FIRST

first

First!

first

Black Thursday rolls on.

first

firstttttttttttttttt

FIRST---

This is terrifying. What sort of work does Luce Forward do?

That's a spicy meatball

Last one out, turn out the lights.

Luce 3Ls, I'm so sorry. I was supposed to start at Thelen, and while this probably isn't much consolation today, later you'll appreciate being laid off now as opposed to later in the year. Good luck to you all.

this is the scariest post of all

"'m not sure how 3Ls will go about finding a post-graduate job at this late stage in this economy" - thank you for stating the obvious...

Lurch Forward.

Pole time: which v10 will announce economic-based layoffs first?

Make it stop

Best of luck to all of the 3Ls who accepted summer offers from this firm. This really sucks.

14 - titcr

14 is right.

:s

Poll time: which v10 will announce economic-based layoffs first?

In my opinion Luce Forward sucks. That firm isn't worth diddly-poo.

Seriously, this is arguably, from some perspectives, the scariest post of the day.

17: obviously latham, duh

Same thing happened to me and I still got BigLaw. It sucks, but you have to keep moving forward.

" But hopefully things will get better by the time these new lawyers are receiving their diploma. "

Yeah I see this all blowing over by June at the latest...

This is an outrage...

anyone else hear that the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is planning on auctioning off California Bar memberships to the highest bidders in order to help cut the budget deficit?

Yeah. If 20% of these 3Ls get jobs, I'd be very surprised. And I'm not talking about $160k jobs - I'm talking A-N-Y jobs. Devastating.

Well, this is the final shoe to drop. No firm (which wasn't dissolving) had yet revoked 3L offers. Now that one has, expect to see it coming more. Reputation hit? What reputation hit? Who gives a fuck when anyone will take any job that is thrown at them in this economy.

17: is that where you have to climb a pole to avoid layoffs? We should do a poll to see which firms do that.

That is the most classless move amongst many classless moves by firms thus far.

Clearly, these 3L's had their offers rescinded for performance related reasons.

Will tomorrow be even worse?

Holy crap... this is brutal. I don't blame many of these firms for having layoffs, I mean, whatever they had to do it. Even cancelling the summers is not the worst thing in the world, although it sucks for sure. But canning your incoming 3Ls this late in the game? What a dick move.

This has to be the kind of move that sticks with a firm's rep for years and years to come, assuming they are still around.

i guess blackbooklegal.com had it right...the whole industry is going down

If Thursday was this bad, I think we can expect Friday to be worse. This is awful.

I'll just say I agree with 32.

Layoffs, whatever, you are used to attrition in the model and I get that you need to have a little bit.

But 3Ls and 2Ls. Ugh.

I think more firms will rescind offers--however, I don't think it will be widespread. I would guess if you are in a V50 firm you are probably safe until you start.

Dear Jesus:

Thank you for this box of documents I am about to review. Amen.

The posts today are making it very clear that the legal industry (like most industries) is amassing a huge idle workforce. The downward spiraling effects of so many people out of work cannot be overstated. Get ready for a depression.

ouch

PANIC!!!!!!!

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS

Luce Forward is done. I mean, layoffs, rescinding offers, cancelling 2009 summer, not recruiting in 2009 for 2010 summer. Right, because firms in good shape plan on NOT HIRING ANYONE for the next 3 years all the time. What a shame.

35: lol, who gives a shit about your rep right now? i think avoiding dissolution is a bigger concern. with that said, it's a major dick move and those 3Ls are clearly toast. I really feel for them, but they'll probably have a lot of company in the coming months.

Adams and Reese (TX-LA firm) rescinded 3L offers also...

It's the end of the world.

The posts today are making it very clear that the legal industry (like most industries) is amassing a huge idle workforce. The downward spiraling effects of so many people out of work cannot be overstated. Get ready for a depression.

Not a bad move. Sure it sucks for the 3Ls, but letting go of first years and second years isn't much different. In this economy having 1 year of experience doesn't mean anything. Better to save the jobs of the people in your office that you know do good work and have developed personal and professional relationships with. And really - -what can an incoming associate really do? Law school doesn't teach you the necessary skills to hit the ground running. Firms will have to burn too much money on training these kids. Better to keep lawyers that know what they're doing. Hard reality. I'm sure this wasn't an easy decision to make, but in this economy hard choices need to be made. I say better to protect your existing associates.

Those 3Ls will probably never see a big law job in their life.

I wonder if there's any legal theory under which any of these 3Ls could recover from the firm?

"40 Posted by guest | Permalink
Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:39 PM

Dear Jesus:

Thank you for this box of documents I am about to review. Amen."

180

PANIC!!!!!!!

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS

"Grandpa, tell me about the olden days... when did you first know that the "50 Year Greatest Depression" was truly about to begin?"

"Well, Johny, let me throw another guinea pig on the fire, and put some more duct tape on the roof our our cardboard box in case we get another blizzard tonight, and i'll tell you about the day called "Black Thursday."

V50 firms cannot do this if they want to stay V50 firms, period.

It's the end of the world.

50: i think having 1 year of experience and 160k of wages is better than graduating unemployed and having to pay for the bar and moving expenses by yourself.

This makes sense and is certainly a harbinger of things to come. Why would any firm incur the cost of a summer program when they can hire attorneys who are (i) already in town, (ii) already passed the bar and (iii) already trained? Couple that with the fact that the legal market is flooded with high-quality, young associates, who have recently been laid off. it is the most rationale decision of all. Indeed, it will allow the firm to hire laterals directly into busy practice groups to fill specific needs. Other firms are doing the same thing.

Summer associate programs are a dinosaur. In this market, the costs attendant to such a program are not even remotely justified.

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS

This makes sense and is certainly a harbinger of things to come. Why would any firm incur the cost of a summer program when they can hire attorneys who are (i) already in town, (ii) already passed the bar and (iii) already trained? Couple that with the fact that the legal market is flooded with high-quality, young associates, who have recently been laid off. it is the most rationale decision of all. Indeed, it will allow the firm to hire laterals directly into busy practice groups to fill specific needs. Other firms are doing the same thing.

Summer associate programs are a dinosaur. In this market, the costs attendant to such a program are not even remotely justified.

33 - Funny, but don't be surprised if some firms end up using such a wacko reason for layoffs/rescinding offers. We are in uncharted waters here and the depths to which firms will go to "justify" their actions has not yet been fully plumbed. Twinkie defense?

33 - Funny, but don't be surprised if some firms end up using such a wacko reason for layoffs/rescinding offers. We are in uncharted waters here and the depths to which firms will go to "justify" their actions has not yet been fully plumbed. Twinkie defense?

