Impending Layoff Watch: What Will the Latham Severance Be?
Management at Latham & Watkins continues to be incommunicado regarding the firm’s impending layoffs that we reported yesterday. Nonetheless, Above the Law has come by some information that could be positive for sleepless Latham associates.
Multiple sources have told ATL that Latham could be offering a six month severance package to the attorneys the firm is about to fire.
Of course, we don’t want to get everybody’s hopes up. As one source says:
I’d be shocked if that actually happens, given how bastard-y Latham been lately, but who knows?
But there are persistent rumors that Latham will try to combat the overwhelmingly negative press the firm has received by offering a soft (ish) landing to the departed.
Of course, the most humane thing to do at this point would be for Latham to make a public announcement and euthanize terrified associates.
Commenters and tipsters weigh in after the jump.
Yesterday’s Latham post inspired a lot of commentary. Many actual Latham associates echoed this commenter:
Could this whole thing have been handled any worse? I seem to remember the higher-ups touting we were the best-managed firm in the universe. Would you please just do the axing tomorrow and get it over with so that the suspense is done with and people - both fired and not - can get back to a semblance of normal lives.The feeling at Latham reminds me of the movie Titanic. You’re standing on deck seeing those that got out earlier sail away on their lifeboats while realizing there are no lifeboats left. You think to yourself, “Uh-oh, guess I have to hope this bad boy stays afloat,” while you have a sinking feeling about it….
If you just want Latham to get it over with, you might not like this next piece of news.
A few sources at Latham are hearing that the firm might delay their official layoff announcement until next week. One tipster believes the delay has something to do with the six month severance offer. The tipster believes that the firm wasn’t planning on making such a generous severance offer, until the overwhelmingly negative press they received yesterday. With Vault Surveys sitting on desks right now, the thought is that the firm can preserve some of its “nice place to work” reputation by doubling the standard severance package. Putting the revised package together could take time, pushing the layoff announcement back into next week.
So it could be a long weekend for Latham associates.
One commenter puts things in a fairly reasonable perspective:
Kent Brockman: Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it’s time for our viewers to crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside?Professor: Yes I would, Kent.
However and whenever it goes down, we fully endorse this plan:
Someone needs to chronicle LW’s shenanigans with audio/video evidence and post it somewhere. All of you folks on the chopping block should bring your smartphones with video recorders to the conference room Friday and tape the lies/excuses that Latham shells our at Friday’s layoff meeting. You should also keep your phones on your desk and ready to press record in the event the partners and AssComm members do office-to-office firings. This travesty needs to be thoroughly documented so future generations of Biglaw recruits will know to stay away from TTT shops like Latttham. This aggression will not stand!
Information yearns to breathe free.
We’ll keep you posted.
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Latham & Watkins Is Going For It
(212) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
FIRST
Latham rules!
Latham to 2Ls: GFY
worthless.
Definitely worth it to wait an extra few days for word if it means six months of severance versus three.
I work for Latham. FML.
Better not be me!
lol. i'll bet $1 million they won't offer 6-months severance. clearly that is some stupid rumor started by soon to be jobless lathamites.
lol. 6 months. if i worked at a firm that ifred a bunch of my colleages and paid them 6-months, i'd be scared out of my mind.. because any firm that is sto idiotically run that it pays six months isn't going to last much more than 6-months, and when it fails i won't get more than maybe my next paycheck.
I think unionized French workers have complained less about impending layoffs. Seriously, you people need to grow a pair. The economy is in the shitter. Other people get told to pack up and leave with two weeks pay.
6 months ain't gonna happen. that is sheer delusion.
Layoffs & WaTTTkins
what they should do is cut the million dollar bonuses and attract new clients by lowering the billing rate. Who in the world is worth $500/hr anyway?
Would I get any cash for a rescinded offer?
Better not be me!
FIRST!
I'd rather get a severance package then nothing- like at Thelen.
If my firm would give me a 6-month serevence package, I will fly to the beach immediately.
FIRST!
FIRST!
FIRST!
and the Worst Firm In The World Award goes to ...
*dumroll*
Layoffs & WaTTTkins!
Sorry. Our bad. It wasn't six months. It was six days.
The Market will provide.
22 - make that six days, assuming you billed 48-hours in the previous six days.
11-very original moron
by definition, from what Fish and Richardson did to their former (?) client, arent they now considered ABOVE THE LAW!!
Fish Rocks!! Malpractice - $40Million; breach of ethical duty - lets see!!
And they said boutiques were better. ha ha!!
"euthanize" terrified associates? do you even know what that word means?
this cannot be good news for UPenn State's satellite campus in Philly!
Indeed 27.
Elie is both a moron and a terrible writer.
You know what dog food tastes like? Do ya? It tastes just like it smells... delicious.
Six months would definitely beat the market. Odd that they indulge a small gesture of humanity after all this. Still I won't believe it until it happens. If this past year has demonstrated anything it's that Latham is prone to crush associates' hopes.
CAN ANYONE CONFIRM POST BELOW (ON EARLIER ABOVETHELAW.COM POST
--------
Posted by guest | Permalink
Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:47 PM
I’m a little mouse with access …
1. Latham will layoff over 200 staff and about 175 junior attorneys on Friday morning.
2. They will pay better than market severance to staff and attorneys.
3. New York will be more affected than other offices.
4. They will NOT rescind law student offers, but will delay your start dates by a few months. Don’t worry your little heads kiddies, I hear they’re going to need you when things turnaround sometime in 2010.
We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again.
The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they've done.
So with a post like this I guess its a foregone conclusion that there will be layoffs tomorrow?
Wow, I would be so stoked to work at a law firm and then get six months severance!
I sure hope I can get a job at Latham when the economy recovers. They sound great!
33-- I think you broke your little ships.
--Elie
Anyone else find that b&w animated ad on the ATL homepage to be as annoying as hell? Like this site needs anything to make it suck more.
6 months would be impressive but Latham in its current state is anything but.
LaTTTham is sinking. Shedding partners. Freezing salaries. All the signs are there.
If I were at LW and had portable business (or any outside job prospects, as an associate) I would get the fuck out now. Maybe they will corroborate this 6 months rumor and prove me wrong. I wish I were wrong. But I'm right.
They are Borg?
Euthanize Elie.
any news about layoffs at Cahill?
33- kudos for the first contact reference.
33- kudos for the first contact reference.
33- kudos for the first contact reference.
To protect our corrupt politicians, it is illegal to record a conversation in Illinois without the permission of all parties.
Wayoffs & Latkes
Anyone else find the b&w animated ad on ATL's homepage as annoying as hell? I can't stand that damn thing. Are they deliberately trying to make this site suck as much as possible?
I'm highly skeptical about 6 months
6 months makes no sense unless Latham is not really in trouble and they are just using the economy as an excuse to get rid of people. They would not obtain any cost savings until September while losing the limited production the laid off employees are providing.
