Update: Cooley’s Layoffs Were Worse Than We Thought
We reported earlier today that Cooley Godward laid off a number of attorneys and staff. The firm just sent out its official press release, and it turns out the cuts run even deeper than we previously reported.
According to the firm, 52 attorneys and 62 staff were let go today:
Given the continued slowdown we have experienced in pockets of the Firm over the last five months and the forecast for continuing global economic turmoil in 2009, the Executive and Management Committees concluded that a reduction is necessary at this time. At all levels throughout the Firm we strive to provide an opportunity for everyone to grow professionally and at an appropriate pace. It was the collective judgment of the Firm’s management that in the current environment we would compromise our ability to achieve that goal without reducing the Firm’s headcount across the board.
Our tipsters report that the San Diego office was particularly hard hit. In addition, a commenter said that New York took it on the chin as well.
Read the full Cooley release after the jump. Good luck to all those let go today.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of law firm layoffs
COOLEY GODWARD - MEMO — HEADCOUNT REDUCTIONS
TO: All Hands
FROM: Joe Conroy
DATE: January 21, 2009
RE: Headcount Reductions
Today, Cooley is implementing a firmwide reduction in force of 52 attorneys and 62 staff personnel. I can assure you that the decision to undertake this reduction was not made lightly and that we are providing comprehensive severance benefits as well as career counseling services.
Given the continued slowdown we have experienced in pockets of the Firm over the last five months and the forecast for continuing global economic turmoil in 2009, the Executive and Management Committees concluded that a reduction is necessary at this time. At all levels throughout the Firm we strive to provide an opportunity for everyone to grow professionally and at an appropriate pace. It was the collective judgment of the Firm’s management that in the current environment we would compromise our ability to achieve that goal without reducing the Firm’s headcount across the board.
Notwithstanding the difficult steps we are taking today, the state of our Firm is strong and I am
confident about our future. The stability and shared vision of our partnership, the talent of our
attorneys and staff, the diversity of our client base, the breadth of the legal services we provide and the health of our balance sheet will enable the Firm to compete effectively and prosper in these challenging economic conditions.
Through these times, we will work together with our world-class clients to strengthen and institutionalize our relationships with them. We will continue to grow and strengthen our partnership and find new ways to apply our tremendous talents to solving the myriad of challenges faced by our clients in this economy. Many of our clients need us now more than ever.
I realize this is a difficult day for everyone and I know that I can count on you to support your
departing colleagues and to ease their transitions. I thank you in advance for your understanding
and professionalism.
Beginning the last week of February and into the first week of March, Mark Pitchford, Lisanne
Morales and I will be making presentations to attorneys and staff in each of our offices regarding our 2008 results, our plans for 2009 and the state of the Firm more generally. At that time we can certainly address questions regarding the reduction, among other things. If you have questions, comments or concerns prior to those presentations you should feel free to seek out members of the Executive or Management Committees, your office Partner-in-Charge, Director or manager - our doors are always open.
(211) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
wahwahwaaaaahhhhhhh
This reduces their total headcount, but how about the square footage of their library? This could affect Cooley's # 12 overall ranking:
http://www.cooley.edu/rankings/overall2008.htm
This reduces their total headcount, but how about the square footage of their library? This could affect Cooley's # 12 overall ranking:
http://www.cooley.edu/rankings/overall2008.htm
And thus the floodgates of massive attorney layoffs are opened.
a CWT NY 05 female associate came over for dinner last night and forced my prostate to perform a "headcount reduction"
not exactly sure what their career counseling services are going to say after that letter full of "slowdown", "forecast for economic turmoil", "challenging economic conditions"
How many of the laid off were Seattle ex-Hellerites?
The really bad news is that even some first and second years were laid-off.
Hopefully that at least doesn't become common in this process.
9 - I've been receiving resumes from stub first years looking for work. Apparently a bunch of firms quietly let go of all oftheir first years who didn't pass the bar this past July.
"Notwithstanding the difficult steps we are taking today, the state of our Firm is strong and I am
confident about our future. "
What kind of bullshit statement is that?
This firms also laid off people a few years ago when the dot-com market shrinked. There are some firms that are very easy in firing people including lawyers of all level. The economy is fine - hiring like crazy. The economy is less than fine - fire fire fire.
Cooley is by far the worse of these firms and people that are interviewing there should be aware of this.
I am so happy that I didn't take their offer a few years ago.
This firms also laid off people a few years ago when the dot-com market shrinked. There are some firms that are very easy in firing people including lawyers of all level. The economy is fine - hiring like crazy. The economy is less than fine - fire fire fire.
Cooley is by far the worse of these firms and people that are interviewing there should be aware of this.
I am so happy that I didn't accept their offer a few years ago.
10 - i have no sympathy for retards who can't pass the bar.
At least they do it publicly. Reed Smith is in the middle of multiple months of rolling stealth layoffs. Apparently when you limit it to 1 every two weeks per office, you stay out of the news.
10 - do you know which firms fired folks that didn't pass the bar?
Cooley shit!
13- you're talking out your ass right now...just shut up.
Did Cooley do layoffs after the dot-com burst? Yes...but they were particularly hard-hit due to the nature of the slowdown.
Cooley held off as long as it could on these layoffs and they are far from the first to do it. Everyone is hurting right now and at least they were stand-up enough to take care of the people they laid off and clearly state that it was NOT for performance reasons and it was due to the economy rather than doing stealth layoffs that make the fired associates look like they deserved it.
14 You are an asswipe! Even morons can figure out the bar is a very stupid measurement of one's worth. I'm sure you feel like a grand champion because you passed the bar, and you may now have a job, but I hope that soon changes.
What are the stories you will tell to your grandchildren? Oh, here's an interesting one... back in the 00's I passed the NY bar.
Buttmunch.
- NY Bar passer
16 - Eh, the only one that's been open about it is Proskauer, but there were others.
12/13: By my count Cooley is far from the first to lay people off this year and has cut far shallower than other firms have done. Its bad times for everyone but I think that the Cooley partners only did what they had to do to stay afloat in 2009. I would also point out that at least Cooley is being totally open about the layoffs and is not characterizing them as performance related. So I say kudos to them for being classy in stormy seas.
1 is racist as hell and needs to die.
" our doors are always open."
Cool, I will take a shit in a bag and throw it at you when you are on the phone!!
Oh yeah, one more thing DLAPooper is sucking wind ( losing clients) and is firing so many associates they may slip to to #3 or #4
How many months severance?
So will this affect the number of full time librarians Cooley has on staff? Because that's a big factor in keeping Cooley's ranking ahead of Stanford's.
18 - you can do "stealth layoffs" of 100+ people. This is not yet another firing of a small group within a firm mind you.