Note the progression? Stealth layoffs --> reduced bonuses --> frozen salaries --> delayed 3L starts --> announced massive layoffs --> cut salaries --> reneged 3L offers. Wow.

Expect more layoffs, salary cuts, and canceled 3L offers in the coming weeks and months.

this is truly unprecedented stuff. the world economy is about to go into a tailspin, top down...

you have to figure that back when we had teh 'great depression' we weren't nearly as capable of digging such deep holes. now, not only are companies highly leveraged, but 90% of the population are too! the consumer credit markets are about to explode, as all these laid off people start defaulting on their unsecured $40K Average in credit card debt. it'll take a 10 trillion dollar stimulus bill, and we don't have that kind of money.

ARE ... YOU ... FUCKING ... KIDDING ... ME ...

please stop. just stop.

holy crap. 14 is right, this is indeed the scariest news of all. if i get my offer rescinded im going abroad. fuck this shit.

This is the last shoe to drop.

No firm had yet revoked offers to incoming 3L's.

Expect more of it to come.

This is the last shoe to drop.

No firm had yet revoked offers to incoming 3L's.

Expect more of it to come.

ARE ... YOU ... FUCKING ... KIDDING ME ...

I AM IN DISBELIEF.

Somebody please get Biglaw a tampon --- it's bleeding all over my new pants.

this is just too much.

You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain’t it hard when you discover that
He really wasn’t where it’s at
After he took from you everything he could steal.
How does it feel

36- wth is blackbooklegal.com?

Most of the comments on here show that we associates are still having a hard time getting over their entitlement mentality. Seriously, those of us who still have jobs (for now) are lucky to have a job. The world has forever changed. Not only will this recession/depression last for another year or two, but the legal market is not going to suddenly explode when it ends. We're in for some long pain, and if you've still got a job, hold on tight.

I'd love to see some of them sue the firm. They'd never win, but this is so scummy. Those law students, in many instances, gave up an entire season of interview opportunities because they relied on these offers.

TUITION RISES
FIRMS FALL
STUDENT LOAN DEBT REMAINS

I's say these 3Ls can make out the basics of a contracts exam favorite: promissory estoppel. They stopped their job search based on the promise of employment. However, I think they'll run into trouble with the damages part. They have no way to show they would have a job if they didn't terminate their job search. No damages, no recovery.

That's the worst. The absolute worst.

*gulp*

47, did Adams and Reese rescind offers to all 3Ls in TX and LA?

The comments on ATL have sucked as of late. No more witty writing and instead we have a bunch of PC d-bags conversing. Like a women's sewing circle. Way to go on the whole censorship thing Lat and Elie.

Curious, no comment from that Nervous 1 L jerk. One can only hope...

78, while they can probably make the elements for promissory estoppel, with the detrimental reliance terminating their job search, you are right that they'll fall down in proving any damages. They can't show they would have a job if they didn't stop their job search. No damages, no recovery.

I'd love to see some of them sue the firm. They'd never win, but this is so scummy. Those law students, in many instances, gave up an entire season of interview opportunities because they relied on these offers.

Vince here saying:

Princess on the steeple and all the pretty people

They're drinkin', thinkin' that they got it made

Exchanging all kinds of precious gifts and things

But you'd better lift your diamond ring, you'd better
pawn it babe

47, did Adams and Reese rescind offers to all 3Ls in TX and LA?

47 - what other info do you have on Adams and Reese??

Brutal. Absolutely brutal. Today seems to be D-Day for law firm associates. Dead bodies are everywhere.

79 hit the nail on the head. In a debt-free world, none of this is a big deal. $150k of non-dischargable debt IS A BIG DEAL. If you are only making $40k and don't have at least one year at $160k, then you are crushed for life unless you expect to receive an inheritance.

And no, this is not anybody being entitled - this is the game that the firms and the universities created. Switching the rules midstream only hurts law students. If Congress allows this debt to be discharged, along with the associated dings on your credit, at least these people will have a chance at the game of life.

79 hit the nail on the head. In a debt-free world, none of this is a big deal. $150k of non-dischargable debt IS A BIG DEAL. If you are only making $40k and don't have at least one year at $160k, then you are crushed for life unless you expect to receive an inheritance.

And no, this is not anybody being entitled - this is the game that the firms and the universities created. Switching the rules midstream only hurts law students. If Congress allows this debt to be discharged, along with the associated dings on your credit, at least these people will have a chance at the game of life.

80 - actually, I thought PE requires reasonable reliance - if the offer specifically stated that this offer could be rescinded at any time then it would undercut PE. The court would likely take into account the shitty economy and the fact that law students should've know that this was always a possibility. Too bad.

Rescinding 3L offers at this point is awful, but one can see the economic case for it, and it might not be surprising to see more of it.

Canceling the 2009 summer program, on the other hand, suggests serious long term concerns or a sudden shift away from the summer recruiting model.

So....when did having an MBA mean an easier time getting a job than having a JD....oh that's right about 10 mins ago.

So, should people start calling to see if their job is still waiting after graduation? Or is that the wrong move?

75: Thanks, we aren't told we have a sense of entitlement often enough. Wow! Someone should post comments telling us that in every single article posted on ATL! Complain about a pay cut? Entitlement! Complaint about losing your job? Entitlement! Why don't we just put a public service announcement sticky at the top of every thread that says "By the way, some people think you guys have an unfounded sense of entitlement," so you posters can STFU.

But, seriously, did you even read the threads? The tone seems exceptionally somber. (My personal favorite - "Thank you for the box of documents I'm about to review. Amen") While "entitlement" accusations are usually over-generalized, asinine, pointless, and just annoying, in this thread the accusation reached a new level.

Agree with 32 - classless.

79 - I await the BIGLAW Bailout Bill of 2009.

This Friday is a three day weekend (for some people, at least). Any firm needs to layoff spare associates almost certainly will.

I am so fucking glad I didn't take that offer with Luce Forward

so glad

#92--even when times were good, only a very small minority of law students got jobs making $160K. The rest of them made significantly less and still had $100K plus in debt. Its not that different now, only hot-shit students and associates who thought they were exempt are getting hit.

Joaquin Phoenix is really weird. But then again, he's River's brother, so I guess he's the well-adjusted one in the family.

No money? No problem. Giving away free mustache rides all day.

80/94 - You guys are nerds.

Joaquin Phoenix is really weird. But then again, he's River's brother, so I guess he's the well-adjusted one in the family.

And so it begins.

83 - What a whiner. Most of the graduating 3L's in this country have massive debt and no $160K job in the first place.