Severance survey yesterday showed that random v100s have given up to 5 months. 6m is the least Latham could do. (Of course it could also try NOT FIRING US).
I have a new red spot on the tip of my purple mushroom.
47- didnt notice until you mentioned it. now its annoying. guess i didnt see how bad it sucked before because elie's suckness was so great, it drowned out all other suckness from this now-sucka-s site.
Rumor is that Lowenstein Sandler is laying off a bunch of people as we speak. Any news on this?
6 months would be surprising, but I would also be surprised if these partners, who are supposed to be toward the top of their profession, don't do something to try to turn the PR tide.
as far as i know, six months severance was confirmed yesterday
6 months would be impressive but Latham in its current state is anything but.
LaTTTham is sinking. Shedding partners. Freezing salaries. All the signs are there.
If I were at LW and had portable business (or any outside job prospects, as an associate) I would get the fuck out now. Maybe they will corroborate this 6 months rumor and prove me wrong. I wish I were wrong. But I'm right.
47- Amen brother. I have made it a point not to know what the ad is for, just to be sure that the ad is not working. ATL better be making a fortune off that one to justify its display...
Latham reminds me of that old episode of the Office where Michael Scott had to fire someone (Halloween from Season 1, I think). Ended with everyone's morale shot to hell as they headed to the bar.
Then at some point they ask him if he's ever been hunting, and he says that it took him 6 hours to finally kill that deer.
I think this rumor of 6 months severance is BRILLIANT. Who started it? Whoever it was deserves a freaking medal. Obviously it wasn't the Latham partnership. Now Latham is fucked into a corner, since they either lay people off under the 3 or 4 months severance that they have always planned to give and get killed in the blogs or they cave and offer a 6 month severance that they never even considered and get killed on the balance sheet. Classic lose-lose situation, and win-win for associates everywhere.
No, 47, because most of us are smart enough to use FireFox with AdBlocker. Try it out.
severance will be three jawbreakers and some now and laters.
Latham gave the employees gotten rid of because of "performance-related" reasons a 3-month severence plus a 3-month "notice" period. For these impending layoffs, they have to better the amount of severence previously offerred. Plus, it's entirely plausible they would not want the laid off associates hanging around after the event, so will probably give them a couple of days to clear out and disappear. This would now also apply to those "performance-related" laid off personnel.
59: I know for a fact that 6m had been thrown out in management layoff discussions prior to yesterday's rumors.
But kudos to any associates whose trolling helped nurture it.
I can't wait to see news about this 6-months severance...and see the first discrimination lawsuit. Not only did they screw the attorneys who were stealthly laid off before but also offered a much better severance package to the ones who were laid off oficially later.
6 months would be impressive but Latham in its current state is anything but.
LaTTTham is sinking. Shedding partners. Freezing salaries. All the signs are there.
If I were at LW and had portable business (or any outside job prospects, as an associate) I would get the fuck out now. Maybe they will corroborate this 6 months rumor and prove me wrong. I wish I were wrong. But I'm right.
62 - you are wrong. there was 3 months notice/severance, but not both.
"Classic lose-lose situation, and win-win for associates everywhere."
Not to nitpick, but I wouldn't exactly characterize it as win-win for associates. The lose-lose part for Latham is probably true.
6 months would be impressive but Latham in its current state is anything but.
LaTTTham is sinking. Shedding partners. Freezing salaries. All the signs are there.
If I were at LW and had portable business (or any outside job prospects, as an associate) I would get the fuck out now. Maybe they will corroborate this 6 months rumor and prove me wrong. I wish I were wrong. But I'm right.
I'm Latham Lit, and one of the lucky ones to be absolutely crushed with work. One of the partners just took our small group out for coffee, to tell us we were safe. Several partners are rather upset at the messaging, realizing it has destroyed morale, particularly among the ones killing themselves.
He confirmed that the reductions in staff and associates will be large, and they will be skewed toward corporate groups (NY), unassigned generalists, and juniors. No surprises there.
He also said the severance will be unusually large.
To the extent there is a guiding notion to this, it's not solely "cut costs to boost PPP." Instead, they are trying to fix a problem that the stubs and 1st years haven't seen enough real work b/c of their numbers, and the problem will get worse when summers and fall associates arrive. The filling is that if they don't do something now, 2 classes will essentially wash out of the system through the review process in 2 years. But overall, they are trying to adjust numbers so that everyone will be busy and get back on developmental track, while still leaving ample room for their recruiting pipeline.
If they do 5-6 months severance, then I'll buy it.
It would be nice to hear the firm take a little responsibility and not pass it off entirely on the economy. Rumors have it that certain powerful partners took it upon themselves to higher significantly over budget the last two years. Duh!!
62 - you are wrong. The stealth layoffs did NOT get three months notice plus three months severance - just three months severance.
If Latham gives "officially" laid off associates 6 months severance, they are screwing the stealth layoffs.
The stealth layoffs primarily affected mid-level and senior associates. The official layoffs will primarily affect juniors - so in effect, they mids and seniors that dedicated more time to the firm get screwed with 3 months severance while the first years that have contributed nada get 6 months.
50 makes a good point. 6 months is not that impressive when viewed in light of market-beating severance already given by other firms. Firms that didn't gross $2b last year. Firms that don't market themselves explicitly as "collegial" and "humane."
LW associate here. I really thought Latham was the best place to work for. I understand the need for the lay-offs and I am not faulting the partners for that. However, it boggles the mind that they would screw up big time on treating their employees fairly and respectfully, and hurt their reputation in the process.
69 is a nice post. Good luck L&W
"To the extent there is a guiding notion to this, it's not solely 'cut costs to boost PPP.'"
Do you expect a partner to tell it is solely to cut costs to boost PPP? You're pretty damn gullible.
67 - how is it not win-win? If Latham gets killed in the blogs for not giving a huge severance, it helps associates at every firm. If Latham offers the huge severance, it helps associates at every firm. Obviously the latter is better for current Latham associates who will be laid off than the former, but in the aggregate they both have big benefits across the market. With the rumor, we will all be better off than we would be without it.
If the firm is going to give 6 months of severence to associates who are part of fridays "layoffs" then they should do the same for the associates who were let go because of "performance." Even the firm internally admitted that the round of "performance seperations" (as they call them at firm meetings) were impacted by the economy. Associates with no negative reviews were let go in the disguise of the economy, those should be reclassified to what they really were - "layoffs." Otherwise, the "performance" associates should file a defamation suit to regain their reputation, some associates I know were forced to publish to others their reason for seperation.
LW associate here. I really thought Latham was the best place to work for. I understand the need for the lay-offs and I am not faulting the partners for that. However, it boggles the mind that they would screw up big time on treating their employees fairly and respectfully, and hurt their reputation in the process.
76 = pwned in the last bloodletting at L&W.
The associates let go for "performance" obviously aren't going to be handicapped relative to the "laid off" associates in finding jobs. (If anything they got a head start applying for same small pool of openings). Everyone knows "performance" cuts by LW in winter 09 were anything but. Likewise, none of tomorrow's "layoffs" are going to be the firm's rising stars.
