I don't know what's worse checking my stock portfolio or visiting this site to see which one of my friends has been laid off today....

When there are posts re staff layoffs - can someone indicate if that includes staff attorneys? In some cases it does - and in others it does not. Just would be interesting to know and will provide better understanding of exactly how many lawyers are getting canned.

wow! that's a lot of staff for no associates. i hope the associates didn't rely on their secretaries too much.

*realizes that i probably won't get any support staff as an sa* :(

good luck to all those laid off.

-nervous T-10 1L
4 interviews
3 offers
1 sa position

2=comment of the year.

First the Fat Boys break up, and now this?

My sense (as an associate at Ropes) is that this does not include any staff attorneys, only non-attorney staff. But people were spreading lots of rumors around the halls today. I thought Brad Malt's memo was well-written and well-timed to dispel those myths.

3: the letter clearly says "10% of non-lawyer staff"

T-10 1L, are you really a male? Your posts are very girly, but your photo (I realize that's not you) is dude...ly. I don't mean to offend you-- you may just be from a younger age of very emphatic and descriptive internet communicators, foreign to me.

It looks like they are being careful not to lay off attorneys.....better to have associates with not much work to do than staff, with the rationale likely being that staff are easier to replace and their departure does not hurt future recruiting efforts as much.

First the Fat Boys break up, and now this?

No lawyers (partner track or non) were laid off.

#8 - you are correct it states 10% of non-lawyer staff. I guess my comment was directed at the posts (that sadly come multiple times per day) re 'staff' layoffs generally. And not all of the memos are clear.

T-10 1L, I don't want to offend you since I know that lots of people are attacking you here, which I find really childish to be honest. However, could you please delete your signature re: interviews, offers, etc. This is, quite frankly, even more childish. And that's the last thing you probably want to be here and at your firm. Thanks, and no harm intended.

some of the people laid off have been with the firm for more than 20 years! it's very, very sad.

This has been an awful day here at R&G (Boston). I lost my secretary of 5 years...while she maybe wasn't the best worker, she is a wonderful person who cared deeply about all of the people she worked with, and this is devastating for her and her family. I can't believe some of the horrible people who have been commenting here, making light of these dark times...yes, I understand humor helps us all feel better, but the cruelty that some of you exhibit is quite distressing. You are truly the sorts of people who give our profession the terrible reputation it has.

What? No quotes from Harry Rubin?

It's funny to me how these memos, however thoughtful and articulate they may be (as this one certainly is), never mention the cold hard fact that anyone who is laid off will almost certainly not find any alternative employment for in the short- or medium-term.

I'd be curious to know the success rate for out-placement services, for attorneys and staff alike, for all layoffs conducted since September 2008. Has to be under 33%, and falling as the recession deepens. Might be a good poll topic...

This has been an awful day here at R&G (Boston). I lost my secretary of 5 years...while she maybe wasn't the best worker, she is a wonderful person who cared deeply about all of the people she worked with, and this is devastating for her and her family. I can't believe some of the horrible people who have been commenting here, making light of these dark times...yes, I understand humor helps us all feel better, but the cruelty that some of you exhibit is quite distressing. You are truly the sorts of people who give our profession the terrible reputation it has.

One person had been here for over 40 years. These were all good people.

My secretary was here 12 years and now she is gone. I want to cry. Why couldn't they just freeze associate salaries instead? We didn't need the extra money. This is a terrible injustice.

21- speak for yourself...i need all the money I can get.

Three words

SOLID. GOLD. YACHT.

They killed 106 staff members and 0 attorneys, so the people making $160K and up are being paid big money to sit on their asses all day and play on the Internet. I'm going out on a limb here to speculate that the staff severances packages weren't particularly generous either. Nice to know that the people who likely have little to no safety net are thrown out on the street, but the Little Lord Fauntelroys have been spared so much as a cut in pay.

Sounds to me like Ropes & Gray is definitely TTT! Fuck 'em. They're probably on the short list of firms going under in 2009.

Who was hit? Just secretaries? Paralegals? Finance / IT / Conflicts? My heart goes out to anyone affected.

severance?

23, that's really unfair. Lawyers have tens of thousands in debt. Not to mention that it's much easier to find another job with comparable pay if you're not looking for something as specific as 5th year associate in private equity. I know lawyers who were laid off in other firms, and it's a much bleaker market for them out there than it is for administrative assistants.

"*realizes that i probably won't get any support staff as an sa* :("

Seriously? What does a SA do anyway? Baseball games? Parties? A lot of really good people lost their jobs today, or were repositioned into other departments and thankfully at least got to keep *A* job. I've been at Ropes for 10 years as support staff and I thank God I still have a job. I love Ropes and I know they did everything they could to not be in this position.

Dopes in Dismay

Hey T-10 1L,

If you're a boring white male, which it appears you are, there is no way in high holy hell you got yourself a 1L summer associate position this summer. You're a liar and annoying. Now go look for a public interest or government job.

Are they going to keep the intern that had ....um ... citation issues ..... with their BYU law review article?

I don't think my comments are unfair, 26. A lot of these support people probably have tens of thousands of dollars in debt also but theirs was incurred trying to put food on the table and keeping a roof over the heads of their family. There is no GOLDEN TICKET PAYDAY in their future, ever. And I'm pretty sure that most firms are cutting more administrative positions than attorney positions, so I seriously doubt it will be "easier" for them to find work. Also? I doubt that Ropes & Gray is going to give them enough money to survive for 3, 6, or 12 months -- the safety net given to most out-of-work attorneys.

I would be pretty shocked if this was not preceded/accompanied by some stealth associate/income partner layoffs.

Does this leave Wilmer as the only Boston firm yet to do lay-offs?

28: Please try to imagine me slamming a baseball bat off your head. Did you just see the pretty rainbow splatter of blood and flesh? Now you're even more brain dead than you were before.

What's with the fucking time machine posts? I think you should be worried about the security of your shit.

stealth layoffs have started

attorneys are next...duh

This is a very sad day at Ropes & Gray. There are lots of people that left with tears in their eyes and those of us who are left behind will miss them a great deal. They were valuable employees, kind, fun, and hardworking.

It is pretty sad. Some of the people laid off have been with the firm for 10 years or so.

"With today's actions, we believe we have fully taken the necessary personnel steps to address current economic circumstances. We do not anticipate making any further non-lawyer or lawyer reductions in force."

*sigh*

20 - good Lord, that is so sad! Someone had a full career at a single firm and now it is all over - so quickly! A mere 40 years?

Save your pity, you stupid f*ck, for those with small children and large loans.

Don't be fooled 39. Ropes has been doing stealth layoff's for a couple of months now and while not outright saying it was for performance the people being laid off were led to believe it was despite good reviews, strong performance and assurances from manangemen. While most of the layoff's have been staff, it's a fair guess to say the number of layoff's is closer to 150 if you include everyone from December until now.

Don't let them fool you, severance is a pittance based on years of servitude (opps service) -- and not sure how they are "easing" the transition except to the unemployment line --

Don't be fooled 39. Ropes has been doing stealth layoff's for a couple of months now and while not outright saying it was for performance the people being laid off were led to believe it was despite good reviews, strong performance and assurances from manangement. While most of the layoff's have been staff, it's a fair guess to say the number of layoff's is closer to 150 if you include everyone from December until now. I know of at least four who were let go just last week prior to this announcement.

It is my understanding that Wilmer has been conducting stealth layoffs, so Wilmer is not in the clear by any means.

Choate certainly wins for the most stealth layoffs in my book though. They have done many this year.

So the question is which Boston firm has done more. Proskauer or Choate???

I am a R&G associate and NO stealth layoffs have occurred. NONE.

R&G is a classy firm and is doing its best to weather the recession.

I enjoy how they say :
"We do not anticipate making any further non-lawyer or lawyer reductions in force. "

Of course not, as of now there have been no lawyer reductions.

All this is going to do is cause the already overworked staff to be overworked even more!

They should have canned some of the clueless associates who do nothing but watch streaming videos all day. With just one of their yearly earnings they could have kept a half dozen staff.

This was a rough day for us at Ropes. I lost my assistant. She was wonderful. I thought the partners handeled this with a fair bit of class, if that is possible.

I know the firm did not have its best day today, but it is the way the firm handles these issues that makes me happy to be working here. I hope we ride this thing out, because the partners at the firm are some of the finest people I have ever worked with.

Proskauer (AKA the Cadwalader of this year) made it OK for firms to layoff staff.

We can all thank Proskauer for every layoff (staff or attorney) that happens in the near future.

Hey 46. You are flat out wrong.

I feel horribly for my secretary and the paralegals I worked with. I am going to try my damnedest to help them get a new job but the market is frozen.

This is indeed sad. I don't know much about R&G's other offices, but in NYC they had a wonderful staff and a few really good attorneys. Bill Hewitt comes to mind.

It is a good firm and I hope they do well. Heck, I hope we all do well.

Proskauer (AKA the Cadwalader of this year) made it OK for firms to layoff staff.

We can all thank Proskauer for every layoff (staff or attorney) that happens in the near future.

46: Let me second the earlier commentor, you are definitely wrong. There have been stealth layoffs at R&G, without question, coming out of December's Policy committee reviews.

Proskauer = Cadwalader X 2

46 is absolutely wrong. watch what happens at the end of Q1.

My secretary was with the firm for 20 years. A lot of good people were let go today. At least the firm had the decency to be honest and admit they were let go for economic reasons, instead of claiming it was performance.

People, its the 21st century, the old days of secretary word processing and filing is over. If you're under the age of 40, you should be an efficient self-reliant attorney. If you aren't, you're about to become a relic. No real law firm should have more than 2 attorneys assigned for a secretary. Compare this with the '70's where it was a one to one ratio.

Its unfortunate for those who have put in several years of work, but its no less unfortunate than telephone operators or toll both workers.

How can a firm justify cutting a secretary? Don't they make 20K or some small amount????

As to the comment about letting go of a lawyer rather than 6 support staff that is just crazy. Also, 160,000/6 = $26666. All the support staff that I know make 50-60K, yet they generate $0 for the firm.

Do support staff bill for their time? NO. Can attorneys do their work in a down economy with less staff? YES.

I guess that is why classy firms are opting to layoff support staff rather than lawyers who often go into $250K of debt to go to law school.

Don't get me wrong, it is horrible to lay anyone off, but lawyers make law firms money. Support staff do not generate money!

Law firms make money by billing lawyer's time. To think that a firm should get rid of lawyers rather that support staff is insane.

I bet according to Fortune this makes them the best-paid best company to work for now!

Oh please, they were honest about this layoff because they had to bee. Hard to layoff 106 people without someone noticing. But layoff's have been happening for months on the staff side and most associates wouldn't really have any clue it was going on.

Oh please, they were honest about this layoff because they had to be. Hard to layoff 106 people without someone noticing. But layoff's have been happening for months on the staff side and most associates wouldn't really have any clue it was going on.

0 stealth layoffs occurred. It is not a stealth layoff to let go of a few people who are not doing good work.

Sorry. 0 stealth layoffs occurred.

60. " Can attorneys do their work in a down economy with less staff? YES. " I disagree.

Most of the lawyers can not turn their own PC on without asking their staff how to do it. Now they have to do their own typing, emailing and other things like that.

"I guess that is why classy firms are opting to layoff support staff rather than lawyers who often go into $250K of debt to go to law school. "
So you are saying that someone who has more debt should not be laid off? Wow...I do belive that would be some sort of discrimination.

