FIRST to say about time

I love how ATL loves to post anything and everything negative it can find about CWT, regardless of the accuracy of its source, but decides to be glaringly absent when good news about CWT pops up.

Thanks for the ding, Latham. Your nice NYC offices and attractive young female attorneys almost tricked me into picking your firm.

Is anyone that surprised? All the other firms are laying off too.

Houston and Dallas offices of Andrews & Kurth started stealth layoffs recently. They trimmed some senior associates off the payroll.

Indeed, one wonders, "how many associate departures have THEIR been?"

if the firings are unexpected (by the fired associates), but certainly not random or hours based (lots of people who have ridiculously low hours survived with no bonus) does that really count as a layoff?

In the past you would probably get a warning to shape up or ship out and then get your 6 months in the next review. Maybe the margin is just being cut?

Houston? Dallas? Where are those places? In Queens?

ARFIES!

Can anyone actually confirm that these are layoffs and not just routine performance based firings? I'm not at Latham, but I'm just getting tired of all the speculation about economic based layoffs that may just be happening because someone sucks at his or her job, gets fired and wants to blame the economy.

I was fired purely for low hours. I had all good reviews and even talked to my reviewers after I was fired. I was told that I didn't make pace, but the opportunities were there for me to make pace. Latham said it wasn't due to the economy at all but solely based on my hours (which is a huge catch-22 because if it wasn't for the economy I would have made my hours). I just wish they would explain where all this work was that I could have been doing.

It sucks being fired, but it reallys sucks when they blame it on you when it isn't your fault. Hell, considering the economic times, I can even understand lay-offs, but Latham cannot turn a false perception into reality by merely telling people that it is all their fault. The funniest part was when I was told that the economy has only been bad for the last few months, and I couldn't use the economy as an excuse except for November and December. Guess they haven't read the papers that the recession started in Dec. 2007.

Can confirm that they wouldn't read your reviews in the firing (lucky for me my reviewers had sent me copies prior to my firing so I knew what they said).

I'll say it: I didn't make hours last year. However, lev fin was DEAD last year, I begged my dept and several others for work on a regular basis, I started doing pro bono and did my best to keep my head above water.

After the boom years when finance associates lived their lives (if you can even call it that) at the office, it's really cold that LW booted us out to scrounge for scraps in the worst economic climate in 50 years. And made us feel bad about our professional skills in the process.

Hit tip to Paul Hastings who pioneered this practice over a year and a half ago.

So how will this affect the Cahill layoffs?

12 - how many hours did you finish with? Did you get $0 bonused? What year?

They definitely did not just fire the low billers so I don't buy that it's a completely random layoff - but people seem genuinely surprised to be let go this year and I dont think this was the case in the past.

I'll say it: I didn't make hours last year. However, lev fin was DEAD last year, I begged my dept and several others for work on a regular basis, I started doing pro bono and did my best to keep my head above water.

After the boom years when finance associates lived their lives (if you can even call it that) at the office, it's really cold that LW booted us out to scrounge for scraps in the worst economic climate in 50 years. And made us feel bad about our professional skills in the process.

I'll say it: I didn't make hours last year. However, lev fin was DEAD last year, I begged my dept and several others for work on a regular basis, I started doing pro bono and did my best to keep my head above water.

After the boom years when finance associates lived their lives (if you can even call it that) at the office, it's really cold that LW booted us out to scrounge for scraps in the worst economic climate in 50 years. And made us feel bad about our professional skills in the process.

I will leave LW with a lot of great memories..... unfortunately one of my last will be Dave Gordon pretty much lying to my face.

Is sinking ship still applicable? Is it too late for that term?

ugg, seriously? As a 2L going to L&W NYC this summer, how screwed should I feel?? Regret is a bummer.

Keep in mind that so much of this grief was caused by overexpansion and overpayment of lateral partners. The rush to be bigger led LW to make lateral partner decisions that made no economic sense, especially in the latter part of 2008. Unfortunately, the ripple effects of these decisions will continue for several years.

12&13, 11 here. That does suck and I'm sorry to hear that. It's one thing to let people go because they can't perform, but it's another to let people go because their hours are low when it's not their (your) fault, but the firm's (or the economy's) fault for not have adequate business. Best of luck to you in your search.

16 - I billed around 1200 hours (with 25% or more pro bono). I know that is really low and, as I mentioned, I can understand being laid-off for such low hours. But it is a huge lie (and a slap in the face) that Latham contends that I could have billed 700 more hours if I tried harder. Even though I had top-notch reviews and all my reviewers said that they liked me working for them (and some even touched on how hard I pushed to try and get more work).

There was not 700 hours available. Hell, half our associates were below pace. Latham has completely over-hired in the last few years and that problem is now augmented by the bad economy. I enjoyed my time at Latham, but if Latham contends the lay-offs are all performance based, it is a lie. Just because Latham promised us a year ago that they would never fire people, doesn't mean they can just call these firings all performance based.

I mean, why would Latham need to do a salary freeze if things were going well or is the entire firm doing poor performance and they are punishing everyone for their poor performance.

Anyone happen to know if there were any cuts in IP/patent?

LATHAM & WATKINS SOLD US OUT. THANKS A LOT...FOR NOTHING.

Any cuts in D.C.?

Also, for those of you starting (or think you are starting) at Latham in the fall, be prepared. There have been sourced rumors that they will push all start dates to 2010.

Most of the secretaries at Latham deserve to be laid off. Indeed, the preposition is key.

LaTTTham & WaTTTkins

12/24 - sorry to hear that. what year were you?

obviously there weren't 700 hours lying around, but if you were unassgined there were 300-400 if you were aggressive all year about asking for work and taking everything available.

One of management's issues was not just people who had bad reviews, but I think people who did not make an extra effort knowing how slow things were. Lots of unassigned associates got extra hours from pro bono, doc reviews, even AOP. They looked at the effort.

If you are in a department, then that is pretty messed up that you only got 1200.

In any case, best of luck.

Can you losers say DEADWOOD. Any well managed firm lets go of ballast to keep the ship afloat. The secret is to lose the entitlement attitude and be a contributor. Better buck up things are going to get alot worst and you guys are going to have to grow-up. This ain't Kansas anymore TOTO.

Can you losers say DEADWOOD. Any well managed firm lets go of ballast to keep the ship afloat. The secret is to lose the entitlement attitude and be a contributor. Better buck up things are going to get alot worst and you guys are going to have to grow-up. This ain't Kansas anymore TOTO.

LaTTTham & WaTTTkins parTTTners, associaTTTes, and secreTTTaries. Have a nice day.

I'm out of a job now and can't find a new one. What the hell am I supposed to do now? I need to make a living and pay off my loans. Thank you, L&W. Thanks a lot, really.

Latham shoots itself in the foot with the AOP policy. By having AOP hours not "count" until you hit pace, there's exactly zero incentive to do them unless you are pretty sure you're going to make your hours. This should be obvious to anyone in management, and it's really lame to turn around and tell people with incredibly low hours that they should have been racking up AOPs.

What are AOP hours?

32 - you are missing the point. We aren't complaining that we were fired, we are merely pointing out that Latham is not telling the truth in its assertion that all the lay-offs were the typical year-end performance based.

As I already mentioned (twice), in this economy I can completely understand a firm laying people off. So don't give me this "entitlement attitude" BS - I completely understand that I am not entitled to a job. However, I think I am entitled to the truth in why I was fired (it was the economy and over-hiring, I received top reviews, which is objective evidence that my firing was not performance based). If that makes me a "loser" and makes me have an "entitlement attitude", so be it. Thanks for your comments, they were really appreciated.

Does anyone know how many Latham associates suddenly are poor performers? 10? 25? 50?

1,200 hours? Come on dude, what did you expect?

# 31 and #32- former LW atty here with plenty of friends still at the firm. I can tell you with certainty the following:

1. Quite a few people were laid off EVEN THOUGH they made pace.

2. Even when I left (end of 2007), work was drying up in corporate.

3. This is to #31- how nice for you that you still have your job. but as you know, even unassigneds can get screwed because when there's no work, even the crap work gets snapped up in a nanosecond and when everyone is busy, that's when the "take this work or else" emails get sent around. And as for AOP projects- puleeze. I PROMISE AOP hours were not taken into account during these "performance based" layoffs.

4. Bottom line, the partners at LW don't give 2 shits, except for 1 or 2 pets they've been grooming since said pets were summer associates. If you are not a "pet," and you are not billing real, client-billable hours, you're screwed. The partners don't want their PPP to go down one cent and they look at associates as billing machines. If you're not making money, for them, you're out. period.

These posts criticizing people with low hours are insane. You don't know ANYTHING about the people you're insulting. These people just got fired, and you're telling them they deserved it, without ever having met them. What does that say about you...besides the fact that you would NEVER say something like that to someone's face, let alone publish your name in a public forum, because you're too chicken shit to own up to your idiotic opinion (the passive/agressiveness on this website is an embarrassment to the profession).

Unbelievably harsh.

It is one thing to lie to an associate that her termintation has resulted from her performance (rather than from the firm's business getting capacity). It is another to announce that explanation to the entire legal community. And in Latham's case, not only did its statement announce that the layoffs were "performance related" but--for good measure--it seemed to go out of its way to state they were not at all driven by the firm's economic situation.

I don't care if these firings really were based on performance, unless the associates were taking advantage of the slow situation or had done something egregious. The firm should have withheld comment. If it had to comment, it should have either admittted to economic pressures or issued a vaguer statement. There is little downside for firms in general in conceding to economic pressures in this environment. For Latham, the downside is even less, considering they have already frozen salaries and the public knows they are under some pressures. For the associates publicly branded as inadequate, the downside is significant. Brutal.

I'm a fifth year at Latham NY, been here since the beginning of my career. All throughout I was very happy with my experience - great people, great money and great work, even if too much work at times. When it came up, I said, and I meant, that I would not leave to go to another firm.

Layoffs are happening, in all class years and all practice areas. They started Friday with the bonus announcements. The firm started cutting the senior people - 5th, 6th, 7th years. On Monday and today the hit squad started with the fourth years and some third. The worst is yet to come, they haven't even gotten to our bloated 2nd and 3rd year classes of undertrained lawyers. We won't have a good count until the end of the week, probably. I'd say we're on track for 10-15% of the NY office. Poor show, Elie. Lat would have been on this since Friday. The site should pick up this kind of news, rather than focus on the "humorous" articles you seem to stress these days. The site was formerly useful to associates, now it's geared to law students. Big opportunity for one of our laid-off colleagues.

The layoffs are understandable. All associates know the office is slow and the partners are carrying a huge payroll of underworked personnel. What is very dejecting is the way they are done. Dave Gordon sat in a room with the associates a few weeks ago, told us to our faces that salary cuts were being put in place to avoid "that other option." Now, the firm says that this is all part of the normal process. Bullshit. The firm is inflating bad reviews and firing people for cause. While it makes dollar sense to cut heads, these people do not deserve to be fired for cause. If the partners can't bring in the business, then man up and tell associates that we just have excess capacity and had to cut a percentage. That is the truth. It is not the truth that these people were bad lawyers that deserved to be fired for cause, and it's terrible that the PR decision was made to paint the layoffs in this light. I had to read the firm's statement above three times because I just couldn't believe the firm would so blatantly lie.

Morale sucks, even among those of us that have avoided the ax (so far). I am disappointed in the firm, if not surprised. Any loyalty I may have felt is gone, though I'm not sure why I had any in the first place.

About this comment policy - serious comment - when I read a clusterf*ck posting I usually hit F5 to see all the comments that were made while I read the post and F5 takes me right to where I was up to. Now when I hit F5 it takes me back to the post and asks me if I want to read the comments. Is there anyway to fix this -- ie once i've accepted seeing comments dont ask me again. Thanks.

36 - AOP hours don't count for bonuses until you hit pace, but they certainly count when they decide who made an effort to contribute to the firm.

authorized office projects...

Latham has "terminated for performance" a substantially larger number than ever before, and did so far earlier and for much less cause. People who made their hours but had a candid review offering constructive criticism have been let go as "peformance".

Are there stealth layoffs going on at DLA too?

FOR THE LAST TIME, THERE WERE NOT "700 HOURS" AVAILABLE, NO MATTER HOW HARD I TRIED TO GET WORK, CONTRARY TO MANAGEMENT'S LIES. PLEASE READ MY POSTS.

This is going to be a rough year for all firms. Latham has nothing to do with it - every firm will have to make these decisions. The survivors will have an easier time to make partner down the road. Those who got fired - good luck, and just remember that working at a law firm is not that great of a gig anyhow. Take the severance package and spend the next month on a beach somewhere - there are some great deals on vacations. Then use the remaining two months to find a new job - whatever that may be. Hopefully you'll find a more rewarding one - there are too many lawyers for all of them to be happy at this point.

This is going to be a rough year for all firms. Latham has nothing to do with it - every firm will have to make these decisions. The survivors will have an easier time to make partner down the road. Those who got fired - good luck, and just remember that working at a law firm is not that great of a gig anyhow. Take the severance package and spend the next month on a beach somewhere - there are some great deals on vacations. Then use the remaining two months to find a new job - whatever that may be. Hopefully you'll find a more rewarding one - there are too many lawyers for all of them to be happy at this point.

I can barely afford to put food on the table for my kids. All because of you, Latham.

Any details about cuts in LA or DC?

41 - doesn't the fact that people who made their hours got fired suggest performance rather than random layoffs of low billers?

There will always be people on here claiming that this is a "DEADWOOD" issue, when in reality it is not. I am one of the people who was canned, after being assured repeatedly throughout the year that both I and my supervisors were doing everything possible to get me work; not even quality work, just work. The latter obviously didn't pull through for me.

I spanned my reach across offices, practice areas and political boundaries. I sought work, I performed well and I was well liked by all of my colleagues. I'm not a bad lawyer and I've proven that both at work and in public venues.

I come here with no sense of entitlement. I knew I was always a cog in the wheel and I'm eternally grateful for the opportunity I had at Latham to make good money and earn valuable experience. That said, I was screwed.

It truly hurts to hear that you are being let go for "performance reasons" while simultaneously being treated with the "oh well" our firm is "profits driven," and you're not bringing in the profits our partners want.

I've given years to Latham and I've sacrificed my personal life and goals in the process. Now, I find myself out on my ass (with an admittedly generous severance package) in the worst economy in my lifetime, and a great deal of my friends across the nation all are as well.

So, don't try and tell me that I'm deadwood and that I was already on my way out. I'm not deadwood when I have partners and associates sincerely unhappy about losing my contribution to their practices. Simply, I was low hanging fruit.

That being said, this is a blessing. Big firm life is grueling and unforgiving. I look forward to finding a job that brings happiness to my life. Latham is duplicitous, which should come as no surprise to anyone working at Latham or any other large law firm. They don't care about you, they care about the bottom line. Live it and learn it.

This is my first ever post on ATL, and it will be my last... sorry folks, I just won't be responding, so leave any misdirected anger for someone else.

How has Dave Gordon's performance been lately to bring the NY office to this position? Maybe he'll let some of the laid-off associates crash at his massive new house.

Cadwalader is suing Paul Hastings for stealing their London office. This is excellent news! For Hillary! And Cadwalader!