Welcome to how the other 5/6's lives, douche.

103, well some of us left lucrative careers a degree at a top school, 150k of debt, and the promise of a 160k job. Goddamned right I feel entitled to the 3rd thing when I just finished the first 2.

And so it begins.

83 - What a whiner. Most of the graduating 3L's in this country have massive debt and no $160K job in the first place.

Welcome to how the other 5/6's lives, douche.

79 wins poster of the day.

That should be 93.

This just goes to show that management at Luce performed exceptionally poorly at forecasting their hiring needs. It took until mid-February before Luce either (1) had the cojones to do this or (2) figured out it was a necessity. Either they screwed over the 3Ls, who, as everybody has mentioned here, are now SOL in their job search, or they are morons.

Cream rises to the top friends. Right now we need to show BigLaw our white hot cream.

Pretty backwards move for Luce Forward.

Well, at least you people are in San Diego. It's easy to be homeless when it's sunny and 72 everyday. Plus, if you're worried about student loans, just take out a massive bar loan, slide across the border to Tijuana and live like a king (until you're kidnapped and held for ransom, anyway).

The ship be sinking...

84, 89, 90. I know Adams & Reese's Houston office has rescinded 3L offers.

Why all these firms today?

This may be the best thing ever to happen to Luce Forward. Think about it: For a couple of days the BigLaw blogosphere has been abuzz with news about Luce, so for a few moments in time this festering regional TTT shop has been compared with the V100 firms. Of course, they cannot compete in terms of recruiting or clients, but thet can screw the attorneys (and soon to be attorneys) with the best of them!

#119 -- Because tomorrow is Friday the 13th. Curiously, BIGlaw management is paying attention to cultural superstitions. Go figure.

115 - oh Screech, you slay me.....

Luce Foward is an awful place; seedy lawyers, sweatshop mentality. It has been trying to merge for years, but no one has wanted its festering craphole. The place is going down.

And on the sixth day, God created SKADDEN, and it was good . . .

#119 -- Because tomorrow is Friday the 13th. Curiously, BIGlaw management is paying attention to cultural superstitions. Go figure.

Jim Mora--I think you have a death grip on poster of the year. Layoffs!?!

On the seventh day, God took away SKADDEN LA, and it was even better...

108, those are morons who knowingly spent six figures on a crap legal education at a school that only places 5-10% of its graduates at high-paying jobs. Those were the stats going in. They willingly took the (terrible) odds. This is fundamentally different - paying six figures for a top school has always meant a guaranteed job in BigLaw (if that's what you want).

109, 103 here. You were a dumbass for leaving your lucrative career. Times are hard all around. Like 111 said, welcome to how the rest of us live.

Promissory Estoppel, say hello to my good friend "FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE." Nobody is winning any lawsuits here.

I see your PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL and i raise you FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE PWN3D!

128, gawd, u r such a snob.

Offer, acceptance, consideration (summer with the firm)...i don't see any defenses to formation.

Damages...at least a year at the previously unfrozen salary. Sue the partnership.

Can someone please moderate the Quinn numbskull?

Surely 133 did not/will not pass a bar exam. At will employment, dick nugget.

133, frustration of purpose PWNS your petty little argument. there are no hours to bill.

Any 2L's who haven't heard anything substantial from their firm regarding the summer program yet? What firms?

This happened before. Back in the early 2000s when Brobeck folded as well as some other firms. My advice to those effected - take any job, anywhere, at any firm. Gain some experience and when the market improves you can jump back to biglaw. You had the resumes to get in theses firms in the first place and people will understand what happened to you . And when some Biglaw firm is hiring again - the fact that you went to a small shop (where you likely went to court and took depositions . . .etc.) will look like a big plus.

Good luck

As an associate, I'd say that this is a much better move than laying off actual associates who you've already paid to train. The fact that people here are reacting far more harshly to this move simply reflects the large number of law students who troll these boards. It sucks, obviously. But it's a much better move for firms.

133 = TTT 1L with a C- in Contracts I...

129: like the other poster said, it's a fundamentally different thing going to a T6 and then having your job pulled out from under you and going to a tier 2 and not making the cut. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the T6 students to be entitled because that was what was promised to them.

With that said, it was a poor decision to leave the previous job to go into law school. So maybe that does make me a dumbass. Thanks for warmly welcoming me into the club.

128, while arrogant, makes a decent point. Career calculations for an aspiring Harvard law student are different from a Cooley law student. In today's economy, both may be unemployed, but it is difficult to say that the Harvard law student assumed the risk of unemployment to the same extent as the Cooley law student. I'd like to listen to someone dispute this claim. It isn't an argument of entitlement; it is an argument about blameworthiness for their exposure to massive amounts of debt. Harvard can charge $40k in tuition because 98% of law students average $160k. That is how Harvard got people to pay the $40k. The game board has now changed.

HOW IS OBAMA GOING TO SAVE US????

128 did odds but forgot to do research on how long most of those "top" law school students actually stay employed. It's never been particularly good.

132, it's not being snobbish; it's objective. Paying tuition to go to a second, third, or fourth tier law school has always been a terrible economic proposition. The numbers don't line up. People who do this are paying six figures for a 5-10% chance at a job that will actually pay back the loans. It's an irrational decision (likely based on the equally irrational premise shared by 100% of these people that *they* will be in the top 10%).

Prior to shit like this, paying six figures to go to a top 10 school was an entirely different proposition: you pay six figures for a 100% chance of a six-figure job. If there's any "snobbiness" here, it's the snobbiness of the law firms that will hire the person who finishes dead last at HLS over the person who graduates at the top of the class at Loyola. But that's how it's always worked -- it's just a fact.

144 - i'd say 90% of people keep their biglaw jobs for at least 2 years. Those people leave biglaw debt free.

Watch out, collapsing law firms ahead. Mind your step.

Rescinding 3L offers is fucked.

144, the attrition rates have traditionally been what they are because associates leave voluntarily. Until the recent economic decline, most big law firms simply didn't fire junior associates -- even if you were terrible, you got to stick around until you were told in your 6th year or so that you'd never make partner and should start looking. So your little stat is totally beside the point.

"That is how Harvard got people to pay the $40k."

By being named Harvard?

143, don't worry, all these law firm jobs will come back once Obama raises taxes on law firm partners to cut their take-home pay.

Yes We Can!

That little bear pic is fucked.

146, I don't know a single person who was debt-free after 2 years of biglaw. I'm a 5th year and I still have debt; until very recently it made far more economic sense to invest salary in something other than loan payments. Even so, there's absolutely no way I could have paid off loans in 2 years. Maybe if I lived in some cheap shithole like Texas.