64= in denial.

Associates need to be far more proactive on this than they have been. If secretaries are making 40-50 percent of an associate, CUT secretaries. They add nothing of value.

Its not a stealth layoff if you performance is not up to par. Ropes has never said it did not let people go for performance. They do every May and December. You should all know that by now.

64 - Watch the Arrivals and Departure list leading up to March 31, then tell me there were no stealth layoffs. Staff are told to pack their things and go when they are laid off; Lawyers are given until the end of March to find a job. It happens every year, but this year will be worse.

fake firm, didn't read.

64 the only person you are trying to convince is yourself. Stealth layoffs absolutely did happen and have been for quite some time now. Yes, some of them were for performance, as it should be. However quite a few with over 5 years at the firm were let go. Those people had good reviews and received bonuses as recently as December 2008.

23/31 - the fact is that attys make money, even if not much and staff are "dead weight" in terms of operating cost when there is little work. More importantly, Atty's need to be retained to fill in the 3rd-4th year classses when the economy rebounds, staff are the same 'dead weight' and are easily replaced when that demand increases, more easily than home grown attys. I love my staff help, and I would be sad and lost without many of them, it's not that "I'm worth more" or "they deserve what they got" but the cold hard truth about how the firm needs to deal with the next few years, but remain viable come a turn around.

poor 64...keep trying to dodge the bullet.

65 = fired secretary.

Clearly it is now Wilmer >>> Ropes >>>>> Goodwin.

Number 4: judging by your screen name and signature - you are a gigantic loser, digitally personifying the colleague down the hall that no one likes (or cared for in school, for that matter). Take a pill and go study.

I think this whole thing is horrible, and feel terrible for everyone who was laid off, but 72 is correct. Even if I was billing only 1000 hours a year, I would still make over 450k a year for the firm, while a staff person makes $0. It seems to make sense to cut staff first as they are easy to rehire when things speed up.

I think it needs to be publicized how much these parasites are making. 70K????? for sitting on your ass 8 hours playing solitaire (while farting and enjoying your own foul stench!)???

This is probably not good news for me.

Any thanksgiving departures were not stealth and were for performance. Given that a firm would give them until March is very classy for performance layoffs.

Associates know how to type and do everything that secretaries do. In fact, when I give my secretary at Ropes work she tries to make me do it. I am sorry.

Support staff are not needed like they were in the past. They do not add much value to the firm.

Ropes def. engaged in stealth layoffs during the last review period that took place right before thanksgiving. They were given until March 1. I heard about 20 associates in the NY office were affected.

Anyone who thinks that Wilmer in Boston is even in the same league as Ropes & Gray should be committed to a rubber room.

R&G always has been and always will be the #1 firm in Boston.

Get a grip!

Has anyone mentioned the shame of international place???

Who wins ... Proskauer or Choate???

As a Thelenite who was blown hot air until the bitter end and drank the kool aid in kind, I have to laugh at some of you dumkopfs out there defending R&G. This is not your father's firm anymore. It's an f-ing business and you are a cog in the system, nothing more nothing less.

When they pull the rug out from under you don't say you weren't warned.

I offer this prayer to all the people who were laid-off and/or loss their jobs:

Most holy apostle, St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus, the Church honors and invokes you universally, as the patron of hopeless cases, of things almost despaired of. I pray for all the people who were laid-off and loss their jobs --- they are helpless and alone. Make use I implore you, of that particular privilege given to you, to bring visible and speed help where help is almost despaired of. Come to their assistance in this great need that they may receive the consolation and help of heaven in all their necessities, tribulations, and sufferings, particularly -- the layoffs -- and that they may praise God with you and all the elect forever. We promise O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favor, to always honor you as our special and powerful patron, and to gratefully encourage devotion to you. Amen.

I like all these comments about how staff bills $0. How long have you worked at a law firm?

Secretaries bill $0.
Paralegals bill and bill and bill, and make money for the firm. Especially comparing their paltry salaries to the overinflated associate salaries.

And no, I am not a paralegal, or secretary. I feel very bad for all the staffers that lost their jobs today.

you see 82, that might be kind of true in transactional practice. Unfortunately for you, transactional law is sh-- and will continue that way for the next 2 years or so. Ropes is only as good as transactional. So guess what? Ropes is sh-- until things come around.

41 = stupider fuck

ok, one kind of staff bills. Do you really think Ropes laid off 106 billing staff? How MANY were billing? If it's more than 10% I would be shocked. We all feel bad for people who lost their jobs - we are just calling out the classist crap coming from people who think it makes more sense to fire lawyers than staff.

Wilmer in Boston is in the same league as Ropes & Gray.

Wilmer in Boston is most certainly in the same league as Ropes & Gray.

89 - I am sure you are right that more non-billing staff was laid off. But I know that some paralegals were let go today and I just want to put it out there that they do bill. Because I can just imagine one of them that was laid off today reading these comments about how "lawyers are the only ones that make money for the firm so staff should be laid off." I wanted to set the record straight.

87 - Ropes has tons of non-transactional work. Unless doing regulatory filings and compliance for a large percentage of all US hospitals (and the filings/compliance for most mutual funds) counts as transactional. And then there's our huge IP group in NY (about half of the attorneys there are IP lit). We don't have many deals going (although there are some) but the firm has plenty to keep it busy other than transactional work.

what does this mean for summers???

They claimed today that summers would still have their spots.

If WilmerHale is NOT engaging in stealth layoffs (at least of staff), I would be shocked. The old H+D fired staff in dribs and drabs during previous recessions in order to avoid it getting picked up by the press.

#22 -- the only thing I can say to you is that you are a selfish SOB! The mere fact that you think laying off "staff" because they do not make 6 figures is "ok" is completely inhuman. Its people like you that deserve the boot in the backside! I have worked with MANY fantastic lawyers at Ropes but I do hope you are not one of their employees as you are an embarrassment! A lot of the staff who were laid off today were wonderful people who some of us developed friendships over the years with and to see them lose their jobs like THAT was very upsetting. Some of these people have families -- mouths to feed, roofs to keep over their heads, etc. Shame on you!!

From the sounds of Malt's memo and given rumors that have been flying around the office for a while now, today's layoff basically accelerated the elimination of positions that were going to be eliminated more gradually through attrition and retirement. I am sure that associates are wondering whether the firm is achieving a desirable level of associate attrition and whether it plans to reduce headcount in light of the answer to that.

34 is an angry dope in dismay.

-28

if a firm is laying off this many staff, clearly they do not have much work.

Is Ropes' summer class oversubscribed?

No stealth layoffs . . . normal year-end stuff only. It doesn't matter how much malcontents insist that there were stealth layoffs.

101, our summer class is always oversubscribed. Get used to it, summer. Gulp the Kool-Aid. Its the only way to get ahead.

So, keep associates because they're harder to replace - even though many of them have NO work right now and lay off an account services rep with 20 yrs at the firm? Sure, that makes sense - in "entitlement land." Doesn't surprise me.
I'd hold off on buying that big gold yacht though . . . more layoffs will come - wouldn't want you stuck repaying the student loans using your trust fund. gasp!

I hope my firm follows ropes lead here and cuts the stinky secretary fat, and cuts deep! Absurd and insulting that my hard work is subsidizing these scum to the tune of 60,000 or more a year while I ride the God damn subway to save money.

82 = idiot

86, sure a paralegal bills, but at what rate? I bill at over $500 an hour. If a client were presented for paralegal hours anywhere near $250, they would kill someone (over the phone, of course.) $500 - 85 (my hourly) = $415 profit. $250 - 35 (low -end of paralegal hourly) = $215. Hey, I see your point--let's can the guy making nearly twice the profit per hour...

As cold as I am sure all the legal staff on this board think I am, this is a business, not a charity. The firm has to do what makes sense financially. Legal staff is easier to bring on board in a pinch, and makes the most financial sense to cut in a bad spot. Attorneys need to do some of their own leg work in slow times. This keeps talent in the firm for the future, while maintaining the most profitable employees.

Lawyers have taken the costly risk of developing a legal career. The market compensates them for that risk. There is no "unfair" cult doctrine floating around firms that determines attorneys get 160k a year while staff gets canned. Economics does that.

107: twice the profit at twice the cost. duh!

I would LOVE to see the associates and partners do anything without their staff. Most of them could not pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the bottom!

First sign of trouble these overpaid babies go running to their admins "my pc is broke" "how do I use my phone" "waaaaahhh"

I am stunned. I am literally living in the Great Depression 2.0. Unreal. Were I not sterile, I could tell my grandchildren of these times.

Lawyers should not be making 500 an hour to begin with. Teaches, Fireman and Policeman should.

Going to interesting state of the firm address next week at RG.

Does anyone seriously think that associates will not be next, in one form or another (unless, of course, each associate and partner had their own secretary/ paralegal....)

109 -- Hope that's comforting ... but I bet you, going forward, the lawyers remaining at R&P will do just fine

107 - If a client is being billed an attorney's hourly rate for doing paralegal work then that is highly unethical. And we all know the associates are hoarding and doing paralegal work these days. So yes, in that situation, I do expect an associate to be laid off instead of a paralegal.

Note to clients of Biglaw: Review your bills carefully in this economy and make sure you are not paying attorney prices for staff level work.

To be clear - staffers allows attorneys to bill clients for work they will pay for -- clients will not pay $500/hr so an associate can make photocopies on their dime.

leverage and economics works both ways --

103, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean

Survey idea -- who will be the last firm to layoff associates?

#107 --just because you were foolish enough to pay all that money so you could conduct doc reviews your first 3 years, doesnt mean that you deserve to keep your job.

Seems to me from having paid attention to what has been going on in the market that oftentimes staff layoffs precede lawyer layoffs. Every associate at every firm in every practice area needs to be cognizant that each and every one of us could be gone tomorrow. Why? Because the partnerships have cover in this economy to shed anyone they don't want.

It is unethical for firms to pay secretaries 75 grand a year as those wages go into legal bills but are disguised in the associate rates. Do the ETHICAL THING law firms, and cut secretary pay to the market 6 bucks an hour these swine deserve.

Support staff is getting cut because they are more easily replaced and most firms have more excess in support staff than they do in attorneys. 20 years ago, an attorney could not function without a sect. Today, most junior associates barely use a sect. If it were not for the 50 year old plus partners, most firms could cut 25% of the sects. The same is true of paralegals, Even 5 years ago, an active litigation required a full time paralegal. Today, one can easily handle two active cases. And as more firms move to electronic billing the same will be follow in those departments.

Ropes & Gray hires 100 percent of its summer associate class ever year and in speaking with someone in the recruiting office it appears they have every intention of doing the same this year.

121 - firms cannot function without support staff. They are literally the most important parts of the firm. Hence, their seemingly high salary.

Why would laying off staff mean there was trouble for the summer class? Is there a summer class of staff?

125- dont be a dope. Laying off staff is a sign that the firm has financial problems. Financial problems are not good for the attorneys in teh firm, particularly the least experienced attorneys in the firm. See?

104--My mom was a legal secretary. I am now an associate. If I get fired, there is no trust fund to pay the 160k in school loans I took out.

I worked my ass off in high school, I worked my ass off in college, I worked my ass off in law school--at least 12 hours per day, 6-7 days per week for the last 13 years (since I have been 16 years old). I did this so I didn't have to do your job and the job my mom did. She didn't want that for me either.

