You only made it through 2 sentences before missing a word:

"The ten people represents about 15% of Paul Hastings' associates in Atlanta, ACCORDING MANY TIPSTERS and the latest NALP figures. "

expect big layoffs later this week at other firms - biglaw grew way too much and now needs to rightsize

good luck to all

This blog is getting more depressing by the day, ugh. Good work Elie, I'll forgive the typos (they're not going anywhere folks) so long as you keep reporting these "performance based" terminations - Paul HasTTTings to the list of shame. Seriously, the job market sucks bad enough on its own right now, is it really necessary to put the black-mark on your ex-associates?

Nervous in Midlaw

2 get a life. You should be/were in/will be in the next wave of lay offs since you seem to have nothing better to do than catch typos on a blog. Go bill some hours. Elie is not publishing a NY Times article (which do have typos on occasion) or writing a Supreme Court brief. He is breaking news on a blog. CNN's website is littered with typos because of how quickly the news is transmitted. Seriously, get a life.

And 2 - might help to get laid. Might relieve the tension. Sorry if this comment is strike worthy. Dude needs to loosen up and get off it. Seriously.

"The ten people REPRESENTS about 15% of Paul Hastings' associates" should be "The ten people REPRESENT about 15% of Paul Hastings' associates"

Sorry it took me a minute, but I was getting laid while billing a ton of hours for my firm.

-2

Hi kids. Grumpy partner here. Gather 'round and let me give you some bad news.
Basically, 3 has it right. Whether the layoffs occur next week or next month or whatever, they will come. The big firm model many of us have gotten fat off of is dead. The news of layoffs is just the stench from the rotting carcass.
True, some big firms will survive. There will always be a need for a Cravath or a Wachtell and a number of the big firms. But by the time this all shakes out and the economy gets better, Big Law will have shrunk by about 50-60%. And that includes partners. There simply isn't enough work to keep the others afloat.
One last unpleasant thought. The economy will get worse before it gets better. A lot worse. Don't look for improvements until 2010. If then. And until then, good luck to you all.

5, I can see a typo, but forgetting an entire word is NOT a typo. A typo is when your fingers get it wrong. When your brain actually thinks it sounds right to say "according many tipsters," you have bigger problems than thick fingers. On the other hand, maybe his omission was the result of editing and accidentally cutting out one word too many. That doesn't support your contention that the "typo" is due to the speed of Elie's news, though.

hahahahaha AHHAHAHAHAAHHA

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CLAUDIO?

THAT HLS IDIOT WHO GOT ARRESTED?

HA HA HA AHAHAHAH AHAH AHAH AHHAAHA

HE WENT TO JAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love the predictions about how long the economy will suck (e.g., 8.) If anyone knows anything about how this will all play out, it certainly is not a law firm partner (yeah, right.) Lawyers are notoriously bad at finance or anything else resembling business.

It's not like this is the first time Paul Hastings has tried to cover up lay offs by saying that they are performance based. If only more associates had the nerve to speak up, perhaps firms would be more honest.

We all know Paul Hastings started stealth layoffs a long time ago April 2008). Did you really think they would change?
/
/
/
[T]he former associate, Shinyung Oh (University of Chicago ’93, Georgetown Law ’98), a commercial litigation lawyer.... says she sent the now-infamous email because she didn’t want other associates who may be laid off because of downsizing by the firm – but told it is because of their performance – to doubt their own abilities.

“I want them to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons” and because of a “desire to increase partner profits,” she said.

6, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I love it when people have no better insult than to say, "You need to get laid."

HA HA HA HA AHA HA AH AH AH AH AH AH AH A

6, you sound rather tense yourself. You need to get laid.

HA HA HA HA HA HAH AH H A

People are such idiots when they think this recession will change the law industry for good and permanently end the biglaw model.

Recessions are part of the business cycle. Our current financial situation is nothing new.

Get the fuck over yourself.

PAUL HASTINGS:

Poor
Associates
Under
Leveraged

Hourly
Associates
Stink
Today
Indeed
Never
Going
Solo

Paul HasTTTings

9 wrote - "On the other hand, maybe his omission was the result of editing and accidentally cutting out one word too many. That doesn't support your contention that the "typo" is due to the speed of Elie's news, though."

I wasn't making a "contention." It was a COMMENT. Have you forgotten how to talk like a human being?

Here's your same two sentences spoken like a non-DB lawyer for your edification:

Maybe during editing he left off a word, which really isn't a typo.

Seriously, dude. Don't know what your deal is, but a typo can be leaving out a word. That often happens when you're in a rush. You write assuming the word is there and don't look back. What are we even discussing here. Forget I said anything. Keep writing comments refuting the ill supported "contentions" made on a legal blog and keep polluting briefs with your awesome lawyer speak.

2/10 - Good come back. My second comment was not meant to be an insult. Just an observation. Little people like you that dwell on little things deserve little more.

I don't understand why everyone makes such a big deal about whether firings were performance or economic based. If a firm wants to fire 15 people, logically they are going to fire 15 who are either poor performers, low billers (a proxy for low motivation) or who don't have a future with the firm. They certainly aren't going to fire the star associates who have might have partner potential. Being laid off for "Economic reasons" just means you weren't good enough for them to keep when things got tough.

2 and other spell checkers/Elie haters: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE STRESS!

See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28900351/

Third-Year Harvard Law School Student Arrested After Allegedly Threatening Boston Police Officers
Published On Monday, February 02, 2009 12:43 AM
By MARIANNA N TISHCHENKO
Crimson Staff Writer

ARTICLE TOOLS:
>E-mail this Article
>Share on Facebook
>Printer Friendly Version
>Listen to this article
>Download MP3
>Write a Letter to the Editor
A Harvard Law School student was arrested on Jan. 24 after he allegedly threatened Boston Police Department officers and resisted arrest.

