first to say first.

Hofstra Pride, Bitches!

Hofstrass Plobster

Interesting, but I can't say that I understand exactly what this post is reporting. And what is the meaning of the little interjection about K&E?

So, is SRZ laying people off without severance or just business as usual, by letting people stick around for a few months?

Krikland's layoffs were plainly the result of econcomics, not performance. Kirkland, like the other Chicago firms that are its peers (Mayer, Jenner, etc.) is suffering badly in this market. It is likely that we will see further layoffs from all of these Chicago firms.

Didn't freeze salaries, no major lay offs, gave out market bonuses, PPP well over 2mil. SRZ is on the rise in this shaky economy.

first to say first.

They must of had layoffs. They are just not coming clean.

6, You are a deluded troll. SRZ is simply the worst firm in the V100, in just about every respect. Terrible to work for and terrible to work with. And their lay-offs seem scummier than just about any I've heard of. Get your heard out of your ass.

Wow, if that many people are departing voluntarily in this economy, that firm must REALLY suck.

Four associates at K&E NY got pushed out because of performance reviews that one anonymous person at K&E (presumably one of the associates who got a bad performance review) described as "market-boosted" and you run with the story that Kirkland is doing layoffs? Really?

do firms no offer 1L’s?

*nervously worries about my job while trying to pay attention in class*

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa

9 either got laid off from SRZ or didnt get an offer to work there. Pretty obvious.

layoffs have been happening at SRZ for quite some time. and first years havent been spared. HTFH YOU TTTSEFs

hey nervous 1L sa, good luck getting a new profile name such as "nervous 1L sa" or "nervous 2L". you are finished.

Gilroy

How long is SRZ's summer program this summer? Are they cutting down to 8 weeks?

Kirkland has had layoffs. No doubt about it. Only difference is that Kirkland management is still living in the 90s and thinking that they can blame it on performance. We will probably see more "performance based" layoffs from Kirkland in the future. The only question is whether Kirkland management will finally recognize that times have changed and come clean.

A word to people considering Kirkland: do you want to work for a firm that tries to disguise layoffs as performance based, rather than taking the straightforward approach?

Schulte Roth & Zabel =TTT

If they cannot cop to economic layoffs amongst staff, then they probably cannot admit screw-ups to clients.

STAMP OF TOILET

15: oh noes! what will i do.

*laughs at 15*

-nervous T-10
1L soon to be nervous 1L sa

Maybe Kirkland is doing what Latham did. Stealth layoffs followed by public layoffs. Next thing you know 20% of all associates are gone.

SRZ's summer is 11 weeks and has always been 11 weeks.

Another law student interested in #17's question. I hear that Southern firms are cutting programs to 7 to 8 weeks? Will West Coast firms follow?

i love the asian girl eating candies in the dealbreaker ads on this site. i would love to hose that slanty-eyed honey.

- WGWAG Redux

All layoffs are now performance-based because you cannot perform if you have no work.

All layoffs are now performance-based because you cannot perform if you have no work.

For what it's worth, I work at SRZ and knew of 4 people who left in the last few months (two senior associates who left to become partners at other firms and two midlevel associates who went in house). As far as I can tell, they were all voluntary. Another senior associate was asked to leave the firm because he husband made partner at SRZ (and they have a policy against husband/wife being partners and associates at the same time). So there's 5 who were not layoffs.

Rumors circulating of another round of layoffs being planned by Proskauer.

srz is the worst firm in the v100? hmmmm. strong statement about a firm that gave bonuses and market raises, and only laid off those with no future at the firm (and gave them several months pay).

All I know is that SkaddenLA is being quarantined because of a MRSA outbreak. Otherwise it is business as usual.

How scummy about not giving bonuses? Are they hours based like at other TTTs (eg Orrick, Dewey, etc)? I heard Dewey is laying off associates now before the end-of-March bonus paytime - how low can you go!?!

How scummy about not giving bonuses? Are they hours based like at other TTTs (eg Orrick, Dewey, etc)? I heard Dewey is laying off associates now before the end-of-March bonus paytime - how low can you go!?!

What the hell is MRSA?

How scummy about not giving bonuses? Are they hours based like at other TTTs (eg Orrick, Dewey, etc)? I heard Dewey is laying off associates now before the end-of-March bonus paytime - how low can you go!?!

I know someone who was given a poor perfomance review in Shulte's slow bankruptcy department and told he had 3 months to "improve". The next 3 months he was only given document review. Obviously he could not "improve" his performance with doc review. The only thing worse than working for a firm with Jewish names in the title (Fried Frank, Paul Weiss, Weil, etc.), is working for a firm where the Jews on the letterhead are still alive. Talk about keeping all the money for themselves on sh**ing on anyone underneath them. Go back to Brooklyn!

how is it scummy to not give a bonus to someone you are laying off because of poor performance?