"Maybe if I lived in some cheap shithole like Texas."

lol at NY

133 may be right, it depends on how the contract is written. Most summers are for a specific period of time. contract employees are not always at-will.

The managing partner at Luce Forward is named Kurt Kicklighter? Is he a comic book character?

"Kurt Kicklighter of Luce Forward, meet Lando Calrissian of Sky City and Albus Dumbledore of Hogwarts."

Holy crap... I know one of the luce forward 08 summers, very cool guy, I never thought it would get this bad. Luce forward is super heavy on real estate and has no bankruptcy debtor practice. not a good combo.

I went to a good college and paid most of my tuition myself out of loans. Then I went to a good law school. I did well in school, turned out to be a good interviewer, and worked hard over the summer at a great firm (even when that didn't seem to be a requirement). I know a lot of you are the same way. You have worked hard academically, put your career and education above your social life, and haven't been a dick to your classmates. I don't think being upset about the current situation is entitlement, it is disappointment at working hard and doing everything right and feeling like you are financially no better off than the kids who skipped out on college to try heroin and have babies and now manage the local Ruby Tuesdays.

Obviously all of this is a gamble, but it's ok to voice disappointment and frustration, and it doesn't make you spoiled or entitled.

149 is delusional. Firms have always fired associates long before partnership "up or out." They just did it discreetly and allowed everyone to save face by the appearance of a voluntary departure.

158: that's where you are wrong. having no debt and managing a ruby tuesday is like working at WLRK compared to having a Cornell law degree, $180k in debt, and no job.

159 is correct, but you got your 2 years and could pay off your debt.

Obama just promised to forgive all student loans! It was just on CNN! Thank you, Baby Jesus!

No, wait, I made that up.

I graduated from a nearly-TTT school but I applied to many top 25 law schools because going to a top law school should entitle one to a high paying job at graduation. People make that decision to go to t14 schools because of economics. There's a much higher chance of getting hired to big law firms if you come from a big name law school.

At my 80th-90th ranked law school, the career services only care about the top 10% of the class. The other 90% is left culling through rolodexes and address books looking for helpful contacts. I even know of a few top 10% grads who are interviewing for $40k jobs with no benefits. Going to a TTT is no guarantee of even getting a job, while going to a t14 should entitle one to a job, and a high paying one. Even the top 10% grads who have big law jobs are getting axed, and it would make it a lot easier for them to find another job with a HLS or YLS JD.

The quality of education you get at HLS is not going to be that much better than that at a 2nd tier school -- torts is torts is torts. Big law firms recruit out of HLS not because they're better educated, but because by virtue of being a HLS grad they proved themselves to be the hardest working, brightest of all law school applicants 3 years prior. That ought to entitle them to 6 figure jobs, while the rest of us TTT grads scramble for tiny-law jobs for being stupid, lazy, or both.

-- bitter 3.0/174 grad at TTT

159, no one at either of the two "V10" firms I've worked at has ever been asked to leave before the 6th year. K&E is the only firm I've ever heard does that.

153, I was debt-free after two years. Combination of 1) partial scholarship, 2) saving most of my summer associate money instead of spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, like most of my friends did, and 3) having help from my family. Now, granted, not everyone has 3) available to them. But even 1) and 2) alone can knock out a significant chunk of change. Combine that with living frugally (maybe, say, like a student, which shouldn't be a challenged given you JUST WERE one) for a year or two and you can easily pay off that remaining 50-60k of debt in two years.

Could be worse. It's not like they brought on the 3Ls, took out insurance on them, and . . . well, we don't really want to give them any ideas.

To the 5th year associate supposedly working at biglaw who still has law school debt:
That was your choice. Let's do the math. 100-120K of law school debt. Take home 100K/yr. After two years, you've taken in 200K. All you had to do was spend less than 40K a year and your debt is paid off (that's 2K/month rent and 1.5K/month on food, clothes, entertainment.)

To the other associate who says this firm made the right decision canning 3L's than associates at the firm:
Economically, it is obviously the best short-term decision. However, if you weigh the harm on the 3L student who will be moving back home unemployed with all the debt v. the current associate who has less debt and is in a better position to land on their feet given their experience... it's no contest on what the proper choice should ahve been

HOLY S**T! rescinding three L offers? this f-ing blows. what the hell is this blackbooklegal.com above?

Although this is sad news, I think it makes more sense to rescind 3L offers than to layoff a 1st or 2nd year associate. If you are going to have a person get paid 160k, at least have the most qualified person doing the job.

Why get to know new people when you already have a team around you? Give options to 1st-3rd years - work for 160k this year or get laid off, pick one, your replacement is a 3L if you dont take the offer. Which one of you would not take the offer?

I would respect my firm more if they took drastic measures to save current jobs. I saw a 3rd get fired a few months ago - she knew her stuff. Instead, her replacement (1st yr) comes in daily at 11pm and billed 10 hours during his stub year. How does that make any economic sense?

163, I agree with everything you said except "The quality of education you get at HLS is not going to be that much better than that at a 2nd tier school -- torts is torts is torts."

My torts class at HLS was basically a class (and critique) of law and economics; there was little, if any, discussion of black letter tort law (which is nice, because I've never litigated a "battery"). I learned the black letter stuff in a couple days while studying for the bar; wouldn't have paid six figures for it.

How would McCain have saved us? Another capital gains tax cut? The economy is in the gutter BECAUSE of 8 years of deficit spending, reckless tax cutting, stupid wars, and borrowing from the Chinese to buy granite countertops. Now, it's time to grow up and live with the consequences. One president can't save you from the fact that you have consistently supported idiot politicians promoting disastrous fiscal policies until most people woke up and said "no more." Now take your severance and move back home to Mom's basement (if you ever left).

164 - How on Earth would you know how much of that 25% attrition (this being V10) is pure associate choice or encouraged by the firm?

169 - Ordinarily, what you say makes sense. But prior to rescinding offers and canceling the summer program, Luce already stealth-fired second years, laid off a bunch more first and second years, and canned a partner. It just boils down to the fact that this firm is f-u-k fucked, and is probably not long for this world.

Maybe we are just "fungible billing units." I think someone posted this yesterday but...
www.borntobill.com

167, what the hell does "the harm on the 3L" have to do with the rationality of the law firm's decision. You can fire someone who doesn't know anything and makes $160k or you can fire someone who you've already sunk costs in to teach how to do the job, who also makes $160k (and bills out to clients at a higher rate). Seems like a no brainer. Law firms aren't in the business of allocating harm; they're in the business of selling legal services at a profit.