Charles C. Simpkins, a third-year law student has been charged with two counts, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, according to Jake Wark, press secretary for the Suffolk County District Attorney.

According to the police report, Simpkins drunkenly stumbled out of a bar in Boston’s Theater District and entered a parked BPD cruiser.

Simpkins told officers, “Give me a (expletive) ride, I work for the district attorney’s office,” later adding that he would be willing to “lie and cheat” in order to ruin them.

Simpkins had been working as an intern at the Dorchester District Courthouse since September 2007.

The DA terminated Simpkins’ internship on Jan. 26, the Monday after prosecutors learned of his arrest.

“Particularly disturbing was the fact that [Simpkins] said that he worked at the district attorney’s office,” Wark said.

Simpkins was brought to court for his arraignment Jan. 26.

Due to the fact that Simpkins’ former position as an intern might present a conflict of interest for any Suffolk County prosecutor, the judge has delayed the arraignment until Feb. 26, according to Wark. The order is intended to allow for the appointment of a prosecutor not affiliated with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.

According to Massachusetts general law, each of Simpkins’ alleged offenses are punishable by a fine or imprisonment for no more than six months, or both.

Administrators at Harvard Law School declined to comment on Simpkins’ case on Friday afternoon.

19 - What you wrote may be true on average, but not always true for individual cases. For example, two equally-talented associates (call them A and B) working on two complicated cases, one case settled and the other one didn't. The associates whose case settled (Associate A) is laid off because he is no longer billing enough hours. In this economy, there are lots of Associate A around and potential employers understand that and will give Associate A the benefit of the doubt; but if the law firm never announced a layoff, Associate A may not get that benefit.

19 - What we're dealing with here is unprecedented in our life time (don't know if you're old, but I'm assuming based on what you've said that you are). This isn't some "slowing period." This is a serious global economic crisis that won't be remedied in a short time, but could take years. Even super stars become susceptible at times like these. Satellite super stars are treated differently, super stars in slow practice groups are being cut, associates that might develop into super stars aren't given that chance. Recruiters are universally saying that there is a glut of year 2-5 associates. At 2-5 you're a little to senior to be the cheapest labor (first year and incomings kill you there), but aren't senior enough to be considered a permanent or retainable asset.

Sure the distinction might not be as meaningful given that there are about a 100 associates for every 1 opening right now, but to people recently released it is significant. The mean spirited nature of the people posting here is a little disheartening. Lawyers as a crowd tend to have less heart, but comments like yours are not productive. To those out there who've lost their jobs today or in previous weeks. Good luck to you. Hopefully your firms treated you with more respect than Paul Hastings or posters like 19.

17:

(1) u r wrong. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=typo (maybe it was just a typo on your part?)

(2) u seriously think "contention" is legal speak? there is a big difference between a "comment" and a "contention." since when does speaking like an adult make something legal speak?

Paul WHOstings?

Paul HasTTTTTTTTings

While interviewing this summer, two of the first-years in California actually BRAGGED to me about having NOTHING to do and just sitting in the office every day until 6 pm and going home...

They were already at the bottom of my list, but that dropped them off of it.

This firm is fast becoming the new Cadwalader.

5/6 et al., agreed! 2 and his (/ her) ilk is why BigLaw sucks. (Hope this makes your legal career worthwhile) Unfortunately, it's anal loosers and mutes like 2 that are probably safe from layoffs, although in reality they add 0 value

Really??? I find it hard to believe that a full 15% of the Atlanta office had miscarriages!

PAUL HASTINGS SOLD US OUT!

THEY SOLD US OUT!

Every firm needs to cut 50% from 2006 associate levels. It will be painful but necessary.

They didn't understand how to properly set up a ponzi scheme.

24 look back at your post and see how cluttered it is. So many extraneous words. Filling a page with words doesn't make your writing any more mature. The distinction between a comment and "contention" is obviously lost on you.

A comment is an observation. A contention is made in furtherance of an argument. I didn't make an argument in my post it was an observation about 2's seeming endless amount of time to waste on such little things as "typos" or whatever you want to call what Elie did. I wasn't arguing about whether it was a typo you were. I made a comment.

23: Bingo. While, as in all decisions like this, merit/value is considered heavily, the key points in my mind are that (1) associates who would be kept in normal to bad conditions, even if low on hours/not superstars/etc., are being let go because of the economy, so the "performance based" explanation doesn't carry water and (2) there is a level of unnecessary knife twisting vindictiveness to this that should be off putting to anybody with a trace of empathy, or, even if you're a self-absorbed jerk, should scare the crap out of you because if your last name isn't on the firm letterhead, you are expendable at some point.

Good luck to those let go, I hope you get good severance packages and while the financial implications of the situation are frightening, there is so much more to life than slaving away in Biglaw that this truly could be an opportunity to do something more fulfilling.

Right on 35! Well said.

37 is spot on.

No wonder you're all being fired. All you can talk (and taunt each other) about is typos. Get a f**king life.

35 just reinforced the fact that lay-offs are performance related. 35 admitted that those who were laid-off are "low on hours/not superstars/etc."

What a tool. Ha ha ha.

Thanks for posting something about the situation in Atlanta, Elie. Even though it's not the kind of news I'd like to hear. Please keep posting information about the Atlanta firms as you receive it -- you have a lot of regular readers down here too.

Elie Mystal is not a real name. It's a pen name.