Nice 35. Have the balls to put your name up with that one.

Don't drink the Jewce!!!!

How scummy about not giving bonuses? Are they hours based like at other TTTs (eg Orrick, Dewey, etc)? I heard Dewey is laying off associates now before the end-of-March bonus paytime - how low can you go!?!

When I have poor performance, I just knock down a viagra, a cialis, a beta-blocker, and go to town on my babysitter.

-BigLaw partner.

Ok 37. My name is Lou Zacharelli.

suck it.

I can't wait to start at my thinned out law firm. My odds of making partner are skyrocketing.

- Confident T14 2L

How scummy about not giving bonuses? Are they hours based like at other TTTs (eg Orrick, Dewey, etc)? I heard Dewey is laying off associates now before the end-of-March bonus paytime - how low can you go!?!

Actually 41, your name is ASSHOLE. Rot in hell... oh wait, that's a given.

I just confirmed with my mother that I am prestigious. Now I feel better.

Hofstrass Plobster

First to say that 42 goes to GeorgeTTTown.

Also, 37 = PWNED

SRZ's website shows that there are no associates in the investment management department, just partners and of counsel. When I was there, 3 people from my summer class joined the department, so it was on the smaller end, but there. Given that the hedge fund business has imploded, I'm not surprised, but can SRZ really maintain that all those associates were laid off for performance reasons? Of course they will -- it's SRZ. A warning to summers: I was never in my life as miserable as I was at SRZ. It's a hell hole.

Right, 46, like that's his real name.

Apparently 41 is an asshole. From this day forward ye shall be deemed Swasshole Lobsterpants.

What is this post reporting? A law firm (gasp) fired people because of their performance? Is someone arguing that SRZ does not adequately compensate their associates? What is this?

I have a name Gregg, can you milk me?

37 = 48 = Bitter = PWNED

I really don't know what to make of that two-sentence paragraph about K&E inserted in the middle of this Schulte post. Really weird. Just..... Weird. Who does something like that?

49, that is not a very nice thing to say.

I interviewed at Schulte many years ago with a partner who left a really, really bad impression. I couldn't quite figure out if she just hated me on sight and was inventing ways to find lacks in my experience or if she was just really stupid. Neither boded well with me.

Then part of my interview involved one with an associate who wanted to know more about what restaurants I went to and whether I spent my recreational dollars on this, that or some other high priced venue than he wanted to know about my particular experience.

As a result, I wrote SRZ off as a firm worth following or caring much about. I had a colleague who LOVED them and he was a really competent fellow. Could never figure out that alliance of his.

Sorry to any youngin's losing employment with them, but I can't help but also feel better for you to be away from it.

First to say 51's real name is Gaylord.

#37- really should be ashamed of him or herself.

I spent 3 years developing a tolerance to iocane powder.

23, fenwick already did this

Note that SRZ's original name was something like

Goldrick and Baer

The ship be sinking...

47 - hedge fund business hasn't imploded. In fact, it's probably one of the best corporate practices most firms have going now. And it's only going to get better once funds have to comply with new Madoff-related regulations.

SRZ's M&A practice was built in large part upon PE deals. They were humming along during the PE boom and are now sitting on their hands with nothing to do with the credit crunch. There are no deals going other than Chrysler, which is occupying some but not a significant amount of associates.

While some layoffs might be for performance reasons, there is NO WAY that there is enough work there to rationally keep the number of associates that they have. Many of the other departments (RE, Employment, Environmental) were deal support groups, with work that came out of the PE deals. They are suffering along with the M&A group and associates are sitting there too. IM is fine (implossions mean wrap ups = work) and SRZ IM has been turning away work that they can pick up in the future. However, there is no doubt that there is MUCH less business.

I call BS on all layoffs being performance related. There is no way that the firm can support all the attorneys on staff now with the downturn in work and considering that SRZ has its largest incoming first year class (60+ in a 400 attorney firm).

SRZs hedge fund clients don't want to hear that SRZ is in trouble (bad idea to cause panic in a paniced market). They also don't want to lose top notch IM/tax (they have enough trouble getting and keeping senior tax associates) attorneys to hedge funds because IM/tax attorneys are nervous about their positions.

SRZ's M&A practice was built in large part upon PE deals. They were humming along during the PE boom and are now sitting on their hands with nothing to do with the credit crunch. There are no deals going other than Chrysler, which is occupying some but not a significant amount of associates.