Also, your numbers are off on the first part. Take-home from 160 is well under 100k. The rent is low too (153 specified that s/he didn't live in a shithole like Texas). But this has all been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere.

169 - Laying off 1st and 2nd years instead of rescinding 3L offers would save firms lots of $$ for the next several months (or a year if start dates are pushed back).

Maybe we are just "fungible billing units." I think someone posted this yesterday but...
www.borntobill.com

167 has clearly never paid taxes is his fucking life, nor has he lived anywhere else but his parent's basement.

EPIC FAIL...Best one of the year so far...so congrats.

171, whatever McCain would have done is hardly relevant. We do know that he would not have raised taxes on law firm partners. Obama plans on doing just that.

Or are you saying that raising taxes on law firm partners creates associate jobs? If that's true, let's raise their taxes to 90% and create a million associate jobs.

178, what part of $100k take-home pay from $160k salary do you not understand?

EPIC FAIL is you.

I am one of the 3Ls that lost my job yesterday at Luce. They screwed us over big time and lied throughout the whole process. I spoke to several partners in the last few months who assured us that our jobs were safe and that they had financial resources to prepare for these kinds of economic events. Trash.

167 vs 178 could result in the hilarity that the thread has missed on this horrific day of layoffs. "EPIC FAIL is you"... just great.

Whine whine whine.... what a bunch of entitled douche bags. 108 is right, a lot of people drop 150k on a roulette table and don't walk away with hoards of cash- you don't hear us bitching about not getting what we've "earned". Welcome to how the rest of us live, dicks.

180,
I challenge you to take home $100K out of $160K living in NYC.

If I'm wrong, prove it.

172, this has been my experience. The only people I know who have ceased to work at my firms during their junior years have been people who talked constantly about not wanting to work at a law firm for long before leaving (leading me to believe that they weren't just telling a story when they left and went to a non-law firm job and said it was voluntary). Granted, this is anecdotal, and I don't know every associate at the firms I've worked at. But I've never even heard 4th-hand of any pre-6th year getting canned. Instead, what I've always heard (from other associates) since I was a summer associate is that no one gets laid off until the ramp-up to partnership decisions. Contrast this with K&E, where (according to friends who work there) it's general knowledge that a certain number of people from every class get cut every year. The point is, if it's happening, people seem to know it's happening.

-164

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS WITH EGG ON ITS FACE(BOOK)

So should 3Ls start calling their firms to get an idea of whether their jobs will be waiting for them? I'd rather know now so I can at least start applying to other jobs.

184, from paycheckcity:

Annual Gross Pay
$160,000.00
Federal Withholding
$37,252.25
Social Security
$6,324.00
Medicare
$2,320.00
New York
$10,826.34
NY SDI
$31.20
City Tax
$5,901.00
Net Pay
$97,345.21

Factor in a small bonus and itemized deductions for a small refund, and I'm sure you can scrape an extra $50 of take home pay per week.

Once again, EPIC FAIL is you, twice.

Hey 187 - don't bother calling. Look at the carnage around you. Your job isn't safe, no matter what your firm tells you. Didn't you just read what happened at Luce - they swore up and down that jobs were secure, and then fired everybody. Do yourself a favor: hope for the best but prepare for the worst by finding a back-up job with guaranteed employment.

180, please return to your LSAT studying.

So should 3Ls start calling their firms to get an idea of whether their jobs will be waiting for them? I'd rather know now so I can at least start applying to other jobs.

179, typical don't-blame-the-mob-for-being-criminals reasoning. Just because partners will take out their financial frustration on associates is not a reason to allow them (i.e,. "the rich," those making over a million a year, whatever) to hold the economy hostage so they don't have to cut back their extravagant lifestyles. If everyone else is going to feel the pain, you bet your ass I want those fat cat partners feeling it just as much as the associates. Sometimes the only way people will learn is for EVERYONE to get screwed over and pissed off. Unfortunately.

190, great rebuttal! Not.
Way to insult the other side because you don't have any substantive arguments. Sorry about your tiny pink pay stub, bro.

191 - no point in calling your firm. If they're going to keep you, they will say they will keep you and not to worry. If they're going to rescind, they will say they will keep you and not to worry. Honestly, there's no point in calling.

158 - You're not wrong to be frustrated. I always viewed the time I spent studying instead of partying as an investment. There's nothing wrong with being upset when that investment doesn't pay out.

163 - Having a 3.0 and 174 suggests that you were really lazy in college. Don't act surprised that top law schools don't want to admit you. I hope you liked being in your frat, because there's a good chance you've f***ed yourself for life.

If you call your hiring firm, what do you expect them to say? If your job is in trouble, they wouldn't tell you the truth anyway.

Think about it... if they told you your job was in-fact insecure, you would just start interviewing again and possibly leave without ever getting laid off. Why would the hiring firm risk that? They'd rather keep you there so long as they need you, and then lay you off when they don't. If they're not sure -- and you find out that they're unsure -- you'd bolt.

188, if you indicate that your pay is semi-monthly rather than annual lump sum, the number becomes roughly 93k. If you use 144500 instead of 160000 (because you're maxing out 401(k), which you certainly ought to), your take-home is slightly less than $85k (using your paycheckcity calculator, which may or may not be accurate anyway). NONE of this accounts for health care either. So subtract another 5k or so.

If you have a 3.0 undergrad and a 174 LSAT, that undergrad had better be physical sciences or engineering, or you better have had some personal tragedy that you owned up to in the application process with a good explanation.

Even then, the raw numerical score is probably too low for T14, although not too low for T1 University of My Home State.

With all apologies for being an asshole here I can't help but feel a little schadenfreude at having apparently made exactly the right decision a few years ago.

Back then I applied to 5 law schools, got rejected at 1 T10, accepted at 1 T10, and accepted at two other t20's, and a full scholarship at a Tier 2 large state school in my home state.

After a lot of thought, some of which involved the $150k in debt I'd take on at any of the Top 20 schools I got accepted to, as well as some non money concerns I chose to attend the T2 law school in my home state on a full scholarship. I managed to get top 10% grades, graduated with a positive net worth and landed a Mid-Law job at one of the top firms in my middle market area. My starting salary was only a little more than half of what a V10 first year might get, but considering the low cost of living here, I'm living pretty well, and living in flyover country doesn't bother me a bit. Not only that, I enjoy the place I work and I don't have to put up with half the crap that some of my friends that took biglaw jobs go through.

Dear 188 please calculate at bi-weekly and recompute. Because in the real world that's how we're paid...BI FUCKING WEEKLY. Jesus fucking christ...I swear to Jesus if the LSAT had an economics section we'd have ten law schools in this country.