Here's how you need to look at the situation:

Every year, law firms only keep their best employees.

If you're not among the best, but you stayed on, then you were lucky.

This year, law firms are only keeping their best employees. The number of "best" employees has been reduced due to the economy.

39/40 - 35 didn't reinforce your earlier points he/she just presented an example. 39 must not be a litigator because that is a terrible mischaracterization of what 35 said. 39/40 do comments like yours make you feel better? More secure? Validate your life choice? Otherwise why make them. These are real people and lives we're talking about here. And making people feel worse during a time of struggle is not just small it's pathetic. Disgusting stuff fellas.

did you seriously try to link to your NALP search results?

43 - Define "best" in this context. What does "best" mean to you? Is it at least possible that someone equally as good or better than another associate could get staffed on cases that just didn't have enough hours and get canned?

39/40: 35 here. While 44 pretty much said everything that needs to be said, I don't like having my words twisted (even in cyberspace) so let's play a game.

1. The economy sucks
2. Associate X at Firm X isn't busy, due largely to the economy, perhaps to a lesser extent due to Associate Y, a superstar in the same group who is getting the 2 billable hours a week that are available. Associate X is smart and hard-working, but not as good a lawyer as the equally smart/hard working Associate Y.
3. Firm X looks at its red ink stained books and decides to cut associates
4. Firm X decides to lay off Associate X. In normal to bad economic conditions, Associate X would have been retained, but this is a virtually unprecedented financial meltdown, so Associate X is laid off.
5. Firm X says Associate X was laid off due to his performance, not the economy. This is false. While it's true that Associate X may not have been as good/valuable to Firm X as Associate Y, the fact remains that the primary impetus for the lay off of Associate X was the struggling economy, not the performance of Associate X.
6. In 2 months, Associate Y will be laid off so Firm X can keep Partner Z, a non-profitable income partner who is also a member of the lucky sperm club since his dad was a founding member.

That my friend, is not a "performance based" layoff.

43: I agree with your post, but I would rephrase to say that, when the economy is good, firms get rid of their worst employees and keep everyone else but when the economy is bad, firms keep their best employees and get rid of (many of) the rest. So basically, those who are mediocre stick around when it's good but get the ax when it's bad. Sounds harsh I know, but it's life, and life's a bitch right now.

This "best employees" or performance based attrition nonsense is classic Paul Hastings rhetoric. It is part of the talking points passed out to the partners.

If 1 or 2 out of a summer class of 20 are still at the firm who does that say more about?

Yours truly,

- the corporate class of 2003-2005

It doesn't matter if you're a superstar young lawyer or not, quite frankly. When firm management sets your hourly rates so high that even the largest clients don't want to pay, you're toast. Whoever thinks clients will pay these rates in Atlanta, in this economy, ought to have their head examined -- not be running a lawfirm. Just my opinion.

50 - Great post about the realities of satellite office life. Some large firms a couple years ago decided to go with a uniform billing rate across offices. Problem is that great local firms in cities don't charge anywhere near NY rates. Partners can't bring in work because the case/deal can be handled just as competently for much less. Satellites in certain firm structures become mostly a means to service institutional clients needs in cities and rarely break into the actual local market.

48, why? Seriously. What if an office or firm is seriously struggling and the cuts go very deep? Just because someone is now laid off doesn't make them mediocre. Applying so liberally that kind of label doesn't give enough credit to the gravity of the situation we find our selves in.

Sullivan & Cromwell may have fucked its associates over by having a great year and giving shit bonuses, but at least they haven't laid anyone off yet.

47, your example is too long, so I didn't read it.

The truth of the matter is that when forced to make cuts, firms will keep their top performers. Those who were cut are obviously not the top performers.

50- hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, they can't cut the billing rates too much because they thought it would be a good idea to pay 160k in Atlanta.

47, fine, I just read your example. What you are describing is a classic performance layoff.

You admitted once again that the firm does not value the laid-off associate as much as the non-laid-off one.

Did all the Vandy 1st years survive?

Yes.

Our current financial situation is nothing new. It's part of the business cycle. We're not going to be prosperous 100% of the time.

What does this mean?

1. Stop with the self-entitled bullshit.

2. Get off your fat ass.

3. Get yourself back together.

Wow, 27. You really showed them!

DOUCHE.

A friend of a friend said they keep receiving inquires from Elie about pills that would make his cock bigger, apparently Elie sports a 3" boner when fully hard.

Back to PHJW Atlanta - Does anyone have any idea which groups were hit the hardest? Were the cuts largely made in a single group / area?

I love how easy it is to pick out the partners. It's not a fucking brief Jesus Christ 59.

Nice work 54 just go back to conclusory "make myself feel better by making other people feel worse" BS. Real grown up. Real empathetic. You're a tremendous human being. 56 - Impetus is the point. He is describing the situation we find ourselves in. The argument is that value at this point is to be understood in context. Here the impetus is the economy. Performance based lay offs would be made purely on work not external factors like the economy which are the primary drivers here.

59 - Sure we're not always going to be prosperous, but this is more than just cyclical. Dips are normal and cyclical. A bust like this is not part of a normal cycle. This was the result of numerous factors - Greenspan keeping interest rates too low for too long in response to the tech bust, greed by brokers, traders, etc. - I think we're familiar with the litany. But these actions were distortions. This isn't just merely some bump in the road. This is much more serious.

Wow, if you keep on insisting that there are significant differences between these performance-based layoffs and economic layoffs...

You need to open your eyes to the real world, buddy.

BTW, as other posters have mentioned, economic layoffs NECESSARILY entail performance layoffs. There is no getting around that.