While some layoffs might be for performance reasons, there is NO WAY that there is enough work there to rationally keep the number of associates that they have. Many of the other departments (RE, Employment, Environmental) were deal support groups, with work that came out of the PE deals. They are suffering along with the M&A group and associates are sitting there too. IM is fine (implossions mean wrap ups = work) and SRZ IM has been turning away work that they can pick up in the future. However, there is no doubt that there is MUCH less business.

I call BS on all layoffs being performance related. There is no way that the firm can support all the attorneys on staff now with the downturn in work and considering that SRZ has its largest incoming first year class (60+ in a 400 attorney firm).

SRZs hedge fund clients don't want to hear that SRZ is in trouble (bad idea to cause panic in a paniced market). They also don't want to lose top notch IM/tax (they have enough trouble getting and keeping senior tax associates) attorneys to hedge funds because IM/tax attorneys are nervous about their positions.

61- Dow at 6900-The ship be sunk

W&C?

W&C?

W&C?

orrick layoffs? hello?

47 - why was your experience so bad? i am planning to be a summer this year...

have first years been impacted by layoffs?

63/64 Do you work there or are you just speculating?

47- obviously never really worked at srz. they don't list associates in the investment management practice because they don't want them to be poached, NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST (YOU IDIOT). Anybody who ever worked there would know that.

To the sad, sad poster who felt the need to burden us all with his hateful comments in post 35- not only do I pity your ignorance, I'd also be willing to bet you're spending an awful lot of time looking for contract attorney work right about now. You don't deserve it.

47- obviously never really worked at srz. they don't list associates in the investment management practice because they don't want them to be poached, NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST (YOU IDIOT). Anybody who ever worked there would know that.

To the sad, sad poster who felt the need to burden us all with his hateful comments in post 35- not only do I pity your ignorance, I'd also be willing to bet you're spending an awful lot of time looking for contract attorney work right about now. You don't deserve it.

47,

SRZ doesnt list associates as in the Investment Management department. They list them as "Corporate." This is because, when things were booming a few years ago, associates were getting hassled by headhunters looking for in-house hedge fund lawyers. The IM associates are still there...just listed as "Corporate."

55 - you need to take a writing and grammar course. After the interviews SRZ wrote YOU off.

70- gotta take all this with a grain of salt in here- srz is a fine place to work- its not Wachtell but not a chop shop either. Like all big NY firms its a lot of work, partners are partners etc but overall interesting work and congenial people.

70,

I summered at SRZ this past summer. I had a great time and liked the people. Obviously, I dont have any delusions about what life will be like as an associate. However, the people there were pretty honest with us summers. We were told to treat the summer as a "thank you" for all of the hours we will be putting in. I respected them for telling us that.

Also, 47 never summered or worked for SRZ. If he did, he would know that Investment Management associates aren't listed as in IM, they are listed as Corporate. Everyone at the firm knows that, including summers.

47 clearly has a chip on his shoulder for some reason, but I'm quite confident that he did not work there.

To categorize a layoff as "performance-driven, market-boosted" is petty and insulting to the intelligence of the legal community. I'm tired of the performance-based posturing used by firms like SRZ, Latham, Kirkland and others, and disappointed ATL simply accepts this type of statement, which will only encourage other firms to play the same game.

If you follow the reasoning of these firms, there is no such thing as an economic layoff. Granted, someone has to be cut, and one would hope that the best associates are retained, although that is certainly not always the case. But when you terminate an associate who performed well while retaining associates who performed better, it is simply inaccurate and unfair to categorize it as performance-based.

Case in point: An associate I know was terminated in the manner described as being employed by Schulte (told to look elsewhere because of performance reasons, no bonus, no severance). However, he was later told (without asking) by two reviewing attorneys that they gave him good reviews. He saw one of these reviews and, in fact, it was overwhelmingly positive (exceeded expectations etc.), with the only "area to improve" noted being in response to a question that inquired as to "how can this associate improve . . ."

Similarly, an associate who worked at a firm for six years and received good reviews throughout does not suddenly become a poor performer.

The way these associates are being treated is disgraceful and classless. This selfish behavior will cost firms in the long run.

if i just got off the phone with an SRZ investment management associate but 47 says they don't exist, did i really speak with him?