Last time, a few years ago, most firms, including in the SV, took a hit to their PPP without firing - but Cooley fired. This time most firms don't fire 50+ lawyers and 60+ others at once. Cooley does.
I feel very bad for the people that were fired and I hope that from now on people will be more careful before accepting at Cooley.
No severance, just a kick in the ass and a handjob
Does anyone know if Leroy "Preach" Jackson and/or Richard "Cochise" Morris were among those laid off?
I love the line about laying people off so everyone can continue to grow professionally and at an "appropriate pace" (whatever the f_ck that means). I've definitely added that one to my list of inane excuses for laying people off.
Um, what do you expect going to work for a firm headquartered in California? If it's a real law firm, it's in Manhattan with satellite offices elsewhere. These firms based in fake rural areas like San Fransisco are bush league to begin with.
I love the line about laying people off so everyone can continue to grow professionally and at an "appropriate pace" (whatever the f_ck that means). I've definitely added that one to my list of inane excuses for laying people off.
Wait, did I hear something about layoffs at Cahill?
24 - three months, beginning a week from today.
19 - measure of someone's worth as a person? probably not. measure of one's ability to perform even the most basic legal tasks? yes. nobody who passes the bar thinks they're a "grand champion" for doing so, they're simply not retarded. unlike the people who failed. hth
"I love the line about laying people off so everyone can continue to grow professionally and at an "appropriate pace" (whatever the f_ck that means). I've definitely added that one to my list of inane excuses for laying people off."
Yes -- you see, it was actually an altruistic move on the firm's part to fire these people.
Cooley is a TTT.
26, I'm sorry, are you saying that other silicon valley-BASED firms didn't lay people off in 2001? REALLY?
Crash and Burn MoFos. There are too many lawyers. Good luck working at McDonalds.
sup /b/
at least skaTTTen is not doing this (if it were, there would certainly be a screaming headline ...right?)
Anyone know anything about the cuts at Cooley's DC and Reston, VA offices?
22 - How is 1 racist? He/she is just trying to get the message out that Eliza Gray is racist. Don't shoot the messenger.
Can anyone confirm the Willkie layoff rumors?
What is going on at DLA Piper? Layoffs?
yes, what is going on at Willkie?!?
Enough is enough. San Diego, by the percentages, did not take it on the chin, they actually did much better than most (if you assume that more corporate associates than litigation associates were let go).
Every other major firm in San Diego has done far more layoffs as a percentage, but they just aren't going public. If you are in San Diego, Cooley is by far the strongest place to practice corporate law over Latham and others. I have discussed this with many other corporate folks in town, who agree hands down.
Some (but clearly not all) of the folks let go should have been let go some time ago. Fact is that Cooley does a much better job at making partners than most, so the "crap" about providing opportunity for development is probably true.
- San Diego corporate attorney.
I'm a 1L law student, is there anywhere I can look to find out which firms laid off tons of people both lately and during the dot-com bust? During this summer's OCI, I want to beware firms that are very easy on the firing during bust times.
-1L externing for a federal judge in central district of CA this summer.
lol... 46... come on. no matter what you say here no law student is going to work at cooley (assuming they have a choice)
Dear ATL Readers,
Can you now take pride in your pathetic behavior about two years ago when you egged on every large firm in the country to raise salaries to 160k and pay out max bonuses? Do you see what that has got you. Your actions aren't any different than the unions forcing large US automakers to pay inflated salaries for years. It all comes back to haunt you.
Sincerely
Alan Greenspan
- 48
So you are the recruiting manager for which competitor?
I'm pretty sure law students are taking jobs where they can get them.
46 - as for Cooley making partners, that is quite counter to what I've heard.
Proposition: the firms that are laying off the most folks are the most leveraged (highest ratio of all lawyers to equity partners). Discuss.
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202426909972
I wish someone would spread their buttcheeks and let the cool air pass
I wish someone would spread their buttcheeks and let the cool air pass
34, you are a moron. You went to a TTT where they taught towards the Bar (probably NJ's) and you passed. Does that make you better than someone who went to Yale and did not pass the CA Bar?
Sounds like all you kids are all associates. As the wife of a partner at big law, get the f__k back to work.
34 sounds like an idiot. It is always dissapointing when someone you knows gets fired regardless of the reason. Stop feeling good about yourself because you passed the Ohio Bar.
HYS, V-10, bar-passer with a job
47-
In this economic climate, you'd best drop the "The firm doesn't choose me, I choose the firm" attitude and be grateful for ANY offer. Firms are seriously cutting back on summer programs--they can't lay off senior associates and then drop thousands on entertaining little summer associates. Positions will be scarce, and the people who are lucky enough to get them are actually going to have to work now.
46 - DLA has as big corporate practice as Cooley in San Diego (30+ attorneys). Latham, MoFo, Wilson are all second tier (8-12 attorneys).
49, that is ridiculous. PPP were high. $160,000 was understandable after firms didn't raise for like five years while their PPP was doubling.
59 - That's it? That's the biggest corporate law gets in San Diego? No firms with several hundred corporate associates?
What a backwater.
55 = AA admit to yale who failed the CA bar
61 - San Diego is all about quality over quantity...
First to point out the fact that Cooley is also the name of a really bad law school
59--Latham's web site shows two dozen corporate attorneys.
64 - EPIC failure. See 3,4, the entire other thread about Cooley layoffs.
The Greenspan schtick has some potential, but needs a Greenspan picture avatar.
The partner's wife schtick has HUGE potential, but needs a big-fake-titties picture avatar.
56, tell your husband to pass down some of that doc review he's hoarding and we'll have some work to do. And lay off the hookers and coke while he's at it.
Ahhh ... Cooley SD represented plaintiff in a frivolous trade secret suit against my former boss. Vengeance is sweet.
Burn baby Burn!!!!!!!!!
12, I bet Cooley's glad you didn't take the offer too. Read much? Or do you just use The Force when it comes to writing and grammar?
Most of the big firms in San Diego moved across the border to TJ to be closer to cheaper hookers and cheaper coke.
Any word on the Boston office?
72 - Yeah, they're all Red Sox fans there.
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
"Me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke"
-Eliza Gray
Any word on severance for the attorneys that were laid off?
62 = TTT law school grad laid off because firm understandably would rather keep the AA Yale admit who passed bar on second attempt.
67--They're not fake. Your billable do pay for my hair extensions though. Thank you for working late.
A friend of a friend claims that Elie Mystal made a request for pills that make your cock bigger, supposedly Elie's has a 3 inch cock when fully erect, can anyone confirm?
49 - KUDOS and well signed.