If you need to think otherwise to make yourself feel better, then so be it. However, you still have a lot of growing up to do and a whole naive shell to shed.

9, 24. Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just finished some Marxian
historian, Pete Garrison prob'ly, and so naturally that's what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia
and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That'll last until sometime in
your second year, then you'll be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

65, we've been through financial situations of this magnitude before. It's nothing new. And believe me, there were layoffs during those previous "busts." During those busts, firms could only afford to keep their top performers.

As far as most of the working population is concerned, no, no one remembers the busts. I'm pretty confident no one practicing remembers the Depression, and some senior partners might remember 72-74 and 81-82.

This is at minimum a generational event. Jury is still out on how bad it is, mostly because we don't know how long it will last or what else will go wrong.

We will see, 69. BTW, pick up an economics or history book and you'll see what I mean. This is nothing we haven't handled before. Sure, it's gonna hurt, but we can handle it.

What happen at PH Shanghai?

I heard they got rid of half of the associates.

Who cares? We have enough of our own problems right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

66 - Or what? Is this a threat of some kind? And I'm the immature one. Not sure which poster you are directing your weird outrage on... There is a distinction whether you want to believe it or not. It's situational, contextual, whatever you want to call it. Just taking a demeaning tone doesn't add additional validity to your argument. Why do lay offs NECESSARILY entail (CAPS - good argumentative strategy here) performance based layoffs? There can be a distinction and I think 47 did a good job of demonstrating what that is. Your post didn't engage the argument just merely took an aggressive tone and made a conclusory statement. Weird stuff. Getting angry over a distinction which shouldn't matter to someone comfortably and securely employed.

The whole point is that there is a lot at play here that shouldn't be reduced to simple statements. There are a lot of factors to consider - overall condition of an office, strength of departments or particular partners, staffing on cases, etc. Simply saying only the cream of the crop survive is naive.

73,

There's no threat. I should've added a "then" after the "..." You see, the second sentence flowed from the first. I.e., if you still think ... then you need to open your eyes.

Damn! No wonder you got laid off! Stop posting your thesis papers here.

Lay-offs NECESSARILY entail performance because firms have to choose which people to get rid off. When making these decisions, the firms only keep the top performers.

Maybe everyone in the firm is "good," but even so, not everyone is a "top" performer.

You really, really, really need to:

1. Take a deep breath,

2. Relax, and

3. Grow up.

And quit bitchin' already.

- 66

70- I'm confident we can. But there were times during the Great Depression (and I'm in no way comparing our current situation to that) that many thought we wouldn't. Fear is the enemy here. This is new to this generation. Nothing since the Great Depression has been quite this large. But we'll be fine. How long until we're fine. That's the better question.

73, the reason I comment on "distinction" issue is because all of you here are giving my firm a bad name. Stop with the bullshit.

If you truly didn't care about biglaw, then you wouldn't be here spewing your disdain for biglaw attorneys.

For example, I truly don't care about being a Navy SEAL. I didn't fail the tryouts and post messages all over the Internet about how being a Navy SEAL sucks and is a big scam.

JOB POSTING

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe is seeking a mid-level associate (2-5 years) for its corporate group.

Must not have the tendency to bitch & whine if laid off.

74 - Yo Christian Bale I wasn't laid off you douche, but I love how you assume that I was. The way you wrote it was as a threat. You didn't open the second sentence properly if it was to flow from the first.

The reason I keep advancing this point is that this should be a time to show empathy to colleagues and friends not say that they must have been shit otherwise they wouldn't have been laid off. There are a lot of factors at play here that should be considered differently in any individual case.

The distinction is still there because of how performance based firings are normally made. What is considered good performance changes in this type of economic climate. The strength of a firm, office, group, partner, client suffers at a time like this. Those fed by that office, group, partner or client are necessarily affected. These things may or may not be under any particular associates control. That's all I'm saying...

79, yeah...performance metrics change all the time. Businesses that fail to change plan to fail.

People in all industries across the country are getting laid off. Why do you feel the need to bash Paul Hastings? Were you NOT given a great opportunity when you first arrived? An opportunity that paid you a salary more than most people in this world will EVER make?

76/77 (if you are the same poster): Not surprised you work at PH based on your comments, a little surprised you hold your (ex) colleagues in such low regard. You must be a joy to work with. To 77, I don't see much, if any, disdain for Biglaw attorneys here - in fact I see sympathy. I do see disdain for the partners/managers at these firms that elected to spit on attorneys who worked their tails off for them and due to a terrible financial climate were let go. Letting people go is, unfortunately, probably necessary for many firms/businesses right now. Couching it as performance based so you can tell yourself/your friends at the country club that your firm remains unbowed is garbage. I am truly glad I don't have the misfortune of working with you, because while you very well may be a good attorney, you don't seem to be a very good person. Maybe the former is more important to you, for the sake of your own happiness I hope it is.

Let's set the record straight. I never held ANYONE in low regard. What is said is that firms can only afford to keep the "top" performers.

Everyone may very well be good, but everyone cannot, by definition, be the TOP.

77 - Where is this coming from? I don't have a disdain for BigLaw attorneys, I am one. What I do have a disdain are individuals who seem to not appreciate that these are real lives we're talking about.

Clever post 74 (78) - I don't know how any of the limited things I've said can be viewed as "bitching." Don't know if other posts are being attributed to me.

82: Amen. There's probably not a BigLaw associate who has been cut who wouldn't be perfectly happy to hear: "look, dude, I fucked my first marriage and I have to pay her $12K a month. As long as I keep my girlfriend unaware of just how much I'm paying my ex, she'll stick around. Your salary and your kids college savings stand in the way of my getting laid in Barbados next week. So you are out the door, sorry." It would be honest. Something that's in short supply in these situations.