You had the same choice. You chose to do fun things while I worked.

If you would like to go to law school, the loans are available, believe me. Until then, accept your career, enjoy your weekends, and start taking ownership for your own life--failures and successes. Don't blame people who do well for themselves financially and worked hard for more job security than you have earned.

To be fair, it looks like a lot of the cuts were made by letting go of experienced, highly compensated staff not assigned to partners. The floating secretaries (who were only there to cover other secretaries) are stepping in to replace them.

Paralegals are apparently being fired because "junior associates can do their jobs" which I find absurd, since the senior paralegals know much more about their specialty areas than even partners do.

Tomorrow morning we will all pretend to love and respect each other. Its the R&G way.

Not to sound callous, but legal secretaries are no longer needed.

128, is exactly right about senior paralegals vs. junior associates. Junior associates are about as useful as putting a chimp in front of a computer.

For all you igornant asses that don't think support staff hold any value, let me see you do any of the following WITHOUT US:

type and format these documents that you can't do because you don't know how to effectively use your computer without asking for OUR help,

answer your phones when you're to damn lazy to answer it yourself,

copy your documents while you stand around bitching and stratching your balls,

get files for you because you can't locate the fileroom or even know the damn file number

and scan a document? please! Half of you don't know where the f*cking scanner is located!

The bottom line is you CAN'T do your job WITHOUT US! I want to see you bill 1900 hours AND do our jobs! Support staff is not just secretaries sitting around on our asses playing on the internet. We are your fileclerks, IT department, mailroom, copy centers, paralegals and yes secretaries. The day you can do ALL of our jobs WITHOUT any assistance from US, is the day when we hold no value!

131 is an idiot - junior associates grow up to be big bad ass lawyers. Paralegals grow up to be paralegals.

Has anyone from Ropes heard about the job security of the incoming class? Particularly IP in the NY office?

131--Were you born as a senior associate or a partner?

Or are you another aggrieved legal secretary, paralegal or support staff that didn't have the guts or desire to go to law school?

Idiot.

134 - NY IP Litigation is great.

132--Attorneys have the time to make our copies and figure out how to use the fancy scanner right now. That's why you were laid off.

When attorneys are too busy again to do things you mistakenly think attorneys can't figure out, you will get hired again.

Until then, realize that your chose to be expendable. Attorneys chose to work very hard and be your boss.

Attorneys appreciate your hard work and it is very unfortunate that you have to be laid off. But, if attorneys lay all the attorneys off, there will be no law firm to hire SUPPORT staff for when business picks back up.

135 -- This is 131 - I am in fact a lawyer, not a paralegal.

And if all you sniveling junior associates are so worried about paying off your law school loans maybe you should better manage your fat salaries while you are making them. Because you should already have made a big dent in those loans so that you should not be so worried about them if you are laid off.

132 - if you really believe that, you truly belong in the bottom rung of this law firm. You think you're so damn special - look at what you wrote. Those things that you list are the STARTING POINT for any lawyer, not a list of qualifications for the HELP. If in the skills section your resume says "knowledge of windows office" or "experience with word, excel, and powerpoint" you are the HELP. And HELP you will be always be, except now you're fired HELP.

How do I respond to 132?

"type and format these documents that you can't do because you don't know how to effectively use your computer without asking for OUR help"

I type 60 words per minute, I understand how to format word documents and I can use styles because I'm NOT AN IDIOT, I grew up using computers.

"answer your phones when you're to damn lazy to answer it yourself,"

I get maybe a couple dozen calls a day, I get between 100 and 500 e-mails a day. This is how the world works today. If I'm not there to take a call there's this novel invention called voicemail.

"copy your documents while you stand around bitching and stratching your balls,"

If its a big job we use the copy service. If it isn't who copies documents these days unless you're closing, and if you're closing its too important to trust to a secretary, that's what first years do. Anything that's copied needs to be reviewed, and if it has to be reviewed you might as well have the reviewer do the copying.

"get files for you because you can't locate the fileroom or even know the damn file number"

Paperless offices are becoming the norm, all of my files are in electronic form. I can't remember the last deal I did where we actually had a hard closing binder rather than a disc.

"and scan a document? please! Half of you don't know where the f*cking scanner is located!"

If its important enough to scan, I do it myself. Again, if its done by somebody else it needs to be reviewed. Why is the middle person relevant?

Echoing 130, legal secretaries are looking at a future of extinction. I could probably do 80% of my work from my home office, eventually the streamlined manner of practicing law will replace the archaic system of huge per hour fees that are wasted on unnecessary artwork, mahogany furniture that clients don't care about, ridiculous rents and needless support staff.

132 - are you joking?

1) Formatting: MS Word does it all for me
2) Telephone: Please stop answering my phone - everyone prefers VM
3) Copying and scanning: Kinkos!
4) File room: I concede, where is the file room?

131/138--Sniveling? hahaha. We are you 10 years ago douchebag. You might think we aren't, but we are.

You should better manage your marriages so that you don't lose half of your assets every 10 years in embarrassing divorces. See, generalizations are silly, aren't they?

137--First I am not laid off...very much gainfully employed. We work just as hard as attorneys. We are the backbone of your practice. We are that first voice your clients here when they call the office. You have support staff so that you don't have to figure out what we already know.

Unless you own a law firm, you have a boss too. Face it, EVERYBODY is expendable ... even you!

Early December 2008, Ropes informs non-attorney staff of salary freezes across the board.

Mid December 2008, Ropes hands out very low bonuses to non-attorney staff based on questionable performance reviews.

First half January 2009, Ropes announces normal salary increases for associates, as well bonuses.

January 29, 2009, Ropes fires 106 non-attorney staff.

So, who is subsidizing the associates' salaries?

The next time you want someone to remind you that you need to get your bills out, so that everyone in the firm can continue to get paid, don't expect your secretary to do it since we're so unnecessary.

The next time you need your secretary to stay overtime because you have pages and pages of edits and don't want to be there until 5:00am, don't ask us because we're so unnecessary.

The next time you need your diaries entered so you get paid that month, but you are too busy writing a brief, don't ask me to do it, because we're unnecessary.

The next time you need to figure out how to get something to a country that doesn't have regular postal service, you go right ahead and do it and ignore the rest of your work, because your secretaries are so unnecessary.

The next time you need someone to pick up your phone and cover for your ass with the client because you didn't do what they wanted in the time they wanted or with a partner because you're avoiding them or with your wife because you were busy banging your girlfriend, don't look at me, because I'm unnecessary.

I could go on and on.

I lost a bunch of friends in this R&G layoff and it's hard to imagine what they're going to do to feed their families in this economy. Not everyone was worth the money they were being paid, but most of them were and it's hard to see them go. It's even harder to come here and read how truly little attorneys think of support staff.

145,

"It's even harder to come here and read how truly little attorneys think of support staff."

You realize that 90%+ of the people commenting on ATL are law students or people not even yet in law school, right?

145--Everybody loves their staff. The point several earlier posters made is that attorneys should have been laid off instead of staff. Then, the coversation evolved poorly as several people called attorneys "entitled" and "trust fund babies."

Don't think most attorneys don't love their staff, they really do--including me! I just hate to be told that I didn't earn the spot I am in or that I am lazy.

This recession is very sad and I think it is causing frustrated people to become very defensive and say things that should not be said. Good luck to ANYONE that has been laid off.

140/142 - are you kidding me??? I would love you to see you do it all yourself every day. If you can do it all yourself, you are definitely not making your 1900 billable hours this year. Btw, Kinkos doesn't work in your firm idiot. And you are not so special that they are going to come running to your every beckoning call.

I really hope it was your support staff that was let go so you can realize how much they are needed and under appreciated.

I agree with 145, and I'm a R+G associate. Today was a very hard day at R+G for everyone (arguably the hardest day in the firm's history) but especially hard for those who were asked to leave and the staff members who remain and think that they aren't valued, respected, and an integral part of our practices. It is disrespectful and pours salt on the wound to call these people unnecessary or fat/lazy bums. Many of the people who were laid off were very hard working, decent people who did a lot for the firm.

142 - Actually, you are not me 10 years ago. I didn't get the ridiculously exorbitant amount of money that you did right out of law school for knowing nothing. Don't get me wrong, I did okay, but starting associate salaries were a bit more sane at that time.

"Images by Tyrone Green"

Dark and lonely in the Boston 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!

"I would love you to see you do it all yourself every day. "

Its called being a hard working American that takes pride and ownership in his work and has grown up with technology that enables one to be self-reliant. Granted, there are more senior attorneys that don't understand the internet/e-mail/basic typing, but as the workforce becomes more populated with efficient workers secretaries won't be necessary. Most of the junior associates that I work with are even more astonished as to the need for the dozens of secretaries that the firm has on payroll. Most of these kids are used to texting and blogging, do you think they need a secretary for them to keep their work in order?

I actually like my secretary, she's a nice woman but I've had her work maybe 15 hours for me in the last year. If she was let go I wouldn't miss her a bit.

-140

142--Well, then I am sure you have voted at some time for salary increases for your first year class. You did this so you could get the best prospects and keep making exorbitant money as a partner.

Kudos to 149! A voice of reason.

There have been stealth layoffs. Anyone who says that the only people laid off were people who were doing no work is failing to recognize that the reason there is no work is because of the economy.

23/31 - if you're going to make broad generalizations about attorneys (i.e., that they don't need a paycheck to put food on the table for their families), then you should also admit that most admin staff are older ladies, who are either around retirement age anyway or are married and can rely on their husband's income. second, being an out of work admin person for 3, 6, 12, 24 months will not kill your career. being an out of work 2nd year attorney for that long most likely will.

i actually commend RP for laying off staff before associates. who even uses their secretary for anything, anyway?

I am amused by the postings of some Ropes associates, on a blog commenting on staff layoffs no less, actually having the balls to rationalize their own so-called worth and value. One would think more of them would want to come on here and post their regrets for some of the good people that were booted out the door today. I am convinced that some Ropes associates with their insatiable appetites will suffocate a newborn infant if it meant they would get a bigger bonus. But the silver lining for these types of associates is that the firm allows them to cleanse their consciences by performing various pro bono work that politically speaking is to the left of Lenin.

“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it people like me.”

Stuart Smalley or Ropes associate? You decide.

To the earlier commentators who are so damn sure that Ropes has had "zero stealth layoffs -- zero!!", I would like to ask: how the heck do you know? Isn't that the point of stealth layoffs? To disguise what would usually be considered economy-driven layoffs by firing associates in dribs and drabs and couching them as performance related?

This firm has hundreds of associates across countless practice groups throughout eight offices. I have no idea if Ropes has conducted stealth layoffs (although, the current economic realities suggest to me that the firm probably has), but it's laughable to act like you are so certain that it hasn't.

72 hit the nail on the head.

145 - don't worry, we can find another high school grad to do your oh so hard job of PUTTING PAPER IN AN ENVELOPE for 80K a year and a 401(k) match (and not a minute before 9 am or a minute after 5 pm or the shit hits the fan).

AllHailWilmer in Boston is not nearly as good as Ropes. Everyone knows that. Wilmer is strong in D.C. (although not as strong as Williams & Connolly or Covington) and strong in New York (in their niche securities practice). Everywhere else it is an also ran.

I believe those with the inferiority complex are the ones needing to post to justify their own status. With that, I think the Ropes/Wilmer relationship becomes clear as whenever there is a Ropes posting, there are tons of posts saying Wilmer is better, but the reverse doesn't happen.