Giving more generous severance to the unmarketable first- and second-years they are slaughtering can only help their rep. These people are NOT going to find work. A gesture of mercy is not a bad thing.
The sink be shipping.
Remember when people were genuinely entertained by a show that used "you're fired" as a punchline?
75- I meant it's not really a win for laid off Latham associates. Maybe lose-less.
Whatever, we probably don't disagree on anything. Like I said, it was just me being nitpicky.
Firm Survivor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpP1Iljl3rE)
[Chorus]
If you lookin' for me I'll be on the Net
With my resume possibly lookin for a drop (Now)
'Cuz I'm a lawya
I'm just a Firm Survivor
'Cuz er'body know the game don't stop
Tryin' to make it to the top before your ass get chopped (Now)
If you a lawya
Or just a Firm Survivor
[Associate]
(Let's bill it) Tonight I can't sleep--we billin' in hell (Yeah)
First they, give us the work then they freeze the pay scale (Ayy)
PPP ya--I'm workin' so the decline's slight
Please Latham don't lay me off tonight (Yeah)
Who Me?? I'm a Firm Survivor
Ask about 'em in the street, the partners are slave drivers
A hundred grand on their wrists, yeah life sucks
Screw that change, man, they rather count a million bucks (Ayy)
[Chorus]
If you lookin' for me I'll be on the Net
With my resume possibly lookin for a drop (Now)
'Cuz I'm a lawya (Yeah)
I'm just a Firm Survivor (Yeah)
'Cuz er'body know the game don't stop
Tryin' to make it to the top before your ass get chopped (Now)
If you a lawya (Yeah)
Or just a Firm Survivor
[Partner]
Another day, another dolla (dolla)-same clients, same juniors, same power, same green
I guess we got the same dreams (Ayy)
Or is it the same nightmares
We let the associates do it for us -- we don't cry tears (That's right)
Real partners don't budge
When we get held in contempt we shoot birds at the judge (Yeah)
I'm knee deep in the game
So when it's time to re-up, I'm knee deep in cocaine (Damn)
Real talk, look, I'm tellin' you man (tellin' you man)
If you get narked for paddin' don't mention my name
Forgive me wife--I know I aint livin' right
Gotta make it rain, bank account's starvin', golden appetites (Ayy)
And this is er'day, it never gets old (Old)
Thought I was different, but I'll still bill 'til I'm cold (Yeah)
This ain't a song, stupid, this is my life (this is my life)
And if the firm is a battlefield then I've earned stripes (Yeah)
[Chorus]
If you lookin' for me I'll be on the Net
With my resume possibly lookin for a drop (Now)
'Cuz I'm a lawya (Yeah)
I'm just a Firm Survivor (Yeah)
'Cuz er'body know the game don't stop
Tryin' to make it to the top before your ass get chopped (Now)
If you a lawya (Yeah)
Or just a Firm Survivor
[Associate]
Gotta doc review 'cuz them eyes be on you (eyes be on you)
Gotta act real cool when you're mala fide (mala fide)
Just because we review paper and we bill outrageous (bill outrageous)
Them partner boys got us under surveillance (Ayy)
Like animals, they put us in races
The same partner that's a star when you put 'em on cases
I don't cheat--plead the cases I'm dealt
Try to add to my book when I got it myself
(Let's Get It) No hours, no glory (no glory)
My Blackberry, you damn right, rings at 2:40 (Yeah)
Set the dockets on fire, and I didn't even try (try)
Run these courts all day, I can sleep when I die (Ayy)
[Partner]
Cuz if you lookin' for me you can find me
In the court interpretin' the law
Real Speak--stompin' out the weak
Suit shinin' with-no noticeable flaw
Just you keep on billin' now
Just you keep on billin' now
Just you keep on billin' now
Just you keep on billin' now
[Chorus]
If you lookin' for me I'll be on the Net
With my resume possibly lookin for a drop (Now)
'Cuz I'm a lawya (Yeah)
I'm just a Firm Survivor (Yeah)
'Cuz er'body know the game don't stop
Tryin' to make it to the top before your ass get chopped (Now)
If you a lawya (Yeah)
Or just a Firm Survivor
'Cuz if you lookin' for me you can find me
In the court interpretin' the law
Real P--thoroughbred from the streets
Suit shinin' with-no noticeable flaw
'Cuz if you lookin' for me you can find me
In the court interpretin' the law
Real Speak--motivatin' the geeks
Suit shinin' with-no noticeable flaw
'Cuz if you lookin' for me you can find me
In the court interpretin' the law
Real Speak--tweakin's with technique
Suit shinin' with-no noticeable flaw
'Cuz if you lookin' for me you can find me
In the court interpretin' the law
Real Speak--stompin' out the weak
Suit shinin' with-no noticeable flaw
'Cuz if you lookin' for me you can find me
In the court interpretin' the law
Real Speak--talkin' juries down for weeks
Suit shinin' with-no noticeable flaw
16-
I would rather get nothing than a bounced check that Morgan & F had given away to the employees.
6 months would be impressive but Latham in its current state is anything but.
LaTTTham is sinking. Shedding partners. Freezing salaries. All the signs are there.
If I were at LW and had portable business (or any outside job prospects, as an associate) I would get the fuck out now. Maybe they will corroborate this 6 months rumor and prove me wrong. I wish I were wrong. But I'm right.
They won't give 6 months. That's a shit load of money - it almost wouldn't be worth laying the associates off at all
No. 6: Superbad?
FML - FIF
I say that there is no way that L&W is paying 6 months' severance. You heard it here, well, 90th, give or take.
How is it that L&W is seriously talking about massive associate layoffs but not talking about the summer program and new associates... or at least their start dates? In what other industry would this make ANY sense? Some enterprising group of associates should quickly form a collective bargaining unit.
I will never ever recommend Latham to anyone looking for a job. No way. Never. Ever.
I'm not so sure a 6-month package helps Latham's rep as some might suggest. As one of the more senior people let go last month who was told it was because of the economy and not my abilities as an attorney, I would be extremely upset with Latham if they chose to give the more junior associates a better severance package. Yes, the juniors may have difficulty finding jobs, but we senior associates won't find jobs so easily either. There are just too few openings out there. It's bad enough that the firm wouldn't acknowledge publicly what partners were saying in a conference room towards those affected, but this is the icing on the cake.
91 - this kind of thinking floors me. It's associates thinking they have the power. Those days are over, at least for now. Firms are not (wholly) motivated by bad press or rumors but by staying alive. This doesn't make everyone at Latham evil. Associates aren't entitled to as much as you think...
92 - I dont believe anyone told you it was because of the economy.
Only way anyone get 6 months is if they worked there long enough. In lots of industries, the severance package is based on how long you've been working there. My Aunt just got laid off from Citi. They were giving two weeks pay for every year you had worked there.