82: Amen. There's probably not a BigLaw associate who has been cut who wouldn't be perfectly happy to hear: "look, dude, I fucked my first marriage and I have to pay her $12K a month. As long as I keep my girlfriend unaware of just how much I'm paying my ex, she'll stick around. Your salary and your kids college savings stand in the way of my getting laid in Barbados next week. So you are out the door, sorry." It would be honest. Something that's in short supply in these situations.

85/86, if someone made a statement like that, then you would still be here bitching and whining just as much.

Tell me it ain't so!

87 - No, that's the whole point 85/86 is making. Honesty would go a long way here. PH should have been honest about this rather than worry about its public image. Treat it's associates with just a little more respect than that. Other firms have. The distinction between economic and performance based lay offs has been drawn by the firms. Some walk out in front of it for their associates and make public the basis for their decisions, some do not. PH didn't and its laid off associates have every right to feel a bit wronged by their firm.

89, it's always something, isn't it? Taking everything for granted and never being grateful...

This isn't a real surprise. I was a summer associate at PH in Atlanta, and there were a lot of associates expressing some reservations about their job security. Of course, they tried to sell us on the security of the firm, but I could never understand why they felt they could pay first years 160k (where the market is 145k and lower) AND charge the highest rates in the city and still be profitable?

Did first years get fired?

91 got no-offered.

Speaking as a management consultant who has had many, many people fired for efficiency reasons, anyone who says that layoffs are necessarily performance based is a douchebag and an idiot.

Yes, there is the basic point that the absolutely top performers will be held onto, for example, by transferring them to another group. After that 1-5%, though - and all laid-off associates will admit they were not in that group at their old firm, their performance reviews say as much - layoffs really are just layoffs.

If the economy were doing fine, those people would still be employed, and if another firm or region has work, they can be useful in it. That is they key point - these people were not rejected by their old firms as not good enough to do the job - and you don't need to be in the top 1-5% in your first 5 years to be a great lawyer - but the firm sends that message when it tries to pretend that it is better than it really is and does not need to make layoffs in this economy.

did the insane asylum get internet access tonight?

between the douchey "if you get laid off it is per se performance based" to "this is the Greatest Depression Evar cos I say so" posts, my head is spinning....

here is the real deal

biglaw is current too big and will shrink. it won't be by some moronic 50%, but will be far more than the modest cuts so far. my guess is we will have 10% fewer associates at the amlaw 100 by the end of the year. i also guess we will be well into a recovery by the end of the year (and no, i don't care to hear more "this will be the longest Great Depression EVAR - buy gold!" bullshit panic spewing by two inch'd pathetic poors)

94 concedes that layoffs are necessarily performance based:

"Yes, there is the basic point that the absolutely top performers will be held onto, for example, by transferring them to another group."

BINGO! Performance came into play! That means that the layoffs are performance based!

94 is not a real management consultant. The structure and use of "doche" of 94's post matches a certain other person's postings.

Saying these are performance-based at this point is silly. Everyone knows that firms are sacking people en masse, and enough have come clean about it being economic that all this shitfit will be remembered for is "oh, those were the economic downsizings."

It's actually probably a great time to get sacked for real (but not illegal) performance reasons. Blame it on stealth economic firing and move on.

Why haven't there been any posts on A&B Atlanta laying off substantially all of its first year class?

I interviewed at PH-Atlanta for a summer job this year. Thought those guys were d**ks, and now I know it is true. Glad I went somewhere else. I hope the summers who decided to go to PH are going to be ok. I bet the no-offer rate will be high.

Hey - so here's the big question.

what do jr corporate associates DO? What are the laid off ones doing (esp the very jr ones)? Ahhhhh help!!!

Because A&B DIDN'T lay off most of its 1st years.

101, they come here and BITCH AND MOAN CONSTANTLY instead of getting another job.

"Stealth" layoffs are necessary to protect the firm. They give the appearance of a sound, stable firm. An announcement of economic layoffs would be detrimental, leading to a downward spiral causing even more people to be terminated. Thank your lucky stars.

this is 101.

in all seriousness - what are these jr associates doing? anybody have any stories/evidence (anecdotes) of jr corp associates who were laid off finding jobs? obviously there's a lot of competition for any job - but just SO many.

i'm curious to know whats happening. presumably a decent amt of heller/thelen people were (hopefully) able to get jobs. that was also before the big wave of layoffs. what are the newly laid off ones' options looking like?

105, they are using this golden opportunity, which is a mixed blessing in disguise, get out of our crappy profession and pursue their true dreams and more fulfilling careers, such as teaching, firefighting, law enforcement, military, etc.

at least one PH associate transferred to LA -- not sure if this is in your "layoff" category or not but you should not report things as fact without actual facts

97,

Yes I am

-94

An earnest question from a baby lawyer to the people who believe all layoffs are performance based: what do you say to someone who was laid off/terminated at the end of their 1st year?

I joined a firm after clerking there, based on an offer made about 14 months before my start date. They never needed me to begin with, and so it was no surprise that my hours were really low, but only a little lower than the associates more senior to me. I guess you're right that I wasn't a top performer, but I was told repeatedly that I was doing everything right. Are people looking at me and thinking, "wow, he must've sucked." i was really hoping not, but it sounds like you all would be.

59: I'm not so sure this is just another bust. We haven't really seen this before.

All I wanted was a Pepsi.