Thank you 145!

Ropes Associate here. I really did value my assistant. She wasn't the best, but who cares I am not the best Associate. She was a good person and I hope she lands somewhere else before the severance runs out.

Ropes is a decent place to work despite what happened today. The partners are kind people and I really do wish them the best. I know the policy committee would have avoided these cuts if they could have.

145 - you're the best! and admitting to billing fraud on this blog shows that, golly, you're really a smart cookie!

I hope that staff reading this realize that 99% of attorneys really do appreciate staff and don't judge that balance from the posts here, many of which are not attorneys at all.

29, go die in a fire. "Boring" white male? Yeah, it's really too bad that my racial heritage doesn't bring the intrigue and excitement that being a beneficiary of AA does, but at least I can say I earned everything I've accomplished for myself in my career.

to number 60
the marketing team writes the RFP's to get the business for partners. Attorneys are mentally retarded when it comes to marketing themselves, and without us, you'd be nowhere. Plus, to every assoiciate dogging paralegals, marketing pros and legal assistants, you are all useless when you first get to a firm. Without us, you'd feel the wrath of partners even more. So don't pretend we aren't necessary parts of the firm. And marketing individuals do help bring money into the firm.

166: Nothing in 145's post indicated billing fraud, congrats on outing yourself as being completely ignorant about the day to day business of a law firm.

167: Thanks, some of us do appreciate the class of those identifying themselves as R&G.

For those of you complaining about your "lazy" secretaries; they are only as busy as the lawyers they work for.

You pull in minimum hours, have nothing for secretaries to do...and then are mystified at your next performance review when you are fired. I will have the decency to have sympathy for you, it's a shame you can't extend the same to others.

is Ropes' response to the downturn much different from other firms? it seems the partners have leaned heavily on staff while going easy on associates. more so than other firms. Any thoughts as to why this has been the case?

-Not a Ropes attorney

RE: Staff v. Associates

It's not personal, it's economics.

Ropes charges clients absurdly high billable rates because they are able to portray themselves as the best shop in town. In order to do that they need to act like the best shop in town and to be perceived as such. Integral to this is obtaining top law students from top schools. And these top law students from these top schools have numerous firms willing to pay them 160k when they graduate. So if the best shop in town decides to fire a good number of associates, you can be sure that these top students will go elsewhere. This is turn will cost Ropes their position as the best shop in town, and ultimately the very high billing rates the partners love so dearly.

Staff, on the other hand, play a tangential role that is mostly behind the scenes. This minimal and mostly invisible inolvement, combined with the fact that there is always a large supply of able-bodied staff out there, mean that Ropes can get away axing them and still maintaining their image and billing rates.

It's not personal, it's economics.

For any associates rationalizing today's events: you do realize what is different here is that Ropes is taking out ALL of its cost cutting on staff, right? At least most other firms had the balls to cut some associates, too. But not Ropes...they're going to ride the staff until the bitter end. Sooner or later, clients will understand that paying $400/hr for an associate to do paralegal's work is insane. Once client's start to really leverage into Big Law's billing schemes, look for associate heads to start to roll. Keep rationalizing....

172,
keep rationalizing to yourself that as an associate, you are protected. Cutting staff means that the firm needs to cut costs. This means associates might be next.

Have more sympathy for those less fortunate than you. We might be joining them soon.

172: if staff are so easily replaced, then why have I seen Ropes STRUGGLE to fill senior paralegal positions for as long as 8 months? Get over yourself: at some point, you're a cog in the wheel, too. I also remember that I play a tangential role when a partner asks me to train an associate on how to close a deal or take point in dealing with the client.

175, yfwgi.

I like my secretary a lot. She is a kind woman and genuinely cares about everyone around her. It would be a truly sad thing for her, her family and me if she were laid off. You can't help but grow attached to people like that. But, I am not so attached to her that I would sacrifice myself in her place.

Attorneys can earn their own keep, or at least part of it. Staff can't. Once an associate is thrown out of Biglaw, they can't come back. Staff can. When times were good, the associates were the ones there until 3am busting their asses to close the deal. Staff works 8 hour shifts containing at least 5 hours of gabbing with the other secretaries.

Most of all, when the work comes back, you will need a team of associates trained to run your deals the way you want them run. That can take months or years to learn, depending on the complexity and the partner's preferences. Staff can be replaced more easily.

If you just think about it from a business perspective, it makes more sense to keep the associates. If you think about it from a fairness point, it is better to keep those who sacrificed so much to get there, and whose labor made you rich in the good times. We will do it again. We are sorry about the staff. We liked them too. But, we gave you more and will continue to give you more.

The level of rationalization of associates on this board is quite staggering. The self-pity here for associates is disgusting. If any of your R&G turd associates actually did get let go, we can expect a meltdown here of epic proportions...and I'll return to soak it all in...couldn't happen to a nicer group of folks. Karma's gonna be a real bitch this time around. Enjoy your bonus and salary increases while you can.

Back when I was a paralegal before law school I distinctly remember a secretary telling me she couldn't believe she got paid over 50k to do what she did - which was to essentially answer some phone calls and update outlook calendars.

179: I bet there are some clients out there looking at their Ropes bill and wondering "Why the hell should I be paying $300-$400 for a Ropes associate to chimp work? Let's just get a real chimp in-house. Chimps are funny, too. Call the zoo."

180: don't insult chimps.

It's interesting that for all the crap DC here gets not one DC-based firm has yet to come out with any significant layoff news.

18 - I haven't been laid off but my experience may give you some indication of how difficult it is to find a job.

I'm a law clerk for a federal District Judge. I graduated in the top 10% of my class from a top-20 law school. Law review, blah blah blah. I summered for two summers at a Vault top-5 firm. I turned down their offer in the fall of '07, thinking I had plenty of time to find the job of my dreams since I would be starting my clerkship in the fall of '08.

Wrong. I have applied to more than 90 firms and haven't even landed an interview. When I was in law school, I interviewed with 14 firms, received 11 callbacks, took 7 of the callbacks, and received 5 offers.

It's interesting that for all the crap DC gets here not one DC-based firm has yet to come out with any significant layoff news.

I called some buds up and we gave my sec'y a bukkake; then I fired her. She was cool with it - until I made her do the exit walk past all the other cubies without cleaning up her face first.

I'll never forget her. Good luck out there girl.

167,

seconded.

185, real mature.

Ropes & Gray = Third-Tier Toilet PIECE OF SHIT PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A LAW FIRM. FUCK YOU, ROPES & GRAY. GOOD RIDDANCE.

16

Right on, I recently lost my secretary to a layoff as well, and it was awful. I'm pretty self-reliant, so it wasn't like I used her for typing/proofing, but she was very nice and always willing to pitch in/offer insight on how things were at the firm (she'd been there 15+ years). While I'm glad I still have my job, it sucks that good people who really don't deserve to be let go are suffering due to the economy. Good for you for having some empathy, I hope the people making light of this and other layoffs are either 21 year old undergrads or find out firsthand how "funny" it is to lose a job you worked damn hard at.

Enough already! The people spewing vitriol on both sides (either against associates or the support staff) are pathetic, insecure and petty individuals. For heaven's sake, NO ONE is indispensable and everyone's a cog in Big Law. Likewise, neither associates nor staff are being "overpaid"; salaries are dictated by the market and reflect what firms believe attorneys and staff are worth. The discrepancies between attorney and staff salaries reflect the sustained effort, labor, intelligence, and money needed for a legal education. For those who whine "unfairness", what exactly is a "fair" salary and upon what grounds will you dictate it? The market isn't perfect, but it's the best means for determining what a fair wage is for a given job.

So, to the gloating associates: stop being such arrogant a** holes; I wouldn't be surprised if many of the laid off staff are better, more decent and (for some of them) smarter individuals than you are. To the self-righteous staff, you're not nearly as heroic as you make yourselves out to be and your indignant rants against associates only thinly veil your envy at earning less.

A job is just a job. Whatever its practical importance, it is no measure of someone's humanity.

Ropes & Gray = Third-Tier Toilet PIECE OF SHIT PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A LAW FIRM. FUCK YOU, ROPES & GRAY. GOOD RIDDANCE.

R&G attorneys - any news about those of us slated to start at Ropes this Fall? Do you think they'll push back our start date? Are they worried about how many of us there are?

It is an absolute scandal that these secretaries are making 75 grand a year or more, plus 25K in benefits, while associates are being shit canned left and right.

More Associates Committees need to take up this issue with the partners and work for real reductions in staff, and permanent cuts in this ridiculous pay. No wonder clients have to pay so much per attorney hour as the ridiculous costs of 100K secretaries are baked in.....

Ropes & Gray:

Rip
Off
People
Eat
Shit

&

Go
Rock
Ass
Yesterday

127 - we get it, walked up hill a mile each way to get to this fictitious job too, right? hard to believe you were raised by a working mom when you have so little respect - she must be proud! And interesting (though typical, so it shouldn't surprise me) that you assume someone is lazy and uneducated because they choose a profession other than law. Stop whining about working hard and try to imagine that other non-lawyers may possibly have more education - and many certainly have more empathy -than you.
189 - oh thank, thank you, thank you for your kind concession that SOME non-lawyers possess a brain and might possibly be smarter than associates. . maybe. you're a hero.
here's an alien thought - maybe the partners could've taken a tad under a million PPP and kept some hardworking people employed? Nah. They'd still be rich, just a little less rich and that just wouldn't do. Better to send these idiot non-lawyers (and their children) packing. Sure, they have little to no chance of finding another job, but that's the choice they made when they decided they didn't want to be attorneys and accepted a position at R&G. Loyalty should work both ways - but what do I know? Neither of my graduate degrees are in law. (And I sleep better for it.)

This thread makes me pretty sad.

Any ecosystem, any community, any company, and any law firm needs all kinds of people --with different talents and different experiences-- to survive and thrive.

If somebody has to get fired, I understand the impulse to say "better him than me." Certainly, I'd rather keep my job than lose it. And if it came down to me and one other person, I'd just as soon that other person lose all their fingers in a bizarre fishing accident if that's what needed to happen for me to keep my job.

But what I don't understand is the reflexive need to attach the binary reality of "having a job" with some extra rationalization of desert or import. There is now overwhelming evidence that the entire American economy went of course, yet individual (perhaps temporary) winners still seem almost desperate to explain their good fortune as a function of being "better" or "more than" people not as fortunate.

Whether you are spiritual or secular or somewhere in between, isn't there room in your personal philosophy for the concept of "bad luck?"

I don't know. As natural as it might be for people to define themselves by the job they do, the ultimate weakness of Marx's philosophy is that some people -- perhaps most people -- *don't* define themselves based on their professional situation.
I know I'm going to get ripped for these comments (and the b***** of it is that I'm going to get ripped in some way that is not readily apparent to me at this moment) but after reading through this thread I felt compelled to suggest that there is no satisfactory "reason" why staff got fired from Ropes today, while attorneys did not. At least no reason that can be easily attributable to the particular choices of individual people.

To paraphrase: There's a lot of bad luck floating around out there. I guess it had to land on someone. But that doesn't mean I killed my wife.
--Elie

YES, ELIE MYSTAL.

YES, YES, YES.

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE THINKING THAT THEY ARE "BETTER" THAN EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE THEY WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE MISSED THE CHOPPING BLOCK.

THEY WILL GET WHAT'S COMING TO THEM.