38- you don't get it. Take a moment and ask yourself why you were shown the door and that person in your same class down the hall did not. I think you need to be objective, you did'nt get all rave reviews. You have been rated according, you were found wanting, and now your gone.

38- you don't get it. Take a moment and ask yourself why you were shown the door and that person in your same class down the hall did not. I think you need to be objective, you did'nt get all rave reviews. You have been rated according, you were found wanting, and now your gone.

40 - this is my last post. I worked as hard as possible to get that 1200 hours. If I wouldn't have begged people for work (over and over again) and billed hundreds of hours of pro bono I would have billed around 600 hours. There is literally no work at Latham. I know people that haven't billed a single hour in months. That is the whole point there is no work available. I know my 1200 hours is low, but it is the product of doing everything possible for work. There are a lot of people at Latham who billed around 1200-1500 hours last year.

We had meetings recently where our office's managing partner indicated that A/R is becoming increasing bloated, and would adversely affect the firm's profitability, even if work from these clients continued to trickle in. I suspect this may be true of other firms as well, in which case we can continue to expect firms to trim attorneys and staff to meet profit projections.

61 - what year are you?

#46- are you on ASSCOM? How sweet. Dude, stop drinking the koolaid and read what people are saying. People begged and pleaded for work, did pro bono, AOP, took whatever, and still couldn't make pace b/c there ISN'T ENOUGH WORK. I agree that this isn't Latham's fault per se in this economy, but it's not the associates' fault either and adding insult to injury by suggesting that they didn't "make the effort" is truly shitty. #55- no, because I know people who made their hours (granted, not by much), had good reviews and still got laid off. LW needs to trim the ranks b/c they over-hired and, as someone above pointed out, spent too much on underperforming laterals. To then say that these attorneys deseved being laid off is just outrageous.

45 - click on "Comments" instead of clicking on the post and then when you refresh it will do what it used to do.

A lot of people at Paul Hastings only billing 1200, too. Good luck to you. I'll probably be joining you soon.

Not sure why there is so much confusion here, but seems like some of these guys should have just billed 700 more hours.

This is great.....people are losing their jobs and other people are telling them they deserved it. To the people who have lost their jobs, good luck and you have my sincerest best wishes for landing on your feet somewhere else. For those that want to look at these terminations/layoffs "objectively," you are below pond scum.

How are many of these large firms with heavy transactional practices viable businesses? They have to cut associates. They should just do the layoffs openly and admit it.

60 - there was nothing "objective" here: if there was one issue in a review, even if it was constructive feedback, ASScom used it as grounds to terminate. they told supervisors to be extra candid this year. The poor fools whose supervisors listened are the ones who are out.

Mofo has been doing the same thing for months. Nice and stealthy.

I had no performance issues that were made clear to me. I made hours (over 2100 hours). Most of the lawyers I have worked with were not consulted about the decision -- I had to tell them I was let go (so much for the one-firm-firm bullshit). Oh, and even though i made hours, I got zero bonus. They give you this 3 month package which actually ends when you find a job. So, it actually isn't 3 whole months. So, I got robbed of a bonus I earned, and I don't get a real severance.

Let's see -- you make hours, have no articulated performance issues, and most of the people you work with were not consulted. Sounds like a layoff to me.

I echo what has been said - I don't have a problem with the business reality of being cut. It is probably a good business decision on their part because the little work that remains can be given to fewer people and help keep those people trained and progressing. But the way they handled this was heartless and gutless. And to continue to call it performance-based is an insult.

So has Skadden.

Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!

Up next K&E

Is there really an effective difference between being "stealth" laid off vs openly laid off?

If you go to interview and you concede to a prospective employer that you were terminated "for performance," from the leveraged fin group at Latham during winter 2009, employer isn't going to interp as "omg he must have sucked." He'll think, duh, economy. Followed potentially by "wow Latham, stealth layoffs, asshole thing to do but times are tough I guess."

Likewise if you tell him you were laid off purely due to the economy, he'll know this isn't entirely uncorrelated w/your performance; i.e., you weren't one of the rising stars of your class.

Anyone in the NY office wishing that Latham's management had gleaned some employee loyalty skills from Bernie Madoff? Compare Madoff to Gordon: Madoff had to be taken away in handcuffs to PREVENT him from paying bonuses to his employees. In the end, Latham and Madoff's fund will end up in the same place, but look how they treated their employees before the flameout.

71--what more can you say about Mofo?

What's the gossip on SV / Silicon Valley?

71--what more can you say about Mofo?

Come'on guys, I know it hurts but things are going to get alot worse. Wilson Sonsini just let go of 45 attorneys. Next on the schedule is partners are going to get their units cut. If your smart you will get on the Obama train and look at some public service job.

72 - Good luck keeping up and finding work before the "at most" 3 months "severance" runs out. Every prospective employer will know that these weren't performance-based, so that in itself shouldn't set you back on the job market. Which practice group were you in, and do you expect that more people will be/have been laid-off too?

38 -- don't listen to the haters. They mistakenly think they're better than you because they haven't been canned yet (but there will be plenty of opportunities for them to get the boot).

Sorry you lost your job. That really sucks. Best of luck. Try to find something better than this (BigLaw) job.

Obama is going to tank the economy, there will be nothing left but govt jobs....

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

Sounds like a number of firms are going the Latham route but not a lot of people are talking about each firm specifically.

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

has anyone heard about L&W Chicago? numbers? class? department?

Great comments page - helpful and professional.

Sorry to everyone who was laid off. It's hard, and please don't feel like the people making "deadwood" comments are saying anything that anyone else really thinks. No one who's graduated law school honestly believes that lay offs during this kind of economy are performance related. And most lawyers knew about the stealth layoff practices before this tsunami of bad financial news, too.

Lay offs happen to good people, and good workers. I hope something better than this place is in the future for everyone who's put in their time in big law.

86 - Sorry but the majority of people who have been let go are white males.

84--Damn! You mean Obama's going to mess up the fine situation Bush left us in?

Latham sends people packing every review period, even during the good times. But unfortunately Latham refuses to be truthful about the fact that their standards are very different during good times vs. bad. When the firm is busy, they will keep a middling associate or around even if they are just making pace while everyone else is billing 2400+. But as soon as things turn bad they show these people the door quickly. This was the case in 2001-2003 and I'm sure it is the case today.

There has always been a debate over whether this constitutes a "layoff" but I think that is just semantics. Many of the people who are being pushed out would have been kept in good times, or they would have left voluntarily for other opportunities. I'm sure Latham's "performance based" standards are very different than they were just 1 year ago.

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

I'll take a government job ...

It's because democrats have failed to fix the economy for us. Socialism is not the answer! Impeach Obama!

Wurzelbacher/Palin 2012!

If there is one lesson to be learned here.

STAY AWAY FROM THE CALIFORNIA BASED FIRMS

90 - I mean Obama is going to make the economy much worse

Any word on the San diego office

I don't want to get my unit cut! Once (when I was 8 days old) was enough. There's not much left to spare.

Time to cut the wheat from the chaff. In good times you can make money on the chaff. In bad times you make sure you keep your top performers.

What a fall from grace for a firm that was once revered as the pinnacle of associate happiness. If you are a 2L or 3L holding an offer, trust me, you should be worried. There have been concrete discussions about pushing back the next class start date to 2010. Anyone in the know who does not admit that to you is flat out lying. Lots of that going on at Latham.

Definition- chaff (chf)
n. Trivial or worthless matter

71 here:
Mofo let go a bunch of secretaries/staff this past spring/early summer in LA and during the summer and fall let go scattered associates throughout their offices (the ones I knew were hard workers and a few were smart first years in private equity, structured finance, and corporate with great attitudes). There were additional stealth layoffs this past December, a rumor of 25 attorneys being let go at some point Jan/Feb. Reviews have been particularly harsh so that they can let attorneys go as needed. (The only differentiating factor among associates is if they are protected by a partner who loves them or not. . . good people are being canned if they aren't a partner's darling and crappy people retained who happen to have fallen into good graces somehow. . .some of our associates barely cleared 1100 hours but are still employed and others who cleared 1900 aren't.)

I actually had a partner admit to me that in the 2000/2001 downturn they had to really look closely at attorneys in their reviews because they had a lot of deadwood around.

SkaTTTen ArTTTs

90 Whatever bush's faults he did not hate the private sector. Obama does; he has nothing but disdain for people who dont work as community organizers or govt employees. For him the private sector is evil and should pay higher and higher taxes. When the "stimulus" package fails and teh govt is in 10 trillion in debt, Obama will call for more taxes and more spending. He claims to be new but his the same peice of crap the dems have offered for the last 40 years but if you acknowledge that you are a racisist.

Should judicial clerks coming to Latham be worried about the bonus? Could deal with the start date push-back but that bonus ranked VERY high in my "whether to clerk" decisionmaking process...

Sadly, even if you are a talented attorney with a good resume (or great resume), you are likely going to spend longer than the 3 months looking for your next job, particularly if you are looking for a biglaw gig.

104,
FINE, then give me a government job! Oh, wait. Actually, they have over 300 applications for every opening.
Guess your theory was shot in the butt!

B-b-b- but Latham was ATL's favorite firm! How could this be true???

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

Kanye West says:

Latham & Watkins hates Associates.

(Mike Meyers stares uncomfortably at the floor)

Um, 105, if you are clerking now, 100 said the next start date would be 2010... you'll wait a year to start but not give up your bonus?

Anybody, at all levels of BIGLAW should be worried. Doesn't anybody here have smarts enough to read something other than the funny papers?

110, the start dates will be pushed from fall 2009 to the start of 2010, so the clerk would likely be looking at a start date pushed back a few months. That's not such a big deal, provided one can, you know, live for those few months. But giving up the BigLaw salary for a year with the expectation of a clerkship bonus, and then not getting that bonus? That's a bigger deal.

Get out of law while you can.

Any layoffs in SF? Former LW person concerned about old colleagues but feel like it would be more obnoxious to email any of them out of the blue about this.

Any IP associates cut? A few month ago there IP department was booming, at least that is what they told me :)

First to freeze the salary and now to stealth layoff. OMG

this all just brings up the question of who will be the first firm to do away with clerkship bonuses

115 -- i hope you're not talking about the LW NY office because a bunch of their IP partners left over the summer.

I worked at LW for 5 years and can't think of anyone that got let go for "performance." I knew some 7th/8th years that didn't get the call (i.e., no p'ship) and some people that got so so reviews and left.

Yes, layoffs began on Friday in SF.

112, 4 months of salary = clerkship bonus. so 105 is still behaving irrationally unless s/he has reason to believe a stipend would be paid during the limbo period.

Not so for the clerkship bonus trade-off message.

Getting the clerkship bonus and NOT having to work is better than getting four months of salary (which is a little more than clerkship bonus) but having to work if its one or the other.

Also, some folks don't start normally until October/November so they would only be missing 2-3 months if dates got pushed back to the first of the year.

On the downside, since I believe bonuses may come after actually starting, waiting until Jan with no money would indeed be challenging to those in need of money.

Not a Lathamite, but a bonus receiver this year at another firm

113: ...and go where, exactly?

Something that needs to be understood: it is extraordinarily difficult to be a "star performer" as a junior a) because of what you are being asked to do; b) because you likely have so little work. Difficult, meaningful work isn't reaching junior people.

Those being retained are not "star performers" on any metric related to quality; they are, however, probably popular with influential partners.

121, you're ignoring the fact that a push-back of start dates gives people 3-4 months of free time to do whatever they'd like, whereas cutting a $50K bonus has no upside. also, many people don't start until october after clerking.

122 -- The fact that bonuses aren't paid until after you start wouldn't affect incoming Latham first years, who get "bar stipends" in May instead of "stub bonuses."

Join the police, become a teacher, become a firefighter, etc. etc. etc. There are MANY better jobs out there than law. I actually HOPE I get laid-off so I can get some severance and switch careers. Sounds dumb, but it's the truth.

124 is stupid

agree with 122. Pushing start date back and spending a few months traveling the world sounds great. Given the choice between that and starting on time but with no bonus and having to work those months for the same money, no brainer. That said, anyone choosing their next career move based on the difference between onetime bonus of 35K as opposed to 50K, or whatever, is an idiot.

118- No, i dodged that bullet. One of the mid-level associates got really drunk at dinner and told me there was no work and that he was forced to usurp work usually reserved for first years.

How did they manage to recruit anyone this OCI period? Were their troubles not crystal clear? The firm was excessively dependent on financial institutions and prior to the start of OCI had lost some of its most prominent clients.

124 -- give me a break. You can tell a good junior from a bad junior in one assignment.

118- No, i dodged that bullet. One of the mid-level associates got really drunk at dinner and told me there was no work and that he was forced to usurp work usually reserved for first years.

How did they manage to recruit anyone this OCI period? Were their troubles not crystal clear? The firm was excessively dependent on financial institutions and prior to the start of OCI had lost some of its most prominent clients.

often, especially when junior people are laid off, it's just bad luck that they got picked. First through third years are still pretty fungible - the fact that one is heavily staffed on matters could just be luck. The associate who's not on too many matters could've been assigned projects that, it was thought, would take longer. Lots of projects don't drive the hours they're expected to drive. Others drive far more. I've also seen junior people laid off because they just finished a very time-intensive project and suddenly were easy to let go, because they weren't on many other matters.

So the difference between who's 'wheat' and who's 'chaff' can be luck of the draw.

127 - if it sounds dumb, why write it? Because you want people to think you're dumb?

If the clerkship bonus is not paid until starting, and the incoming clerk's start date is pushed back to 2010, this will have devastating tax consequences.

$50k bonus realized in 2009 + $35k or so earned Jan - Aug 2009 as a clerk

vs.

$50k bonus realized in 2010 + $170k as a 2nd year (since most clerks come in at 2nd year)

I would hope the firm would work with the incoming to avoid this. And not by rescinding the clerkship bonus.

Haven't read all the comments above, so apologies if this is a repeat. All you stealthily fired L&W-ites should read that crazy Gary Green v. Skadden complaint again. Some very good info regarding your rights to your employment file, including the right to copies of all your reviews....

while I'd love guaranteed bonus money + months to travel the world, who says the job would actually be there in 2010?

remember the places telling clerks not to show up?

for those that have work out there, if you can bill 1500 hours, then you can bill 1800 hours. 300 hours a year is an extra hour a day. Find it.

Found it - it was in my desk drawer all along! Thanks 138!!!

To those who say this is cutting deadwood or are looking it at it objectively. What evidence do you have that you aren't yourself deadwood? Obviously reviews, hours, and committment are not metrics used by Latham and other BigLaw firms. So what proof do you have of your indispensibility?

Hint: You have no f-in clue of where you stand.

I am an attorney at Latham who was recently terminated. Until now, I had a relatively positive experience at Latham and plan on keeping relations with my colleagues and mentors there -- many of whom have expressed sadness to see me go.

I've heard that they are cutting 20 attorneys in LA (where I am) and about 10% of associates nationwide. If 10% of associates are really being cut for their performance, what does that say about the firm as a whole?

I was very disappointed by the way they handled the layoffs. I made hours and got some great reviews and a couple with "constructive criticism." The standards are definitely much harder than last year (one of the criticisms I received was for asking questions).