109, you had a clerkship, so you're probably not a drooling idiot. You will have other opportunities, but they may not be biglaw in the short term. So focus on those. Quite frankly and without being mean, we're all trying not to end up in your situation. Listening to biglaw career advice from people here - who mostly either hate their jobs, no longer have them, or have/may not ever had them (what's up law students) - is not particularly prudent.

I think there's a fundamental difference between being laid off for performance-based reasons and being laid off during tough economic times for performing at a lower lever (especially when measured on paper) than other associates in one's firm, practice group, class, etc. When the economy eventually rebounds, firms would gladly welcome those in the later category. Therefore, I disagree with those that draw no distinction.

74 - I understand what you are saying. In a world of rational actors, the least marginally productive employee is the next one to get the axe.

In that sense, the decision to lay anyone off is always performance related. If the marginal benefit exceeded the marginal cost, the employee would not have been terminated.

However, this isn't a completely rational world. Anyone who believes that merit is solely what separates the successful from the unsuccessful is naive.

Who you know and how well you kiss ass come into play as well.

I'm surprised that no one ever seems to discuss the current lack of voluntary attrition as a rationale for a lot of the cuts. I have seen it mentioned a few times, but not nearly often enough. Law firms like to maintain a certain leverage ratio that they feel fits their business model (I'm sure most people here know what that is, but for those that don't it's the number of associates per partner). The volume and type of business the partners generate will largely dictate what the firm's leverage ratio should be. Complex and/or bet the company matters require more partner time, relatively routine work cannnot be billed out at the same rate but can be done on a large scale by hordes of associates.

In order to maintain their overall leverage ratio, keep the pyramid structure of the firm intact (with the correct number of senior associates supervising juniors), and at the same time keep the associates motivated to work hard by holding out some quasi-realistic opportunity of making partner someday (to those who want that), most of the associates in any given class have to leave the firm of their own accord. The partnership will encourage that through subtly (or not so subtly) letting people know what their long term prospects for partner are, and assuming the ones with no shot will get off the bus at some point.

The problem is that right now, no one is getting off the bus. There are no other jobs, and even if there were, slow economic times in some respects actually improve the quality of life for associates, as the hours are not quite so brutal. In order to maintain the desired leverage ratio, something on the order of 20% of each class need to leave the firm every year. If that isn't happening, the partnership is left with the option of carrying what they view as dead weight, attorneys who will never make partner and generate business (the only thing which really matters) and isn't needed to do work in the short term, or laying people off.

Biglaw isn't necessarily downsizing, they are just following the same business model they always have, only using layoffs instead of voluntarily attrition to maintain an appropriate ratio. The ones being laid off are in many cases going to be the ones they feel have no realistic opportunity to generate business for them in the long run. That may be because they are not good lawyers, because they are in a practice group which doesn't fit into the firm's long term plan, because they have made it clear that partnership is not in their long term plans, or because the partnership does not feel that their personalities are well suited to client recruitment.

Being laid off by a large law firm does not necessarily mean you are a bad lawyer, but I don't think partners are picking names out of hats either. The work you are doing for them now could be done by a lot of people and in the overall economic model of the law firm is pretty meaningless. They mostly value you because they see you as a potential income generator. Client recruitment is the only thing that really matters. If they don't think you have the potential for that, they are going to show you the door, no matter how well you brief.

I am a current federal district court clerk. I haven't even been able to get an interview. I graduated in the top 10% of my class at a top 20 law school and summered at a Vault top 5 firm. In law school, I had tons of offers for SA positions. Now I have a stack full of "despite your outstanding qualifications, considering our anticipated needs we are not in a position to invite you for an interview" letters.

116, why don't you have an outstanding offer to return to your summer firm?

114, people skills are part of one's performance.

117 - I turned it down in the fall of '07. Since I was taking a clerkship, I thought I had plenty of time. Of course, I didn't know the President was going to get up one morning and tell us that unless we give the Sec. of the Treasury a trillion dollars life as we know it in America will cease.

115 is an excellent comment. Thank you. You clearly understand the business, which many people here don't seem to quite grasp.

The ability to get and retain clients is part of performance.

Thanks 120. Took me twenty minutes to write the darn thing, glad someone noticed. I have actually never commented before. I just find some of the ideas espoused around here somewhat odd and thought I would throw my two cents in.

121, one of the problems is that getting and retaining clients is actually not part of performance for an associate. Mid level and junior associates often have very little client interaction whatsoever. What they are being judged on is potential to generate income when and if they make partner, and that is obviously a very subjective judgment. Oftentimes the people being laid off will have done everything asked of them admirably, but for whatever reason, the partnership does not feel they will be good at recruiting clients. In this environment, when they don't need you to rack up hours, if you are (in their opinion) not going to generate business at some point in the future, there is literally no reason to keep you around. That just sucks for someone who is doing everything asked of them and then is one day let go.

Presenting the appropriate appearance to superiors is part of performance.

LAST

115: Good analysis. I've been beating the "economic" drum in this thread, but your post hits a real issue (little to no exit options for associates) that, as you point out, is in many ways related to the larger economic downturn. While I still think that Biglaw is shrinking relative to past levels (to be expected in this climate - to many associates for the amount of work being generated) your analysis is correct in terms of the number/volume of the layoffs that definitely (at least for me and many of my peers) has contributed to the perception that Biglaw is a sinking ship. Well thought out and well said

122: Firms are laying off 1st years who have spent maybe four months at the firm. How is the firm supposed to accurately determine who is the future superstar? How accurately can a new associate's performance be judged based on a few months of 50-100 hours of billable work? Some new associates were assigned less than 20 hours of billables a month! Are you going to blame that associate for not being a superstar? To be a performance based termination, the associate first needs to get a chance to perform-- a chance that many new associates are not getting.