THEY WILL SOON HAVE THEIR NECKS ON THE LINE.

THEY WILL SOON LOSE THEIR JOBS, NOT BECAUSE OF BAD PERFORMANCE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY AND THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES.

THEN, THESE PEOPLE WILL BE CONFUSED ABOUT WHY THEY'VE LOST THEIR JOBS, AND THEY WILL COME HERE POSTING ABOUT HOW "LUCKY" THEY ARE TO HAVE SUDDENLY REALIZED THAT THEIR FIRM IS A NO-GOOD TWO-BIT BACKSTABBER.

YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN?

THE BALL'S IN YOUR COURT NOW.

Ropes & Gray sold us out.

January’s Carnage: 1,487 Law Layoffs
Posted Jan 29, 2009, 02:15 pm CST

By Martha Neil

So far, it hasn't been a happy new year for many lawyers working at well-known law firms throughout the country.

As 2009 began, so did news of a growing tsunami of attorney layoffs being made at many BigLaw firms—not to mention London's magic circle, in-house legal departments and midsize law partnerships.

The latest wave followed hundreds of lawyer layoffs announced last year, but the pace of the attorney axings seems to be picking up: It appears that at least 500 attorneys have been let go by major legal employers this month, according to news reports, and additional layoffs may have been made without attracting media attention.

This afternoon, the Law Shucks blog listed a total of 1,381 layoffs reportedly being pursued by law firms based in the U.S. and abroad during January, in a chart on its Layoff Tracker page. (This figure included both attorneys and staff.) By the end of the day, the layoffs total had been increased to 1,487, after Ropes & Gray announced that it is letting 106 staff members go.

"More firms are in a fragile condition than I've ever seen," legal consultant William Brennan of Altman Weil Inc. recently told the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.).

However, law firms making layoffs likely will be on a stronger financial footing as a result, and in layoff announcements they routinely say their financial condition is strong. Those at risk appear to be not law firms making layoffs but, as discussed in the newspaper article and an earlier ABAJournal.com post, law firms like the dissolving Heller Ehrman that lose a critical mass of partners who voluntarily depart for jobs elsewhere.

As several articles about lawyer layoffs also note, a number of law firms are naming new partners and hiring laterally, even as they ax attorneys in slow practice areas. The financial well-being of the firms that fired them, though, may be of little consolation to laid-off lawyers, as the Above the Law blog has frequently pointed out in its posts.

Among those on the ever-lengthening layoffs list are Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft (9 associates); Choate Hall & Stewart (15 lawyers and 23 staff); Clifford Chance (up to 80 London associates); Cooley Godward Kronish (52 attorneys and 62 staff); Foley Hoag (a total of 32 associates and staff); Kirkland & Ellis (about 15 lawyers, according to legal recruiters); Linklaters (at least 100 lawyers and 130 staff); Merrill Lynch (6 senior in-house counsel); Morrison & Foerster (53 attorneys and 148 staff); Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein (13 lawyers and 15 staff); Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (an unspecified number of staff attorneys apparently amounting to nearly half of the staff attorney group); Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon (approximately 10 attorneys); and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (45 lawyers and 68 staff).

Other law firms have announced staff cuts, but have avoided lawyer layoffs, at least for now.

What is so hard to understand that paying hundreds of people 2 and 3 times their market value to stuff envelopes and answer phones is actually part of what ails biglaw? These ridiculous costs feed into sky high billing rates and the constant pressure on rainmakers to bring in yet more and more work, at higher and higher rates.

I fear we will see more associate layoffs today and in the near future. Knowing that secretaries are being paid a small fortune for doing nothing of value, I am finally starting to "get" why firms have to do this - after all, cutting a secretary who has been paid 100K a year for decades, with no student loans, is clearly not as acceptable as shit canning a first year....

My worries are for the young Harvard and Yale Law grads who did everything right, have a ton of debt, and whose career will be stained if not destroyed by the layoffs today and in the near future.

My hopes are that associates will finally stop worrying about what partners make, and focus on those flying under the radar, making as much or more per hour, and draining the firms of precious cash. I resolve to do as much secretarial stuff (it is not billable kids) to show my firm that costs can be cut, and that hard to recruit HYS associates are not the problem.
.

Enough already! The people spewing vitriol on both sides (either against associates or the support staff) are pathetic, insecure and petty individuals. For heaven's sake, NO ONE is indispensable and everyone's a cog in Big Law. Likewise, neither associates nor staff are being "overpaid"; salaries are dictated by the market and reflect what firms believe attorneys and staff are worth. The discrepancies between attorney and staff salaries reflect the sustained effort, labor, intelligence, and money needed for a legal education. For those who whine "unfairness", what exactly is a "fair" salary and upon what grounds will you dictate it? The market isn't perfect, but it's the best means for determining what a fair wage is for a given job.

So, to the gloating associates: stop being such arrogant a** holes; I wouldn't be surprised if many of the laid off staff are better, more decent and (for some of them) smarter individuals than you are. To the self-righteous staff, you're not nearly as heroic as you make yourselves out to be and your indignant rants against associates only thinly veil your envy at earning less.

A job is just a job. Whatever its practical importance, it is no measure of someone's humanity.

Enough already! The people spewing vitriol on both sides (either against associates or the support staff) are pathetic, insecure and petty individuals. For heaven's sake, NO ONE is indispensable and everyone's a cog in Big Law. Likewise, neither associates nor staff are being "overpaid"; salaries are dictated by the market and reflect what firms believe attorneys and staff are worth. The discrepancies between attorney and staff salaries reflect the sustained effort, labor, intelligence, and money needed for a legal education. For those who whine "unfairness", what exactly is a "fair" salary and upon what grounds will you dictate it? The market isn't perfect, but it's the best means for determining what a fair wage is for a given job.

So, to the gloating associates: stop being such arrogant a** holes; I wouldn't be surprised if many of the laid off staff are better, more decent and (for some of them) smarter individuals than you are. To the self-righteous staff, you're not nearly as heroic as you make yourselves out to be and your indignant rants against associates only thinly veil your envy at earning less.

A job is just a job. Whatever its practical importance, it is no measure of someone's humanity.

Enough already! The people spewing vitriol on both sides (either against associates or the support staff) are pathetic, insecure and petty individuals. For heaven's sake, NO ONE is indispensable and everyone's a cog in Big Law. Likewise, neither associates nor staff are being "overpaid"; salaries are dictated by the market and reflect what firms believe attorneys and staff are worth. The discrepancies between attorney and staff salaries reflect the sustained effort, labor, intelligence, and money needed for a legal education. For those who whine "unfairness", what exactly is a "fair" salary and upon what grounds will you dictate it? The market isn't perfect, but it's the best means for determining what a fair wage is for a given job.

So, to the gloating associates: stop being such arrogant a** holes; I wouldn't be surprised if many of the laid off staff are better, more decent and (for some of them) smarter individuals than you are. To the self-righteous staff, you're not nearly as heroic as you make yourselves out to be and your indignant rants against associates only thinly veil your envy at earning less.

A job is just a job. Whatever its practical importance, it is no measure of someone's humanity.

201, yfwgi.

Enough already! The people spewing vitriol on both sides (either against associates or the support staff) are pathetic, insecure and petty individuals. For heaven's sake, NO ONE is indispensable and everyone's a cog in Big Law. Likewise, neither associates nor staff are being "overpaid"; salaries are dictated by the market and reflect what firms believe attorneys and staff are worth. The discrepancies between attorney and staff salaries reflect the sustained effort, labor, intelligence, and money needed for a legal education. For those who whine "unfairness", what exactly is a "fair" salary and upon what grounds will you dictate it? The market isn't perfect, but it's the best means for determining what a fair wage is for a given job.

So, to the gloating associates: stop being such arrogant a** holes; I wouldn't be surprised if many of the laid off staff are better, more decent and (for some of them) smarter individuals than you are. To the self-righteous staff, you're not nearly as heroic as you make yourselves out to be and your indignant rants against associates only thinly veil your envy at earning less.

A job is just a job. Whatever its practical importance, it is no measure of someone's humanity.

"My worries are for the young Harvard and Yale Law grads"

Hahaha, Brilliant. Pure Gold!

206 - if you don't know a shit ton of top law grads, you are not in big law. Academic success =/= bad person, you clown.

Thank you, Elie. Thank you. Ropes is a good firm regardless of this event. They handled it well. The people they let go - the vast majority - were good people. Good workers and good human beings. What the firm did, it did for purely economic reasons. It sucks to be on the tail end of that . . .

Frankly, I'd rather lose my job than have a friend lose their fingers, but that's me. No one likes to see people they like (and NEED) let go. Sadly, these are the times in which we live. I, fortunately, did not lose my secretary. If I did (and I told her this), I would make every effort and call in every favor I can to make sure that she can get a job elsewhere.

That's what most associates at Ropes would do. That's what most partners at Ropes would do. For the people posting on this board (mostly law students, I assume) talking about the lack of worth of the staff at law firms: I hope you don't interview here. We don't want you.

I have been an associate at Ropes for several years now, and I truly believe that there will not be lawyer layoffs. The firm has never, in its 130+ year history, laid off attorneys, and it probably didn't want to start now. I feel for the staff who are being laid off, but the firm has to take a pragmatic approach here: lawyers can make money for the firm; secretaries do not.

I have no doubt that the incoming Ropes class, which is one of the most talented in the nation, has nothing to worry about. Ropes gives offers to all of its summers, and there are no plans for that to change. There are some trolls here spreading negative things about Ropes, so I wanted to set the record straight.

I have been an associate at Ropes for several years now, and I truly believe that there will not be lawyer layoffs. The firm has never, in its 130+ year history, laid off attorneys, and it probably didn't want to start now. I feel for the staff who are being laid off, but the firm has to take a pragmatic approach here: lawyers can make money for the firm; secretaries do not.

I have no doubt that the incoming Ropes class, which is one of the most talented in the nation, has nothing to worry about. Ropes gives offers to all of its summers, and there are no plans for that to change. There are some trolls here spreading negative things about Ropes, so I wanted to set the record straight.

I'm not WH or RG, but I will tell you every RG atty I have ever met mentions it within 20 words of any conversation. It's the NY firm of Boston, and I don't mean that as a compliment. It's not really that special when your firm hires 1000 people every year so it can suck you dry and throw your carcass to the wolves in a couple years.

Furthermore, RG is the ONLY firm that trashes on others at their level in the interview/hiring process, from my experience and from conversations with many other people. It's embarassing and really quite reflective of where the insecurities really are.

210 - pure comedic gold. "Most talented in the nation" - good stuff dude. As if people with real options go to regional firms absent some personal hardship....

211- I went through the interviewing process at R&G Boston in the last few years and never met a single R&G attorney that "trashed on" another firm. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure just like at any other firm, there are some people at R&G who will "trash on" other firms. But I can tell you that I did not meet any of these people among the many R&G attorney that I met with. I am sorry to hear that you did. I doubt any firm is 100% free of such people, though.

R&G is a fine firm. I have much respect for the attorneys and staff who work there.

-not a R&G attorney

I second 213. Ropes is easily one of the top 20 firms focusing on New England clients, and deserves much respect.