78 - I highly doubt that's true, since Elie is a woman (Elie = short for Elizabeth).
LOL Elie is a dude not a chick
81 - No, sorry, she's not. Elizabeth Mystal. And you can obviously tell she's female from all of her posts. She's got a very pretty name, when it comes down to it, although I don't know what she looks like.
82 - Sorry to disappoint you, my friend, but does this look like a woman to you?
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php
49 -- Suck eet.
I hope they get rid of attorneys/ppl in San Francisco!! Over-bloated office~
81 and 83 are obviously UPenn St grads.
83 - Yes, it does.
83 - Sorry to disappoint you, my friend, but that picture looks like a fat chick.
PUBLIC SERVICE REPORTING ADDENDUM:
Cooley Godward had ~650 attorneys prior to these layoffs. Therefore, these layoffs constitute roughly 7.7% of the attorney workforce.
83 - Didn't she sing at the inuaguration yesterday?
http://cdn.necn.com/files/2009/01/20/vlcsnap-4330.jpg
89, is that the number of associates? I think that number is more important than the number of total attorneys (including partners).
91 - Why would you think that? Is a firm with 500 partners and 100 associates fundamentally different from one with 100 partners and 500 associates? Or one with 1 partner and 300 associates / contract partners, like, say, Dreier LLP?
49-
Do you really think they would have kept people on if they weren't paying them so much?
"Let's see, we have enough billable hours for X attorneys. We have X+52 attorneys. If they were making 35 grand less, I'd be in favor of keeping them on."
Sorry, but that's now how it works. Cooley had 52 too many lawyers, regardless of how much they were paying them. So they canned 52 lawyers. This should be a lesson to every BIGLAW attorney out there to take as much as he can get for as long as he can get it. Don't kid yourself that there's loyalty - on either side of the table.
cooley no offered my friend a few years back for no ostensible reason other than the fact that she was a minority female. they said it was for performance even though they were not able to explain what she did wrong. they gave her no head's up during the mid-summer review.
karma is a bitch.
Cooley is no different than any other law firm out there that has experienced a slowdown in the last year. Despite what they have said publicly, they have been slowly bleeding attorneys over the past year in all offices. Now, following the Heller debacle, which by the way...killed the career prospects of many hard working deserving associates that were passed up for partner.... they realized they had to cut the ranks in order to preserve partner profits levels. Oh...and for those associates in line for partnership over the next few years...hope you aren't foolish enough to believe that the Heller consolidation won't hurt your future prospects. Yeah right. For those being recruited by Cooley, be sure to inquire about partnership prospects, especially their statistics on the success of lateral associate hires (it ain't good...), and notably retention of women and minorities (which is only a priority during strong economic cycles when associates are in higher demand).
this is my 93. my bad, i think it was mofo or fenwick actually. nevermind.
57-- you knows you're an idiot, right?
Of course you knows that. Idiot.
I lay the blame on Mark Pitchford.
First!
12, 16 -- The scumbags at Proskauer fired tons of first years, as well as others
92-
A firm with 500 associates and 100 partners is radically different than a firm with 100 associates and 500 partners. Read this list of the most leveraged firms (that is, those with the most associates per equity partner), and look how high up CWT, White & Case, Orrick, Thelen, Cooley, DLA, Dechert, etc. are.
92-
A firm with 500 associates and 100 partners is radically different than a firm with 100 associates and 500 partners. Read this list of the most leveraged firms (that is, those with the most associates per equity partner), and look how high up CWT, White & Case, Orrick, Thelen, Cooley, DLA, Dechert, etc. are.
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202426909972
Cooley gave 1 month severance to attorneys for each full year at the firm, minimum 3 months and maximum 6 months.
No bonus. Many who made their hours (bonus eligible) got the axe.
Staff received less severance.
102--
Do you have to be formally trained in order to fail this hard? Point taken with CWT, Thelen, W&C, and Orrick, but why throw Cooley on your list? They rank at #49, considerably lower on the list than sinking ships like Weil, Paul Weiss, Cleary, Cravath, Simpson, and Skadden. Which begs the question, what the hell was your point?
104-
The point was this. With the economy tanking to this extent, the firms that expanded recklessly during boom times are going to have to shed the most weight. Obviously, firms with reputations like those you mention are still going to get work (cite: Skadden). But firms that had all their eggs in the capital markets basket (CWT), and firms that were not that good to begin with but grew a lot anyway (e.g., Reed Smith) are hurting. Cooley may have been considerably lower on that list than CWT, but it was still in the same leverage ballpark as Proskauer (layoffs) Katten (layoffs), McGuireWoods (layoffs), Latham (salary freeze), HELLER EHRMAN (dissolved).
Look at the firms at the BOTTOM of the list.
The super-prestigious firms you cited are the exception to the rule. See which firms are laying off and which are freezing salaries, and with the anomalous exception of Fulbright (which froze), you'll see I'm right
105 - when did McGuireWoods lay people off? Link or GTFO.
104:
On that AmLaw leverage list, Cooley is also not far from Sonnenchein, Dickstein Shapiro, Mayer Brown. See what's going on here? 104 is right. Weil, Cravath, Cleary, Skadden are exceptions.
105 has been discredited - there were no McGuireWoods layoffs.
106, 108:
Sorry, you're correct, I meant Squire Sanders. That was an honest mistake, I apologize.
But nevertheless, you get my point
105
103: I find it slightly hard to believe that associates who made their bonus hours would be cut. Any associate who hit that level last year was clearly profitable for the firm.
106, 108:
it was the "ire" that got me. heh.
-105
And we are just going to just pretend that nothing happened at Skadden?
Wonder if this could have anything to do with the fact that I informed the Courts that RS and his friends from Dreier/Traub were violating conflict of interest Codes all over the place
www.petters-fraud.com
47 -- Just stay away from Cooley, Proskauer, and you should be alright.
49 -- You really seriously think these greedy soulless biglaw partners would would be more reluctant getting rid of associates (or feel any more guilty about it) if base salaries were at the 145k-level, or even 125k-level?! If so, you sir are a FOOL.
I work at Cooley (still) and I think they might be catching too much shit for this. All in all, I think the firm handled things pretty well. They laid off a lot later than a lot of other firms. They made cuts all at once rather than "rolling" or ongoing layoffs. Partners came around to each office and told people what was going on (and whether they were safe). They're giving those affected decent severance, and "career counseling" (whatever that entails in this market). And they have been very clear that these cuts were economic, not "performance-based." It seems to me that they've handled this a lot better than many other firms that have conducted layoffs recently. And I think it's still a pretty good place to work (I'm a junior associate, FWIW).
I do feel a lot less secure now, though, and a lot more vulnerable. It feels like the armor has been pierced or something. It was definitely a tough day.