What I don't understand is:
-Why freeze salaries in December 08;
-Let 30+ associates go for "performance reasons" in Jan 09; and
-Lay off over about 100 associates in NY in Feb 09.
Why didn't L&W just lay off associates in December? 1 shot. Call it economic lay offs. Wipe the slate clean for the new year. If they had done it nicely, there wouldn't have much bitching.
Whoever is running this whole show needs to go for some management classes.
93 - Don't be floored. I was talking about what I would say to potential job seekers - not now (obviously - not many firms are hiring) but when the market improves in a few years.
92, i agree. If the severance turns out to be six months, all those affected less than a month ago should receive the same package. Potential consideration for Latham would be the sign up of a waiver of right to sue under a cause of action arising from employment, which I'm sure will be required of all associates affected tomorrow.
93 - Don't be floored. I was talking about what I would say to potential job seekers - not now (obviously - not many firms are hiring) but when the market improves in a few years. This is one treatment I will never forget.
94, unless you were one of the people in the room when I was terminated, please be quiet. I'm not looking for validation from an anonymous uninformed commenter. I had a good run at Latham and got to work with some great people, and I already have one job offer in hand, so I have no complaints. But I will never understand why people ever thought Latham was so well-managed.
100 - I'm glad for you. These impending "economic" layoffs validates the "performance-based" layoffs that occurred last month. That rationale just didn't hold water because of the number of people let go. It would have been kinder if Latham had, given the harsh economic climate, simply called it economic lay offs. Sometimes, especially when someone has the upperhand, it is better to be merciful, generous and humane.
84--I think that the primary reason people have given Latham management credit over the years is the fact that Latham went into NY and became relevant. Very hard to do, but it certainly does not excuse all the other screw-ups and mistakes.
Query--Stepping away from Latham for a minute, do people think that all the firms that are doing layoffs really NEED to do layoffs? Lawfirm life until now has been regarded as pretty secure, b/c no firm wanted the negative PR of the firm that actually lets it's attorneys go. Do you all think some firms are just taking advantage of the financial climate and making cuts it wouldn't usually make but feeling better about making them since, well, "everyone else is doing" and there is less backlash?
I work at LW. It is administratively dysfuntional!
There will be blood.
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
There will be blood.
Latham - the new Shearman
so what's the resolution. are we hearing about it tomorrow or not.
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
so what it the verdict. do we get the news tomorrow or not.
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
If we don't get the news tomorrow I'm going to be so annoyed. The silence here at the office is stunning.
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
Angry these people are!
The News they dont watch...
If gone our clients are, what else can we do?
Sad this situation is...Over it, they will have to get....
Back to Dagoba I will go!
103 - V10 partner here -layoffs are absolutely needed, else many firms simply won't survive - law firms were once pretty secure- they were also a lot smaller - they also get to be very lucrative, and very big - going forward, they will be (much) smaller, and (much) less lucrative (just like the investment banking industry which drove their initial growth)
the silence on my floor is absolutely deafening. please put us out of our miseries and announce already.
103 --- Perhaps
Will we see firms doing salary freezes, or (most likely) lowered bonuses for the simple reason "they can?"
Absolutely. Most firms, even the top half of the V50, get by with staying "top of the market." Well if the market has gone down the tubes, you get to follow it down. The Skadden / Half-Skadden fiasco showed this for what it was. Skadden came out with what SHOULD have been market. Then some firms who had taken a POUNDING came out and halved that.
Rather than set those two ends as the full spectrum of the market, the majority of firms simply adopted Half-Skadden and left Skadden high and dry -- well above market. Which would be a good thing for Skadden, if anybody were hiring or there were any work to be done.
The most likely reason that otherwise successful firms will do layoffs this year, is not simply because "they can get away with it." More of it will have to do with the complete lack of traditional voluntary attrition. Even firms that have plenty of work to do have become too top heavy and need to show senior associates the door.
To read between the lines for a firm's health and wellbeing, don't just look at "layoffs." Look at WHO they are laying off. If it is midlevels / seniors, it's because of record-low attrition. Many of these people are decent to good lawyers who wouldn't have been fired (yet) in a good economy... but half of them would have left voluntarily for other pastures anyway. Since none of them will do that now, the firms have to cut them away.
On the other hand, firms that make significant cuts to junior associates (particularly 1st years) are sending a clear message --- our recruitment from the past few years exceeds our actual growth potential in this economy. For a firm where there isn't enough work to go around, this is a necessity. These underproductive (through no fault of their own) juniors are not getting trained in the ways necessary. Thus, even if business picks back up in a year or two, they will still likely be dead weight -- underskilled and under trained mid-levels.
Laying off juniors is an admission, whether open or not, from management that business is too slow to support the current staffing levels. That's another way of saying "we hired / recruited people a year, or two years ago, based on assumptions / models of the economy and where our growth would be. Now we've realized those growth models were innaccurate, and we have to cut back to bring ourselves into line with the current growth models."
To all my friends at L&W, and K&L --- godspeed tomorrow.
"To all my friends at L&W, and K&L --- godspeed tomorrow."
Amen to that.
Tomorrow morning is the consensus? How does doing the layoffs simultaneously between the PST and EST time zones factor in? I'm still worried about these "pushing to next week" rumors.
-Agitated L&W DC 2nd year
Would the staff receive severance pay too, or is it just associates?
Just associates.
120 - Thank you for your insightful post. It was very well put.
118, can you please tell us how many of your fellow partners read this blog and the comments, and whether these discussions inform your decisions (except regarding English grammar and usage). Thanks.
@83 - That is awesome, and listening to the Akon song definitely enhances the read-along!!
103 here--Thanks for the good responses!
Latham and Watkins didn't reimburse me for recruiting.
How's THAT for retarded?
76: I hope you're joking. Truth is a defense to defamation. Which means that the firm will fire back with every single typo in an email, any blip in that associate's file, every piece of constructive criticism given in their tenure there. All of it in publicly filed documents, which will probably end up on this website and viewable after a quick google search on the associates name by any future employer for years to come. I get your point, but that is not a good idea.
124 - Bullshit. Staff will get severance. Probably not what associates will get, but it will be something.
The legal profession never forgets, Latham!
WE WILL NEVER FORGET
- V5/T5
120 - PRECISELY. Excellent analysis.
83 = comment of the year
Ever wonder why fund managers can't beat the S&P 500? Because they're sheep, and sheep get slaughtered.
we're all gonna get laid!!!
96 - because no one expected obama to suck this hard at managing an economy. And I voted for his lame ass....obama has now got to OWN his OBAMA DEPRESSION
yeah, this whole mess latham is in is all because of obama. he created the mess. he better fix it. and better do it fast and good. i ain't takin' no lame excuses from his skinny a**.
Second Year at Latham NY here. I'm terrified about tomorrow. Even if I keep my job, I will see good friends and good lawyers laid off. All, it has been a privilege working with you. I wish us all the best!