As a legal secretary with over 25 years experience never having the desire for a higher education or the responsibilities that come with it, I admit our role has and is changing. I still disagree that our services are or will no longer be needed in order for lawyers to succeed. Performing the tasks of our role today allows the lawyer to do what he [non-gender specific] has been trained and does best - practice law. We remain an important and viable asset to firms and their successes. The old saying you get what you pay for is true today and that is why one of my experience level is paid middle class wages and why I chose to be a legal secretary rather than live an existence in the corporate world. As with lawyers, some secretaries are better and more efficient than others. During these economic times, excess has to be cut but complete elimination will never happen.

This thread took a sad and ugly turn.

Most of the people (lawyers and staff) at Ropes & Gray right now are saddened by the layoffs. Of course everyone who is still here is glad to have "dodged the bullet," but I don't know anyone here who thinks that those who were laid off "deserved it," or that it was anything but an unfortunate result of the shitty economy that, but for the grace of god, could have happend to him or her.

I second 216. Yesterday was a bad day for Ropes. I don't think this thread reflects the affection and appreciation almost all associates feel for the staff they work with.

I'm a R&G associate and I would be amazed if many (any?) of the self-justifying and insensitive comments above were made by associates who actually worked here. My guess is that most of them came from asshole law students who think having read the Cliff Notes to Ayn Rand makes them a fucking expert on the economy. I hope the support staff here understands that this isn't coming from your colleagues, and that everyone is upset with what happened yesterday.

Let's go back to #156. Who do you think you are? Have you ever had to actually break a sweat working? not all that were laid off were "older worman" who can rely on their husband's income and health insurance. My husband has been laid off for months now and I am the sole support of my family of 4, income AND health insurance. I saw of lot my friends lose their jobs yesterday, and with it health insurance and a part of their dignity. Don't ever say that support staff doesn't count. Of course I understand this is a business and the only thing WE ARE ALL HERE FOR is the almighty dollar. I don't care of any of you have thousands in school loans; how about my mortgage? car payment? day care bill? WHEN YOU FINALLY GET A REAL LIFE, then comment all you want.

I'm Ropes staff as well, and not a paralegal or secretary.

From what I could see of the 12 or so people I knew who were laid off, all were very nice people. However, they were also not high performing or adding much value.

I'm not for layoffs but I can easily see that (for the people I know who were laid off) they chose the people who were not pulling their own weight. As someone who works a ton of overtime but gets paid salary, I think it IS fairer to lay off the people who aren't the brightest, who aren't committed and who don't seek out new ways to add value.

Was any library staff laid off?

221 - Yes.

220: when your turn comes, we'll say "he/she worked tons of overtime, but was a complete ass."

Any impact on R+G 3Ls?

223 - Just being pragmatic.

I feel for folks who have been laid off. Times are tough right now and they won't improve any time soon.

But I don't think people are *owed* a job for life. I've seen a few staff members refuse to be good team players, balk at getting new work after a slow period when business picks up, complain about having to work even a minute of overtime and throw temper tantrums when they are asked to learn new things.

When a staff member (depending on their skills and choices) either show that they can't perform at a high level - or simply make it clear that they don't want to, they are at risk for becoming unemployed. It's as simple as that. I'm not saying all the people who were laid off were in this category. I am just saying that the 12 people I knew were. And laying off those people first absolutely seems logical to me.

Good luck to us all.

As a R&G associate, yesterday was a very difficult day. Watching friends get fired, particularly knowing their prospects for finding another job in this economy, makes you realize that everything could end any day for anyone (aside from the Policy Committee). Many of the vicious anti-staff comments are arrogant and ridiculous - these people also have families, people who depend on them, etc.

To be realistic, something like this is much harder on the lives of these people than it would be for most junior associates, regardless of loans. Yeah, we have loans but we're also young without children. If we were qualified enough to get hired at Biglaw, chances are, we'll be just fine 5-10 years down the road.

I hope that the R&G staff that read this realize that most (hopefully all) of these inhumane comments are not by R&G attorneys - no one I know here isn't shaken by what happened yesterday and sorry to see you go. Echoing an earlier comment, I wish Ropes would have frozen associate salaries and instead kept the staff fired yesterday. I understand the business reasons for yesterday's decision, but it doesn't lessen the humanitarian aspect of it, at least for me.

I hope all of the fired R&G staff end up landing on their feet. Thanks for all the contributions you've made to Ropes and good luck in whatever you decide to pursue.

As a R&G associate, yesterday was a very difficult day. Watching friends get fired, particularly knowing their prospects for finding another job in this economy, makes you realize that everything could end any day for anyone (aside from the Policy Committee). Many of the vicious anti-staff comments are arrogant and ridiculous - these people also have families, people who depend on them, etc.

To be realistic, something like this is much harder on the lives of these people than it would be for most junior associates, regardless of loans. Yeah, we have loans but we're also young without children. If we were qualified enough to get hired at Biglaw, chances are, we'll be just fine 5-10 years down the road.

I hope that the R&G staff that read this realize that most (hopefully all) of these inhumane comments are not by R&G attorneys - no one I know here isn't shaken by what happened yesterday and sorry to see you go. Echoing an earlier comment, I wish Ropes would have frozen associate salaries and instead kept the staff fired yesterday. I understand the business reasons for yesterday's decision, but it doesn't lessen the humanitarian aspect of it, at least for me.

I hope all of the fired R&G staff end up landing on their feet. Thanks for all the contributions you've made to Ropes and good luck in whatever you decide to pursue.

The ship be sinking...

Yesterday was horrible. I agree with 226 - I'd rather have my salary frozen than watch people lose their jobs.

Yesterday was horrible. I agree with 226 - I'd rather have my salary frozen than watch people lose their jobs.

I worry about all the folks who are gone. We don't know who they are until we realize they are missing. There's no way to even say goodbye. It's really sad.

I hope they have good support systems. Friends, family, enough money to get by until they can get another job.

For those associates (or aspiring law students) who feel that support staff are not valuable because they don't bill time, you are wrong. At my firm, senior paralegals bill out at $250 an hour; some of their assistants (generally speaking, people with high school educations who do clerical work) have titles other than "secretary," so the unsuspecting client pays $125 - $150 per hour for these individuals to photocopy, prepare file labels, etc. It's all a scam, and some clients are beginning to catch on and refuse to play along. Having said that, at our firm, I also know that some of the top partners are exploring the possibility of giving secretaries new titles and billing out their time as well.

The point is, you should not lull yourselves into a false sense of security because you have an inflated billing rate. Soon enough, most BigLaw employees (both associates and non-lawyers) will have overblown billing rates. There will always be a need for good administrative support, which is actually harder to find today than good legal talent. Look around you, there are so many second- and third-tier law schools pumping lawyers out into the legal system and not nearly enough jobs to go around -- on the other hand, most young women today are pursuing careers that were not available to the older generations of legal secretaries (the "hey, I'm smarter than this guy -- if he can become a lawyer, so can I" syndrome). Finding and attracting top-level administrative support will continue to be a huge challenge, because the pool of qualified people will continue to grow smaller and smaller.

When all is said and done, however, we can continue to fight along class lines, but it makes little difference. None of us will decide which heads will be the next to roll.

Who is John Galt?

Who is John Galt?

226 - thank you.

225 - some people live to work (you) and others work to live (the 12 you speak of). Twenty years from now, after you've worked hard all of your life & try to move into the other category, your words will come back to haunt you.

what people seem to not realize is that Ropes is worried about image first and foremost. They hold themselves out to the best law firm. these ~100 staff members arent suffering alone. Ropes decided to cut associates also but just not publicly. Stealth layoffs is and will be going on until business picks up.

Dont think for a second that staff was singled out. they were just singled out publicly for Ropes to save face. Not sure if this is comforting, but staff you were not alone!

For those of you thinking that a staff member doesn't enhance the bottom line -- remember, even if you're billing 1500 hrs at $350, you add nothing to the bottom line that the associate in the next office can't take on in your absense.

Have no doubt that you 1500 hours folks are systematically getting this message: "Hi Nancy, sorry to put it this way but we have concerns about your partnership prospects, not because you're not a hard worker or not talented, it's because your class is so vast that we need to give good lawyers the message that they aren't at the Ropes level. Sorry again, you'll have a few weeks to find out alternative work"

I truly am saddened by the conduct of the people here. I am quite sure that the people who were let go yesterday were quite appreciated. R&G is just that kind of firm and for all you assholes out there, we don't want you here.

i'd like to reiterate the request for comments on the status of incoming associates: are we getting cut next? and if so, is there anything we can do? i'm assuming lining up other jobs (if there are any other jobs to be found, public or private sector) runs afoul of NALP rules, but correct me if i'm wrong.

Everyone makes choices (to buy a home (they can't afford), to have kids (they can't afford), to buy a new car (they can't afford)) and takes risks associated with those choices. Some people win, some people lose. That is the great thing about America -- the land of opportunity! Unfortunately, based on many of the comments I've seen in this string, it seems too many people think it is land of guarantees. Rome is burning....

I agree with 225. Employees are not "owed" a job for life. In hard economic times, businesses have to make hard choices. The people who get cut first are not going to be high performing client-service oriented team players.

i'd like to reiterate the request for comments on the status of incoming associates: are we getting cut next? and if so, is there anything we can do? i'm assuming lining up other jobs (if there are any other jobs to be found, public or private sector) runs afoul of NALP rules, but correct me if i'm wrong.

I am a secretary here at R&G for over 15+ years....what happened yesterday was so stealth that there were partners who were shocked to learn that their secretary was being let go. With that being said, I will say this. The firm handled the layoffs very poorly, as per usual. The "powers that be" really need to take a course in communication. They went from telling us that they're doing a pay freeze to avoid layoffs and then SURPRISE....you're getting layed off. This is not the first time they've handled something badly and I'm sure wont be the last. Also, there were some secretaries that they let go that were absolute dead weight. (i.e. sat on the internet all day, read books at their desks, knitted at their desks) but were here for years and years. They jumped on the "layoff bandwagon" just to get rid of the dead weight. They have no policy or procedure in place for those that don't carry their weight around here and it's really aggravating to bust my azz all day long while the next one just collects a check! Last but certainly not least....I still don't feel like my job is secure. The memo says there done...but that's just for now....wait till we get deeper into 2009 and closer to moving to the Prudential in 2010....more layoffs are on the way....

I am a secretary here at R&G for over 15+ years....what happened yesterday was so stealth that there were partners who were shocked to learn that their secretary was being let go. With that being said, I will say this. The firm handled the layoffs very poorly, as per usual. The "powers that be" really need to take a course in communication. They went from telling us that they're doing a pay freeze to avoid layoffs and then SURPRISE....you're getting layed off. This is not the first time they've handled something badly and I'm sure wont be the last. Also, there were some secretaries that they let go that were absolute dead weight. (i.e. sat on the internet all day, read books at their desks, knitted at their desks) but were here for years and years. They jumped on the "layoff bandwagon" just to get rid of the dead weight. They have no policy or procedure in place for those that don't carry their weight around here and it's really aggravating to bust my azz all day long while the next one just collects a check! Last but certainly not least....I still don't feel like my job is secure. The memo says there done...but that's just for now....wait till we get deeper into 2009 and closer to moving to the Prudential in 2010....more layoffs are on the way....

Wow, from the earlier comments, R&G sounds like it's filled with assholes.

In hard economic times, businesses have to make hard choices.
__________________________________________

Wouldn't the really "hard choice" be to cut the highest earners whose underperformance actually has the most severe impact on profitability, i.e., mediocre partnership/management? It seems that firing a bunch of secretaries is generally the quite easy choice, an easy choice which ultimately has virtually no effect on the firm's ability to right itself. How many businesses manage to recover from poor economic performance by firing the secretary?