I agree totally with 115 - if a firm must do layoffs it is better to be upfront about the fact that it is economy-based, rather than stealthily laying off hard working associates for bullshit "performance" reasons. I bet DLA has stealthily laid of the same percentage of associates over the two (early December and early January) "performance-based" layoff cycles as Cooley did today, but in a competitive job market those associates will have a much harder time to get a new job since they are allegedly "under performers."
Bottom line is that if you're not doing too well in this economic climate, at least be a man and admit to it.
Holy crap, are you guys for real? I'm new to this blog, but I can't believe how naive and whiny you all are. Law is a business, folks, and when the economy gets hit, so do the law firms representing those businesses. As business slows down for firms, firms need to reduce their biggest expenses, which (surprise, surprise) are associate salaries, which are really, really high. So, even the best firms need to make cuts, and the firms that were the highest fliers generally have the longest distance to fall. So, don't bash the firms that make cuts to keep their businesses afloat. If you want stability, go to firms that have stable profitability with diversified practices, but you wont' find them at the top of the profitability rankings. If you want to take risks for big bucks, go to the firms with "hot" practices. Just don't go for the "hot" firm and then whine when things don't go well for you in bad times.
To reasonable last few posters - as a general rule you should never read the comments on this blog unless you have to. I really needed to follow this story and I certainly feel stupider after reading the 200+ comments.
Does this mean more or less...lobster?
117 -- YOU'RE AN IDIOT YOU KNOW NOTHING, NOTHING!!
When bonuses get slashed by more than half and associates get canned, while PPP (i.e., profits per partner, for you) increase --- questions should be asked and BIGLAW should be bashed. Particularly when these firms preach how humane they are and how much they care. When corporate associates regularly stay until 2am/ 7 days a week and everyone gets fat bonuses, but when these same associates get canned because they ONLY stay until 6 or 7pm, a year or two after --- questions should be asked. Not only should these firms be bashed, AG should investigate! (which brings me to another point - I wish Spitz was still around...)
And, 170, 185k per year for 2d and 3rd yrs, respectively, is not "really, really hight" living in NYC, unlike $500k- $mill that college kids made as bankers and with hedge funds
LEAVE THE BLOG AND JUST GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM
all the a-hole partners were much less condescending today at cooley. maybe they were afraid of workplace violence. it's amusing because they were not good at pretending to be nice. this place is not cool. i need to think about a backup plan.
I personally know some of the people that were let go today at Cooley, and I know they are hard workers that produce quality work. First years, if you want a fair place to work, think twice about your career at Cooley! If you are a minority, think three times.
They just told me business did not slow down at all last week. Bunch of liars! I will fire their ass.
I don't see much difference between saying it's economic based versus performance based. At the end of the day, it's ultimately performance based. They're letting go of the bottom performers.
This is hot off the press. Three victims in Cooley San Diego, one female lateral who just got married a week ago, another female lateral from Latham, a third lateral who just moved from NYC and is still preparing for the Feb. CA bar, all three are corporate associates. I understand reduction in force is for economic reasons, but why does Cooley always let go way more than other firms (in percentage terms) when there is an economic downturn? There is only one answer, greedy partners. This happened 7 years ago and is happening again now. People have memories.
120 -- 117 here again. So, PPP is increasing all over the place, huh? Have you read the numbers being released in the past two weeks? PPP down 30 percent at Cadwalader, down 21 percent at Orrick, etc., etc. I wonder where you're getting your information.
And your comment about $175k not being high compared with what the bankers and hedge fund people "made." You did get your tense right I think. Not "make," but "made." Where are all your Lehman and Bear Stearns buddies now? I think many will be applying to law school is my guess.
125 - your facts are a little off. the nyc lateral (from the ny cooley office) was in litigation (originally in bankruptcy in ny). and a minority.
do you happen to know about the other 5 who got laid off in SD? i heard there were 8 total.
also, to the commenter who asked about layoffs in the seattle office, an inside source told me one senior associate who wasn't on the partner track. i assume he/she was part of the heller crowd that got merged in.
On a different note, McGuireWoods may not have done "layoffs" but there are plenty of people that used to work at the firm a few months ago, and don't anymore. But I'm sure McGuireWoods is just the only firm in the country that hires bad lawyers and then fires them all for cause.
Any word on DC/Reston offices of Cooley?
any word on Paul Hastings?
As one of the Cooley associates remaining, I have the following comments:
1. I've worked with at least 3 attorneys who got the boot yesterday. I'm mystified by their selection. These were all good attorneys, all hard-working contributors. I really don't know any sub-par attorneys within Cooley, so I'm certain that it would be difficult to pick any for layoffs, but these 3 were/are terrific. I'm especially interested to investigate HOW the list was chosen.
2. It should be made clear that the 52 attorneys receiving pink slips yesterday are NOT the only attorneys who've departed on "less-than-voluntary" terms lately. I am aware of at least 2 attorneys and 1 paralegal who all "elected" to move elsewhere, but who, in fact, were shown the door. I suspect there are others. In one case, I think the associate was treated disgracefully.
One has to wonder if a strategy of rolling, stealth layoffs was initially employed, but that yesterday's layoff was executed only after the stealth approach appeared insufficient. If this wasn't the strategy, then the general culture of the place seems to have darkened a lot. Is it now the case that, even when not executing a regrettable, economy-driven layoff, the firm nevertheless poorly treats good attorneys who have made significant and valuable contributions? And if yesterday's RIF isn't an accurate reflection of the full scope of layoffs, then is the economic picture at Cooley worse than Joe Conroy painted in his memo to associates?
I came to Cooley because of both its practice and its culture. I invite other Cooley associates to provide any additional insight regarding potential stealth layoffs preceding yesterday, and I invite the firm to shed any light on the subject.
From an associate perspective, Cooley is definitely all about protecting per-partner profits at almost any cost, perhaps excluding sometimes baffling expansions such as the entire Heller transaction.
While considerable latitude is given to unproductive partners, associates are apparently considered nothing more than a line-item expense to be expanded in economic good times and contracted in bad. Perhaps this is a good way to run a business, that is, if you believe associates are expendable and such hire-fire cycles do not create long term talent attraction and morale issues (personally I think they do; but management has evidently decided that the cost-benefit analysis weighs in favor of engaging in such cyclical workforce modifications).
On the issue of yesterday's layoffs specifically, I have to agree with above posters that there seems to be little rationale in the specific selection of people, both attorneys and staff. Some wonderful, smart, productive and team-centric people were let go, while other significant non-performers and morale-busters were retained. The specific selections seemed haphazard and of awkward utility.