I think that there were probably a number of factors that went into the termination decisions, including performance, practice area and whether your connections are with partners in practice areas that are considered a priority at Latham.

Even if everything in my reviews was true, I don't think Latham handled this appropriately. I can't speak for anyone else, but my meeting was pretty hostile and they spent about 20 minutes berating me. There is no reason to treat any human being this way, let alone an honest and hardworking employee with whom you might want to preserve goodwill.

For the comments criticizing Latham attorneys for their sense of "entitlement." If you think the expectation of being treated with honesty and a modest amount of dignity and respect is an unreasonable sense of "entitlement", you need a good therapist.

135 - So you're saying that the salary freeze (reducing amount realized in 2010) is a good thing for the incoming clerk?

And into what 113?

Investment banking at Bear, I mean, Lehman, scratch that, Citigroup?

Ha Ha Ha!

Re 102

The reviews are pathetic. Cosmetic window dressing setting associates up for the knife. It is really sad watching partners play this silly game. Totally gutless. 102 is right that it is the ass kissers/lickers that will survive at MoFo. It is entrenched in the CULTURE. The "culture" is a joke -- just relentless propoganda.

141 GIVEMEABREAK! Crying in your beer won't do anygood. The people who got canned were processed accordingly.

Mayer Brown made it rain (bonus-wise) in DC, Chi, and Palo Alto.

141-

Sorry man, thank you for your post, and good luck.

145-

Stop being a pathetic jerk off.

While Mayer did make it rain, it is totally shitty to put that in this thread. Good luck to all LW let go.

MB Associate

If we're to believe the comments of laid off associates regarding the amount of work available, it sounds like Latham may not be around come 2010.

The lesson here is firms that go out of their way to please associates in the up times will have a hell of a hard time maintaining morale and their image when recession comes chugging down the pipe. Latham has gone from beloved to pariah in less than a year.

141, maybe it will make sense if you think about it this way: Latham wanted to cut 10% of its associates, so they chose the bottom 10% of performers to lay off. That's a performance-based layoff!

148 -- You're right. I apologize.

-- 146

Seriously, you fucktards who are throwing flames at the person who billed 1200 hours need to shut the fuck up. Its the same story at any major firm that has (had) any significant transactional practice. If you don't realize that then you are either a litigator with your head up your ass, or a clueless law student.

I work at Latham and I still think it is a great place to work. Tough times sometimes require tough decisions. My best wishes for the ones getting the bad news.

yuck

Look on the bright side. This is the perfect opportunity to get out of a career we all love to hate. Think of what's really important in life. Get more sleep, get back in shape, spend more time with your wife/husband and kids (or start a family), and be happier. Find a new career:

- Teaching
- Police Officer
- Fire Fighter

These are all great jobs. I'll guarantee you'll be happier in one of those jobs. I'm secretly hoping that I'll be laid off soon to give me the push to switch careers.

123 - Back to the moon where you will be spanked with moon rocks!

I'm curious - I keep reading that Latham ostensibly fired people "for cause" - but doesn't this have an impact on unemployment benefits (i.e., if it's really "for cause", doesn't it bar eligibility)?

If so, it seems like some people might not want to agree/accept that their termination was for cause, if this is really how it was being phrased, since you may not be eligible for unemployment then (benefits which the Obama administration may extend from the current 9 months to a year or longer).

Do I smell a class action for unlawful termination in an attempt to circumvent labor laws?

this is silly. why is this site only focused on LW? where are the stories about the STTTB, S&C, DPW, SkaTTen and Cravath layoffs (all confirmed)?

Good luck to all of you who lost your jobs. I'm sorry so many of the posters on here seem to think you can "find" an extra hour, as if the problem was you not fitting more billables into your busy schedules, and not that the partners were not giving out hours. Best of luck.

there is zero attrition. what do you want firms to do?

153 – Sure. I don't think anybody is arguing that tough decisions have to be made in this type of economy -- but there are respectable and unrespectable ways of making those decisions and carrying them out. Latham promised not to lay off associates, used that promise as an excuse to lower salaries, and then conducted stealth layoffs. It deserves every bit of criticism it is getting and more.

Hey, all you people giving tips to ATL about how badly Latham treated you: quit being morons. Latham is a big part of your resume and your contacts there, especially if you were as good as you think you were, will be your best source of future referrals, etc. Why drag them down with you?

Doing so shows a pretty big lack of judgment. You're getting a short-term benefit in venting but you're looking at much bigger long-term damage to your self.

1,200 hours = termination for performance.

You should have billed more hours, plain and simple. Obviously, you did not put too much effort into getting more work.

1,200 hours. Really, give me a break. We don't subsidize lazy associates. Why do you think you get paid a fairly sizable salary?

162 - stop trying to censor the truth

The way these layoffs were conducted sounds rediculously harsh. Why can't they do what other firms have done (Wilson, most recently) and just conduct normal layoffs? Seriously, what is in it for Latham doing it this way? Is it just a PR move so they don't have to send a press release and an email to the rest of the firm? Is it really worth it to do it this way? Are they actually trying to deny that the firm is suffering because we are in a depression? Or that their assbag partners couldn't produce enough work for all the people they foolishly decide to hire in 2003-2007. I hope the word really starts to spread about this.

163: Not if the partners can't get off their fat asses and bring in business. No one was turning down work. There wasn't any.

Stop with the BS sense of self-entitlement. People are being laid off in all industries all over the country. This is business. Billing 1,200 hours in a year = inclusion on the lay-off list.

162, that's a neat idea you have there, but it's unrealistic - any prestige hit that Latham takes as a result of people complaining on this site (and any other) about how associates are treated will be negligible from the perspective of potential employers looking at a resume with Latham on it. Associate satisfaction prestige does not equal Biglaw competitive universe prestige unless you are a 2L at OCI, and even then that's debatable. People should complain on here all they want without the fear that doing so will somehow decrease the value of their LW experience on a resume.

But 167, these aren't layoffs. Latham is immune to the current economic conditions, and this is part of its normal performance review.

Are there any non-TTToilet firms left?

I worked at LW for many a few years before getting let go. Same old story. I billed over 2400 hours for the past 3 years and had a poor year - 1500. Basically they told me the same thing - the work was there and I could have found it somehow (even though we all know it wasnt there - at least not for all of us to share). Imagine that, here I thought I was actually doing well at LW and was immune since I was such a good perfomer for the last few years and boom - they let me go. I really can say now that this is one of the worst professions out there. We work soooo hard and for sooo long and we really have no security. I should have went to medical school. Good luck to all the others.

The people who speak of deadwood associates having layoffs coming to them remind me of those people who say things like "it'll never happen to me" when it comes to STDs, car accidents, and other misfortunes.

After all, like the mofo partner said (a la 102), there are no layoffs. There are only those associates who miraculously start under performing as soon as the economy turns south who had not previously!

Good luck to all--especially to those who think that they are immune from being deemed deadwood, since reality bites a lot harder when your head (and teeth) are up your ass.

I worked at LW for many a few years before getting let go. Same old story. I billed over 2400 hours for the past 3 years and had a poor year - 1500. Basically they told me the same thing - the work was there and I could have found it somehow (even though we all know it wasnt there - at least not for all of us to share). Imagine that, here I thought I was actually doing well at LW and was immune since I was such a good perfomer for the last few years and boom - they let me go. I really can say now that this is one of the worst professions out there. We work soooo hard and for sooo long and we really have no security. I should have went to medical school. Good luck to all the others.

I worked at LW for many a few years before getting let go. Same old story. I billed over 2400 hours for the past 3 years and had a poor year - 1500. Basically they told me the same thing - the work was there and I could have found it somehow (even though we all know it wasnt there - at least not for all of us to share). Imagine that, here I thought I was actually doing well at LW and was immune since I was such a good perfomer for the last few years and boom - they let me go. I really can say now that this is one of the worst professions out there. We work soooo hard and for sooo long and we really have no security. I should have went to medical school. Good luck to all the others.

150,

Incorrect. There simply isn't enough work to go around, due to the economy (or due to the partners' inability as business getters). Even if all associates were top flight performers and equally so, there would still be layoffs. Partners in the BigLaw system will make cuts when they can and when those cuts boost profits. In a climate like this, that has little to do with performance.

Suppose three top flight associates are each billing 1200 hours. The partnership will cut one of the attorneys with the idea of allocating 600 hours each to the remaining two, bringing their hours to 1800. Revenues remain the same, while the partnership cuts its labor costs by 33%. That leads to higher profits per partner.

The cut attorney's performance is not a necessary factor to trigger the firing: the firm will cut a position anyway.

Nor is the attorney's performance a sufficient factor to cause the firing. In the case of the three attorneys suppose they perform at different levels, 1-2-3. Also suppose they each are billing 1800 hours. Assuming that 1800 is an acceptable level for the firm, the worst performing, albeit competent (competent enough for the firm to bill clients for his time) attorney will not be terminated.

Given the slow work levels at Latham that attorneys are reporting in these comments, Latham would be making these cuts regardless of performance.

162 - That doesn't really make sense. "Someone told me that LW conducted stealth layoffs.... therefore, I will not hire this person who was laid off from LW."

How does the whole "dragged down" thing work again? We heard this in law school all the time, and it always seemed like a rationalization from people who are behaving badly, know it, and want everyone else to help them get away with it.

I think it usually works the opposite way, actually. Secrecy about things like this makes it easier for the companies to get away with treating EVERYONE poorly.

"Partners not bringing in enough work" is no excuse for your lack of billable hours. You should've called clients re: new legislation and compliance regulations, or whatever is applicable for your industry.

Down time should be used for client development, not for sitting on your asses and posting your sob stories on the Internet.

1,200 billables? LOL, no wonder you lost your job. No surprise there, my friend.

177 - you don't know what you're talking about. If you are a corporate lawyer, and all of your clients are freaking out about being able to pay their own employees at the end of the month, they are not going to appreciate you calling them with busy work. They'll see right through it and be irritated with you for trying to squeeze more money out of them when they are barely making ends meet. Clients are not doing anything that they don't absolutely have to do right now.

Speaking as a recovered big firm associate, I want to thank people like 150 for reminding me the jerks I used to work with. 141 - I agree with you

Stealth layoffs?

You are in a commodity business where supply grossly exceeds demand. Many of you will be unemployed by the end of the year.

http://endofesq.com/?p=920

People who keep claiming that these layoffs are really performance-related need to stop and think about how firms make headcount decisions. Virtually every "layoff" (by which I mean a termination that is designed to reduce headcount) has some performance-related component. Unless the firm is going to axe an entire practice group, it will naturally reduce headcount by eliminating its weakest performers. No firm that needs to reduce headcount will cut its best associates.

The distinction between a layoff and a performance-related cut should not be whether the associate's performance was factored into the decision (since it will be factored into the decision regardless) but whether the termination was designed to reduce headcount. Under that standard, these cuts should be viewed as layoffs unless Latham is planning to refill these positions soon, which seems unlikely.

The women at LW are attractive?

rumor has it that willkie in ny is in the midst of stealth firing -i heard cuomo has been canned

were there really layoffs at the ny firms 158 mentioned? layoffs at cravath?

Any news on layoffs at Cahill?

177 - that is laughable man. laughable.

Jesus DeJesus

P.S. Nobody fucks with DeJesus

185 - STB and Skadden for sure. Not sure about the others.

177, who are you and where do you work that your clients actually want you to manufacture excuses to bill more hours to them? And I'm sorry, but no Latham client wants to hear at random about new legislation from a third year associate who, up until this point, has largely been running that client's doc reviews. It would be awkward and socially tone-deaf in the extreme. Not to mention potentially seen as some kind of end-run around or attempted usurpation from the partner who manages the firm's relationship with that client.

187, why is it laughable?

Stop bashing these people over the hours. There really weren't hours available for these people. I was lucky enough to make my hours by the end of the year, but there were slow spots where I had to beg to get hours and there was just nothing out there.

185 - all confirmed. tell elie to get off his lazy ass and check.

177 has to be a subtle troll. No other explanation for such a strident, idiotic comment.

Hey 178 - did you say "LOL?" What are you a 12 year old girl? Or just a clueless fucking law student?

191, you prove that you could get more work if you really put forth an effort. 1,200 billables in an entire year is laughable at best.

I can see the 1,200 hours easy. There is no work at latham in certain areas. Hell, there were associates in one office billing around 500 hours last year for capital markets work. Foreign offices were offering severance to anyone who would jump ship.

Sorry for all the folks who worked hard and then got cut after one down year. Maybe that is better than doing it for 8 years before getting the "no partner" vote. Sure as hell have been enough of those at latham over the years.

We may be out of work, but Obama will turn things around. Change is coming and we will be entering a new age of prosperity and fairness.

YES WE CAN....

185 - all confirmed. tell elie to get off his lazy ass and check.

You don't just wake up and realize you only had 1,200 billables the previous year. You should've seen it coming and, more importantly, done SOMETHING about it.

What firms are raising first year salaries to 175k?

Well said, 182. But your description of the distinction should be broadened to terminations that are designed to "affect" (or maintain) headcount. With attrition low and waves of summer and new associates imminent, it is conceivable that some of the more successful firms may be acting simply to keep headcount from ballooning.

Obama can't do jack shit to save the economy. New age of prosperity and fairness MY ASS.

We can blame our current woes on the greedy law firm partners and ibankers.

Any first years get laid off? Those at LW should pay VERY good attention to whether any first years are let go. That would totally show that LW's claim that these firings are performance-based are BS.

I am also surprised that nobody's mentioned that LW pledged no layoffs in early 2008. ATL had that story, I'm just too lazy to look for it. I am sure that "no layoff" pledge has something to do with these recent cuts. It would just make the firm look incompetent if after that they do public layoffs.

Any first years get laid off? Those at LW should pay VERY good attention to whether any first years are let go. That would totally show that LW's claim that these firings are performance-based are BS.

I am also surprised that nobody's mentioned that LW pledged no layoffs in early 2008. ATL had that story, I'm just too lazy to look for it. I am sure that "no layoff" pledge has something to do with these recent cuts. It would just make the firm look incompetent if after that they do public layoffs.

203, you just don't get it. THERE WERE NO LAY-OFFS. There were only performance-based terminations of such persons that billed 1,200 hours in a YEAR.

This is exactly why the small-firm model in Europe is far superior to this American biglaw model with its tangled web of conflict checks.

182 -- Your post illustrates the problem. One associate's layoff might be one firm's performance-based termination.

All terminations reduce headcount. But, obviously, not all performance based terminations are layoffs. It's a semantic game. The firm arguably can, in good faith, say the terminations are performance based, since they don't cut their strongest associates. Yet, the firm's claim is arguably misleading because the bad economy and the general unavailability of work also obviously factored in many of the terminations.

It is all-round a shitty situation, and I feel for those who were terminated. My sense is that Latham would have done better to call it a "layoff." It is easier on the terminated people and their colleagues, and wouldn't make the firm look underhanded.

56 has to be one of the best comments on ATL ever.

171/173/174 - "should have went to medical school"? Maybe some layoffs were grammar-based.