You know, Joe Rogan, this is not the first time I've tasted penis. I've had several! In my line of work, you taste penises all the time!
The rationale for the layoffs of stubs, first years and second years appears to be that a large class of 3L's is coming in and a large class of Summers is due this Summer. If this is correct, the firm will be firing people who have taken and passed the bar and who have at least some work experience so that can hire a bunch of people who are still in law school? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Cancel the Summer program, rescind all 3L offers and come out with a public statement that you want to protect the workers you already have on the payroll and don't want to add any new attorneys or attorney candidates at this time. You could also cancel all your on campus interviews for the next 12 months and save the travel expenses, fire most of your recruiting staff and hire anyone off the street if you need to increase attorney head count in the next year.
Why bring on 3L's and Summer Associates when you are cutting experienced attorneys who have passed the bar? It really makes no sense at all. And don't even think about the "reputation hit" argument. Law firms measure reputation with only one criteria....PPP baby!
Me winning isn't. You do.
I don't understand why Latham is a "sinking ship." I mean, they still have "PROFITS" per partner. Last time I checked, wouldn't you need to be either (i) losing money or (ii) be unable to pay your current obligations before the ship was truly sinking?
Granted, they fell from their mighty 2007 numbers, but $1.8mm in PROFIT isn't exactly "ship is sinking" territory. That means they made more money than they spent, since PPP is AFTER associate salaries.
I guess Allen & Overy or some other firm wouldn't get as much negative press here because (i) Latham is a "V10" firm (ii) Elie likely got dinged there and is taking it out on them here and (iii) many of the others here were dinged as well and are taking shots back since last year Latham was apparently the darling of ATL as well as other law firm publications. But have the mighty really fallen? Or is this a campaign that is being spun out of proportion through a combination of hysteria and biased reporting?
141,
Sounds like a winning argument, but didn't work last year and won't work this year. Saw a lot of departures over '08 to retain the bloated first year class (now second year) and saw even more to make room for the equally bloated incoming class (now first year). The cycle will continue until the recession ends at which point firms will run out and overhire in preparation for the next recession.
i just wonder if big acela bob was running latham, what would he do? hmm.
137- are you serious?! you must be a bitter republican. Obama has been president for all of a month. How are you blaming him for Bush's 8 years of fucking up our country?
I would seize assets of all greedy rich bastards and distribute them to everyone that is losing their job.
anyone know what times these conference rooms are booked for tomorrow?
143, agree w you about dear Elie, who comes quite unhinged when LW is mentioned.
Hey everyone, guess what: if you look outside of law firms, EVERYONE is cutting jobs, and at a breakneck pace.
Latham, if the rumors prove true, will have cut 150-200 out of more than 2,300 lawyers. Less than 10%, but a substantial amount. While this is a painful reality based on the economic situation, panic is a little premature, don't you think? Just throwing that out there. They overexpanded, f-d up, and now their associates are paying for it. Understood. But to agree with 143, a sinking ship? Kinda extreme if you ask me.
This firm has always been known as a top dog since I was in law school and in practice (I don't work there), and the people there are still some of the brightest when they're lining up across the table. Bum rap that management didn't take a more conservative approach, like some other their peer firms (especially in California, e.g. Gibson Dunn).
in new york conference rooms bookings start at 7:30 am and 8:00 a.m.
I like you Betty.
I'm at Latham and reading some of these comments really piss me off. Especially from those purported to work at Latham.
First off, providing that the rumor is true, you have NO CLUE how this would go down in terms of what the firm would say and do to help those let go or severance terms, etc. Yet this is already a shit move? I wouldn't want anyone working for me that second guess a business decision before they even know what it is.
Second, Latham IS a well managed firm. Well managed =/= no layoffs. Quite the contrary. If you're well managed, you recognize when you have too many people and not enough work. And then you fix it. On the other side of it, if things are busy and you think work will continue to come in, you'll hire talent in anticipation of that work. So all the idiots complaining about too many laterals just STFU. They may have just shown up in the last half of 2008 but the decision made re: those laterals were made before the crisis.
Of course I feel compassion for those about to be let go, but come on... to think that any business is immune from what's going on in the U.S. economy is RIDICULOUS. Frankly, I'd be worried more about BigLaw firms that won't do layoffs given what we're seeing... unprecedented economic slowdown since the Great Depression. Those firms are the ones that are not well managed, trying to hang on to expensive labor when things clearly are much less busy now than even the latter half of 2008.
Skadden to 190, and Elie to 360(lbs).
If they do it office to office, I'm just gonna get up and go to the bathroom when Dave Gordon walks into my office tomorrow.
If they do it office to office, I'm just gonna get up and go to the bathroom when Dave Gordon walks into my office tomorrow.
143 hit it right on the head. Elie definitely got dinged at LW. See, e.g., making a new post without any news to report in order to bump the LW story back to the first page.
If they do it office to office, I'm just gonna get up and go to the bathroom when Dave Gordon walks into my office tomorrow.
me with Latham. reading some of these comments really piss me off. me no likey.
Elie re-posted because the Latham stories get 10 times the traffic and comments. 151 - It's Danny, Mr. Webb
Danny
146 - really? you are a typical rob from the rich to pay for the poor. ridiculous concept - if we work hard and make the money then we should not be penalized for that or have to support everyone else.
and as for the rest of you - latham is a great place to work and its the reality of the situation to have to layoff due to the economy - in some offices the paralegals are billing more than some of the first, second and third years so get over it. Latham is a great place, always has been, always will be - you all are just looking up at us waiting for us to fall because you are jealous that you were not giving a job offer to begin with or are being laid-off. its the unfortunate reality of the situation and a sign of the times - such bitterness on this f'in' website - its a joke.
any kind of severence given by latham should be appreciated given the fact that the majority of the attorneys being laid-off have not earned or billed a quarter of their salary in the last year plus. instead of living high on your ridiculous salaries while not billing and out of the office on your crackberry you should have been putting money away to survive the economic downturn.
latham will stay on top and continue to be a top firm - continue to be jealous if you must. its a great place! latham is not going anyway despite what you think.
152: I work at Latham and I don't think the layoffs themselves are what people are complaining about. It's been poorly executed - torturing us for days (weeks really) with no official comment while rumors fly is really lame.
152 and 161 - ROCK ON! love it! go Latham! I'd like to see how many of you would turn down a job opportunity at latham in the next few years when the market turns around - I doubt you would turn down the opportunity to work at a top level firm.
Stop the whining!!
152 -- a well-managed firm is transparent and doesn't make promises it can't possibly keep. neither of these characteristics are present in this situation.
I'll give you nothing!
Absolutely nothing, you understand!
152, I couldn't agree more re: Latham being the model of a well-managed law firm. Latham looks like a model of good management compared to S&C, Cravath, Skadden and its other "peer" firms that haven't done mass layoffs. If I was an associate at one of those other places, I'd certainly be quaking in my boots right now. As a Latham associate(?), I'm sure you feel fine tonight.
