time. Either way, not somebody I'd enjoy having to work with.
What party? It's 2009 buddy. Wake up and smell the coffee, while there's still some in the pot.
229-there can't be anyone like that at Cahill.
You're talking about people with exceptional work product and of course they will do well. There are definitely people who can get away with things because they get the job done.
But when you're talking about people who do average or even slightly above average work, 225 is right, those things matter. If you're looking to cut 1 of 20 average workers, the guy who looks/acts like a bum will stand out.
When it comes to lay offs, if you're not completely indispensable (and few people are) then every little thing helps. And if you have no productivity value to the company then nothing will help (except maybe sleeping with your boss).
#235 What are you Nero? Party on, fiddle on, watch all the Real Men with hoses and ladders trying to save the place and laugh, hurl invectives at them. Kick back and do a few lines and jugs of wine. You sir, are either very, very young or delusional.
239 - You, sir, have obviously never been poor.
Money is great while it lasts. It very, very rarely lasts (check any Lehman executive who had their entire assets tied up in that stock). If you lose it, oh well -- it's only money. There really, truly, deeply are more important things to worry about in life. We have to keep putting out the fires, of course, and do the best we can with that. But we also have to understand that it's not the end of the world if the house burns down.
Relax. Enjoy life a little bit. That's the whole point, no?
#239 and #240 I've been rich and poor and now have three children to support and their home, and mother, their education, and my apartment, and my parents who are 87 and 92. For me fun is being able to cover my costs. Fun is being able to carry the load I signed on for,or ended up with. Not turning my back on responsibility is fun. It's fun to try and lift something up and be able to do it. Having an "Oh well attitude," is fine if you have no one depending on you, I suppose. But you are right, if the house burns down, but you're all still alive that is a good thing. An enjoyable thing. Something to be immensely grateful for. But after that gratitude wears off, you need to rebuild the house.
#239 and #240 I've been rich and poor and now have three children to support and their home, and mother, their education, and my apartment, and my parents who are 87 and 92. For me fun is being able to cover my costs. Fun is being able to carry the load I signed on for,or ended up with. Not turning my back on responsibility is fun. It's fun to try and lift something up and be able to do it. Having an "Oh well attitude," is fine if you have no one depending on you, I suppose. But you are right, if the house burns down, but you're all still alive that is a good thing. An enjoyable thing. Something to be immensely grateful for. But after that gratitude wears off, you need to rebuild the house.
I get it now: Most of the posts here are from 3L's and 1st & 2nd yrs. They are young, still used to being supported by their parents and thought they were headed for, or on, The Good Ship Lollipop. I bet many of them who are going to, or went to Cahill went there wanting to become investment bankers after three years. Sorry guys, the sooner you realize the very people you wanted to be, have screwed all of us, those pirates took over your ship, your dreams and now you're on a life raft, the sooner you get this, the sooner you can start finding new and better dreams.
241/242 -- I feel very sorry for you. To have worked that hard for that long, and for what? A wife and kids you view as financial obligations?
I have a nice book. I make a quality living. But if my firm dissolves tomorrow, and my clients disappear -- if the house burns down -- I'm not going to bother rebuilding it. Fun while it lasted. But I'm too old to start that over again, and to be honest, I really don't have the heart for it. Easier to, say, open up a bar on a beach somewhere.
But your responsibilities... they're in your head. Pay for your children's education? Why? Nobody ever paid for my education except me. They do give out educations for free until the kids hit 18, you know -- and after that, the kids should be paying for themselves. Pay for your kids' mother and her house? I'm assuming there's some kind of divorce settlement involved there... which is, of course, your own fault. For getting married in the first place (two things I learned in law school never to do, because the paperwork is too much of a hassle: buy a co-op, get married). I feel bad for you, but don't blame the world for not making the same poor choices you did.
Sometimes, you just have to it slide. Life's too short to spend decades slaving away with nothing to show for it but a wife and kids you never have time to see and a beautiful house you never have time to enjoy. If you make your money, that's great. But if you don't, don't go crazy about it.
241/242 -- I feel very sorry for you. To have worked that hard for that long, and for what? A wife and kids you view as financial obligations?
I have a nice book. I make a quality living. But if my firm dissolves tomorrow, and my clients disappear -- if the house burns down -- I'm not going to bother rebuilding it. Fun while it lasted. But I'm too old to start that over again, and to be honest, I really don't have the heart for it. Easier to, say, open up a bar on a beach somewhere.