177 - rofl. A client wants to receive a billable phone call from a junior associate right now?

205, you are the one who doesn't "get it." I worked my ass off from day one for a prestigious firm, and look what I got. They basically slammed the door on my ass as I was still in the doorway. And now I've got no job. I should never have gone to law school. This is a bunch of bullcrap. TOTAL BS.

You guys are so lost. What are you going to do when you get terminated? You have no real skills and there is no future in your firm for you or any other associate.

What is really surprising is that you get all worked up over bonus news and layoffs but don't seem to have a clue that you have entered a profession that is collapsing around you and you will be lucky to be employd at year end.

It doesn't matter what law school you went to--demand is dropping like a rock and you don't know enough law to feed yourself in the real world.

Maybe that's why you are called big firm bitches.

Laid off Latham people - did they use the words "for cause" when letting you go, and did they ask you to sign something (e.g., waiving unemployment or admitting you were fired "for cause")?

-- 157

210, did you just say "ROFL"? You're either a 12-year-old or a law student. Either way, it's your bed time. Don't let the bed bugs bite!

Did any of the recently let go Latham attorneys receive a bonus? I.e., if I received a bonus, can I feel relatively safe during this review/layoff period? (Of course, the next one could be just months away...)

209 was obviously shitcanned.

How long until the Partners are doing doc. review at LW?

215, you are very, very, very, very naive. No one is "safe" in this economy. You need to open your eyes to the real world, son.

Anybody can pay their loans off in 1.5 years. If you make 160k, you will clear 100k each year. If you clear 150k in 18 months, you can set aside 100k for loans and 50k for car, food, and rent. yes - this can be done... very easily. millions of americans do so on far less. of course, lots of people like to live in trendy neighborhoods, drive the beamer, and make it rain at strip clubs. these people cannot complain about loans.

How does the future look for tax attorneys?

- 2L with an offer (not at Latham)

cock and balls

I fucked several Lathan partners up the ass, one of them jizzed on his desk after I shot my load up his doggie style.

Biglaw associates have no skills and no real prestige. I'm glad I went solo. I am my own boss in charge of my own destiny, unlike the whiners here who blame LW when their toilets clog up.

Biglaw = TTT

I fucked several Latham partners up the ass, one of them jizzed on his desk after I shot my load up his doggie style.

219 is credited. If you appreciate the severity of the debt situation - and you should, you did take bankruptcy law, right - you should prioritize that while the money is coming in for sure. You should not prioritize dressing like partners with 7 figure incomes.

I fucked several Latham partners up the ass, one of them jizzed on his desk after I shot my load up his doggie style.

cock and balls, indeed.

cock and balls.

Biglaw associates have no skills and no real prestige. I'm glad I went solo. I am my own boss in charge of my own destiny, unlike the whiners here who blame LW when their toilets clog up.

Biglaw = TTT, in case you haven't noticed.

Wow, I'm glad I took Gibson LA over Latham. Gibson's laid off.... 0 associates? Ah yes. And they ....didn't freeze salaries? Indeed, they did not.

Suck it Latham. You're an overrated V20 wannabe.

Any word on Latham DC?

219, you forget two things: 401(k) contributions and the fact that law school debts alone often run up to 150k. BTW, if you live in NYC, you will not clear 100k. More like 85-90.

You have no right to complain if you only billed 1,200 hours.

231 here. When you graduate, your loan balance will be more like 165k. Don't forget that you pay interest.

Milbank has been doing the same thing for months. Nice and stealthy.

Milbank = TTT

This is ridiculous. Several comments have stated that people have been laid off for meeting or even exceeding hours, yet many comments are focusing on the single case of someone who billed 1200 hours.

I DON'T KNOW IF I HATE LAW OR BIGLAW OR BOTH, BUT I AM DONE WITH THIS. GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN. LAW SUCKS!!!!!

I got sacked a few months back from an AmLaw 100 having been given a bad review (my review a couple of months before was: "here's a 10% raise, here are the things you need to do to make partner in two or three years. also, bill more hours because that's what we do") to getting sacked four months later. I had a hint that this was going on and when the two partners who came into my office gave me the song-and-dance about the hours and my future and etc., when they said, "and, also, there were a number of performance issues." I stopped them and said,
"You are free to fire me for any reason you want, or no reason at all. I'm not going to listen to an indictment."

I think the managing partner actually looked hurt that I wasn't going to let them unload on me. It was very satisfying.

236, stop with the self-entitlement crap. No one is entitled to a job. Yes, the economy sucks and we all wish things were better. But none of us are "entitled" to a job. That is the wrong mentality to have.

219, don't be an idiot. My nanny makes $50k a year (that's not especially high for 60 hours a week) -- that's $90k of my pre-tax income right there. You might be right if you're talking to someone who's single and lives in Texas (given the absurdity of $50k for 18 months worth of rent, food and "car").

207, I don't think it's a semantic game at all. 182's distinction has to do with the *purpose* of the termination. If the primary purpose is to reduce headcount, it's a layoff. If the primary purpose is to get rid of a specific person who's not doing a good job, it's "performance-based." The distinction would be clearest where the performance-based-terminee is soon replaced with a lateral.

219 -- You shitface -- what about taxes??

People at boutiques tell me the big firms are courting them so that they can bring in/buy the business.

Oops, 238: having NEVER been given a bad review. Other than my tendency to drop important words in briefs.

236, that guy has to be a troll and we can safely ignore him. It's pretty clear that the thinking majority here would not blame the terminated associates for being surprised at losing their jobs so suddenly and irritated by the firm's handling of the whole situation.

Oops, 238: having NEVER been given a bad review. Other than my tendency to drop important words in briefs.

241, that's just more evidence that 219 has never left Texas.

231:

1. 401(k)'s are voluntary. Having private loans with 8.5% should take precedence over retirement. Paying off those loans are a prerequisite to even thinking about retirement.

2. I will grant you interest compounds. However, your annual interest loan on $150k would only be $10k in the first year, provided you are paying $8k/month on loans. While your interest will be larger in month 1, the aggressive reduction of the balance will make payments easier in month 12.

3. Even in NYC, you can live in Brooklyn, Queens, or Hoboken and get a decent place for $1000/month. That gives you $1700/month for "expenses". Even in the City that can be achieved with relative ease.

160 - You hit the nail on the head. Every (well managed) firm plans for attorney attrition. This allows them to forecast & manage expenses as well as determine how many new attorneys to recruit & hire to provide adequate coverage on on-going matters. Latham keeps the most extensive stats I've seen in BigLaw, even tracking what happens to attorneys after they leave (are they going in house, changing profession, going on long term leave, going to a competitor, etc.).

In good economic times, attrition happens as planned. People changing professions find it easier to leave since it will be easier to transition and find another job. People unhappy with whatever at Latham will go to a competitor, some go in house, others may decide to go on extended leave for their own reasons. But whatever that may be, it's always easier to leave when times are good.

In bad economic times, everyone hunkers down and NO ONE leaves. That's the problem we have now. The firm is forced to cut headcount to meet its attrition target. The criteria on who to cut most definitely has performance as a factor. That criteria may be harsher right now than in the past but that's part of the game, but to say it's not performance driven at all is naive.

The firm doesn't view it as a layoff because they're just doing what is necessary to meet the attrition target. And since performance is a factor, no matter how small or unfair, it does jive with the statement the firm gave. I feel for those let go and if you felt you were mistreated, I'm sorry for that but since I was not present at your termination, I can't render that judgment.

236, that guy has to be a troll and we can safely ignore him. It's pretty clear that the thinking majority here would not blame the terminated associates for being surprised at losing their jobs so suddenly and irritated by the firm's handling of the whole situation.

Also a troll: whoever keeps posting about people feeling "entitled" to jobs (see 239). So very clear that that is not what's going on here. People have a right to expect decent treatment, not jobs, and the complaints are about decent treatment.

238/243, we feel your plight, but no one is "entitled" to a job. Way to show that managing partner, but also way to burn bridges. It's all good though...biglaw isn't such a great place to work anyway. Think of it as a blessing in disguise. I KNOW you're not out on the streets homeless.

232, et al. Your point is well taken but is an intellectually lazy one. What if you worked in a huge structured finance practice? What if 80% of your billables in 2007 were working for Bear Stearns? Or, what if you are just one of the thousands of finance lawyers in the world who did well enough for the first six months of the year but didn't close a single deal during the last six months? You really think you could easily find more than 1200 hours in 2008? Really? Explain.

161 -

Latham never ever promised not to layoff associates. If you thought you heard that then you should be fired for cause.

For people who were canned and are feeling down, I can recommend this:
http://www.averyindex.com/happy_healthy_ethical.php.
Somebody posted it in a comments thread last night and it's a pretty good indictment of biglaw. Not strident, just honest.

I got the axe from LW NYC. This is my second ATL posting ever, after noting yesterday that there were obviously some comments coming from inside LW that were remarkably compassionate and decent. By way of proving my identity, how about if I say " I wish I could auto-delete all the emails from S.Z. and F.S."? I felt in the office today that one of the awful things about this is that we have no idea of the magnitude of this or who among our friends has been affected. Would it be helpful if we met for a drink somewhere a few blocks from the office (i.e. not BlackFinn)? Say, Thursday at 6? We have nothing to be ashamed of, but neither is there an easy/professional way to identify each other to commiserate and/or help each other out. I for one would love a stiff drink in the company of my peers...who these 4 years have been truly wonderful.

To 241,

I believe 219 took taxes into account: "If you make 160k, you will clear 100k each year. If you clear 150k in 18 months, you can set aside 100k for loans and 50k for [expenses." Not sure if the math is correct, but 219 seems to assume that $60000 is taken out in taxes, leaving $100000/year for the attorney to spend.

If you EVER believe ANY company or firm's promise to never lay people off then you are indeed very naive. The purpose of a law firm, like a business, is to make money. Often, the immediate bottom line is of utmost importance, not some future loss of goodwill from current employees.

247, $8k a month payments on loans when you yourself (assuming you're 219) assume (wrongly) a clearance of $100k/year obviously doesn't compute.

Also, your point 3 is grossly inaccurate and laughable. Maybe if you share a room in a commercial-zoned building with a family of immigrants.

252-

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/03/whats_up_at_latham_watkinsmora.php

229 = EPIC TOOL. Who cares about Gibson v. Latham you shortsighted, misguided, sad little turtle? Go back to Sherpardizing, cite-checking or making closing sets you monumental toolbag.

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/03/whats_up_at_latham_watkinsmora.php

219/247, have you ever taken a finance class? 401k's should not be viewed as mandatory.

1. The firm matches contributions (free money)

2. You can only contribute $15,500 per year. If you don't contribute one year, you can't contribute more the next. (Don't even talk about the catchup contributions way later in life.)

3. Compound interest after 30-40 years. Cutting off a few years of contributions at the beginning will have tremendous effects at the end.

247, your first point is also wrong. Just bad math. Perhaps it's because you've grossly underestimated taxes from the get-go. In any case, the tax relief from putting money in a 401(k) is obviously much greater than 8.5% (which is actually much higher than what anyone is paying now anyway, but whatever) -- it's your tax bracket. Just by putting that money in a 401(k) money market that makes no profit at all, you're doing much better than you'd be doing paying that same money down against loans.

Enough with the victim-blaming. We have heard dozens of consistent accounts from L & W attorneys across offices and practice areas to CONFIRM that good, hard-working attorneys have been fired, often in humiliating fashion, under the guise of "cause," because the firm's management lacks the conviction and integrity to admit that it is facing an understandable business downturn.

Other possible explanations are bogus fronts. The firings were for poor performance? Wrong. The most striking accounts have been from attorneys who were obviously shocked to be fired in light of their consistently strong reviews. Even if we disregard their portrayals of their reviews, many of the *remaining* L & W attorneys (that is, those who have survived this round of cuts) have confirmed that great colleagues were fired. Finally, remember that most of those let go thus far had 5-8 years under their belts. That means they've been reviewed (presumably positively) for at least five years and have kept their jobs, moved up with class, got bonuses, etc. It should raise eyebrows when these people are fired en masse for "poor performance" so late in the game.

They weren't trying hard enough to find work? Wrong. Again, every reliable commenter has confirmed that work scarcity is an issue for L & W. If someone is billing 1200-1500 hours in a year, that's about 4-6 hours a day. It is outrageous to conclude that everyone fired was demonstrating such willful slothfulness during this downturn. It's rational to conclude that work was very hard to come by, and that the fired lawyers (who have probably worked hard their entire lives to be in position to land a gig at Latham) were doing everything in their power to keep pace. Besides, any work "found" by one associate was necessarily "lost" by another (notwithstanding some commenters' assertions that work can be "created"--you're welcome, cash-broke clients!), so this can't justify the mass firings either.

To my recently laid off friends and colleagues, I am so sorry. I know many of you have ongoing financial obligations, live in expensive cities, and must support your families. Jobs are hard to find, and the openings that do pop up will be as competitive as ever to land. Stay strong by relying on those who love you, and remain confident in the skills and intelligence that have helped you succeed thus far.

To those who criticize the downtrodden: kindly fuck off. You are almost certainly less capable than those who were laid off, and you are certainly worse people. Dumb luck has kept you in your job, and your consequent insecurity seeps through your victim-blaming comments. You differ only in degree from the Islamic militants who stone rape victims for their "adultery."

To L & W management: Shame. Not for the firings, which indeed were justifiable, but for your bogus justifications and for the manner in which you conducted them. Shame for humiliating the attorneys who devoted years of their lives to proudly bearing the firm name on their business cards while padding your bank accounts. Shame for making promises you should have known (or did know) you couldn't keep, and then breaking them surreptitiously because you were too spineless to admit they couldn't be kept.

In a matter of years, the economy will recover. L & W will not.

--a fellow V-10 associate who knows he is lucky to have his job, for now.

189, assuming you have been staffed on the matter for more than six months, a third year should have an active role in managing the client relationship. Develop contacts at the client and they will start calling you before the partner, because you pick up the phone, even if you don't know every answer. It's a lot harder to fire an associate if the partner is going to have to explain to the client why the primary contact associate got fired.

258/260, here is where you FALL HARD ON YOUR ASS:

"He also addressed the challenges ahead for 2008... He specifically addressed the issue of layoffs. Dell said "there will be no layoffs" and that it was not even on the table for discussion."

Dell fulfilled his promise. There were no layoffs in 2008. The layoffs are happening now, and guess what? It's 2009.

261, no major law firm does matching contributions. Otherwise I agree with your points.

265 = MAJOR LEAGUE A_HOLE. Yeah, Big Time.

all the people arguing about semantics and math are either undergrads or 1L's.

The more I hear about this, the fishier it sounds. Of course the firings are performance related - otherwise there would be no way to distinguish who gets let go. But meeting attrition numbers sounds a lot like layoffs to me. It would be nice for management to acknowledge this.

Good luck to the departed.

Most of us will be lucky to get 1200 hours this year.

Best of luck to those who have been laid off, and all attorneys in biglaw would do well to remember the words of John Bradford.

If you think things are bad now, just wait. Recent anecdotal evidence across multiple markets shows an unprecedented number of partners billing under 1200 hours a year (or being credited with its revenue equivalent).