Your logic is similar to the logic that was used to justify the salary freeze- i.e., it saved jobs and showed how well-managed Latham was. Unfortunately, one cost-cutting measure is often followed by another. I agree that in light of Latham's 2008 financial results, the firm looks sound and I can't see why all of these cuts are being made. However, judged by its recent actions, Latham is starting to look very similar to another California-based firm which is no longer with us.
166 make up your mind and try again
I gotta go to college.
Does anyone else think we are moving back to an Agrarian economy?
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
You don't have to go to college. This isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia
170 - John Donne.
171 - Thank you very little.
167, I think the first paragraph was sarcasm.
141 - you clearly have no idea WTF you're talking about. Law firms are pyramid schemes, and they need to keep the proper proportions. When the economy turns around, the machine won't run efficiently with 100 under-trained 3rd years, 70 second years, and 30 third years. You're getting screwed, and it's not really fair, but your idea doesn't work.
Plus, your bar argument is dumb. You can bank on 95% of the Latham 2L's and 3L's passing the bar. Those that don't, will get cut.
Latham should NOT be allowed to rebuild its reputation. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure, for years into the future, that no law student or associate who has a choice chooses Latham over peer firms. If we can accomplish that, then eventually it will dawn on Latham's clients that they are unwisely paying $350/hour+ to the dregs of hardly prestigious law schools. But if we associates simply chalk to this up to the "great depression" or to "firms getting lean," then associates will be forever screwed.
175 - have another beer
6 months severance (if true) is incredibly generous.
Many associates want to get out of BigLaw anyway--it's much better to leave with 6 months salary than nothing!
And for the associates who want to remain in BigLaw, there's a pretty good chance the economy will turn around in 6 months. The credit crisis started over 18 months ago. Unemployment always peaks at the end of a recession, and many economists predict that unemployment will peak later this year. So hopefully it will just be a paid 6-month vacation for many of you.
Law firms are notorious for going on hiring sprees even as the economy has already started to decline (e.g. fall of 2007). Then a year or two later they start laying off like crazy, right before the economy turns around. Then they scramble for laterals and pay ridiculous head-hunter fees. Law firms should not be managed by lawyers IMO.
Good luck to everyone who gets laid off tomorrow.
"Nothing ever leaves your life unless something better is coming."
"Latham should NOT be allowed to rebuild its reputation". Uh, what is with the vitriol? Frankly, what they are doing isn't much different from what other peer firms are doing. If you think other firms aren't doing layoffs, well, you live in a bubble. I think Latham is taking a disproportionate amount of bashing because they were supposed to be better-managed that most firms (and they seem to be screwing the pooch on the execution of their restructuring), and because this blog keeps re-posting rumors (ie no new information, but fuk it, post for traffic).
175, since when have law students begun referring to themselves as "we associates"?
this blog is lame - a bunch of hypochondriacs!
this blog is lame - a bunch of hypochondriacs! its the reality of the sitch - move on.
this blog is lame - a bunch of hypochondriacs! its the reality of the sitch - move on.
Another Latham junior here. I too am getting a little sick of the pillorying that Elie and ATL are giving Latham. Latham basically got hit by a perfect storm: two of its largest clients went under (true, they weren't its two largest, but they were biggies nonetheless) and its marquee practice is finance. Not a good combination if you have a total meltdown of the credit markets, which nobody predicted. Does this make Latham poorly managed? Probably not.
Latham was such a darling on ATL and among law students that now that it's having to make some tough decisions (and not always with the grace one would hope for), a certain amount of schadenfreude is inevitable. But all this talk of Latham going under, when it still managed PPP of $1.8 million in a year in which its marquee practice basically sat on its hands, is a bit silly. Latham won't come out of this untarnished, but the idea that they're somehow no longer a top firm doesn't hold water. When all is said and done, I'm sure there are things that management will wish they'd done differently. But so far as I can tell, Latham is still essentially what they say it is: a fundamentally decent place to work that is populated mostly by very smart, well-adjusted, pleasant people.
I say all this knowing that my number may well get called tomorrow. If that's the case, then so be it. I'll at least take solace in the fact that there are a lot of unemployed people out there who don't have a V10 firm on their resume.
Best of luck to everyone at LW.
183 - you ROCK! Very well said - whoever you are, we will be sad to see you go if you get the call. Latham appreciates you!
183 suffers from Stockholm syndrome obviously
I know for a fact that Latham London has given six month severance packages in the past to those let go for performance reasons. So, it isn't without precedent within the firm, the rumours may have substance.
I love the strawman argument that the Latham defenders are setting up. Nobody is criticizing Latham for doing layoffs - everybody understands that they may be necessary given the current economic climate. What people can't stand is the way the firm is handling them - first stealth layoffs, now making people sweat for days on end, etc.
Latham is highly unlikely to collapse, but this whole process was badly mishandled and makes very clear that Latham just isn't in the same league as DPW, Simpson, Cleary, etc., none of whom are freezing salaries or whacking associates. There used to be plenty of people from top schools that turned down a V5 to work for Latham ("because the people are nice and laid back") - that will never happen again.
Any Latham associate who is defending the way the firm has handled this is either 1) clueless or 2) unbalanced enough to have a real shot at making partner. And if Latham partners or asscom members are making the positive comments, well, that's just pathetic. Please reevaluate your priorities in life.
187 is correct. This was an unadulterated disaster for Latham because management handled it so poorly. First they lead some firms into salary freezes. Then they went with stealth layoffs. Then they are finally willing to call the next round economic, but word leaks to associates days before the layoffs happen. It should be clear why this is a huge story.
Elie doesn't hate Latham. Hell, he worked at Debevoise so he probably even turned Latham down. In the past 5 years or so, it's not like they were very discriminating in who they hired from T6 schools.
Latham's handling of layoffs goes down as one of the most mismanaged and badly thought out acts of a firm, ever.
First the stealth layoffs - devising bogus reasons for letting go of attorneys who were clearly in good standing until that point, then adding insult to injury by reporting to ATL that they were performance-related.
Second, the debacle of the "official" layoffs - the leaks to the associates that were so widespread that it makes one wonder if AssCom didn't WANT the associates to sweat it for a week wondering if they were on the dreaded list. Morale COULD NOT be any lower right now.
Third, the huge discrepancy between the reported severance packages for the stealth and official layoffs. If a 6th or 7th year who dedicated years to the firm gets 3 months severance while a first year who has simply shown up to work for the last 5-6 months and collected a paycheck (not saying it's their fault that they have no billable work) gets 6 months severance, seems like Latham is just asking for the stealthily laid off to go up in arms.
Latham could not have possibly handled this in a worse manner - this is turning into a PR debacle and nothing they do tomorrow can possibly undo the damage they've done to associate morale and goodwill. Latham is burning, SCORCHING bridges with hundreds of associates. Associates that will one day be opposing counsel or GCs of potential clients. People will NOT forget the disrespect and pain they suffered at the hands of Latham.