On the issue of partnership, Cooley made 7 partners this year after making 13-15 partners per year for the prior several years. And mind you, Cooley has significantly grown with the addition not only of new offices (Seattle, Boston, New York) but with a huge pullover of attorneys from Heller. So as a "percentage of associates" number, the chance to make partner has evidently dropped significantly at Cooley. Many terrific and deserving senior associates were passed over, and those in the cycle for partnership in the next 1-3 years certainly have to be asking themselves if there is not going to be a huge backlog of unmade partners which will defuse their own possibilities.
For associates at all levels, given that the hire-fire cycle has now been institutionalized over 2 mass layoffs, early 2000's and late 2000's, and given the dimming prospects that Cooley is a place which will make you partner, there has to be some serious consideration of whether Cooley is the right place to be. As soon as the economy stablilizes, look for departures of talented attorneys who have by now realized this is a non-fit but are not willing to try to make a move in this economy.
Its regrettable, but it seems like finally, once and for all, the "Cooley culture" built over so many years is gone forever.
lol at 115 trying to deflect bad publicity. your firm sucks, get used to it.
summers, come to cooley for kinder, gentler layoffs
I love Trophy Wife!!!!!!!!!!
They do not have a diverse client base - unless you consider different VC's and different tech companies diverse. The whole paragraph on clients needing them now more than ever is wishful thinking.
78: Only after you push back 4" of fat.
Can anyone comment on plight of 1st years (08 grads) at Cooley?
Were ALL the 1st years that failed the Bar Exam automatically dismissed?
How many 1st years were let go total?
Also, how bad were layoffs in the Silicon Valley offices?
137: I only know of 1 first year who failed and I believe that she rather deservedly was dismissed. In this economy how can you justify keeping someone who fails the bar and firing a 3rd year instead?
I am a current Cooley junior associate and I have a very positive opinion of the partners that I work with and the firm as a whole. I can understand the bitterness however given yesterday's traumatic events.
I also think that the experience of associates varies greatly depending on practice group. I am in a smaller group and I can say without a doubt that general corporate seems like a tough place to make a living. For all the law students out there, you have no idea how important a decision the firm you choose is and you have no idea how important the practice group you choose is and there is no way of knowing what it will be like until you are smack dab in the middle of it. A legal career is like a box of chocolates...
So which firms have laid off first and second years? Cooley, Proskauer, Wildman Harrold...
137- I can tell you for a fact that no first years ('08 grads) in the San Diego office were part of yesterday's layoffs. I know there were a couple in other offices but an overwhelming majority of the first years were protected yesterday.
Let's be honest here -- while it is nominally better to call these "economic layoffs" and not "performance layoffs", you can be sure that those who got the boot were not the superstar performers. They are all bright and capable, no doubt, and may even turn out to be better attorneys than those who made the cut, but let's not fap too much about Cooley (or any other firm) calling layoffs "not performance based". Because the reality is that most layoffs have a performance element implied. Firms decide they need to cut X associates across the firm, and target various groups. Within those groups, they figure they need to cut a specific number of associates. They look at the list of associates and then pick the number -- usually from the bottom of the list (even if the bottom performers are still good performers). You can be sure it's not random -- superstars, teachers pets and those who work the politics right are the ones most likely to be protected.
There's still stigma in being terminated in a layoff; these folks won't be getting a job of comparable prestige quite that easily because the only thing a prospective new firm will know about the laid-off prospect is that he/she didn't make the cut and that therefore he/she certainly cannot have been a superstar. And for all the new firm may know, the reason the laid-off associate didn't make the cut is that they were deadwood or even low performers who just hadn't been culled through normal performance review processes. This is true even if the reason the associate did not make the cut was some BS political reason completely unrelated to ability. It still makes it much harder to get the resume' past the initial stage at new employers.
The lesson is that a layoff hurts future job prospects in the prestige-obsessed BIGLAW world, even if you are objectively more than capable of performing at a high level. Firms overhire, often still hiring even as things are showing signs of drying up. Then they cut. It's poor planning, poor management.
In addition to the layoffs, I understand that some associates (not sure how many firm wide) will be told that they do not have a future at the firm and have x amount of time to move on. So really, more than 10% layoffs. Presumably these associates are considered stronger than those let go in the "layoffs" and are being provided time to find another job (are there any out there?).
120, you think the Attorney General should investigate? Okay, then. Carry on with your bad deluded self.
Any insight on what happened at Reston, DC and Colorado offices? I'm guessing DC may be picking up, but second tier tech hubs have to be hurting.
141 - Thanks for stating the obvious in 350 words. Prime example for blowing a simple thought out of proportion - no wonder clients don't want to pay for that nonsense.
Oops, they did it again... And will do it again and again and again. Nasty, cold-blooded bitches of both genders laying off everyone (first stealthly than openly) who does not quite fit in this nasty environment. Women and minorities are axed first of course (yes, discrimination is rampant). There is no single decent soul that will still be at this place, the best ones remaining are the ones who can "play the politics" without being openly abusive. Not that any other law firm is better...
DLA San Diego corporate has been making stealth layoffs for months. At this rate they will be one of the smaller corporate groups in town by the end of 2009. And, despite an earlier post proclaiming they have a large number of corporate attorneys (well, large for San Diego anyway), nobody mistakes them for the better shops in town.
Key take away: BigLaw is great place to be in a strong economy and a bad place to be in a weak economy.
But isn't this the same for any profession?
If the economy tanks companies go through 3 modes -- Cost Containment (i.e. cutting back on holiday parties and sparkling water), Cost Cutting (i.e. stealth or performance based layoffs) and Fire Sale (i.e. Heller).
I applaud Cooley for being in cost containment a lot longer than most firms. Sometimes those nutty racist bastards get it right.
-- your mother
Cooley is the Bank of America of Biglaw - acquiring pieces of a failed firm (Heller), adding needless associates, and then getting screwed themselves. Calling the Heller acquisition a debacle is an understatement. Pitchford, Conroy, and other management should have been included in the personnel reduction.
If I was
Any news on the NY office?
140 - you say "protected," why don't you ask the many first years who got laid off yesterday how "protected" they feel?
150 - the New York office is NOT doing well. I heard corporate let go of all of their junior associates, Im not sure why (that includes a first year and second year). Real estate was hit hard as well. If i was working in the NY Office (or if I was a summer last year) i would be worried.
152 - NY Litigation too?