No peace of mind will come from calling our firms at this point. I suspect that most v50 firms are waiting until the last possible second before deciding what to do with their (mammoth sized) incoming associate class. They are hoping, praying even, that the economy will show some sign of life by the end of 2009. The problem is, though, that there will be no recovery this year.

You can choose to believe me or not, but I have a connection to someone very high up in the corporate ladder, and he has been telling me that "there will be no significant economic recovery for a generation". This crisis is being described by the top dogs as a "generational economic shift" toward deleveraging.

What does this mean for 3L's? In short, it means we are 100% completely fucked. Our firms may not rescind offers, but as things continue to get worse, they will seriously start considering it. And when we do arrive, we will immediately be on the chopping block.

Personally, I am applying for every government job I can find. And while I am still planning on taking the NY bar, I will seriously be considering any offers.

197: semi-monthly assumes a paycheck received in January. SS phases out at around $105k. Annual gives you a more accurate picture when determining how much money is earned in a year. However, you are correct on health care. It is debatable whether 401k contributions should be made when you have 8.25% loans or if you should wait to pay those off before enrolling in your 401k.

shiTTTy firms like Luce Forward do shiTTTy things, like this.

Anyone disagreeing with 167's math. I believe his (I assume his, since he used numbers) point is that after two years you should be basically out of law school debt. Regardless of whether you "took home" 90K or 100K, you still COULD have paid off your debts. Instead, you chose to live in a swanky 1BR NYC apt for 4K thinking you were a big time lawyer, or you spent too much on designer clothes, food, alcohol, etc. Bottom line: two years at big law and you should have 30K in your 401k, no debt, and a good amount saved up in your eventual "down payment" fund for year four or five.

197, the semi-monthly pay is lower because the social security withholding is only at the beginning of the year. That stops about two third of the way through the year. Your total annual take-home pay is still $97k. Why should the way you're paid change how much you get? Think about it.
You = EPIC FAIL at tax law, don't even bother trying.

Nobody forced you to contribute to a 401(k). You asked about how to get $100k in take-home pay. You can always choose to get less but that's your prerogative.

Sorry that your TTT firm doesn't pay for your health insurance and charges you $500 a month for it.

Since you're trying so hard to be realistic, why don't you add in the $17.5k of bonus and the $5k of tax refunds and tell me what your take home pay should be.

203--I wonder what you'll be saying 2 or 3 months from now when your revered v50 firms are doing the same thing. Luce is showing a little cutting-edge foresight here.

200 = SUPERDUPER EPIC FAIL at math. The frequency of how you're paid does not change what your annual take home pay (whether it is $90k or $100k) is out of $160k of gross income. Think about it real hard.

163 here, 195 you're right. I was lazy as hell in college. I'm just bitter at myself for not working harder as an undergrad, and everyone who did work hard enough to get into HLS deserved to get in. I don't quite get why you need take a dig at me -- I'll be the first to admit that I was an idiot for not working harder. I was not surprised at all to not get into any top schools.

I got a 3.04 in UG because I went to a top 40 school with a great football program and live frat scene (yeah college woohoo yay). 195 called it correctly, I was in a fraternity and that lifestyle certainly was a distraction. But I made the choice to not study harder, I'm not complaining. I had a great time in college.

I got into a T2 law school on a full-ride, have no debt, and am working for a mid-law firm for $90,000 a year doing doc review as a 1st yr. But I attribute that more to luck than to merit.

Oh, well, if 201's contact high up on the "corporate ladder" says something about the economy, it MUST be so.

Unless your contact is God, your contact's "opinion" is no better than that of anyone else "high up in the corporate ladder" and less useful than the opinion of an actual economist.

Enough with the after-tax, take-home pay, budget bullshit. Go wank around on Suze Orman's site if retirement planning and loan repayment are so interesting for you.

Dear 200, if you're going to be a condescending prick at least try to be correct, or you look like an even bigger douche than you already would have. In the "real world" of top firms, we get paid "semi-monthly," i.e., twice a month (24 pay checks a year). Maybe you're an idiot who doesn't know the difference between "bi monthly" and "semi monthly." "Jesus fucking christ...I swear to Jesus if the LSAT had a vocabulary section we'd have ten law schools blah blah blah."

We do not get paid "BI FUCKING WEEKLY," i.e., every two weeks (26 pay checks a year).

In any case, though it's apparently shocking to you given your absurd (and misplaced) outrage, the numbers you get by running it "bi-weekly" as opposed to semi-monthly are virtually identical (both $84k and change).

Your pal,
188

Why didn't this firm just accept the inevitable and declare bankruptcy, which it will have to do anyway in a few months? Better that than to establish that canning 3Ls is acceptable.

It's amazing how bad lawyers are at math and tax law. You're taxed on your annual income. Why does your post-tax income change if you get $160k in a lump sum versus in 24 or 26 installments? Hilarious.

Just imagine that we're trying to make things simple, and pretending that the installments are combined for the year in determining your ANNUAL TAKE HOME PAY.

Hear hear, 210. I don't give a flying rat's ass about these two pricks and their budget plans.

201=alarmist. Get some historical perspective big guy!

205, you and I have no idea what algorithms are buried in "paycheckcity.com"'s code. That's what determines the numbers it spits back at you given the inputs. Have you subpoenaed the folks over at that website to find out if your social security withholding theory is correct or are you just speculating? This has absolutely nothing to do with understanding tax law.

Has anyone of heard any cases involving situations like this? When law students have sued law firms after being let go?
-Luce 3L

WTF?! Tax law? Get off this thread, dickweeds.

WTF?! Tax law? Get off this thread, dickweeds.

I believe the main point is that spending six figures on a T3 like UPenn State is a foolish investment.

216, social security is only withheld on the first $105k or so. That's why you only pay $6.3k a year instead of 6.2% of $160k. This is the law and I don't need to subpoena paycheckcity.com to learn that their annual numbers are correct. And that you can't just multiply their semi-monthly figure by 24. Like I said, don't even both trying.

If you recall, Luce was one of the first firms to ditch the lock-step model for compensating associates in favor of a merit-based system. Many firms subsequently followed suit. They are not stupid. They apparently saw that the economy was not going to turn around in 2009. So why bring in a first year class so that you can lay them off? Ditto for the summer class.

I agree with 60. It's a rationale, market-driven play.

217, I do recall my contracts professor in law school using this as a hypo (the obvious answer being that you have zero case).

I wonder if any of those 3L's had 2L summer associate offers that they turned down to go to Luce.

217/Luce 3L - you don't stand an snowball's chance in hell. Your employment was at-will, and you'll never, ever, ever prove damages. Might want to refresh yourself on contracts before taking that bar exam thingy.