For many big firms, freezing associate salaries and laying off associates will have the same effect as placing a band-aid over a sucking chest wound.

I'm a YLS 2L going to the DC office- how screwed am I?

Best of luck to those who have been laid off, and all attorneys in biglaw would do well to remember the words of John Bradford.

If you think things are bad now, just wait. Recent anecdotal evidence across multiple markets shows an unprecedented number of partners billing under 1200 hours a year (or being credited with its revenue equivalent).

For many big firms, freezing associate salaries and laying off associates will have the same effect as placing a band-aid over a sucking chest wound.

Best of luck to those who have been laid off, and all attorneys in biglaw would do well to remember the words of John Bradford.

If you think things are bad now, just wait. Recent anecdotal evidence across multiple markets shows an unprecedented number of partners billing under 1200 hours a year (or being credited with its revenue equivalent).

For many big firms, freezing associate salaries and laying off associates will have the same effect as placing a band-aid over a sucking chest wound.

255, the guy didn't take out enough taxes for NYC. The amount is more like 85-90.

I used to believe that Latham was a great firm to work for. The celebrated firm culture (open, friendly, people genuinely like each other), the interesting work, the training, the balance between working hard and having fun...but more than anything, the people. For the most part, Latham is an amazing group of people. I would still like to believe that, despite what is happening. But these decisions don't come from nowhere, they come from some of the very people who gained our trust by pretending to care. The people who told us that stealth layoffs were an offensive practice and that Latham would never resort to it. The people that told us that the pay freeze was the less odious alternative. Many of us truly believed that Latham's payfreeze was a measure taken to avoid layoffs because they CARED about us.

It is unbelievably painful to be told that you are being "counseled out" for your poor performance when your reviews have consistently been excellent. It is unbelievably more painful to be slapped in the face with the publicly released comment that this is not part of an economic layoff. Not only do they stab us in the back, but they continue to pour salt on the wound.

What is happening at Latham right now has left many, many associates feeling stunned and betrayed and the remaining associates appalled and paranoid about whether they are next. Nothing Latham's top brass (i.e. AssCom) tells its associates has any credibility anymore.

I still believe most of the people left at Latham are good people. I hope they are spared from any further jackass moves by Latham.

What 263 aka Rusty Danger said. A-fucking-men.

What 263 aka Rusty Danger said. Amen.

Biglaw associates are unfortunately fungible commodities. But the only little power we do have comes in the recruiting process. Unfortunately, people's memories are short.

I think associates all have the responsibility to forever remind other associates who are looking to lateral or younger alums trying to decide which firm to go to which firms have a history of prudent management and treating people well, and which firms have been hit hard by each economic downturn and resorted to screwing over associates. I think the last year has made it clear which firms are which.

Let's NEVER FORGET

i have a side comment (sorry to folks concerned about latham layoffs - it is sad and sorry that it happened).

the idea that a 401(k) is a no-brainer for a young person is incorrect. there are some instances where it makes sense. however, if you plan on making more money in retirement than you are today, it makes sense to not go into the 401k because making 160k puts you in the 28% marginal bracket while the highest bracket is 35% and will likely go to 39.6%.

also, i'm suspect of your claim on short-term savings. using a paycheck calculator for a NYC resident making 160k (with 2 allowances and no other deductions), you would have a net pay of $98624. using the same parameters but putting aside $15500 in pretax income, your net is $87464. Bracketing any pay concerns, that difference is $11000. PLUS loans have a 7.9% interest rate. Assuming a blend of stafford and plus loans, you would have 7% which results in $10000 in interest per year. Aggressively paying off those loans will prevent a recurring $10000 payment if you are making the minimum payments.

I guess my point is this: I haven't encountered a law firm that matches 401k contributions. If they do, it is a no brainer because you are making "100%" return on whatever you contribute. However, the short-term tax benefits are overrated.

join with readers of end of esq. to force the ABA to address the mass layoffs and over supply of lawyers.

http://endofesq.com/?p=784

people who do a pretty good job are always shocked to find out they are in the bottom 10-20%. But someone has to be. Often times people gossip about who is not showing up, or who is not doing as much work as everyone else. Often times it's not that person's "fault" though they may not have hustled as much as others. But while other people know who the bottom associates are, the bottom associates themselves probably dont know and are thus shocked when they are sent packing.

does their performance lag behind their fellow associates? Probably.

do they deserve a for cause firing? Probably not.

did the economy impact this? Definitely.

Okay, okay okay...everyone needs to calm down, take a deep breath, take a step back, and see the forest from the trees:

1. L&W is a business. Its purpose is to make money.

2. Like all other businesses in this economy, L&W faces serious financial problems.

3. L&W needs to rectify their financial problems.

4. In any business, including L&W, salaries are the biggest expense.

5. Therefore, salaries need to be frozen/cut.

6. If that's not enough, jobs need to be cut.

7. L&W cut jobs to ensure its continued survival and avoid being forced into bankruptcy and dissolution.

Conclusion: You have NO RIGHT AT ALL to complain about losing your job! Thousands and thousands of people have lost their jobs!

Once again, the partners didn't just wake up one day and decide they didn't like you and fired you solely because they didn't like you.

271 ---- Apparently very screwed.

I don't think anyone is faulting Latham for having to reduce headcount - that much was inevitable based on pace across offices over the last 6-12 months. It's the WAY in which they have handled this that is so egregious and hurtful.

All they are doing by conducting this massive stealth layoff is angering and embittering associates who might have otherwise understood that the firm was facing tough choices and pissing off their friends who still have their jobs but know this could happen to them. Reducing headcount by what appears to be near 10% of the associate ranks IS a layoff.

LW first year, here. Look, the non-Lathamites posting need to understand that LW associates have absolutely no control over how many hours they are working right now. And they haven't for at least the past year. There is nothing to do. I will be surprised if I bill over 1,200 hours this year. A lot of the people who actually made hours for 2008 billed 500+ pro bono hours, because that's the only work we are able to actually go out and get.

I repeat : there is no paid client work to be had. It's pretty simple.

Best of luck to those who were let go. I have no doubt that you are very capable attorneys and wonderful people. Could have been any of us.

Another former LW person here (left a couple of years ago).

275, when I left LW I was so conflicted about the "great people" angle you're talking about - on the one hand, the people I worked with were, almost uniformly, really excellent people. But we all also shared the most important character trait that Biglaw demands - we worked hard and played by the rules, which in the context of a law firm meant following orders, among other things. And unfortunately, when they rise in the power structure and are therefore inherently removed from associate life, supremely risk-averse people like the kind of people who succeed in Biglaw are eventually going to follow orders that require them to do things that shitty people do.

At the end of the day, I felt like there was a fundamental conflict between the LW business model (and it's not just LW) and being a truly good person. And the more responsible you are for upholding/maintaining the business, the worse of a person you're going to have to be. In the end, for that reason, I'm secretly glad that none of my friends from my class year who remain at LW have the slightest hope of becoming partners.

279, you fail to consider the Roth 401k, in which you make after-tax contributions but don't pay any tax on the distributions during retirement.

271 will be fine, there will be a smaller SA class and everyone will get hired. by the time 271 starts in 2011 the economy should be roaring back to life

which is bad news for 271's 2012 social life

It's not as easy as you might think to become a firefighter a cop or a teacher. Most police departments are delaying new hires due to city budgets etc and the hoops you have to jump through to teach are insane. I've looked into teaching at different points in my biglaw career only to realize it would be very easy to make the switch. On a separate note it's hard to enjoy a severance package when you can't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Best of luck to those let go.

279, you don't pay $10,000 in interest every year if you are aggressively paying down the loans. By aggressive, I don't mean to the extent of living off $50k for 18 months.

What you need to do is calculate the future value of your $15.5k contribution 30-40 years from now. Then you need to compare this with your loan payments. You will see that the future value of the 401k contribution far outweighs the added interest you pay in student loans.

It's not as easy as you might think to become a firefighter a cop or a teacher. Most police departments are delaying new hires due to city budgets etc and the hoops you have to jump through to teach are insane. I've looked into teaching at different points in my biglaw career only to realize it would not be very easy to make the switch. On a separate note it's hard to enjoy a severance package when you can't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Best of luck to those let go.

Shame on Latham for the bogus justifications for the layoffs. Could it be.....that Cadwalader actually did things right back in June with their 100 or so layoffs? [shudder]

test

To Mr. 1200 hours, I agree that you can't magically make more hours appear. But (and hope this helps someone out there), in this economy, if you are on pace for anything less than 1800 hours, start looking NOW. If you are a corporate associate who is still on pace for 2000 hours in 2009 (or somewhere close), congrats, you are very lucky and I wouldn't worry too much. Even us "evil" biglaw partners realize that 2009 productivity will not be close to 2008 numbers. But less than 1800 - please see the writing on the wall. These posters will be you in 3-4 months. The only other way around the axe is to (1) be indispensable to a client or run the relationship (which is .00004 of you) or (2) have a unique specialty the firm will need to harvest in the future (which is another .0004 of you - congrats to all you securities regulation speciaists).

And I have news for everyone - maybe 70% of corp. associates will still be here at this time 2010.

test

I am a 2L who accepted an offer at Latham over other extremely well respected firms, solely because of repeated assurance that Latham was "doing well" and was "well-diversified." I am very disappointed and, in some sense, I feel mislead. After reading the accounts on this website, I do not have the heart to even attend the Latham summer program, because I cannot envision myself working at such a place.

I wish I could contact the other firms and get a second chance.

284, you are missing the point.

If L&W announced layoffs, then everyone here would be bitching and moaning about Dell going back on his promise.

Now, L&W didn't announce layoffs, and everyone is bitching and moaning about how unfairly they were treated.

It's a lose-lose situation, friend.

282 is a douche. No one is saying that L&W is not entitled to make cuts in order to remain solvent. The general consensus seems to be that L&W should be ashamed for making these cuts under the false guise of performance-based cuts, which can hurt future prospects of laid off attorneys. That, and the false promises made by the firm.

If ever one needed an excuse to go to an S&C or its peer firms over Latham and other so-called lifestyle firms, it is now. S&C almost never lays people off; you work hard but you don't worry about your job. People are direct and honest. Always take S&C over a Latham. Always always. You will be better off in lean times.

oh suck it up, be happy you even have a summer associate position idiot.

289/291, no one ever said that becoming a teacher or a cop or firefighter is easy. Good things take hard work. My point is that this is the perfect opportunity for you to pursue these careers. There may be some hiring freezes, there are places that are hiring.

I'm not sure if you missed a word when typing your post, but why didn't you pursue the teaching career? Your post mentioned that it was easy. Or did you mean not easy? If you really wanted to be a teacher, why didn't you make the effort?

296 stop being such a pussy. You have a job take it and be happy.

There's always money in the banana stand.

LOOK, IF LATHAM WAS TRUTHFUL.

Ok, look. If Latham was truthful, all of you would be making the same complaints, but instead focusing on how the firm lied when it promised no layoffs!

297, I think Latham made clear that layoffs were on the table in 2009 during the associates meeting following the pay freeze where it was announced that layoffs were indeed on the table now. But it was also said during that meeting that stealth layoffs were an offensive practice and that they would not do it.

Despite some comments to the contrary, there is indeed a palpable sense of entitlement here. L&W did what it had to do.

join with readers of end of esq. to force the ABA to address the mass layoffs and over supply of lawyers.

http://endofesq.com/?p=784

I hear profits at Latham are down 80% and partners are scared sh*tless about the firm's survival. Read yesterday's WSJ story about run-on-the-firms that under-performing firms like latham are facing.

Laid-off associates - contribute to spreading the word about the partner's performance - or lack thereof - and about the firm's imminent demise if you want to even the score for this bullsh*t "performance-based cuts" press release courtesy of Dave Gordon who promised that lay-offs will be called lay-offs and not performance based.

Were there any layoffs today, or just Friday and Monday?

At the associates meeting a few months ago, NY's MP assured us that Latham had learned an important lesson from its layoffs in the early 90s. Apparently, that lesson was: rely on stealth and subterfuge instead of being honest about layoffs.

304 is an idiot. If Latham promises no layoffs, then it deserves to eat all the shit in the world for reneging on its promise. Latham has no right to be immune from criticism for breaking its own goddam promise.

Hi.

I am not LW, but a biglaw associate at a peer firm. I have no investment in this one way or the other.

But I do want everyone posting to know:

It is obvious to anyone who reads this that the LWites who were canned are NOT COMPLAINING about being fired; they are complaining about THE WAY the firings occurred.

So if you are one of the thoughtful balanced posters complaining, don't worry, the silent majority gets yoru point. The much less insightful posts that say "No one guaranteed you a liftetime job - it's a tough economy -d eal with it" are not convincing and we totally get it and support you.

-- The silent majority. :-)
PS Best of luck.

309 - There will be layoffs through review period. Also this is just the first wave. Another wave is coming soon thereafter

The writing was on the wall when Latham declared a pay freeze. It is basic economics - the weakest firms send signals to the market about their weakness.

Sorry to say, but survival of the fittest.

My only piece of advice is to read the Bible. It is a great source of inspiration and courage.

313 - I hear you. What gives you the sense that this is the case?

313 - I hear you. What gives you the sense that this is the case?

308, do you have a link to WSJ story?

313 - I hear you. What gives you the sense that this is the case?

279 = Idiot. Not saving today within a no-brainer tax shelter (401k) b/c of a hypothetical tax situation some 30 years in the future. BRILLIANT!

When you get down to the truth of the matter, the people here complaining ARE in fact complaining about losing their jobs. If not for the "no lay-off" promise, the same people here would be complaining about something else.

There is a reason for this. No one is happy to be terminated. Complaining is expected.

Yeah, 313, if you're an attorney at LW, are you able to clue us in a little about how you might know this or if it's just your gut?

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

313 is full of shit. they will do the layoffs first and not keep people waiting throughout the review period.

If they do another round, except it at the end of the summer.

So, will there be a summer '09 class at LW?

240 - No one made you have a kid. Or get married to a deadbeat spouse, since you said "well, if you are single."

There is no excuse for spouse not having a job when the household has significant debt. Not to mention that no one should be supporting *both* a deadbeat spouse and a kid. That $50K for kid should be coming out of Person B one way or another.

319: Yeah, 279 is also an idiot because he/she doesn't even know about Roth 401k's that take after-tax contributions and pay out tax-free distributions in the future.

325, you are truly an ugly idiotic son of a you-know-what. "No one made you have a kid. Or get married to a deadbeat spouse." BRILLIANT!

Unlike you, who apparently can't get a girl/boyfriend, not everyone desires to remain single forever.

325 is obviously a loser who will remain single and asexual forever.

I don't work at L&W, but reading the posts here and the earlier no lay-off promise, L&W should be the poster child of the last 10 years -

don't worry be happy, everything is great, sceeeeeeeeeeech, fuck you, you're fired.

(Get some emoticons in this shithole board, Lat, and I will describe L&W in emoticons.)

Word on the street is that Latham's '09 summer classes is much smaller and more selective than it has been in previous years. I imagine the offer rate won't be too different this summer.

High-interest debt trumps savings. Jesus, how many of you clowns ever took something that discussed the present value of money? Two?