149 - I couldn't agree with you more. I'm still at Cooley and can confirm that there were stealth layoffs before the public layoff. Most comical perhaps is how partners continued to insist things really weren't that bad even as late as year end. Sounds like they were all dipping into the "Cool-Aid" together. Those are the same partners that still boast about the famous (or infamous) "Cooley culture." What a crock of shit that one is. Agree also with prior posts that when things turn around (and they will) look for a flood of good attorneys to run (not walk) out the golden Cooley gates once they reach the conclusion that there really is no such thing as a career path at Cooley. They will bleed you dry for 8+ years...just in time to dismiss you or cast you aside for "economic reasons."
By the way 148 - Cooley didn't "cut back" in any meaningful way before the layoff. Last I checked, the Christmas parties were all in full swing in December and the partners all attended a very posh (have you heard of AIG....) retreat at a luxury California resort near year end. This just goes to prove the point that management used the excuse of the weakened economy to trim off those individuals that were actually trying to achieve some sort of reasonable work life balance.
149 - I couldn't agree with you more. I'm still at Cooley and can confirm that there were stealth layoffs before the public layoff. Most comical perhaps is how partners continued to insist things really weren't that bad even as late as year end. Sounds like they were all dipping into the "Cool-Aid" together. Those are the same partners that still boast about the famous (or infamous) "Cooley culture." What a crock of shit that one is. Agree also with prior posts that when things turn around (and they will) look for a flood of good attorneys to run (not walk) out the golden Cooley gates once they reach the conclusion that there really is no such thing as a career path at Cooley. They will bleed you dry for 8+ years...just in time to dismiss you or cast you aside for "economic reasons."
By the way 148 - Cooley didn't "cut back" in any meaningful way before the layoff. Last I checked, the Christmas parties were all in full swing in December and the partners all attended a very posh (have you heard of AIG....) retreat at a luxury California resort near year end. This just goes to prove the point that management used the excuse of the weakened economy to trim off those individuals that were actually trying to achieve some sort of reasonable work life balance.
154 - absolutely correct, partners and their spouses were all invited to the resort and allowed to spend up to $3,000 per person ($6,000 per partner) on first class airfare to the getaway.
It appears this layoff is all about protecting partnership profits. The executive committee should have given more thought to taking on the ex-Heller attorneys and their associates. How did the firm expect to maintain partnership profits, take on the expenses of a new Seatle office to house the Heller alumni and keep all of its existing employees in this dire economy?
Once the executive committee received the firm's 2008 year end numbers, it is a shame that the committeee did not think about reducing costs significantly, mainly by asking everyone to take a 10% pay cut to avoid cutting jobs, especially staff jobs, this year.
What is ironic is that the firm will be spending a lot of money to recruit attorneys, especially in specialty groups, once the economy heats up again.
It appears this layoff is all about protecting partnership profits. The executive committee should have given more thought to taking on the ex-Heller attorneys and their associates. How did the firm expect to maintain partnership profits, take on the expenses of a new Seatle office to house the Heller alumni and keep all of its existing employees in this dire economy?
Once the executive committee received the firm's 2008 year end numbers, it is a shame that the committeee did not think about reducing costs significantly, mainly by asking everyone to take a 10% pay cut to avoid cutting jobs, especially staff jobs, this year.
What is ironic is that the firm will be spending a lot of money to recruit attorneys, especially in specialty groups, once the economy heats up again.
147 = fired DLA associate
i'm not entirely sure what office the whole female/minority thing is coming from... but it wasn't silicon valley...
which was hit hard. particularly the 5 first years in corporate (and corporate in general). best of luck to them... i have no idea why they were chosen, but i know they are worth more than this.
I need to correct one common incorrect assumption. 141 said:
----
Let's be honest here -- while it is nominally better to call these "economic layoffs" and not "performance layoffs", you can be sure that those who got the boot were not the superstar performers.
----
I ordinarily agree. In this case, however, I just witnessed Cooley axe a couple of attorneys who are, indeed, superstars. For example, one senior corporate/securities attorney routinely brings in business, and has client loyalties equaling significant revenues. Cooley will, no doubt, try to retain those clients (aka steal them from him), but I'm sure he'll land elsewhere just fine (probably as a partner) and will take those clients with him. When he does, it will take away work from corporate, litigation, IP, and employment attorneys.
What a stupid move by Cooley. Speaking as an associate there, I think part of Cooley's problem is its inability to track the real contributions of associates. Associates aren't given any kind of "origination" credit, and the only measures of performance that managers see are (i) billable numbers, and (ii) reviews by partners. Often the reviewing partners are themselves being credited with the book of business that, in reality, belongs to stellar associates. Whether intentional or not, nefarious or not, Cooley isn't able to see what it's losing when it sheds associates like the one I mentioned.
Yesterday -- the day after the layoffs -- the mood was fairly dim among remaining associates. Many have a sense that the other shoe is about to drop. Year-end reviews are being conducted over the next couple of weeks, and all of the colleagues I talked to believe that there will be many who are informed they must find other jobs within X days. Everyone also was aware of recent stealth layoffs. We don't know how large the "headcount reductions" really are, but we fear they are substantially larger than advertised.
161 says " the only measures of performance that managers see are (i) billable numbers, and (ii) reviews by partners"
Spot on, and I agree its a problem. The only thing one can do is let the relevant partners take the origination credit and hope those partners support you vis a vis PNC. Cooley is a very tough place for senior associates, in general, this is one aspect in particular.
Agree with a lot of the comments here. Implementation was piss-poor. The two midlevel associates cut from Palo Alto were shocking choices, just flat out wrong IMHO.
As someone who was around for the Cooley layoffs in 2001 (BEFORE 9/11) I can tell you that they didn't care how hard it hit. They were one of the most profitable firms in 2000 but obviously not well managed. A year after the 2001 departure of about 20% of the firm's overall headcount, they were talking about a come back. I'd love to know how many partners missed a mortgage payment or didn't get to send their kids to camp.
I came to Cooley after the 2001 layoffs. My recruiting partner told me the firm was much better managed as a result of the earlier layoffs. The business folks were to manage the business so well that the partners did not have to go through laying off folks again.
It appears the firm did not learn from its earlier experience. There was one point in 2006 where the firm was wildly hiring associates, with no apparent thought given to sustaining them with work in the next downturn.
I agree with No. 164. I suspect no partner will have a change in lifestyle this year.
I came to Cooley after the 2001 layoffs. My recruiting partner told me the firm was much better managed as a result of the earlier layoffs. The business folks were to manage the business so well that the partners did not have to go through laying off folks again.
It appears the firm did not learn from its earlier experience. There was one point in 2006 where the firm was wildly hiring associates, with no apparent thought given to sustaining them with work in the next downturn.
I agree with No. 164. I suspect no partner will have a change in lifestyle this year.