241 - and there are people living within their means, taking no risk other than trusting that R&G wouldn't leave them high & dry in such an economy. Not a *guarantee* rather a recognition/reciprocity of employee loyalty. I can tell you that those left behind will neither trust, nor strive to exceed expectations for R&G.
Hard truth is that this is a class issue. When belts need tightening rich people suffer little.
And to all of the education snobs posting here - some kids grow up wanting to go to college and need to go right to work instead. Case in pt - the children of those laid off from R&G. Think a high school senior of a former RG employee is facing bright prospects right now? So he could leave for college rather than working and helping the family? If that's the choice, it makes a lot of sense why there's such a disconnect between rich & poor.

241 - and there are people living within their means, taking no risk other than trusting that R&G wouldn't leave them high & dry in such an economy. Not a *guarantee* rather a recognition/reciprocity of employee loyalty. I can tell you that those left behind will neither trust, nor strive to exceed expectations for R&G.
Hard truth is that this is a class issue. When belts need tightening rich people suffer little.
And to all of the education snobs posting here - some kids grow up wanting to go to college and need to go right to work instead. Case in pt - the children of those laid off from R&G. Think a high school senior of a former RG employee is facing bright prospects right now? So he could leave for college rather than working and helping the family? If that's the choice, it makes a lot of sense why there's such a disconnect between rich & poor. And why there is so little empathy here.

41: No sympathy here. You chose to take out the big loans and to have children you clearly cannot yet afford. Grow up.

248: What about the kids that did grow up with little to no money, paid their way through college, paid their way through law school and did succeed? Those kids are sick and tired of everyone crying class warfare. The simple facts is that everyone in this country has a chance. We are so lucky and you don't even realize it. Makes me wonder why there is so much talk of "change." Regardless, I suppose those kids (that worked their way up in the world) don't fit into your calculus because that would mean that the other childern who are similarly situated and don't succeed are different or not as good. Oh no! That can't be! Everyone is equal!! Please....

Good luck to those R&G staff who were let go yesterday. Here's hoping there is a silver lining to this grim news and that everyone on the short end of it ends up with an even better job somewhere soon.

251 - so out of touch. Are you one of those tough-luck stories who worked your way through school? Can tell that you're not. I am though & I can tell you that its rare & its not about just saying "yes, I want to succeed!" If it were - who for the love of god would choose not to?? So no, its not because they're "different" or "not as good" - but if that makes you feel better, makes you feel justified for being a swine, then so be it.

Nope, you're wrong. I am one of those people. Obviously you feel guilty about your success. I don't.

Nope, you're wrong. I am one of those people. Obviously you feel guilty about your success. I don't.

Nope, you're wrong. I am one of those people. Obviously you feel guilty about your success. I don't. Is it fair to say you voted for Obama to make yourself "feel good."??

sure 256, why else vote for him? racist & classist - your family must be SO proud. Do you look down on your family as well? if you grew up poor, guess your parents were stupid and lazy, hmm?

I suppose having standards and being realistic nowadays means you're a racist and a classist. So be it. How is it living with your head in the sand?

247 - I think anyone whose mediocre performance has a negative impact on profitability/productivity should be let go.

Why assume it is either staff or the attorneys?

It's both. If you sit on your ass and want a paycheck for doing little to nothing, you should get nothing. Regardless of your "title".

Face it, there are both staff and attorneys at most large firms who are dead weight or nearly so. When business is good, management needs bodies to do the grunt work. When business is bad, dead weight is always jettisoned first.

The people that were let go were not dead weight. They were valued employees. Many, if not all, of the folks that were let go were an integral part of the support structure that enabled Ropes to succeed and grow. Many of the folks worked hard for this firm since before some of the associates were born.

Why not just say thank you to them for their years of dedicated service and stop making arguments that have no weight in this court of public opinion.

I was an associate at Ropes for several years, and could do each of the tasks that #132 lists better than each of the three secretaries I had over the years. You're really telling me that an associate in his/her late 20's to early 30's can't use technology better than a 52 year old secretary? Really? Young lawyers grew up using computers and are much more comfortable with new technologies than older secretaries ever will be. Secretaries just aren't needed for anyone under the age of 50. Voicemail made you irrelevant. Deal with it.

That's right, 261. Why wouldn't a client jump at the chance to pay your wildly-inflated hourly rate so that you can spend your time making copies, sending faxes, scanning, preparing Fed Ex and UPS packages for shipment, printing out Westlaw, entering your time, creating expense reports, etc., etc.? Will you bill your clients for the time you spend making travel arrangements? Running conflicts checks and opening new matters?

Wise up, little man. You may be young, but you aren't necessarily any smarter than your elders. The "52 year old secretary" you refer to has at least twice the life experience you have, and she had to earn her stripes back in the day when attorneys couldn't do ANYTHING for themselves -- before computers, before paralegals, before billing assistants, before librarians. They are battle-tested. I'd like to see you handle the pressures of a major trial, supporting 9 or 10 attorneys with only a typewriter, a copy machine and some white-out to get you through the days and nights. You kids are so pampered that you stress out when you can' t figure out how to unjam a copier or load a stapler. I'll put my money on the old-timers any day. What you fail to understand is that associates, with rare exception, are and always have been cannon fodder for the partners -- nothing more than a commodity to be used up and thrown away. Think of yourself as an extremely expensive, but depleted, toner cartridge. Care to lay odds on your chances of making partner someday? I'd wager that many of the older secretaries will be around long after you've been kicked to the curb.

You want to talk stealth? Phone calls made to, voicemails left for, the attorneys one half hour before the onslaught began. Too many wonderful, hard working people lost their jobs.

This whole back and forth is so ridiculous. Bottom line - firm is suffering financially, and needs to make cuts - so it cuts those who are most cost-effective (bring in little to no $, and cost a lot of $). This is a business, not a charity. We all feel for those cut - but should a partner, however much he or she makes, lose money out of his/her own pocket to pay for you in the bad times? Partners aren't just wealthy because they were handed money - they busted their asses and worked their way up the ranks for years (I'm an associate btw, not a partner).

As to those commenting about loyalty - can you honestly say you would stay at R & G if another firm offered you a huge salary increase to jump ship? I doubt it. Just like the partners don't want to pay for your job out of their pockets in the bad times, so you wouldn't work for less money for them in good times.

Bravo, 262! But I think you made one error. A 52 year old secretary has at least 10 times the life experience of a punk associate. The secretary has been working for 30+ years, the associate for 1-7 or so?

261, you have been owned by a 52 year old secretary. Bwah!

264 - yes, partners should. Its funny that teachers bust their asses too and they're quick to share what little they make with others. Guess values really do come from the home.
ridiculous part is repeating "the firm, the firm" - no one think about the people. firing someone for poor perfomance is one thing, laying them off to protect your reserve is another.
Jimmy Stewart would not be pleased.

anonymous comments. oooh...

"You kids are so pampered that you stress out when you can' t figure out how to unjam a copier or load a stapler."

This is dumb beyond dumb. I can't believe people are defending their jobs because they can unjam a copier and load a stapler. What's next, should law firms hire support staff that can turn on lights in the morning?

Face facts. Its the 21st century. Most firms could cut 50% of support staff and still survive, EASILY.

268: You're right, they could. BUT they didn't before the economy went to shit. So reduce salaries, give people warnings if they screw up, just don't toss them out without any warning at a time like this you heartless sob's.

269, I'm not a luddite (look it up). I don't expect horse-drawn carriage drivers to still have their jobs after the invention of the automobile. I don't expect manufacturers of 35mm cameras to have their jobs after the digital camera was invented. I don't expect COBOL computer programmers to still be relevant.

I'm an R&G mid-level associate. Anyone who has taken the time to read all these posts may think that R&G associates don't care about their support staff. Speaking for myself (and I imagine most of my associate colleagues), I feel sorry for the folks who were let go and I do care about the personal well-being of everyone I work with, staff included.

For what it's worth, on average I use my secretary for about five hours a week. She adds value in that I would rather not have to complete my own reimbursement forms, UPS slips, etc., and no client would want me to spend the time doing some of the tasks I assign to her.

Lastly, for the in-coming summers who are worried about their jobs, I would imagine that, like in years past, almost everyone will get a job offer at the end of the summer, simply because BigLaw is about legal talent, and when the economy picks up R&G will want to still have a good reputation at Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Stanford. Certainly some of the transactional work has slowed down, but most groups are doing just fine. For example, while I represent a sample size of 1, I imagine I will bill somewhere around 2000-2100 hours this fiscal year.

268-cut 50% and still survive? sounds as though you don't need the remaining 50%. If you don't believe staff is necessary, why not cut 100%?

"when the economy picks up R&G will want to still have a good reputation at Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Stanford. " - 271

271- you hit the nail on the head. R&G is going after staff because it won't hurt their recruiting reputation. I'm not saying they don't have dead weight on the admin side. They do. And us R&G worker bees have been wondering what a lot of those people do for years. Sadly it appears that most of those people (who make 6 figure salaries) survived and worker bees who make far less and added value were targeted.

Arrogant associates who slam staff - just watch your billables drop next year as you spend time making copies, unjamming machines, compiling expense reports, entering your time and answering your own phone. If you don't want your billables to drop, you better be prepared to spend even longer hours at the office as all those non-billable tasks are added to your plate. (Don't forget, the staff that are left aren't allowed to work non-client OT unless they have special permission from their managers - yes another cost-cutting measure.)

A few months ago Ropes hired a Tuagh to cut staff. We knew it was coming. Over 150 positions had to be removed before the move to the Pru. The official layoffs took care of 106 and recent stealth layoffs and firings have taken care of a few more, but they are by no means done with letting people go.

We are not as naive as the partnership and directors think we are and when the economy improves, we will run. The collegial atmosphere is gone. The caste system is firmly entrenched and getting stronger. The wall between JDs and non-JDs is getting higher and thicker. And if JDs think they can continue to offer the quality of service that Ropes prides themselves on to their clients without us non-JDs they are sadly mistaken.

Looking forward to the outraged associate comments when the free coffee disappears.

46 - you are a fool who has clearly OD'd on the kool-aid. Stealth layoffs have been occurring for weeks. I have personal knowledge of 6. There will be a lot of departures around the end of March and the end of June. Many of those will be attorneys and senior management. Not everyone is escorted to the door in a public manner.

It's really sad to see all the comments about how unworthy support staff are viewed by most of you. They may not bill hours, but they work with clients in many different ways to help keep them happy and grow the firm's business. Support staff is more than secretaries - - finance, IT, mktg, library services. There are a lot of non-producing lawyers out there, so if you are going to take a stance; you should really do your homework and make educated comments that actually mean something...

To the staff/personnel who lost their jobs, my prayers and hopeful wishes. To everyone saying they are expendable or that's the way the economy crumbles, put the shoe on the other foot. To those who think the work of the staff is unnecessary, shame on you. WIth a technology background, I know I could do what they do, but that doesn't matter. They're "support" staff so they can support you, so you don't have to do what they do, so you can do your job better. I loved my staff and they all should be treated like gold.

On that note, the economy doesn't make it easy and some things may be necessary, some people including myself... perhaps not necessary... but that doesn't make the people any less wanted/needed.

To comment 104's trust fund notion, consider those that went to law school and took out huge loans for families, for dreams, and for passion. Some of us actually want to be in this profession, dreamed about being in this profession, but had no other way to get here but loans.