Is coming in under budget after multiple clients fired your firm because it was too expensive (after the partners raised your rates god knows how many times) a performance based issue? This is only the beginning for PH. Even with some layoffs, there is not even close to enough work for people to be billing near budget, and it is rapidly getting worse. Good luck to anyone who thinks they are coming on board.

As a BigLaw partner with plenty of business I'm not worried about laying off the help (i.e. associates). What gets my blood pumping is the idea that at long last deadwood partners are about to have their day of reckoning - and it's going to be ugly. But funny. And ultimately helpful. The enema all big firms have needed but put off for far too long is coming. Spell annual partner reviews FLEET. So stand back, because here it comes. It'll be awful to look at but we'll all feel better once the impacted waste (overpaid service partners) gets flushed out.

115 - interesting.

What about firms that have 2 partners for every 1 associate?

Geeze I wonder how many jobs in Atlanta could have been saved if they froze salaries down there for a year?

The firm could have frozen and remained undisputed market leader right?

I guess we will never know since the firm isn't experiencing any slow down in work and this was all performance based.

YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS. STOP BASHING MY FIRM.

I WILL NOT STAND TO GIVE A PIECE OF MY EQUITY TO SOME LAZY UNDER-PERFORMING PARTNER.

All of this would never have happened at Wildman Harrold.

Has anyone heard anything about the layoffs at Cahill?

This is the perfect opportunity to leave the law.

you see, i told you all, biglw is really just a bogscam, you work your butt off day in day out day and night, all yo do is bill bill bill, and look what hapened to you, in the end you still got screwwed, too bad you chose this root instead of making a beter lifetstyle decision when you gradauted, whose laughing now, huh??

Lawyers are terrible at insulting people. You make fun of their awkwardness, and they say "fail" and call your alma mater a "TTT x infinity."

Their comebacks just make themselves look even more ridiculous. Get a clue.

im glad i didnt chose biglaw, you all fell for the scam, but not me, now you se that i was the smarter one, not you, i hope you lauhg all the way to the unemploymint line!

serves you right for making fun of me a couple a years ago, ha ha ha what goes around cmoes around, you get your just deserts

dont let the door hit your ass on the way out ha ha ha

What about the Venable layoffs?

what about the scrooobius pip? now that is some literature....

Major bloodbath at PHJW in NY. In have confirmed. All affected attorneys are afraid to speak due to the waiver and release they are required to sign in order to receive severance. My source says work is dead, but layoffs are being based on "performance" - i.e., you can not perform when you have nothing to do. I am sure the same is going on in LA.

are atlanta layoffs related to immigration group leaving, or just overall slowness?

"In have confirmed"? You get set up the bomb?

What groups and years were affected at PH Atlanta?

Thanks for the Atlanta coverage Elie!

Has anyone heard about Alston & Bird? Last I heard the firm moved associate reviews up to February. Not sure if they have started yet though.

The partners at Paul Hastings must have taken the short bus to school. After getting savaged in public over layoffs last year and Oh's in particular, they still hope that anyone believes that these are really "performance based layoffs." When Paul Hastings dissolves, which is looking life a real possibility, will firm management say that they fired the whole firm for performance based reasons?

PH management has no credibility left.

131 - Your Firm sucks big time

Excellent points 147

The ship be sinking...

to the fed dist ct clerk, there are a lot of other clerks looking for jobs too, whether because they thought they had other options or their firm decided to rescind the offers. clerking hiring is dead at the moment, but be patient. you have time.

Any predictions on when we'll start seeing mass layoffs in the other PH offices? I know that there's been a slow trickle over the past 6 months, but there's still too much capacity in my office.

I've been "working" in fear of seeing the managing partner walk into my office for months now, and this makes it 100x worse.

Alston & Bird laid off at least 10 associates this past month, but I don't think that made the ATL list for some reason. They also just laid off 24 staff this past month. Is King & Spaulding going to be the only one holding pat in Atlanta I wonder?

147:

PH dissolving? Please. You are a bitter fool.

153 -- Ditto on the A&B layoffs. As I understand it they fired about 1/2 of their 1st year class. That's a bigger story than most of what's on ATL nowadays, but apparently nobody at A&B reads this place.

Meanwhile... anybody from ATL, was anybody from DNA 2008 affected? You know what I'm asking.

Are BK clerks getting any love from this job market?

I totally forgot about PH's attempt to silence fired associates. Maybe Elie could do a post on this??? Seems very relevant. Have any other fired PH associates refused the deal? Do other firms do this?

Why would a firm like PH employ people they consider poor performers even in a good economy? That doesn't make sense.

Presumably, everyone working there is either too new to have been effectively judged, or had been found to be at least competent prior to being laid off. It's one thing to assert that they kept those they considered "the best" for whatever reason; it's another thing to assert that they those laid off were actually poor performers; because if they were poor performers, how had they managed to remain employed in an environment as competitive, selective and demanding as a large law firm in the first place?

157 - Yes, non-disclosure language is standard/market in severance agreements. Don't beat up on PH more than they deserve (and get back to outlining for Crim).

I love the hysteria this site intentionally creates!
If a firm like Paul Hastings fires 10 people at an office, you write it up as 15%. But if a firm like MoFo fires 50 people (much less than 15%), you write it up as 50 people.
Excellent use of statistics!!!!!
It makes me so happy to read this site and think about the number of people who shit their pants because of it.
Way to create hysteria!!!
(on second thought, maybe you should think about trying the reverse of this in order to help people calm the fuck down)

@ 37. Agreed.