Bravo Latham management. You did an excellent job of fucking yourselves and your associates over.
I am sorry if I am repeating earlier comments, on this thread or another thread. I have not read all one million of them.
But here is a thought. Why wasn't this a very smart PR strategy on Latham's part? Could it be that they deliberately wanted word to leak out so that people could get used to the idea?
And could it also serve to manage expectations? Right now everyone is expecting a bloodbath. If it turns out to be not that bad, won't everyone be relieved, because it was better than expected?
Latham is a smart firm. This could be intentional and deliberate on the part of the leadership. Let's wait for this to play out before passing judgment.
Don't hate on Elie for writing about Latham. He is just doing his job.
One of the world's largest and most prestigious law firms is doing layoffs. It decides, for whatever reason - maybe 190 is on to something - to drag out the process through slow leaks.
What legal gossip blogger wouldn't do wall to wall coverage? Lat would have done the exact same thing.
164 - Bullshit. There's plenty of transparency at Latham. More than at any other big firms I know. What exactly do you want to know about the firm's financials? Even for associates, the information is there if you just ask. You want to know which partners are Of Counsel? Who's the 300 unit partner vs. 900 unit? Pace of that asshole associate down the hall from you? All you have to do is fucking ask. That's more than enough transparency.
As for promises... did you even listen to what Dell had to say? Layoffs were off the table, not even up for discussion (in March 2008). Learned their lesson from early 90's when things turned around and they didn't have enough. But guess what? Unsaid for the smart folks to figure was that the issue was most definitely was going to be revisited if business conditions changed. Guess what? They fucking changed... big time. It went back on the table and went up for some heavy discussion. There was no promise in regards to layoffs. People that believe otherwise are stupid or fooling themselves. The firm was optimistic that they'll see signs of turn around and things would look better in Q2 2009. That was back in Q3 2008. Well, the signs point to recovery in 2010 now. Shit happens.
If you thought otherwise, I have news for you: you're dumber than a rock and I don't want the likes of you at my firm.
Junior Latham associate here. I'd like to more directly articulate what makes so many of us angry and demoralized:
I'm going to get laid off tomorrow. I only billed 1500 hours last year. In other threads, many posters snarked that attorneys who bill so little have only themselves to blame; they could have done more pro bono or beat the pavement harder. Well, I was a first year last year, volunteered for every unassigned project that went out, and periodically indicated my availability and desire to every senior associate and partner I knew. I also billed 750 hours of pro bono. And still I only got to 1500. I had three deals die and got assigned to two doc reviews that never materialized. A few other members of my class are in the same boat, but we definitely ended up on the low end in my office, as far as I can tell. Fair enough. I won't be able to convince everyone in the peanut gallery that we weren't lazy or inept. But I think many big firm associates will recognize the situation.
But we came here because we understood that Latham wasn't like the NY firms, and we hoped that we were going to work for a firm that both worked hard and cared about its people. Ultimately, who is responsible for generating the business that keeps the firm busy? Junior associates? Is there anything we could have realistically done to change the fact that, discounting pro bono, unassigned associates were at about 65% of pace as a whole last year? Who are the real poor performers here? Who made the decision to overhire for 3 straight classes, giving offers to virtually the entire bloated summer class of 2008, even though those of us who were already here were fighting for every scrap of work we got?
Maybe we were naive. Of course the partners will do what it takes to cover their own asses. But what do law students know, and how are they supposed to know better? Latham marketed itself as a special firm in a way the others didn't, and I suspect they will continue to do so. We believed the people we met.
Of course I've learned by now it's a lie. But what pisses me off more than anything is that I (along with everyone else I know) now know I would have been better off working for one of those firms that the Latham recruiters sneered at as sweatshops. Everyone I know who rejected offer at supposed "sweatshops" like S&C and Skadden regrets their decision because we've learned the hard way that Latham is no different, and we wish we worked for people who were simply honest about their expectations of and attitudes toward us.
I came to Latham fully expecting to working long hours; hell, in a perverse way I looked forward to the test. I never shirked work, and I've never received a review that questioned my ability. But I'm going to get laid off tomorrow and thrust into a dismal job market after only 17 months of work, after getting my salary frozen, two of my closest friends "terminated for performance reasons" last month -- with everyone else knowing it was complete bullshit, having never received a straight answer from the firm regarding its real financial situation and any pretense of transparency and collegiality utterly abandoned.
So yeah, I'm pissed. I'm grateful that at least many of my peers in the firm feel the same way and will be pissed on my behalf tomorrow. We were naive, and we are suffering the consequences. But our naivety doesn't excuse the behavior of a firm of partners who have acted in an utterly two-faced manner, publicly declaring they won't lay people off while a few actively sabotaging the careers of scores of newly-minted lawyers while the rest stand by, keeping their heads down and avoiding contact.
193- You sound like a fuckin pussy. Get over yourself. At least you got paid for 17 months while doing public interest law. There are 1st years who will get kicked out after 4 months on the job.
Fuck you.
193-
I think your anger is misplaced and sorry for saying it, but also from your naivete. Let me address some of your major points.
1. Latham is different from other NY firms and markets itself that way. That's completely true. They are after all originally an LA firm. But only to a certain extent. Like any good employer, they do care about their employees. Employers who don't aren't in that business very long. But again, that's only to a certain extent as well. If things look so dire going forward, a good firm must take action, as hard as it may be.
2. Junior associates don't make rain. Well, duh. Of course not. That's the job of the partners. But guess what? Who the hell can make it rain in this environment? If you're at 65% of pace, that's the result of the partners only being able to bring in 65% of the work they used to in the past. But that's not entirely their fault either since clients are only offering so much new work. Take heart though, that it's not only associates being let go. In the past few weeks, partners have been asked to leave as well. That's not a bad thing, in fact, from a firm's perspective, that's quite a good thing.
3. Who made the decision to (over)hire for the past 3 classes? Firm management of course. At the time they were expecting more work and growth. It was based on how the firm performed in 2005, 2006, and 2007, even if 2007 was an abnormally phenomenal year. It's easy to blame them for hiring in expectation of growth in hindsight but let me tell you. I saw the numbers and the classes that were brought on in the past 3 years made sense at the time the decision was made. Ultimately though, you're right. It's the firm's responsibility to correct that mistake if they forecasted wrong. It happens... sometimes even very smart people guess wrong. Well, they're correcting it now. It's just unfortunate you'll be personally affected by it.
4. Two of your closest friends fired for BS performance reasons and the firm not telling you its real financial situation. As for your friends, you only heard from them. The reason could be as simple as their personalities not meshing with the partners they worked for. That's a performance issue... if your supervisors don't like you, you're simply not going to be as productive as the associate that does get along with the supervisor, all other things being equal. In good times, that may not be a big deal but in times like this, it's a damn good reason to fire them. Not an excuse, but a damn good reason to clean house. If you doubt what I'm saying, think about this... if the partners they worked with really likes them and their work product is just as good as the person next to them, don't you think they'd be saved? Think about it. As for the transparency of firm financials, honestly, I don't know another big firm that's more transparent. What do you want to know? Bottom line, Latham's in great financial shape. No long term debt, expenses are very manageable and have been cut 10% in 2009, partners are making capital contributions to help keep the balance sheet strong, plenty of reserves, real estate leases are also manageable.