If history is any judge at Cooley, those who were targeted were likely senior associates too expensive too afford to keep and unlikely to make partner and recent hires (esp. laterals). That women and minorities may have been "targeted" because they were women and minorities, I doubt. Cooley has a VC/frat boy culture, and if a woman or a minority individual fits in, then not a problem. If they don't (and perhaps most don't), then when push comes to shove you'll be shown the door. Same thing happened in 2001.
Another thing that happened in 2001 is that there was a subsequent round of layoffs following the 80+ attorney firing of that August/September. So be on the lookout for another round of cuts in 2009. In addition, there was a huge backlog of promising senior associates waiting for partner, many of whom saw the writing on the wall and left or were nudged out. Expect more of the same now. Finally, as before, expect Cooley to discover belatedly that it cut too deep and unwisely, and so in 2010 it will likely be recruiting for attorneys on its website, just as it did in 2002 and 2003.
Some folks never learn.
Oh, and of course it's about protecting partnership profits. When partners are bound together by little more than money, guess what happens when there's a smaller pile of cash? There are a few firms out there that behave differently, and guess what? Those firms are successful and still growing. Cooley has fewer lawyers today than it did a decade ago. Hmm....
If history is any judge at Cooley, those who were targeted were likely senior associates too expensive too afford to keep and unlikely to make partner and recent hires (esp. laterals). That women and minorities may have been "targeted" because they were women and minorities, I doubt. Cooley has a VC/frat boy culture, and if a woman or a minority individual fits in, then not a problem. If they don't (and perhaps most don't), then when push comes to shove you'll be shown the door. Same thing happened in 2001.
Another thing that happened in 2001 is that there was a subsequent round of layoffs following the 80+ attorney firing of that August/September. So be on the lookout for another round of cuts in 2009. In addition, there was a huge backlog of promising senior associates waiting for partner, many of whom saw the writing on the wall and left or were nudged out. Expect more of the same now. Finally, as before, expect Cooley to discover belatedly that it cut too deep and unwisely, and so in 2010 it will likely be recruiting for attorneys on its website, just as it did in 2002 and 2003.
Some folks never learn.
Oh, and of course it's about protecting partnership profits. When partners are bound together by little more than money, guess what happens when there's a smaller pile of cash? There are a few firms out there that behave differently, and guess what? Those firms are successful and still growing. Cooley has fewer lawyers today than it did a decade ago. Hmm....
167/168
Can't speak for other offices, but in Palo Alto the first years and the mid-level, (especially class of 2005) took the worst beating.
and laterals, including VLG folk, were far and away the minority, it was largely the home-grown talent that was let go. Go figure.
Planning, management?..!!!???? They were going gangbusters on fall recruiting in Fall 2008....even emphasizing the speed with which interviewers were to submit candidate evaluations so that Cooley could get offers out faster than competitors! Couldn't agree more with all the prior postings. Was around in 2001 when they dropped the first axe...which by the way hit most mid level lateral hires (seeing a trend yet??). Bottom line is that unless your career goal is to make it to partnership, you shouldn't waste your time at Cooley. If your career goal is to MAKE it to partnership, you should seriously consider another firm that demonstrates better historial management and flexible and alternative career paths.
The fabled "Cooley Culture" of mythological lore is dead and gone. And when I say dead and gone, I mean dead and gone. Bye-bye. It's a new world order. It's all about the Benjamins now, baby, all about the Benjamins. What have you done for me lately?
You are all such a sad bunch of losers. I am so glad to be a person who actually took some chances and acquired some marketable skills and real world experience, instead of an entitled, useless, unimaginative douchebag whose only ambition was to have a starting salary of $160,000. Many more of you will lose your jobs and NO ONE will sympathize with you, because you're useless highly paid, easily replaceable drones. Make whatever snide comments you want in return, it will only serve as proof of how right you know I am!! Losers.
As a long time Cooley attorney, I can say categorically that the way management chose attorneys to lay off was....just plain stupid. They do not realize the effect this will have on potential new hirees down the road.
Even before the recent announcement, I know of one case where an excellent lateral was hired from another firm, and in what was astonishing poor judgment, pulled the rug out from uder him essentially leaving him no choice except to leave the firm. The prevailing attitude is that associates/special counsel, and in some cases even partners, are expendable. In this recent round of layoffs, there were a number of excellent lawyers who the firm should have felt fortunate to have but who were laid off. Yet others were kept on who are mediocre in comparison. It is truly mystifying.
Does Cooley's management care to comment?
On Tuesday I was inspired by President Obama's inauguration speech, the next day I was sad and dejected by the greed and irresponsibility of Cooley's managing partners.
141,
While I struggle to disagree with anything you said, consider the following statement:
"You can be sure it's not random -- superstars, teachers pets and those who work the politics right are the ones most likely to be protected."
Is it a good business decision to keep people simply because they are teacher's pets or know how to work politics?
I'll take a low-profile yet high-performing associate who doesn't have his or her nose shoved up a partner's ass over a mediocre to good frat boy associate who spends half his energy kissing ass instead of serving clients.
Maybe that's just me.
In the end, you're probably still right, which is the saddest thing about the way this went down.
Is a kronish some kind of food?
Croissant + scone + danish?
I have to say that the new york office is poorly run. Partners are basically service parners, and most of them hog work assignments that should be passed down to lower level associates (it's pretty pathetic). The real problem is that those junior and midlevel associates that remain at the Cooley New York office will suffer when it comes to practice and skill development (especially in real estate and corporate). I think you will see a huge exodus once (and it will) the market returns.
I have to say that the new york office is poorly run. Partners are basically service parners, and most of them hog work assignments that should be passed down to lower level associates (it's pretty pathetic). The real problem is that those junior and midlevel associates that remain at the Cooley New York office will suffer when it comes to practice and skill development (especially in real estate and corporate). I think you will see a huge exodus once (and it will) the market returns.
More stealth layoffs at the senior associate level happening right now (PA for sure from first hand knowledge, and maybe SF I have heard) - wonder why - bonuses due this friday - why not just include these people in last week's action? Maybe they don't want to pay them 3 months severance? Does not make sense to me. Disappointing that the cuts are evidently not over.
The recent comments are much appreciated. Keep the information coming if you can.
I just spoke to a Cooley partner they are still deliberating in PA for sure. Expect more cuts unfortunately. I do not work at Cooley myself, but have many friends at the firm in PA. I was tricked by their marketing once but chose to go with another firm due to being friends with many people who work there and not wanting to put that into jeapordy. That being said, I am shocked at the talented attorney's they let go recently. I cannot speak to every attorney there so it would be ahrd for me to say the ones let go were better than the ones who stayed but I can say without a doubt that the some of the ones let go were excellent at what they did and did bring in business.