Not that I'm some know it all, clearly not... but everyone on this comment site needs to calm down or take in a deep breadth and get some perspective. Half the reason the economy is in such a mess is from lack of foresight, perspective and inner peace....

Who knows if I'll have a job when this is all over, but to EVERYONE (including myself)-
Chill out....

268 - Cut 50% of the support staff and survive?!? You're on crack.

As a former Ropes staffer who was let go during the recent onslaught, not everyone who was let go was dead weight. Were there some? Absolutely. Were they all? Absolutely not.

Ropes management on the staff side has been in a state of flux since the merge with Fish & Neave. Many staff departments have had several director and management changes in the last two years. So many in fact it's been hard to keep up and not all the changes have been good. There has been a fair amount of favoritism and relationships with existing employees were damaged. The favoritism bred an atomsphere of fear, frustration and resentment.

In the end many of these changes did not bode well for some existing staffers inherited by new management. If you've been in the corporate world for any length of time you learn that sometimes there are layoffs that have nothing to do with performance and ability and everything to do with politics.

In addition, Ropes expected a certain amount of attrition when they moved to the Prudential but the economic crisis gummed up the works. Knowing this Ropes decided to use the economy as an excuse to tighten up their belts and make the firm leaner by trimming the fat. They are not having money trouble but instead want to use the money they have on hand to continue with their plans for expansion without having to borrow.

Bottom line is the whole situation was handled badly. 274 is absolutely right, there have been stealth layoff's going on and they will most likely continue. These people were not the first, they were just the first announced publicly and I'm certain they will not be the last. This includes senior management, attorney's and staff.

161 I'm a little late commenting but you better check your sources there is no high school kid I know that wants to work for a big law firm believe me too many of their mom's were secretaries

I agree with some of the above comments -- there was plenty of dead weight to get rid of, but my question is this -- The dead weight had been working here for YEARS!! Why, all of a sudden, was it a priority to get rid of it? and no, not all of the people let go were dead weight. I think #273 and #278 are absolutely correct.

I am one of the secretaries that was let go from Ropes last week. I've been there 30 plus years and will admit that our role has drastically changed since I started there many years ago. The new young lawyers ARE very self-reliant and there are days when we don't do much more than copy, fax, scan, which doesn't take up too much of our time. We were told in December that we wouldn't be getting raises this year so they wouldn't have to lay off. I agree the layoffs were handled poorly and they cut off our computers and voicemail by the time we got back to our desks after hearing the news...felt kind of like a punch in the face. Anyway, it seems the majority of the 100 plus employees that were laid off were over 40 years old.

We will find out who the lawyer scum is. See you on the street. Hope you have excellent medical or life insurance.

This should be a wake up call for everyone. When I heard the “we don’t anticipate laying people off” the first thing out of my mouth was “oh it’s coming, and sooner than we all think, they are just anesthetizing us so we don’t know what hit us...then, BAM!, Thursday came. It still hit us very hard.

“The firm is sound” (Brad writes) “is just that we don’t need you anymore” (staff sees). This situation is affecting EVERYONE, regardless of your lifestyle, amount of debts, number of dependants or age. There are people with college degrees out there who can’t find a job and people who never went to college whose jobs are secure right now, so it’s not a matter of being ‘just’ a secretary, not having debts or being too young to worry about it. Maybe you are doing awsome and got to keep your job, but your husband got chopped (#156), your girlfriend or your sister. Are you not going to care because you still got yours. There are lots of people that had their expenses doubled becuase the extra source of income stopped coming in and now it's their salary that's doing it all, so they are not having such a good time even though they have a job. I just got word that my son got laid off today at 4:00 pm and I am certainly not happy. He is devastated and I will have to give him a hand until he can get back on his feet, so I have to deal with that and still be happy that I have a job. We ALL are part of this and it would be ridiculous to even think why one has it better or worse than another.

We have lives and we need our income: to eat, pay bills, for transportation perhaps to go and look for that other job we are in need, or even continue attending school to, hopefully, one day get a title higher than ‘secretary’ or ‘clerk’ so employers can be kinder if a similar situation comes around.

I agree with 72 and 225. I don’t know about those gone, but I do know there is more dead weight that should go, and soon. If you don’t want or need your job, let someone else who wants to work do it. Coming in late, being on the phone all day, taking 1.5 to 2 hour lunches, walking around chatting with others, playing some stupid game on the internet (#23: attorneys are not the only ones that do it) because you have downtime and just don’t feel like helping others who ARE swamped for real -which I’ve seen with my eyes- meanwhile your desk has work to needs to be done. Then they have the nerve to leave early, make a face or show the attorney an attitude if he asks for some help at a time she is not “in the mood.” My heart goes out to those attorneys when I see that. They should have gone last Thursday too.

I have sadly witnessed the above and, also a case where 15 minutes before the secretary was leaving, after having been on her ass doing nothing all day, she sent an email to her supervisor asking for overflow help. So I am sorry if the term “dead weight” hurts but at a time like this where we need our current source of income and it's being snatched at a moment’s notice, as we saw, that shouldn't be the attitude we see around. It not proving wrong the theory that secreatries are necessary, unfortunately. It just makes me want to cry for those who were sent home and would give their arm right now for that secretary’s spot at -who knows-maybe 3/4 of their old $70K+ salary (#59: secretaries stopped making $20K salaries 20 years ago).

I must praise those great secretaries, continuously going above and beyond their duties (not just now that they want to avoid being fired), always happy to help, willing to take any project and learn whatever they don’t know, as they are who ultimately will benefit from the knowledge. They certainly are of some value to the firm.

Layoffs are most likely not over. Maybe the staff-reduction-due-to-the-economy layoff is, for now, but the getting-rid-of-the-people-we-don’t-want-anymore layoffs not. The firm is likely to seize the opportunity (#278) to get rid of those they just don’t want but won’t tell them.

I do like the firm, not the situation. Good luck to everyone, including myself.

This should be a wake up call for everyone. When I heard the “we don’t anticipate laying people off” the first thing out of my mouth was “oh it’s coming, and sooner than we all think, they are just anesthetizing us so we don’t know what hit us...then, BAM!, Thursday came. It still hit us very hard.

“The firm is sound” (Brad writes) “is just that we don’t need you anymore” (staff sees). This situation is affecting EVERYONE, regardless of your lifestyle, amount of debts, number of dependants or age. There are people with college degrees out there who can’t find a job and people who never went to college whose jobs are secure right now, so it’s not a matter of being ‘just’ a secretary, not having debts or being too young to worry about it. Maybe you are doing awsome and got to keep your job, but your husband got chopped (#156), your girlfriend or your sister. Are you not going to care because you still got yours. There are lots of people that had their expenses doubled becuase the extra source of income stopped coming in and now it's their salary that's doing it all, so they are not having such a good time even though they have a job. I just got word that my son got laid off today at 4:00 pm and I am certainly not happy. He is devastated and I will have to give him a hand until he can get back on his feet, so I have to deal with that and still be happy that I have a job. We ALL are part of this and it would be ridiculous to even think why one has it better or worse than another.

We have lives and we need our income: to eat, pay bills, for transportation perhaps to go and look for that other job we are in need, or even continue attending school to, hopefully, one day get a title higher than ‘secretary’ or ‘clerk’ so employers can be kinder if a similar situation comes around.

I agree with 72 and 225. I don’t know about those gone, but I do know there is more dead weight that should go, and soon. If you don’t want or need your job, let someone else who wants to work do it. Coming in late, being on the phone all day, taking 1.5 to 2 hour lunches, walking around chatting with others, playing some stupid game on the internet (#23: attorneys are not the only ones that do it) because you have downtime and just don’t feel like helping others who ARE swamped for real -which I’ve seen with my eyes- meanwhile your desk has work to needs to be done. Then they have the nerve to leave early, make a face or show the attorney an attitude if he asks for some help at a time she is not “in the mood.” My heart goes out to those attorneys when I see that. They should have gone last Thursday too.

I have sadly witnessed the above and, also a case where 15 minutes before the secretary was leaving, after having been on her ass doing nothing all day, she sent an email to her supervisor asking for overflow help. So I am sorry if the term “dead weight” hurts but at a time like this where we need our current source of income and it's being snatched at a moment’s notice, as we saw, that shouldn't be the attitude we see around. It not proving wrong the theory that secreatries are necessary, unfortunately. It just makes me want to cry for those who were sent home and would give their arm right now for that secretary’s spot at -who knows-maybe 3/4 of their old $70K+ salary (#59: secretaries stopped making $20K salaries 20 years ago).

I must praise those great secretaries, continuously going above and beyond their duties (not just now that they want to avoid being fired), always happy to help, willing to take any project and learn whatever they don’t know, as they are who ultimately will benefit from the knowledge. They certainly are of some value to the firm.

Layoffs are most likely not over. Maybe the staff-reduction-due-to-the-economy layoff is, for now, but the getting-rid-of-the-people-we-don’t-want-anymore layoffs not. The firm is likely to seize the opportunity (#278) to get rid of those they just don’t want but won’t tell them.

I do like the firm, not the situation. Good luck to everyone, including myself.

Last.

Thanks for stopping, everyone.

Any severance package for the staff?

I cannot say that everyone received the same package, but my secretary received 3 months pay and time with a placement consultant/specialist.

That's what I've been hearing, too - 3 months severance. And FWIW, they didn't lay off 106 people, they eliminated 106 jobs. The difference being that some of the lucky ones got to slide over to a lateral position in another department. In my department, there were 7 job eliminations but "only" 3 people were actually laid off.

More than106 were let go. Do not trust anything that come from them!

More than106 were let go. Do not trust anything that comes from them!

So they cut a small portion of costs by laying off those making $25 to $60K a year while associates and partners make 5 to 15 times these amounts and are not really all that smart or great attorneys. Not a good business plan.

Speaking of "Dead Weight" ... The so called Private Client Group at Ropes & Gray has lost so much of other peoples money over the last year. Why is this allowed to be unregulated? i am an unhappy beneficiary!

The severance packages were generous and where dependent on length of service.

To the person commenting about the Private Client Group losing money....do you really think that what's happening with the stock market and the financial world is Ropes' fault? Wake up and read the papers.....some of Ropes' investments are doing better than the stock market?

The severance packages were generous and where dependent on length of service.

To the person commenting about the Private Client Group losing money....do you really think that what's happening with the stock market and the financial world is Ropes' fault? Wake up and read the papers.....some of Ropes' investments are doing better than the stock market?

I'm a satisfied beneficiary who doesn't expect miracles!!

LOL Number 17. If he did, he would probably bill for it.
Someone really needs to check Harry Rubin's billing practices, heard he's a fraud.

Everyone that got laid off got 2 weeks pay plus 1 week of pay for every year you worked for the firm and their insurance was covered through the month of february, after that they have to pay for COBRA, which for a single person is $570 a month.

Everyone that got laid off got 2 weeks pay plus 1 week of pay for every year you worked for the firm and their insurance was covered through the month of february, after that they have to pay for COBRA, which for a single person is $570 a month.

Everyone that got laid off got 2 weeks pay plus 1 week of pay for every year you worked for the firm and their insurance was covered through the month of february, after that they have to pay for COBRA, which for a single person is $570 a month.

#294
You reaaly do expect miracles!
Any monkey could perform as well (if not better) as Ropes & Gray. You fail to address my regulation question.