PHJW is not going to go under. They are doing pretty darn well by any metric. They are ruthless about firing excess capacity, and it has happened in every office. Their severance package has a nondisclosure agreement built in, so those who leave are supposed to keep their mouths shut in order to maintain appearances. 15 associates in any given office is a pimple on the butt of a 1300 lawyer firm.

PH's fiscal year end was last week -- did they really take a look at the final bottom line and come up with layoffs within a few days? Associates haven't even had their reviews for 2008 yet, how would they have performance based layoffs?

The fiscal year was "supposed" to end last week. PHJW has a rather original interpretation of the close of a fiscal year,

152 - the stealth layoffs began last year and are likely to continue. from what i hear about the international offices, pretty massive by all accounts.

152 - the stealth layoffs began last year and are likely to continue. from what i hear about the international offices, pretty massive by all accounts.

Paul Hastings, like DLA, is simply not the type of firm that can support the number of attorneys and offices in this economy. They will shed 50% by end of '09 or they will go under.

Severence agreement nondisclosure clauses notwithstanding, expect to hear of similar layoffs every month from PH for the remainder of the year. Any bets on which office is next up?

PH partners are also being sent packing, but that is much quieter than associate layoffs.

168 - What office(s)? A few associates have been cut where I am, but no partners (at least no evidence of any).

158 - Finally someone effectively dispelled all of this "the top performers get retained and the shitty people get let go" nonsense!

If the people being ostensibly laid off for "perforamce issues" really were shitty, they would have been fired long ago. It is downright reprehensible for firms to tank the reputation of hardworking competent people who they've just thrown out on the street!

I do agree with other posters that everyone in BigLaw should use the downturn as opportunity to escape if they can. The entire ship is sinking indeed.

If you are a partner at PH and only have one client, you might want to get that resume cleaned up. Oh wait, there is nothing to put on it, never mind.

166:
Having worked in two PH foreign offices (because they were so busy), I highly doubt there have been massive layoffs.
167:
Shedding 50% is laughable.

The firm is having a better year that Latham and many others. Suck it.

Sutherland laid off attorneys and staff last week.

172: This downturn is young, and PH added a lot of capacity over the boom. They already cut 15% from one office, so the notion of reaching 50% is not farfetched. When partners who do nothing but bill 8 hours a day to 'client development' with no business to show for it hang on, associates must go. Partners like that, and the legions of underemployed associates will/are making up the bulk of the reductions.

PH will lose 50% in '09, you can bank on it. If they don't, they will lose 100% becuase they will be gone.

116

something similar happened to me during my federal clerkship last year (by the way I don't think you should blame it on the stimulus plan).

I never got a biglaw gig. I'm working for the government and I love it! it was a blessing in disguise.

The LA Office of Paul Hastings also did stealth layoffs of 1st years after the 1st years found out they passed the CA Bar back in November. I feel sad for the 1st years.

I assumed the A&B rumors were false because the biggest idiot I know and most obnoxious person I know are both first year at A&B and both still on the website.

157, McDermott is doing it as part of the pink slip process.

176: There were no "stealth layoffs" of first years at the PH L.A. office. The one first year who is no longer at PH was justly terminated for cause (and incidentally was fired from the busiest department in the firm). No first years were in danger of lay-offs due to market conditions. Despite news from the Atlanta office, PH still seems to be in a relatively better position than most BigLaw firms these days, in terms of both the quantity and quality of work available to junior associates.

174 - Please tell me that your comments are the result of your slipshod diligence rather than reflective of your elementary math skills...either way, you lose. Earlier comments point out that this was probably 10 associates (not good), i.e., 15% of a given practice group in a given office (maybe). Earlier comments also point out that PH probably has on the order of 1300 attorneys (so, what, 900 associates?). Those layoffs constitute about 1.1% of all associates, Einstein. I hate layoffs (in any form) as much as the next person, but please, let's keep this in perspective and not freak out because your roommate's girlfriend's brother who works in the same building as a BigLaw firm saw two associates leaving before 5 p.m. on a Thursday...must have been fired, no doubt.

190:

Totally agree. The logic of ten people being let go today translating into 650 being let go tomorrow is comical when it isn't just plain sad)

New York Layoffs last week of February.

Your heard it here first.

- 182!

172 - when did you work in the international offices? business dropped off dramatically by the middle of 2008. the massive layoffs commenced (stealthily) in the 3rd quarter, increased dramatically in the 4th, and will probably continue.

there will always be pockets of activity in any firm. you may be lucky enough to be in one of the busier areas.

and yes, PH will have a good year relative to other firms in 2008. but just as CFOs at public companies manage (manipulate) their reported earnings to Street expectations every quarter, so have Seth and Greg.

defenders of PH, so brainwashed.

184: either that or actual employees who know what is really going on rather than bandwagon claimjumpers who just want to spur on the fanaticism. One of the two

180 & 181 -- I'll meet you back here in December and we'll see. Whoops, forgot to trim my dingleberries this morning, gotta run since there is no work to do here.

Atlanta: A&B, Sutherland, Kilpatrick, AGG, PH -- large associate layoffs, mostly under the radar. Finally confirmed in yesterday's FCDR, though the managing partners refuse to release figures.

Is PH a major player in CA?

Not anymore.

Are the PH partners still planning to party in Carlsbad next week at their big retreat? Maybe the cameras will find them.

Hell yea the partners are going to Carlsbad. The sad new is that they can only pick one spa activity a day. Drinks by the pool are still free.

Just heard from an insider...next round of PHJW cuts coming soon. However, they are reverting back to the "performance" model.