You have no business socking money in a 401(k) when you have six-figure debt hanging over your head at significant interest, and a job which is not statistically likely to last more than three years - after which your income will almost certainly drop for at least a few years.

You are wrong 279. Making more money in retirement? That's laughable. If you were making more money you probably wouldn't be retired, now would you?

Dolt.

At least on ATL, is there any firm that has taken a bigger rep hit from this downturn than LW?

Even "Half-Skadden" seems like a total joke compared to this

At least on ATL, is there any firm that has taken a bigger rep hit from this downturn than LW?

Even "Half-Skadden" seems like a total joke compared to this

It's fine all--don't worry. Even though we are doing stealth layoffs, froze salaries, and gave no bonuses to hundreds of associates, Latham is the still the greatest firm in the world. BY FAR! We've got the associates committee, the unassigned system, nice offices, international offices, LWU, hot (by legal standards) associates, personable colleagues, and a great work environment--all proof of Latham's position as the best law firm ever.

-Robert Dell, David Gordon, John Tang

331 = troll who doesn't understand the time value of money, the tax consequences of various decisions, or the tax-deferred contribution regulations.

326- Roth 401(k)s are growing in acceptance but are far from universal. Most of the AMLaw 100 plan administrators have very conservative offerings - only offer traditional 401(k)s with very modest mutual fund offerings.

Basic internet searches will discuss the pros and cons of investing in lieu of paying off loans. See http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Paying_down_loans_versus_investing

326- Roth 401(k)s are growing in acceptance but are far from universal. Most of the AMLaw 100 plan administrators have very conservative offerings - only offer traditional 401(k)s with very modest mutual fund offerings.

Basic internet searches will discuss the pros and cons of investing in lieu of paying off loans. See http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Paying_down_loans_versus_investing

@220 -- it depends on what kind of tax practice you're going into. At a lot of biglaw firms, many of the tax attorneys do little more than deal work. They help the transactional lawyers structure deals in a tax-efficient manner. Since the deals are dead, those tax lawyers are probably not doing a lot either. But if your practice is going to be more compliance- or litigation-oriented, your services will probably still be in demand.

@296 Don't worry too much. You still have 1.5 years until you have to start permanently, right? A lot can change in 1.5 years (just think about six months ago). Even if the economy is still cool, Latham might look better compared to its peers than it does now. (Of course, if you're talking about the summer offer specifically, then that could be a different story. You say you don't like your summer offer b/c you've become disheartened about the firm generally, not because you don't think the job will be there, so I assume you think your summer job at least is safe.)

Best wishes to laid off Latham associates. I worked with some really great ones on a couple of deals in 2006-2007. There but for the grace of god . . . .

335, what's the unassigned system?

327 - Starting a family without the financial means to support one is stupid. If you didn't do the math because you were in love or feeling the urge to reproduce, that's your problem.

From a pure finanical perspective, since that's what the rest of the world cares about (your creditors included), it was a very stupid decision. No one is going to cut you any slack for having a kid and/or a spouse who is a net drain on the financial resources of the family.

335- I know Dell is the chairman, who are the other 2?

All of you should go take a Finance class or something. Finance is actually pretty interesting, and it's also like a refreshing drink of cool water compared to this law grind.

I friggin hate L&W. Stealth lay-offs after promising no lay-offs? Gimme a break and stop lying to our faces. People here were NOT terminated for performance reasons. They were let go because YOU failed in running the firm.

Do you think the summer associate class will be cancelled, or offers rescinded? Or is it just going to be a low offer rate to save face?

ANYONE who bills 1,200 should be fired. They are simply not bringing in enough revenue.

Former Lathamite here:

What no one is talking about is the reasons why this happened. Here are my opinions of why LW is doing so poorly and if you're firm is in the same situation, watch your back.
1) Over-hiring (NY went from summer classes of 30 to 80 in 2 yrs time).
2) Over-expansion (too many offices with too many associates; STB and Cravath aren't paying SD, Singapore, Frankfurt, and Brussels associates 160K+ and therefore don't have similar problems)
3) Big clients taken out by recession (Bear Sterns was LWs 2nd biggest client and JPM did not give LW any new work, in addition Lehman, RBS, and Citi were big clients as well. Bank GCs consolidated and LW was on outside looking in of top NY firms (never could crack Cravath, STB, Cleary, Skadden, DPW, SullCrom wall))
4) Most profitable practice area went dead because of recession (does high-yield finance exist anymore?)
5) Worthless Litigation Laterals (Enron partners make great PR but haven't brought in ANY business -- just ask Chicago associates about S. Berkowitz)
6) Went to highly leveraged business model at wrong time (LW use to have small practices like land use and employment which were not highly leveraged but when they thought they had climbed the NY mountaintop they faded them out and now that they're not getting highly leveraged work they have no fall-back)

These are in no particular order, but these are the reasons why LW froze salaries and began laying people off. It will most certainly survive because they have some strong practice areas globally and great attorneys but they can't be as big a Skadden (partly because they don't have Skadden M&A rep) and so they'll have to downsize to a Weil size.

P.S. I'm sorry for all the ppl who got laid-off but I escaped last year and things have been great even with the reduced salary. Better life and more responsibility, I'm unequivocally a better lawyer than I would have been had I remained at LW.

P.P.S. Those who say they could've gotten hours, you know jack shit and let's not pretend that even in good years, lock step NY firms have allowed 1200 hour billers to remain at firms and collect bonus'. All associates want is consistency and accountability.

Do you think I'll be no-offered if I have bad grades this year? By bad, I mean a couple of C's or so, but nothing worse.

Didn't Jayce get walking papers at LW in Richmond? WTF!

I wish I were a school teacher and had summers off. Then I wouldn't be posting here worrying about my dim future in the oh so wonderful and rewarding and CHALLENGING (ha ha) world of law.

C's are F's, especially if your school is on a B+ curve (like most of the ones where BigLaw recruits for the body of its talent).

Alternatively, if you got in the door because you were absolute top of your class at a lesser school, bad grades can be double-disasterous.

There's nothing good about C's.

341, you must have a very weird interpretation of "financial means." Not everyone is going to wait to completely pay off their loans before starting a family, especially not the non-biglaw people.

341 = asexual freak who will be single forever.

Uh, no F's...

Comment re: paying off 100k student loans in 1.5 years while living in NYC.

At 170 and single, I clear 8.3k/month after taxes. So i can't pay 8k/month in student loans.

Rent of less than 2k means roommates. Not the law students who study all the time and maybe go out on a Friday. Rather, the aspiring acting/dancing/fuckaroundinNYCaftercollege/boozing professionals. You can fuck off if you think I'm living with them while working days nights and weekends.

Professional clothes -- you can be modest and spend 1.5k/year. but probably more.

Food -- the only item you can really cut back on. You can do canned tuna and pasta every night. or you can spend $1k/month and eat normal food.

So we have 8.3-2-1-.3 for utilities, so that' 5k. WOW you'll say, you can put in 5k for student loans. You are forgetting (i) occasional trips to see family; (ii) occasional fun money to go out with friends; (iii) possible 401k contribution (these have been discussed way too much); AND (IV) MOST IMPORTANTLY, SAVINGS!!!! you can't earn 170/year and not have a dime to show for it after 1.5 years, no matter how many student loans you pay off. what if you get laid off and don't have the option/desire to ask your parents for help? so that leaves you with AT MOST 5k minus whatever savings you put aside for a rainy day to spend on student loans. and probably the items in i-iii put you into 3-4k category.

347, what is your new career/position? How much of a paycut did you take?

To 248 (the Latham partner defending the performance characterization the firm gave these terminations),

Not only is the lower attrition rate due to the ECONOMY, but I suspect you have needed to raise your "attrition target" from years past in order to adjust to a contraction (due to the ECONOMY) in your client hours.

There you have two ways that the economy is motivating these decisions.

It is hard to believe that Latham's client business and revenues are steady or up, and your only challenge is a burgeoning associates' ranks. Are you actually saying that client hours are steady at Latham? That the slow pace reported by associates is because there are more and more associates?

"Attrition target" is just another way of saying headcount, and your headcount targets are being hit hard by the economy. The statement you published today explicitly stated these terminations were not related to the economy. Grossly misleading.

296,

I'm in the same boat. I chose Latham over the other big Los Angeles players, as well as V2-5 in New York. Now I feel like an idiot. Hard to predict back in October how quickly things would go south, but if Latham had publicly traded stock, right now it would be in the toilet.

Some of the only signs the public can obtain on law firm health is what we can get from ATL. So yes, I'm panicking. This firm has been dragged through the mud, and all the while has taken actions which seem to mask their true intentions and show a complete lack of message or tact from their upper management.

Does anyone think that it might be a good idea to reach out to someone at the firm I interviewed with, maybe a 1st or 2nd year, to try to get a real handle on what is going on? Or is this overreaction of a paranoid 2L?

I mean, I was under the impression associates receive copies of the firm's financial statements, and they all told me that the firm was in great position. Could things really get to the point of insolvency so quickly?

If you haven't been laid off yet, have you weathered the storm?

If anyone out there at a big firm still feels any sense of loyalty, look around, shake it off, and wisen up. If you're not a partner yet (and often, even if you are a partner), they're not looking out for you.

The law is a profession that in many people's eyes is imbued with some noble aspect, some stately and honorable reasonableness. These days, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a profession that more often than not involves low-level grunt paper work. No appreciable amount of young associates are in court, and if they are, it's for something that doesn't matter.

Money is the only thing driving BigLaw. No surprise to those already in it. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that firms are willing to lay associates' necks on the chopping block to preserve PPP.

To all you commentors who are sticking up for BigLaw and who are telling associates that they deserved to be laid off . . . your time is next. You're pathetic and you deserve whatever you get.

The guy who said you can pay off 150k in loans in 1.5 years is probably a law student who never had a real job and has no sense of personal finance.

294 is SCARY, but I'm sure not so far from the truth. There's no way I can get 1,800 hours this year if January levels repeat themselves -- let alone 2,000 obviously. Now, partners, get your asses out of here and find some business. You should not even have the time to read this blog -- GO FIND OUR HOURS SOMEWHERE!!

If anyone out there at a big firm still feels any sense of loyalty, look around, shake it off, and wisen up. If you're not a partner yet (and often, even if you are a partner), they're not looking out for you.

The law is a profession that in many people's eyes is imbued with some noble aspect, some stately and honorable reasonableness. These days, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a profession that more often than not involves low-level grunt paper work. No appreciable amount of young associates are in court, and if they are, it's for something that doesn't matter.

Money is the only thing driving BigLaw. No surprise to those already in it. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that firms are willing to lay associates' necks on the chopping block to preserve PPP.

To all you commentors who are sticking up for BigLaw and who are telling associates that they deserved to be laid off . . . your time is next. You're pathetic and you deserve whatever you get.

317 -
308 here. here's the link to the WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292954232713979.html

LW will not survive the down turn -- spread the word

The lazy fat ass partners should be fired, not the associates who do the real work. Lazy fat ass partners = huge expense.

296,

I'm in the same boat. I chose Latham over the other big Los Angeles players, as well as V2-5 in New York. Now I feel like an idiot. Hard to predict back in October how quickly things would go south, but if Latham had publicly traded stock, right now it would be in the toilet.

Some of the only signs the public can obtain on law firm health is what we can get from ATL. So yes, I'm panicking. This firm has been dragged through the mud, and all the while has taken actions which seem to mask their true intentions and show a complete lack of message or tact from their upper management.

Does anyone think that it might be a good idea to reach out to someone at the firm I interviewed with, maybe a 1st or 2nd year, to try to get a real handle on what is going on? Or is this overreaction of a paranoid 2L?

I mean, I was under the impression associates receive copies of the firm's financial statements, and they all told me that the firm was in great position. Could things really get to the point of insolvency so quickly?

A third-year associate should be a primary contact for at least one client. Drum up some new business.

IF YOU RECEIVED SEVERANCE YOU WEREN'T FIRED FOR PERFORMANCE REASONS.

"Even though we're firing you because you suck, here's 50 grand because we can't think of anything better to do with all of our excess cash than give it to the crappiest of our employees."

Yeah, effing right. This might not bite LW in the ass with respect to recruiting - at least not that they'll notice in the near future - but there's no denying that the people who got fired more than likely went to good schools and had good grades. LW takes tremendous pride in their screening process. When they eventually land in house, and many will land in house, you think they're going to take calls from LW partners?

Joke's on them - the crappy economy isn't going to last forever, and people let go for "performance reasons" when everyone knows it's the economy, stupid, will remember.

364, thanks.

Do you think Latham & Watkins will be the next Heller Ehrman? Is it the next Titanic, an unrepairable sinking ship taking the inevitable drop to the ocean floor?

330- where did you get that information about the '09 summer class?

Reading 365 comments, 2 things stand out to me:

1. A junior associate billed only 1200 hours. Is this possible, even in the worst of times? I mean, a 7th year I can see billing 1200. But a 2nd year?

2. Spending 1000/month on food. Who are you, Mark Dreier?

you can put a new laminate floor down in your parent's basement, get a phone line and re-invent yourself after you show up at work at "big-law"and there are bekins boxes in your office.

Think of it--29 yo balding obese big firm associate moves back in with mom and dad after his career crashes and he has no income to pay back his $150,000 debt. He blogs all day on above the law and has no prospects for employment in the profession.

His parents have cancelled their subscription to the Harvard alumni magazine.

http://endofesq.com/?p=784

Jesus @ most posts on finances. You people are intelligent? This shit is worse than what you hear from rednecks going to credit counseling.

"I wanna breed, no fair I am broke" - You sound like high school students who think everything will be alright so long as they get married.

Kids are the most expensive thing you will ever do. Nothing else comes close. Condoms and birth control pills were invented for a reason. If these are against your morality, random sex probably is as well. If sex is not random, well, you did study human growth and development at some point in middle school, right?

Significant others who are either drains or financial basketcases in their own right are toxic. And no, you can't ignore it because the sex is good. Try that excuse on the landlord or Visa.

"I can't live on less than $160K a year, taxes are bull$@^." - Even in Ibanker-inflated Manhattan, the average weekly wage is ~ $1,400. People survive in New York on a hell of a lot less than your salary. You can do it too. You might not live well, but if you are six-figures in debt, you aren't rich and shouldn't live like it.

"I need to save money" - Not with high interest loans you don't. This one is just stupid. There are no safe investments that out-earn the interest on private student loans. You're never going to get rid of the loan without paying it, so its cheaper to pay it off now. It's also easier to pay it off now because you almost certainly are not going to be partner and you are unlikely to be senior associate.

Get rid of being on the wrong end of high-yield debt.

"I deserve a NYC lifestyle, I AM LAWYER" - I am sorry the TV lied to you.

Plus there is a earnings limit for Roth IRAs I believe.
It used to be something like 95,000 AGI or something
so no one at big law can put into a roth, except staff
-jesse

my condolences to those who have lost their jobs. terrible in this economy, and in this job market.

this comment is directed towards those "haters" among those who were cut (all of us "silent majority" folks know who they are). how bad do you want a job - even if its at your so called "TTT" regional or local firms that don't have many attorneys from the "elite" law schools? these firms probably are half-2/3 of your salary but aren't cutting people go. you would kill for a job like that? you think that your resume with the big bad firm name will get you an interview since nobody has come from your "elite" school? for those who have been elitist, entitled pricks, perhaps this will humble you. just b/c people didnt go to an "elite" school doesn't mean they're not good enough to be attorneys - especially when they have a job and you don't.