My advice to 3Ls at firms that reimburse for bar bri, pay and get that stuff reimbursed soon... who knows how long we will have our offers for.

Please read 214's post before hitting "post comment." Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, 222, our first Luce partner, has entered the conversation.

Luce 3L, are you seriously considering bringing a lawsuit? I feel sorry for you that you lost your job, but if you're that big an idiot, Luce may have made the right decision to can you. Three words you may hear a lot: "Motion To Dismiss."

205/law student: every firm (in fact, every employer, pretty much) requires employees who opt for health care to pay for a small fraction of it. My wife and I both work at top firms ("V10" to you, law student); both require varying amounts of paycheck deduction depending on what plan you choose. I've never heard of a firm where the partnership simply comps 100% of every employee's (and every employee's family's) health care plan. That would be ridiculous.

230: Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson is one. It is unusual, but not unprecedented or "ridiculous"

Contingency fee+ judge who hates big firms....hmmm

Hi 222/Luce Partner. You did lay off your first year class, remember?

230, I work at a law firm and my health insurance is free. It's $200/month for every dependent I add.

Plenty of non-law employers, and some law ones, provide free health insurance. Have you been even following national news for the past ten years, about how more employers should be forced to do so?
Your firm is greedy and you apparently believe that the alternative is ridiculous. Sorry to hear that.

You also don't have to be rude about it as you will only make a fool of yourself.

"I get free health care."
"I work in New York, where it's super-duper expensive."
"I pay lots in taxes."

Blah, blah, blah, wrong thread. Go somewhere else.

188- Throw in NYC rents @2-3k/month if you're lucky and things really suck.

Why didn't this firm just accept the inevitable and declare bankruptcy, which it will have to do anyway in a few months? Better that than to establish that canning 3Ls is acceptable.

232 The analysis is binding arbitation + big SD law firm = get your yellow pages out, because no plaintiff's lawyer is gonna touch your case.

No, 229. 206 is the first Luce partner.

Your both wrong. 62 was the first Luce partner.

California's economic growth the last ten or twenty years has been driven by people selling each other houses, insurance, &C while businesses have been slowly leaving.

No suprise that the law firms in CA shufflling all that paper and helping the remaining businesses sue/canibalize each are heading towards the garbage heap.

All three of you are wrong. 10 was the first Luce partner.

Why are you all assuming that 3L's will be unable to prove reliance-induced losses? What if one is able to demonstrate that, subsequent to accepting their full-time offer, they turned down another job.

This person will have (1) relied on a promise, (2) to their detriment, and (3) will have suffered a concrete injury equal to the amount they could have earned at that other job.

Hmm. Perhaps they shouldn't have been participating in the OCI process if the firm was not strong enough to support a summer program. Also, how about some accountability? Law schools should ban firms who pull this kind of crap from their OCI programs

Scared 3L - the reason you have no case is because working at a law firm is not like building a house, for example. If you are hired to build a house and the owner breaches, you are at least entitled to reliance damages.

But you weren't hired to build a house, you were hired to work at a law firm in an at-will position. That means you can be terminated at any time - which means you have NO RELIANCE DAMAGES because there is NO REASONABLE RELIANCE IN AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT. I hope for your sake you're taking BarBri, because your contracts professor taught you nothing.

I don't care whether one offer letter stipulated that my employment is "at will". I was assured by dozens of lawyers (some of them partners) at the firm that I would have a job. How is it not reasonable for a fucking LAW STUDENT to rely on that?

But for the numerous representations made, I would not have accepted the offer, and would have another job lined up.

On another note, I agree with 244 that law schools should ban any firm who cancels a summer program 6 months after they recruited 2L's! These firms are such bad fucking managers its unbelievable.

208 - 195 here - I'm a bitter lawyer. Give it a couple years and you'll understand.

Scared 3L, are you really a Luce 08 summer? Sorry, if so. Those bastards really screwed you guys. Are they still paying for your bar prep and exam (or even stipend, though I highly doubt that) by any chance?

Jesus, 3L, have you gone to law school? Again, I refer you to you contracts class and the parole evidence rule. Your offer letter manifested the complete terms of your offer, and oral evidence (your conversations with partners) is inadmissible as evidence that the material terms of the contract were changed (i.e., that you could rely on continued employment ). Thus, you lose.

Does it suck? Yes. Are Luce partners dicks and liars? Apparently so. Nonetheless, you can't win, and you had best study. I knew better students than you that failed the CA bar.

3L, 249 here. I empathize with you, but it doesn't look like legal action is your ticket out of this mess. They fucked you and they're going to get away with it. But you can do your best to disgrace their name going forward. When (if?) the economy picks back, people will remember this. Of course that only matters if Luce exists 6 months from now.

Oh, and 3L, don't get any bright ideas about fraud in the inducement, either. You have to allege fraud with greater specificity, and you'll never prove that they hired you knowing they would have to fire you. You'll get "failure to state a claim"-ed faster than you can say "Luce sucks."

I really don't think it will matter if people remember or not. Most firms will have done something like this before this bloodbath is over. In fact, rumor has it that Luce wasn't the first to rescind 3-L offers (that is completely fourth-hand, and I'd like to know if it's true.) And no, I'm not a Luce partner.

-206 (Pessimistic Big Law Associate)

@Scared 3L:

As for reliance damages, I can see that maybe some things may be recoverable, but probably not promised salary. For example, if the firm said it would pay for your move and only through this one company (which charges a fortune), which moves you, and now the firm won't pay, I can see possibly asking for moving costs (minus what moving fees would have cost had you moved yourself, found a more reasonable moving company). But are you willing to pay a lawyer to get those costs back? Anyhow, you probably haven't moved yet.

In addition, even if you had a claim for salary, I think generally people are responsible for mitigating damages; i.e., looking for another job.

Take time before school ends to try and look for something else. A lot of people I know had to widen their search to another city or even another state (which when it comes to deciding where to take the bar may pose a headache). Some people I know have to retake the bar exam in another state.

I feel that the people who will ultimately suffer are those who don't have great credentials (low-ranked law schools, etc.) because people like you will be taking their jobs from mid- and small-sized firms. Just get used to idea that you'll most likely be making less than what you thought.

Dude, enough with the barbri tort and civ pro lessons.

Just FYI, I was not a victim of the Luce Forward 3L massacre. I am going to a v50, and this news scares the shit out of me.

May g-d help us all.

Hell I'm headed to a V10 and I'M scared.

Amen, 3L.