But your responsibilities... they're in your head. Pay for your children's education? Why? Nobody ever paid for my education except me. They do give out educations for free until the kids hit 18, you know -- and after that, the kids should be paying for themselves. Pay for your kids' mother and her house? I'm assuming there's some kind of divorce settlement involved there... which is, of course, your own fault. For getting married in the first place (two things I learned in law school never to do, because the paperwork is too much of a hassle: buy a co-op, get married). I feel bad for you, but don't blame the world for not making the same poor choices you did.
Sometimes, you just have to it slide. Life's too short to spend decades slaving away with nothing to show for it but a wife and kids you never have time to see and a beautiful house you never have time to enjoy. If you make your money, that's great. But if you don't, don't go crazy about it.
#245 - You miss my point. I am happy. I do enjoy my life. I was not complaining. I was saying I was happy I could carry my load. I guess I forgot to mention my girlfriend, who I adore, our weekends hiking all over the world and the joy of seeing my children grow. Walking my dogs in the park. Playing squash twice a week. I am happy to be able to manage all that's on my plate. Some guys can't. I am very glad I have family and people in my life. I regret none of it and shoulder all of it. And, I'm very grateful I didn't invest with Maydoff. Get a family my friends. Yeah, they are messy and expensive but love is worth the mess.
ATL Which NYC firms do you think will close down next , completely, or close to it?
I like #246 Sounds like a real man. Unlike so many of you complaining whiners, whine, complain, whine, complain. I bet #246 is good looking too. We need more real men. Slow to anger. Slow to speak. Deep.
WIling to be the God in the room. Bet he's successful too.
I agree w 248. I like 246 too.
i am not even sure Cahill was in that dire straits--there are a lot of greedy partners (greedier than the average big law partner) who maybe didn't want to take any hit off their 3.2 million average per year.
i am not even sure Cahill was in that dire straits--there are a lot of greedy partners (greedier than the average big law partner) who maybe didn't want to take any hit off their 3.2 million average per year.
i am not even sure Cahill was in that dire straits--there are a lot of greedy partners (greedier than the average big law partner) who maybe didn't want to take any hit off their 3.2 million average per year.
250-252 -- Cahill's main business was structuring crappy debt offerings that all ended up failing. That market, needless to say, isn't thriving. Most of their associates are going to have double digit billing months in January. I don't know if I'd call it "dire straights," but they're certainly not busy.
Can anyone confirm possible layoffs at Cahill?
Can anyone confirm how many Cahill associates were laid off last week and what does the future really hold there? Morale is low.
#253- Where do you work? Because you sure sound sniveling, bitter and disparaging. Were you laid off? If so, please pony-up the details, then we can feel bad for you instead of thinking that you're just another whiner.
#253- Where do you work? Because you sure sound sniveling, bitter and disparaging. Were you laid off? If so, please pony-up the details, then we can feel bad for you instead of thinking that you're just another whiner.
256/257 - I don't work at Cahill, I can tell you that much. I'm not whining; I actually have work to do.
Wait -- were there layoffs at Cahill?
Wait--There's no work at Cahill?
260, While the rumors about supposed layoffs at Cahill have yet to be confirmed -- why hasn't ATL done a post on this yet? -- the fact that there's essentially no work at Cahill is, sadly, a fact. Although that's the same pretty much everywhere.
#261, why do you say they are unconfirmed? I wish they were as I was one of the unlucky ones.
#262 How long did you work there? This must really be tough, especially if as they say you make such tight friendships at Cahill. I pray you will land very solidly on your feet. God Bless You.
263 - People are generally friendly at Cahill, for the most part.
I worked at Cahill for over 7 years as a word processor and I can state that without a doubt my co-workers were the worst bunch of creeps ever. I'm not criticizing the lawyers, but the word processing dept. was definitely mental.
I worked at Cahill for over 7 years as a word processor and I can state that without a doubt my co-workers were the worst bunch of creeps ever. I'm not criticizing the lawyers, but the word processing dept. was definitely mental.
I worked at Cahill for over 7 years as a word processor and I can state that without a doubt my co-workers were the worst bunch of creeps ever. I'm not criticizing the lawyers, but the word processing dept. was definitely mental.
how many rounds of layoffs as cahill done? i've heard there were earlier layoffs in 2008 that didn't make waves, and i've also heard that other people were let go after the january bomb.
Cahill laid off 21 associates in the January round, and recently laid off 14 more associates. They won't admit it, but those are the numbers.
Are the laid off associates' bios still up on the site? Also, when did this recent round of layoffs take place? From all appearances, it looked as if their corporate practice had been doing pretty well these days.
http://www.jdjournal.com/2009/07/06/rumor-cahill-gordon-lays-off-associates/
According to online sources, former Am Law 100 firm Cahill Gordon laid off an undisclosed number of associates last week, with second-years particularly targeted.
Those laid off have been offered severance packages, but no details are available.