These stealth lay offs are a bunch of crap. I mean, who does Latham think they're fooling?

I was fired in mid-2008 (not from L&W) a month and a half after a positive performance review. I feel fortunate that I was offered the opportunity to return to my previous firm, which was happy to have me back. I woud not wish for anyone to get fired, but if the economy continues on the same track it is on now, some of the smug people who think that only low performing and lazy associates can be the victims of stealth layoffs may be in for quite a surprise. Law firms are in business to make money and aren't obligated to keep anyone around, but I am jealous of all these people who have apparently never had trouble making their hours or worked for a partner who was not awed by the quality of their work. Good luck to those of you who have been laid off, hopefully it will turn out to have been a blessing in disguise.

375 - Roth 401k is only subject to general 401k limits. Many firms don't offer Roth 401k as an option. Latham does.

I agree with 308 - If you were laid off and were told it's performance-based and are pissed off at the insincerity get in touch with your contacts at Latham's clients and spread the word of LW's imminent demise and advise the clients to cultivate relationships with other firms as LW partners will not be there to do their bidding and bend ethical rules for them much longer.

For all the people here who think that only poor performers get laid off, I would guess you haven't been in the job market for long, you are really unobservant, or you stay in your office all day and don’t know too many people. During the last downturn, I worked at a software company that conducted layoffs, and I now work at a law firm that recently laid off associates. Fortunately, I did not lose my own job either time, but I have seen a lot of really talented people get laid off. While I don’t doubt that performance can be a factor (sometime a large factor), often these decisions are political – who is better friends with or works more closely with the decision maker. It isn’t always the case that the least talented are the ones who are laid off, but perhaps you really need to believe that in order to maintain your sense of justice in the world. I hope that future associates in better times will look not just at which firms treat their associates well in good times, but also how firms have treated their associates in downturns, when they are deciding on which offers to take. Latham really handled this situation poorly.

It's pretty funny listening to all the LW partners trying to justify the layoffs (or mass firings if you like that better). I think everyone realizes the economic situation. What people are complaining about is the way you dealt with it. How about being honest telling people what the situation is – that you are letting people go that you normally would not, what criteria you are using, how many are being affected and simple things like that. That way you can avoid having to defend yourself with "it's a business" posts on ATL

I work at Latham and here are my two cents. Outside my window I have seen offices in another building being cleaned out. People are losing their jobs all over the place in all industries at all kinds of firms. Good people are losing their jobs for no good reason. And crappy people who probably should've gotten the axe somehow avoided it.

There's no way around it--the situation is miserable. What matters is how people are treated when these things happen to them. They should be treated with kindness and compassion. What's wrong with some of you that you're so mean? Do you think being mean makes your job more secure?

I wish those of you who have lost your job all the best. I hope people are more kind to you than you've experienced.

A hell of a lot of partners are scumbags. That's a fact. And it's not just at Latham.

Don't believe for one second that the bad economy is anything more than an excuse for firms' recent attacks on associates. Even if you billed just 1,000 hours last year, that's about $400k you brought into your firm. In other words, you earned your pay. Trust me, Latham isn't going to turn in a PPP of $200k either--the partners raked it in last year.

It's time for associates to fight back. How? Latham associates have to put themselves on the market now--because the firm should not be trusted after this, and because such bad acts need to be deterred in the future. Otherwise you are a slave. And I know for a fact that firms are hiring right now--don't let frauds tell you otherwise.

Associates should also talk to each other about joining together and starting new firms too.

373, the balding comes from stress, and the obesity comes from stress and lack of sleep and lack of time to work out.

I'm reading this book called "The Litigators" published in 1989. In reference to plaintiffs attorney Rex Carr, In relevant part, the book states: "In 1983 . . . [Carr] earned $1 million, nearly five times the national average for partners in the nation's largest, most prestigious law firms." Food for thought.

And yes, spending $1000 per month on food is just decadent. Dreier would probably spend $2000 per month, but that does not make it at all defensible unless you are independently wealthy.

383 = a girl!

Terminated for performance reasons my ass.

@296: I was going to summer @ L&W, but things have gotten too crazy. I was also misled by the Firm. I'd rather work at a public defender's office than with disingenuous liars. I really think I'm going to withdraw tomorrow.

Did Latham's alleged promise not to fire associates transform its at-will contracts into employment contracts for term?

Could laid-off associates sue for breach of contract?

400 comment clusterf#ck=best revenge for "fired" former-LaTTTham cogs

@296: I was going to summer @ L&W, but things have gotten too crazy. I was also misled by the Firm. I'd rather work at a public defender's office than with disingenuous liars. I really think I'm going to withdraw tomorrow.

To the 2Ls who are thinking about calling the firms you declined, no.

If your firms were like mine this year, we had our fingers crossed every day that you or any of the others we had extended offers to would call us to decline. Believe me, we were not sitting on pins and needles hoping that you would say yes. And we didn't rescind offers, or do the "only half of you will get a job" line, but the numbers this year were insane.

Your firms might be different, but I can't imagine they are different enough that something that would have been frowned upon in a good economy would be peachy in a bad one.

Others may have a different viewpoint, and that is not to say that it doesn't suck, but that's life.

314 - Did you just promote Darwin and thump your big old bible in the same comment?

You are an unholy tool, and a fool.

"get laid off? Just read the bible." Thanks a lot, 314! Hope that works when your "fit" firm lays you off!

let me explain something about large law firm practice:

if you are a partner and expecting say 1.2 million a year and instead have to get by on 800K because of the economy, that is a 400K hit to income.

an associate losing a 160K job is only out 160K, a far smaller loss than 400K.

what is so hard to understand about this? the partners are the ones really taking it on the chin. a little more sympathy and understanding is called for in my opinion.

I remember Bob Dell (the chairman) would give speeches about the firm "learning its lesson in '92", and "not making the same mistakes again" by firing associates. I don't have the facts, but things seemed to have changed.

What really sucks is that unit value is down, what, 10% - 15%? God forbid PPP drop from 2.3M to 2M. The partners received massive increases in their draws the last five years. I'm really dissapointed that they would not share more of the pain in a down market.

Before people start ranting, I'm a junior equity partner. I took a beating in the stock market, my 401K is in the toilet and I'm fully aware of the costs of keeping around underperforming associates. But, I live in a nice house, drive a cool car, and couple of years from now when the economy recovers, I'll have fat draws and frankly probably more money than I have time to spend. If I have to take a 20% cut in my draw for a year or two to keep the guy feeding a family of four, or the woman that went to my law school employed, fine lets do it.

Latham used to be that way, and I'm really dissapointed that things seemed to have changed.

396 - yfwgi.

393: what firm?

The Associates Committee member who terminated me said that Latham would not tell prospective employers why I was terminated, but would merely confirm employment dates. This AssCom member suggested that I could be disingenuous with the reason for my termination. I guess that was before they released the above press release saying all terminations were for cause and performance-based. Thanks Latham. Stay classy.

The Biglaw business model is unsustainable.

400?

I am a 2L who has already taken on over 80K in debt. Reading this nonsense makes me want to drop out and do nonlegal public interest work, or perhaps teach. But alas, If I drop out after two years, I will look like a flake. (Not to mention the fact that I will have an enormous debt to pay off.) Every morning as I wake up realising I am most likely doomed to a shitty life, I have to force myself to get out of bed and go to that god awful law school building. I will probably finish law school, not find a job, (or worse yet, find one only to be laid off as soon as I relocate) and have the same issues I have today, only with an extra 40k in debt.

Does anyone know if student loans could be collected if I were to move to Canada/Europe/South America?

I am going to trade in my BMW to prepare for my firm's inevitable stealth layoffs and the impending depression. What kind of car should I get?

LaTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTham

Is Paul Hastings next?

368 got it right:

"IF YOU RECEIVED SEVERANCE YOU WEREN'T FIRED FOR PERFORMANCE REASONS.

"Even though we're firing you because you suck, here's 50 grand because we can't think of anything better to do with all of our excess cash than give it to the crappiest of our employees."

Yeah, effing right. This might not bite LW in the ass with respect to recruiting - at least not that they'll notice in the near future - but there's no denying that the people who got fired more than likely went to good schools and had good grades. LW takes tremendous pride in their screening process. When they eventually land in house, and many will land in house, you think they're going to take calls from LW partners?

Joke's on them - the crappy economy isn't going to last forever, and people let go for "performance reasons" when everyone knows it's the economy, stupid, will remember."

There will be no shortage of people willing to work at Latham, but the best-of-the-best, which Latham claims to only hire, will accept offers elsewhere, or risk being fired in a few years for "performance reasons" when the firm can't dig up enough work for them.

For a NYC resident lawyer with 1 allowance who is making 160k + 17.5k and putting 15.5k into a 401k, with Paycheck City gives a net pay figure of $98,448.

$2500/mo rent, that leaves $68,448
$1000/mo food, that leaves $56,448
$500/mo bills, that leaves $50,448
$500/mo in discretionary money, $44,448

Those numbers could be lower if you actually were willing to feel like a pauper for a year or two.

$40k/yr onto your loans for the first few years is doable if it's your priority, even if you insist on doing max 401k contributions. Some people consider X, Y, and Z to be necessities. They aren't. Almost everything is a luxury when you get down to it.

Don't cry because you have to pick your poison.

Here's a studio on Manhattan island for $2200.
http://www.liveinnyc.com/gifs/57and8/57and8.html

First, another excellent post from Elie. Haters - kindly go f*ckself.

Second, if a firm (no idea about LaTTTham specifically) is laying off cos of the economy (and they ALL are to some extent), being dishonest about it is low. It is not performance to have low hours when the work is not there.

405 makes several good points. Sure, a firm may decide to reduce its associate ranks, perhaps just to maintain PPP levels at the expense of their associates and staff having any income at all. But, HOW the firm gets rid of associates is critical. I know someone who was let go by a firm a while back (when s/he was a midlevel associate), and is now chief IP counsel for a company. This person was not treated nicely by the former firm. Now, that firm would love to have business from the company. Is it gonna happen? No way!

Firms can be very short-sighted, and it does come back to bite them in big and little ways. It doesn't cost anything more to treat associates and staff with dignity when letting them go, and acknowledging their contributions, as opposed to fabricating 'excuses' that belittle them. The end result will be the same, but being honest with employees and treating them positively leaves the door open fo rfuture relationships. That's just good business.

LW and many other firms are simply practicing bad business by shifting blame to people they are letting go.

It would be interesting to see total attorney headcount at the amlaw 100 over the past 10-15 years. The firms are so bloated with third tier shit grads that something had to give. The market is merely right sizing and, with luck, biglaw will soon = top 6 school or top ten percent elsewhere.

Good luck to all.

even economic cuts are performance related, unless an entire department gets laid off. first the economy dries up work, so the firm needs to get rid of some people, so they get rid of the lowest performers in the department. they aren't going to arbitrarily fire the best.

unless your entire dept went, this was a performance based cut, wasn't it?

409 - Why is that with luck? That is flat out a terrible thing to say. Really, the notion that just because you went to a better school you are a better lawyer is outdated useless elitism. Empirical evidence does not even back it up. Get with the program.

$1000/month food is bloated (literally). I can guarantee most people in NYC spend drastically less than that. Once you get the calories and nutrition necessary to survive, you are just gourmet eating.

Gourmet eating is, contrary to what seems to be conventional wisdom on this board, a luxury. You can easily cut that food budget in half.

Living in Manhattan also = luxury (?). Lots of commuters into Manhattan every day, rumor has it.

As a brand-new BigLaw associate, you are not a wealthy professional. You are a recent college grad with a large amount of debt. Living like a baller is some weird mental block that just doesn't fit with the math.

-

And that clothing "budget" - you were paid as a summer associate, right? Did it ever occur to you to either buy everything you'd need for a few years and not get fat, or alternatively, throw some of that money at student loans?

Grow the F up. You're not a kid anymore.

$1000/month food is bloated (literally). I can guarantee most people in NYC spend drastically less than that. Once you get the calories and nutrition necessary to survive, you are just gourmet eating.

Gourmet eating is, contrary to what seems to be conventional wisdom on this board, a luxury. You can easily cut that food budget in half.

Living in Manhattan also = luxury (?). Lots of commuters into Manhattan every day, rumor has it.

As a brand-new BigLaw associate, you are not a wealthy professional. You are a recent college grad with a large amount of debt. Living like a baller is some weird mental block that just doesn't fit with the math.

-

And that clothing "budget" - you were paid as a summer associate, right? Did it ever occur to you to either buy everything you'd need for a few years and not get fat, or alternatively, throw some of that money at student loans?

Grow the F up. You're not a kid anymore.

410-
Don't be obtuse.

A firm that only does structured finance has 1,000 associates, but can only manage to bring in 2,000 hours of work. They fire 999 associates, keeping 1. That 1 is the absolute best associate ever. Ten times better than any associate ever. You're telling me this is performance based?

We all know LW would have kept these associates but for lack of work.

160 here. We simply need more attrition. We have had nobody leave all year (on their own), and that is unheard of in the ten years I have been at Big Law. Meanwhile there are summer classes coming in each year ... what do you expect firms to do? Honestly?

We need more women to get pregnant and more associates to take jobs in-house. JUST LEAVE ON YOUR OWN.

411 - sorry, but it is clear that top schools = top lawyers.

263 - Your posts are not valuable unless you stick to your shtick.

411, 416. First, it is obvious that the top 6 guy comes from the 6th ranked school in US News because there is no way that 6 is a rational cut off point. Second, even if lawyers from top schools don't turn out better than ALL lawyers from lower ranked schools, there is likely some correlation (I'd take my chances with a Yale grad as opposed to a Santa Clara grad). Given that it is difficult to evaluate actual lawyering ability in the 20 minute OCI interview school selection (along with grades and references) is probably one of the most effective ways to project who will be a more useful employee. Just because there are some exceptions (and there are) does not mean that it is useful for hiring partners to take account of them.

*****

Freezing salaries creates a strong presumption that subsequent layoffs are economic and not performance-based.

Being the first to freeze salaries creates an irrebuttable presumption that subsequent layoffs are economic and not performance-based.

LaTTTham

Freezing salaries creates a strong presumption that subsequent layoffs are economic and not performance-based.

Being the first to freeze salaries creates an irrebuttable presumption that subsequent layoffs are economic and not performance-based.

LaTTTham

Latham's tactics are nothing short of cowardly. No one would could seriously complain about straight-up economic layoffs. All they needed to do was say that they misjudged the market when they promised no layoffs and all would have been okay. Instead, they get this PR nightmare.

Elie and Lat: You should be much harder on Latham than you were on Cravath. This is a bushleague move.

I love the PWNage that LaTTTham is taking here. You must all remember to spread the word two, three, even four years from now to future law students that LaTTTham is a firm to avoid.

414 - really, genius? even though these people were, per se, at the bottom of their respective classes? even though NO ONE left over the past year?