I am a 3L with a rescinded job offer and I can show that I had guaranteed employment which I rejected to accept the offer at my firm. The salary at the other job is lockstep. Do I have a case?

259 - Only if you can somehow get over the at-will employment hump. It'll take a miracle to show that you reasonably relied (in the legal sense) on continued employment. But if you have something up your sleeve, go for it.

Indeed, 260. That's why all the notices the firms are sending out make clear that the layoffs are for economic reasons. It shields them from a lot of liability, and puts a damper on wrongful termination/EEOC cases.

I'm scared

Sorry, 255, I made relevant legal comments on a law website. Shame on me, I humbly beg your forgiveness.

Oooo, Iron Chef Battle Chocolate is on. I can watch people make food I can no longer afford. What a country!

What are these people expected to do about their student loans? This isn't just about living a lavish lifestyle. These people worked hard to get a good job and they are now screwed. Are law schools going to forgive some debt?

259,

No.

Don't go to law school!

This is seriously a shame

265 - not f'n likely. If we all pray really hard, the government might step in and help when student loans become as toxic as mortgages. Don't count on it.

The thing with all those reliance ideas is that the standard is "reasonably relied." Unreasonable reliance never gets compensated on any facts.

It's more or less not reasonable to assume you are getting anything out of an at-will position in most circumstances. It sucks and it is illogical, but that's the way the law comes down - largely thanks to the efforts of people like us. Same with those binding arbitration agreements. We did a good job putting those together, now didn't we?

Also, sadly, a law student that was "sophisticated" enough to get into a selective firm is probably going to be held to a pretty high standard in any inquiry as to what was reasonable for them. You knew the job was at-will and you knew what at-will meant. You therefore made all of your decisions re: relocating and other such things with the idea that the job was at-will in mind.

those in the know, know that you dont live in NYC... go live in Hoboken or something... you will avoid the NYC tax and get cheaper rent...all with a 10-20 min commute time

Btw, the person doing all the tax numbers: Austin 3:16 says that you just whipped that guy's *ss

The major problem here is that the people who worked hard and interviewed for these jobs put their faith in the system and took out huge amounts of debt to get to where they are. Congress should stop bailing out banks and start bailing out these future leaders. We need to put some pressure on our representatives to do something about this!

We need more articles like the ones ATL used to have http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/sally_struthers_asks_what_abou_1.php

Firms are not hurting. PPP are down from last year but SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than five or ten years ago. The layoffs are in some cases, firms taking advantage of a lousy economy to increase ppp. It is shortsighted and immoral. ATL should call firms out on this.

I used to work at Luce. Left a while back voluntarily for non-BigLaw position. Luce failed b/c it lost most of its corporate attorneys to Duane Morris a few years back. Most firms are lead by the corporate attorneys and the work that is thrown off to other practice groups - litigation, IP, etc. Luce did OK for a while due to the booming real estate market. Now that real estate has tanked - they have no work [other than insurance defense work].

Most of the attorneys at Luce could have gone to BiggerLaw, but chose a smaller shop with less hours in exchange for less pay. Good people at this firm, but VERY HORRIBLE management for the last several years.

Who is g-d?

is it worth paying off debt? i got about 100k, most at 3.25% and some at 4.5% and some at 5.75%, payment of about $700. If over the next 20 years, we hit a period of significant inflation, this debt would be wiped out. Is it worthwhile to just make the minimum monthly payment since it is at such a low interest rate?

It doesn't matter what the law is... generally speaking, lawyers who sue law firms don't find new employment at other law firms.

276, yes. Make the minimum payment. Even in this market you can find safe long-term bond and bond-derivative investments that will pay better than your aggregate interest rate as long as you lock the money up for 5-15 years.

Why do folks on this board confuse "rational" with "rationale?"

250--

You're discussion of the application of the parol evidence rule in the context of construing the terms of an offer is, how shall I say, interesting.

My fellow Americans, change is coming to America. It's true that things will get worse before they get better, but nothing good comes without hard work.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I think you for your sacrifices, and I look forward to your future contributions as productive lawyers.

Together, we can make it happen. Yes, we can. Yes, we will.

Believe in change, and change will come.

=======================================
NOTICE: I AM NOT REALLY OBAMA. THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REAL OBAMA, HIS ADMINISTRATION, OR HIS AFFILIATES.
=======================================

Good grief - you are all complaining bastards. Wake up and smell what the Rock is cookin'. I am not a law student, nor involved in the law field. Go cry to some poor dude with a family of 4 making 60k who just got laid off. The economy will eventually turn around and soon enough you will 'feel' important again makin your big bucks. When the economy turns around you will tell your 'oh poor me' story and laugh your ass off in about 5 years and be annoying to everyone around you. now... go snort the last of your big dollars up your nose before you have to turn to 7-11 for comfort in a big gulp slurpee and a side of nachos when you only have 5 bucks for lunch. jalepenos may cost extra by then...

You're not welcome here, 281. Get out while you can.

274--

Why hasn't Luce Forward closed shop yet? What is the point in dragging out the inevitable?

Sorry to read about this. But, honestly, I wish my firm would shut down its summer program and withdraw offers to incoming first years rather than lay off partners and associates with solid track records

284 - I second that.

281 is right. Sorry that most of you are coming on "line" when things are turning bad. You'll survive with your education and career when things turn around. Go find something else to do to pay the bills until then. It's what your grandparents did during the last depression.

286 - My Grandparents fought, and 1 died, in WWII, in order to end the last Depression. Is that your suggestion for ending this one? Because Jason Voorhees would love love love a WWIII.

Luce 3L here. I think the worst part is that they rescinded the offers in the middle of February giving us NO shot at finding another job until after we take the bar. And oh yeah... they reneged on their agreement to pay our bar and barbri fees and our summer stipend. I'm not saying that any of us are entitled to a job with them... but we did really get screwed here.

I feel for you Luce 3L. This was something that was foreseeable. They should have definitely let you guys know to start looking ahead of time or to explore your opportunities.

I was supposed to be a Luce 2L, and I wish they had just decided to opt out of OCI. I canceled other opportunities for them and am now growing increasingly regretful with each passing day. Other firms like Nixon could foresee this, why couldn't Luce?

I used to work at Luce. It used to be a high quality firm with high quality people. Over the last few years I have watched it decay into a vortex of mediocrity thanks to a few immoral greed-blinded weasels. Most of the attorneys at Luce are quality people, so it is truly sad to see over 100 years of quality law firm tradition go up in smoke due to a few ego-tripping scum bags to the third power.

Have a nice day!

The People rest their case, your Honor.

288,

If it makes you feel any better, you wouldn't have fared any better had they done this in September.