I am still at Cooley. Today a senior partner sent a blast email asking for help in seeking leads for a non-lawyer acquaintance. Are the partners doing the same for our downsized former colleagues?
I am still at Cooley. Today a senior partner sent a blast email asking for help in seeking leads for a non-lawyer acquaintance. Are the partners doing the same for our downsized former colleagues?
Apparently Cooley is letting go of more people. I heard from a junior partner that some associates and counsel are being let go during their reviews. I'm not sure if they are getting severance. I really hope they are. It would be a cheap trick by Cooley management to do this. Apparently they are rolling back some associates levels and are forcing others to go part time. Im not sure if this is a kind gesture or just another attempt to save partners' summer vacation plans.
185 - the answer to your question is NO
186 - I wouldn't put anything beyond Cooley management, the same people who were sending out "please welcome x" emails almost every day through November.
As a Cooley attorney, any information people have on the post layoff layoffs would be greatly appreciated.
As for the attorneys let go, I personally was completely shocked by some of the choices. They did not appear to be bottom performers and were actually quite integral members of the groups they were in.
Does anyone have any insight on how the choices were made? How much of it was based on billable hours? And why didn't they consider a salary freeze first instead?
185 - the answer depends on your practice group. some practice group partners are indeed helping downsized former associates
185 - the answer depends on your practice group. some practice group partners are indeed helping downsized former associates
i'm surprised how many comments on this and other threads assume that layoffs=bad performers. bad performers get the axe (assuming politics and ass-kissing aren't protecting them), you don't hold onto them until things get really bad, do layoffs, and give them a nice severance package.
the only clearly bad performers shown by the layoffs are the incompetent/greedy/misleading management and partners.
188- Billables may have been a factor but weren't decisive. Many people who didn't make their minimum billables are here still while others that were hundreds of hours above the minimum got dumped. I know three attorneys with very high billables that were let go.
As for why no salary freeze first...it's all about the benjamins (and perception). They did the math and figured slash-and-burn now and hiring as needed when things picks up protects partners' bottom line. Plus, nothing makes people say thank you for the coming pay freeze (if not pay decrease) than not getting laid off the week before.
Not commented on much is that Cooley is also deliberately giving harsher reviews this cycle to DQ people for bonuses, to dampen expectations for the size of the bonus, and as groundwork for "performance based" firings in cfoming months (to avoid another round of public layoffs). Cooley knows that people are often reluctant to talk about their reviews and bonuses so it’s an easy way to screw people out of dollars now and have them ready to push out the door later.
Well, another data point here. Senior associate in Palo Alto. Hours in the top quartile and with many years of all positive reviews. Was given a good review this week, with an indication that a bonus was forthcoming and would be around last year's bonus, perhaps less but not materially so. Also, and this involves drawing some conclusions from some statements made to me, it seems like there might NOT be a salary freeze. I guess we shall see tomorrow when the memo comes out. Anyway, its gloomy in certain ways for sure but just as another data point, there are those of us making it through OK. Sorry to my colleagues and former colleagues as to whom this is not the case.
Prediction here. Class of 2005 got slammed in the layoff. Class of 2005 was due for the biggest dollar raise this year (25k vs. 10k or 15k for other years) in the lockstep structure.
My totally unscientific prediction: there will be raises.
Just plain heartless.
Here's the saddest lesson of this whole episode - Cooley has great expectations of its associate workforce during times of high demand. We are asked to sacrifice life balance, normalcy, precious time with family and friends, vacations, and even health. While it is true that associates are relatively well compensated, the compensation cannot possibly make up for those personal sacrifices we have all made during really busy times. The actions of Cooley management speak volumes about the value they place on associates and those sacrifices and how they have lost site of people behind the bottom line.
187 - I couldn't agree with you more. The rate at which Cooley was bringing on new attorneys as late as November 2008 makes these recent cuts just baffling.
192 - not sure who makes out better, the folks let go in the layoff that received some severance and the chance to at least collect unemployment or the victims of stealth layoffs (clearly conducted to avoid having to publicly account for the real number of attorneys being axed) that otherwise don't have the stigma of being associated with the layoff.
Sincerely sorry to all impacted. Shame on the blatent greed of Cooley management. I really hope you are losing sleep over the fact that you have turned so many lives upside down.
For those of you who have not seen the memo yet this morning, Cooley froze salaries. Also, bonuses even for good performers are CRAP this year.
My billabhle hours were up 15% (to circa 2300) and my bonus was down 30% from last year. How can per partner profits be down 7% and associate bonuses be down 30% for high performers? Partner greed, plain and simple. This place stinks, I can't wait to get the hell out of here.
And how can management get comfortable bringing on and keeping all those Heller welfare cases and cutting long time loyalists? How many Hellerites got cut? One? Two?
Several NY corporate partners are the ones who should be axed before any of the assoicates. Cooley management should consider. seriously...
196
Quit your sniveling you whiny, entitled, ungrateful snot. You have a job, that's your bonus. Say thank you and cherish it.
199 - Comments from partners unwelcome :)
Any news about stealth layoffs post 1/21 in SD or NY? And if so, did they get severance? Man, I hope so ...
201- I know a few people who were laid off that only received a one week's severance. :(
200
Not a partner, but I know 52 former colleagues that would switch places with 196 without so much as a thought, much less a complaint.
202 - that's really horrible. As one of the 52 who got laid off last week and got the full three months, I guess I should feel ... lucky?
Do you know whether they were junior, mid, senior?
-201
any guesses on how this will affect incoming summer associates? will the smart move for summer associates be to work there this summer then try to find another offer through 3L interviews?
205 - summers should work their asses off, get an offer and keep as many options open as possible. if you get an offer somewhere else that is in better shape, take it. if cooley is your only decent offer, take it but keep your resume up to date and start looking for a just-in-case exit strategy from day one.
hopefully we will have a better idea by the end of summer whether cooley has stabilized enough to make it as a firm or at least a firm that you would want to be at.
Any bets on Cooley's dissolution a la Heller and Thelen? And if not Cooley, then what California-based firm?
Here are Cooley's numbers from the AmLaw 100 (in progress)
(Gross revenue) $552 million (change from 2007) +14% (earnings per partner) $855,000 (change from 2007) 0%
Need I say more?
does anyone have any updates?
What's the mood there these days?
Just like bankers, corporate lawyers are grossly overpaid. To think that a snot nosed first year is actually worth 160k plus bonus is ridiculous, and that a large number of the partners are worth seven figures, equally absurd. Let em all sink... I was at a major SV firm where when the market went south in 2001, groups of partners ran for the doors leaving the rest of us behind holding the proverbial bag - the result was a firm, that at its peak had 900 attorneys, sank because of their spineless greed.