The real answer is not that these associates would've been kept if not for a lack of work. The real answer is that these associates would've been shed years ago if there hadn't been so much work then that they could scrape by with busy work. People were still around who should've been "counseled out" long ago.

you are all in for a rude awakening when the reaper struts down your halls.

http://endofesq.com/?p=928

Sacked? We've been sacked? At Latham? I picture that scene at the beginning of Meaning of Life.

I would like to see Latham collapse.
My smaller, non-bloated SoCal firm could take on some of their clients.

Survival of the fittest, baby!

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the idea of forming a union for associates. The right contract could make it much more difficult for firms to pull this kind of crap.

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the idea of forming a union for associates. The right contract could make it much more difficult for firms to pull this kind of crap.

Based on conversations with colleagues in five LW offices nationally my best estimate is that 50-60 associates have been hit by this tidal wave (to date).

Back in 91 or 92 - Dell's ancestors were candid about the firm's termination of 45 associates - guess someone took the candor powder out of the kool aid.

Anyone else have a reliable national estimate they'd care to share with the class?

390 - you're an idiot who should drop out of law school now. Contracts I, my friend. What consideration was given by the employee in exchange for the promise not to lay you off. NOTHING. You need additional consideration to create a new contract. So no, there is no breach of contract because L&W decided to change their mind about layoffs. And when Bob Dell spoke to the firm in March 2008, no one in their right mind could have known how bad this recession was going to get. I am an employed Latham associate and have no problem with the people that I am aware have lost their job for performance reasons. Too much fat here, needs to be skimmed.

I am going to eat out all of the female partners, so that I don't get fired...

I'm a Latham associate and I still don't know what to think. Made my hours and got my little bonus.

First of all, the promise was to not lay anyone off in 2008, and that promise was kept. Layoffs were specifically left on the table for 2009.

The firings were not randon, and they were not done to clear out non-busy departments, so I can see the explanation that they were performance based. I dont think most of the associates let go were bad lawyers, but in the firm's eyes they probably underperformed relative to their peers. The other thing is that when people are usually given 9 months to leave in a good economy, no one knows they got fired.

Still, I dont buy the management's explanation that this is business as usual. In usual years you dont have people shocked that they are being asked to leave, because they have gotten poor reviews and have been warned. And you certainly dont see 10% being cut. It would be nice to see a better explanation from management.

What does this mean for '09 SAs?

Also do you 2009 summers and especially 3L fall starters who are so offended by the firms dick move that you want to withdraw your offers and work public interest... please do.

433 - unfortunately that doesn't help too much when paying off 160k in loans. I thank you for your sincere suggestion though.

There are a whole lot of smart folks around here. I can't imagine that you can't find a cheap-ass office in Oakland or Hoboken or Tarzana and bill for big firm work at $120/hr and build yourself a good life.

Here's the thread re: the no-layoff promise

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/03/whats_up_at_latham_watkinsmora.php

Surprised this has not been mentioned. As people have astutely pointed out, the firm's no-layoff pledge was for 2008. They kep that promise.

If now they are doing "stealth-layoffs" and end up cutting about 10% as is rumored, that's about what, 150 associates or so?

NOW, this allows the firm to do economic based layoffs if they choose to do so down the line and further trim the ranks. They could spin that as their "first" economic layoff, and they could say that they kep their promise not to lay people off in 2008.

Not saying this will happen, but it's food for thought

This is a very effective model. With everyone competing against each other for "work, any work", no one will be talking. All the firms could be having "stealth layoffs" and it would take weeks before people began figuring this out. Maybe you all ought to start researching your firms' balance sheet? Looking at the client list? Looking at the financial health of the clients? Figuring out which firms are negotiating with existing clients to lower billing costs in order to keep clients? Otherwise, the BUSINESS of law is going to continue to shock all of you.

I find this news particularly amusing because the people I have worked with from Latham really think that they are the best and the coolest etc, etc. They are the Big 1 in California blah, blah. That salary freeze and now layoffs have to feel pretty good now. I hope that Sallie Mae will start excepting "prestiges" and "coolness points" as payment for those student loans.

What amazes me is that firms still think they can get away with the stealth layoffs in this day and age.

But then they are happening all over the place still (I'm looking at you, every major Texas firm).

294 is SCARY, but I'm sure not so far from the truth. There's no way I can get 1,800 hours this year if January levels repeat themselves -- let alone 2,000 obviously. Now, partners, get your asses out of here and find some business. You should not even have the time to read this blog -- GO FIND OUR HOURS SOMEWHERE!!

Just to clarify: was there really a 10% cut across the board? That would be a Cadwalader-crushing 210 attorneys laid off. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen, but I don't have first hand knowledge to back up that claim. It just seems a bit high. Even 5% would be 105 attorneys. If it was 50-60 attorneys, you're talking around 2-3% of the workforce cut.

Meanwhile, hours probably went down 15-20% at least.

I think the biggest issue, for all those interpretation junkies out there, is how you define "performance" related versus layoff. I think what we have is a combination. "Performance" has suffered in saying that many associates couldn't make hours. Add that to some associates receiving poorer reviews in relation to their peers, plus the economy (layoff factor), and you see the perfect storm.

Latham was less than candid on the whole, but I don't think you can come out and say they flat out lied. And if it really was 50-60 attorneys, for such a large firm, it would not be that much of a true hit. Just my 2 cents.

431 - I beg to differ. Have you seen the stats on associate attrition in a "normal" year? It's much higher than 10%. If you've been to the business meeting (aka all attorneys meeting), one of the slides in Leeann's presentation is the YOY Associate Attrition... and it's always higher than 10%.

Well guess what? This isn't a normal year by any stretch of the imagination and there is virtually 0% attrition.

443 - of course there is much more than 10% attrition a year because most people voluntarily leave to do other things.

The firm certainly does not force out 10% of it's associates every January. By using firings to replace the voluntary attrition you see otherwise from "non-partner" material, by definition the firings are economic.

Anyone who has ever had to a deal with Latham sitting on the other side of the table understands that this is funny. They are consummate assholes who over-lawyer and fail to see the forest through the trees. Nothing like attention to detail getting in the way of seeing the big picture. They correct my comma, yet miss the fact that the clause that the comma was missed in screws their client.

also, who the hell thinks there are 1500 associates at Latham? That is not even close.

147 is dead on. A lot of weird shit is floating around behind closed doors. Names for the chopping block are floating around that you would NEVER guess.

If you are one of those unlucky souls, we'd like to hear from you. If you are one of the assholes that want to pick on one of those unlucky souls, we don't.

429 (asserting Latham & Watkins has not breached contract in implementing these layoffs),

Help me out here. If Latham & Watkins promises not to terminate an employee, it arguably does so to induce the employee to work there. In continuing to work (performance), the employee accepts the modified employment offer and a new contract is formed, no? The at-will contract is arguably transformed into a term employment contract.

Some have argued that the no layoff promise only covered 2008. We do not have access to the exact record of what was said at that meeting, but the reported language was vague enough that it could have been construed to cover not 2008 and a reasonable period thereafter. That is, "We have learned from the past. We won't be conducting layoffs." That is a rather open ended statement implies a policy that goes beyond 2008.

In fact, fear of breach of employment contract is the only rational reason for Latham & Watkins to have handled these headcount reductions the way they have - pretending the economy had nothing to do with these firings. The legal community already knows the firm's finances are being squeezed because their salary freeze is public. The potential PR benefit of attempting to cast these as performance based is marginal.

As an aside, has Latham breached a term of their employment contract in announcing these as performance-based when they promised employees they wouldn't call terminations such?

Please. You don't have to live in Manhattan. You can get a decently nice 1-BR in Astoria or Forest Hills for $1400 or $1500, maybe in parts of Brooklyn as well. Groceries, utilities, etc. will be another $500. Eating out four times a month at $100/pop is $400. Add $3-400 for clothes and misc expenses. That's less than $3k in living expenses per month. I did that for four years as a junior associate (I used some of the bonus money every year for trips, etc). I paid off my loans in 3.5 years, and saved a ton.

This American Lawyer article from 1991 when Latham laid off over 40 associates provides some insight into what might lie ahead. Then, there were performance cuts followed by economic cuts.

"The dark cloud hanging over L.A.'s Latham & Watkins, which in August asked 42 junior associates to look elsewhere for work, may have a silver lining. Because Latham has declared that the firings were sparked by economic forces and not by poor performance, the firm has been flooded with in quiries from law firm partners, corporate counsel, and others who are interested in hiring some of the unfortunate lot.
"What we're talking about now is our own internal out placement," says partner David McLean, chair of Latham's recruitment committee. "We have a person in each office who is designated to receive such calls . . . a feeder person to be the keeper of the list." (As part of a severance package offered to the laid-off associates, Latham will also pay for the lawyers to work with either an outplacement service or a search firm.)
Latham partner Nancy Scheurwater, who is keeping track of job prospects for associates laid off at the L.A. office, says she knows of inquiries from about a dozen clients, 20 smaller firms, and a few competing firms (none of which she will name), as well as government offices such as the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the L.A. district attorney's office. "We've had a lot of calls from headhunters as well," adds Scheurwater, who says that Latham's Orange County, California; San Diego; New York; Chicago; and Washington, D.C., offices have had similar experiences. Firmwide, Scheurwater says, "we have had more than fifty serious inquiries." She notes that partners in each office are sharing information in the event that associates laid off in one city are willing to relocate to another.
McLean emphasizes that partner-to-partner discussions among firms have been fostered by the fact that Latham tied the layoffs to market conditions. "Every six months [we do] performance reviews," explains McLean, noting that the last were in July. At that time about 14 associates were asked to leave. So by the time of the late August layoff announcement, he points out, "we had already done the quality cut."
An associate who says he hasn't been asked to leave confirms that his laid-off colleagues seem to be in demand: "My understanding is that there have been quite a few calls."
Two L.A. legal recruiters agree that there is a flurry of interest in the Latham lawyers, but they say that the supertight market will mean very few can glide into another big firm "Some of them are going to have to set their sights on different-caliber firms," says one.
According to McLean and a statement issued by Latham managing partner John Walker at the time of the layoffs, the firm based its decisions about who would stay and who would go on a demand formula. "Too many firms grew based on a supply-side question," says McLean. "We looked this year at a demand analysis, and we concluded that we were overdriven [at the junior associate level.]"
But even as the last of the laid-off lawyers leave Latham, another class of 83 is joining the firm. McLean says those incoming recruits were part of Latham's 1992 demand analysis "We will do the the best we can to assess the situation from a microlevel, office by office," he says.

What's amazing here is reading the Latham people slamming the layoff victims and claiming that firing a large percentage of the firm's associates is performance based, including people who made their hours and people who never had a bad review before.

This just shows what douchebags most Latham lawyers really are, and WHY the place has the rep it does. How fragile must your ego and worldview be to turn on your former colleagues as "deadwood" overnight? It's hard, nay, sickening to watch.

Latham & Watkins - Leading the AmLaw world in layoffs, pay cuts, and douchebaggery for two decades and into the new millennium.

Okay several incredibly misguided and idiotic (or at least grossly uninformed) financial posts drove me to post this.

287 -- you moron. Roth IRA or Roth 401(k) contributions are only available for people below the income level cut-off (which is $110,000 if you're single). If you're talking about BigLaw associates, none of them are even eligible. Comparing the tax savings of traditional 401(k)'s to Roth 401(k)'s is a little dumb when nobody here has that choice.

279 -- you moron. No BigLaw firm on the planet "matches" anybody's 401(k) contribution. In fact, at the majority of the V50, the 401(k) contribution is an automatic or "required" contribution - you can't opt out of a certain minimum percentage. The money is going in whether you want it to or not, end of story.

As a V20 associate here making $160k, after taxes and automatic contributions (plus health care, other paid benefits, etc) I'm lucky to bring home an average of maybe $7k a month. Minus $2600 / month in rent and utilities I'm looking at $4,400 / month in available cash flow. Toss on another $1,000 to make the MINIMUM student loan payment, and that's $3,400 in potential savings / spending.

All the people laughing their ass off about $1,000 a month in food… that equals out to about $33 a day over a month. If you spend $6 on breakfast at starbucks (I don't), another $9 on a sandwich at lunch, you only have to average $18 a day on dinner to reach that. Go out once a week on the weekend for a nice dinner or date (conservative estimate $100) and you suddenly only have to average $20 a day to reach $1000 a month.

I eat on the cheap 99% of the time, and between groceries and lunch alone I easily eclipse $1000 a month. Now you're down to $2,400 a month in available cash.

If you're just sucking all of that $2,400 each month into your student loan, you're doomed. Take a lesson from your financial clients -- an appropriate cash backup is the most important part of financial security. Sure, you can pay down your student loans now by being "aggressive," but when you get laid off you're still going to owe that $1000+ each month regardless. The fact that you paid down principle three months ago isn't going to help you.

Every single BigLaw associate's first goal financially should be to save up a full six month living expenses backup (roughly $24,000 for myself). Until you've managed that you're always going to be playing financial roulette and betting on not getting fired (or injured, sick, etc). And in this economy, that's probably not your best bet.

P.S. -- sympathy to my friends over at L&W, there but for the grace of god (or at least managing partner) go I

452: I lost you when you said "2600 / month in rent and utilities." If you have 160k in student loans, you simply cannot afford that. So, sorry, you're the moron there. Move to an outer borough or get a roommate.

452: I lost you when you said "2600 / month in rent and utilities." If you have 160k in student loans, you simply cannot afford that. So, sorry, you're the moron there. Move to an outer borough or get a roommate.

429: "you're an idiot who should drop out of law school now. Contracts I, my friend. What consideration was given by the employee in exchange for the promise not to lay you off. NOTHING. You need additional consideration to create a new contract."

Rule #1 of ineffective communicators: use drastic language to underscore a point that lacks substantive support. You are wrong on the law. Many exceptions to the "additional consideration" rule have been carved out, especially in the employment context. Most courts considering the issue have held that an employee's continued work for an employer after an express promise has been made constitutes "consideration" for that promise, making the promise enforceable. In this context, if a L & W attorney stayed at Latham post-promise (as opposed to accepting alternative employment), a court could find sufficient detriment (in the form of foregone opportunities) to enforce a contract. Alternatively, Latham could be bound on a theory of reliance (promise was made, attorneys reasonably relied on that promise, promise was not kept, attorneys sustained damages).

I'm not saying this is a foolproof case, but it is a case. It really depends on the nature of the promise -- if it's true that the promise was only made to avoid layoffs in 2008, as some have noted, then perhaps no promise was broken. Either way, it's likely the fired employees were forced to sign something waiving their claims in exchange for the severance package.

417: welcome back, UVA2L/self-pwn3d Trophy Wife/asslobster guy! Glad to see I haven't completely run you off of this blog. Note: stop using the word "shtick." It makes it much easier to identify you. Irony: your viral comments (juicy insides, racism, ass lobsters, etc.) infect this site for months, I call you out on Monday, and a new moderation policy begins the same day, prompting the deletion of my comments calling you out. Oh well -- mission accomplished, in one way or another.

Now that you've been reduced to the small person you are, I can focus on more substantive comments instead of weeding you out. So "shtick" over, for now.