166-
Unlike the other CA firm you're thinking off, Latham doesn't require a line of credit to operate. Would they like it? Sure... it helps even out the cashflow and makes monthly partner draws more predictable. But unlike Heller, they don't need it.
195 is obviously from LW recruiting or is a partner
166-
196 here again. As for that logic, it makes perfect sense. It's better to take things one step at a time. The salary freeze was almost 3 months ago. The thought back then was this will help the firm conserve $23+ million dollars. If things look like they're beginning to turn by end of February say, then most likely the firm wouldn't have needed to do this mass layoff.
Hindsight is 20/20. Knowing what they know now and the forecast at this point in time, I'm sure the firm would love to have gone back and announce a layoff, salary freeze, and bonus reduction in one fell swoop. But at that time, it was thought all these things wouldn't be necessary. Well now it looks like they are.
In another 3-6 months, things will change again. I'm not surprised at what Latham is doing and how it's doing it but am quite shock at how some people just don't get it.
194 - please be respectful. There's no need for that kind of disrespect toward a poster who was being honest and sharing his thoughts.
Is there anyone commenting here who actually works at a big law firm - any big law firm - who can say there isn't at least 1 associate for every 10 in your office who you think is a complete joke as an attorney? It really doesn't matter whether they're an idiot (relatively, despite their pedigree) or they just don't give a shit. Those are generally the people getting laid off at any firm that had any sizable corporate practice. Latham is in the same boat; they just have more associates.
Latham is just like poker. If you can't identify the slacker/idiot at the 10 person table, you're it. The only people with a real gripe are the first years who haven't really had a chance yet (assuming they haven't already done something incredibly stupid or irresponsible, which occurs quite often, unfortunately). I hope any layoffs in that group are minimal, but we'll see.
The recent criticism of Latham is rooted in Latham's historically (recent) nonchalant pressure with respect to billable hours. A Latham office can be a fucking ghost town on the weekend. Three years ago I had friends who could not believe I was considered a top performer for the number of hours I billed at Latham. Just to give any outsiders perspective, even people who clearly aren't on the chopping block at Latham would "explain" to partners or senior associates that they weren't available to do work because they "were busy" on the weekend. This is commonplace. Exceptional is "I can do a few hours of work". I'm sure it wasn't appreciated, but it was often accepted in Latham culture. I challenge anyone to name a $200K+/year job that allows that kind of shit.
If a firm has big deals, it can easily leverage tons of associates averaging 1900 hours and make ridiculous amounts of money. If it doesn't have those big deals and there's no prospect of those big deals coming back in the foreseeable future, it has to contract. It's pretty simple, and I'm not sure who didn't see it coming. I wish everyone the best of luck, but frankly, not everyone is cut out for this job. Look at MBAs. Guaranteed starting at 160k for the top half of every 1-20 school? Are you kidding?
What I don't understand is why Latham gets lambasted for setting a ridiculously low bar then cutting the bottom 10% (assuming that happens tomorrow or next week or months from now). If you work at Latham and didn't see it coming to your detriment, you fail to exhibit the foresight necessary to be a good attorney.
And finally, for any of the people who got laid off at any firm, if you got canned and hated being a lawyer, but continued to mail it in at any big firm just to pay off your loans, shame on you if you attack that firm. You're the problem. You're the reason that clients don't want to pay the rates. You're the people that all the rest of us are subsidizing.
193: 200, here. I'd be interested to know whether you actually get laid off. I'm sure the last thing you'll be interested in is reporting on a board, but as someone who will likely still be at Latham, it would make an immense difference in my appraisal of the situation if you get laid off.
200-
Well said!
Who remembers last year when ATL had a law firm March Madness bracket? Latham won. I bet they wouldn't make the NIT this time around.
laTTTham!!
Partner from v20 firm here - the last time we went through something like this we had the various conference rooms swept for bugs early on the morning when the departure meetings were scheduled to take place. Very strange. Very paranoid. Probably justified.
No one is faulting Latham for doing the layoffs. Let's be perfectly clear about that. It's the WAY they've done it, with jack shit respect for their associates.
Latham partners - a word of advice going forward:
"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." Warren Buffet
Nothing is these discussions really matter today.
All I want to say is good luck for the people getting laid off today. It may seem like the end of the world to some of you, but you'll soon realize that it's just a new beginning.
Good luck and stay strong!
Bob Dell email confirms Latham layoffs. 190 attorneys 12%), 250 staff. 6 months severance (up to $100,000) for all. Individuals to be notified today.
Lathamite here. I love this firm. I love the people I work with, from the secretaries to my colleagues, paralegals - people in all job descriptions. The firm is filled with great, caring, hard-working, incredibly smart people. I am a Latham defender and always will be, whether I work here or somewhere else. I have worked other places as a lawyer, and I can tell you the Latham culture is REAL, and it stands in stark contrast to many other firms.
We are family, and we're hurting today, so if you bash, we are likely to defend ourselves.
I am very sorry to everyone who is impacted today. The vast majority of you don't deserve this. Some of you do - you know whether you gave it a good effort or not. (For example, if you spend the majority of your day doodling in the newspaper, you're not giving it your best.)
There are other great law firms that are not having to take the actions Latham is taking, for a variety of reasons. To be sure, the loss of a couple major clients in the financial crisis, and a huge focus by Latham previously on its finance practice caused a lot of this. Look at a firm like Quinn for an example of a mid-sized firm that is not impacted by the evaporation of commercial finance. All they do is lit, so they continued to do well. Latham did hundreds of millions in commercial finance, and it was for many other banks and funds than just Lehman. All of this work has been absent since last year, and the finance people are trying to hang on.
It will come back - commercial finance is not going to disappear. But until it does, you have underutilized capacity within firms that do significant commercial finance - like Latham. That, in and of itself, doesn't reflect bad management as much as bad economic luck.
That said, among the mistakes attributable to management are:
1. Over-hiring.
2. paranoia about the "damage" done to recruiting from the layoffs of the early 90's
3. conducting stealth layoffs and dinging people on the way out the door when the economy was the main impetus for the cuts.
4. failing to realize that in the modern age, with sites like ATL, the truth always comes out, so don't try and bullshit your way through it!
Peace
It's official:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/latham_lays_off_440.php
Seems everyone forgets the last LW lay-off in early '90s, after Drexel tanked & econ. was soft: 75+ taxis were called to line up in front of their LA office on Figueroa to take all the RIFs straight home! Class move...
WondSteve
69- do they teach Lit people to spell at L&W?
I know Japanese schoolgirls that can spell English better than you.