35 here - I only speak the truth sorry you can't handle it. I am in no way ripping on Jews in general just ones that come from Boroughs and formed firms in Manhattan. Once upon a time, Brooklyn Jews stayed in Brooklyn and treated everyone underneath them like sh**. They grew in Manhattan because they worked on legal matters that WASPy White Shoe firms would not touch. The aristocratic Jews from Manhattan and suburbs (that for the most part do not include Long Island) worked alongside WASPs and other artitorcatic minorities at shops like Sullivan and Simpson for clients like GOLDMAN SACKS and LEHMAN BROTHERS. The White Shoe firms became arrogant about certain legal work and hence the Jewish firms were formed to pick up that work. The people running these Jewish firms continue to have a chip on their shoulder and think that they were not hired by Sullivan becasue they were Jewish when in fact it was becasue they were sons of immigrants and went to Brooklyn law school instead of Harvard like the "Our Crowd" Jews living on Park Avenue. The problem is that becasue they have a chip on their shoulder about supposedly not being hired becasue they are Jewish, grew up in a rough neigborhood and were never properly rasied, they treat everyone underneath them like sh**.

@35, 82, for a second there I was concerned that you might actually have some influence in this world, but saw your spelling of GOLDMAN SACKS and now feel much better. Continue on with your sad existence.

32/85 is an ignorant asshole

Paul Roth is my hero!

I mean 35/82 - Asshole!

Paul Roth Hero!

This is not a news story....thanks ATL for encouraging people to rip on a firm that has not frozen salaries, paid above market bonuses, and has not conducted large-scale layoffs. If I understand this correctly, you have nothing to report about Schulte, but want to give people an opportunity to criticize the firm?? That's pretty shabby journalism.

I have some close friends who work at Schulte. Their IM group is apparently busier than ever, restructuring funds and launching vulture stuff. Apparently they have been slowly moving associates from slow groups (RE) into IM in order to handle the work.

86 = SRZ partner

77 - 55 here. Since the interview was a SPOKEN process, as most are, I can't represent to you that the partner and associate always spoke in complete sentences either. For most people, the effort placed in speaking in the same way one would write will result in having them sound stilted, distracted and even vacuous.

So, yeah, my post here wasn't a writing sample. It was written in a colloquial manner. Do you ever use that manner at all? If you did, you might get more humor in conversation - spoken or otherwise.

Note: "yeah" = colloquial.

Jewish Lobster?

Wow 83, I spelled Sacks instead of Sachs. You are right, I have no influence in the world if my post has a "typo". By the way, go back to your parents little house in LI with a one car garage and 3 leased Mercedes parked outside. Better yet, tell your parents to just go back to Brooklyn.

86 might well be an SRZ partner. But that doens't make he or she wrong, does it? There is no news here.

I tell ya, with a schnoz like that, I bet he can smell the sun!

CrASS reporting LOBbed at STERn's mensches from temple.

Go Knicks!

@ 91, I see you've discovered the utility of Wikipedia. As an alternative in the future, googling GOLDMAN SACKS will generate a suggestion of the correct spelling. Best of luck.

82/35 - The misspelling of "Sachs" was the least of problems in your post.

86 = 92

By the way, you having the time to not just post once on ATL, but to actively follow the conversation tells me that there is not an awful lot of work to go around. Go yell at some poor hapless associates. You could probably do anything you wanted to them right now given how desperate they are to avoid the career-mangling "performance" lay-off you so glibly it--as if it won't have any negative impact on a young lawyer's career.

Just another reason I avoided SZ, CravaTTTh, LaTTTham and Debevoise PlimpTTTon and went with Skadden for this summer. And for everyone out there who thinks us law students are too short-sighted to remember who treats their associates well, let's just wait and see how Fall 2009 OCI goes SZ.

-T6 1L who, along with his friends, is keeping track of all the firms who handle these unfortunate layoffs with class and those firms that don't.

first

97 - Hey! Why list Debevoise among the TTTs? They're pretty cool!

Maybe it depends on what department you're in.

Well, this post seems to have taken an interesting turn. Somehow, the discussion went from SZ laying off a few associates to an attack on Jewish lawyers across the spectrum. Congratulations... you read in Outliers that Jewish lawyers have become successful b/c they were willing to touch the work that SulCrom and Cravath and Shearman wouldn't. It doesn't take much intelligence to repeat something someone else has has already written. And look at the result... WLRK, the big swinging dick of M&A... Weil, the bankruptcy king... Skadden, Cleary, Boise. The list is, unfortunately for you, endless. So don't bother blaming the Jews; I understand your 'disappointment' at their ability to leave their roach infested homes in Brooklyn and found the firms that refused to hire you as a SA. Rather, blame the industry. Blame the economy. Blame your firm's foresight to prepare for the future, or yours for failing to choose a better firm. This is the name of the game. Blame yourself.

Hey 100, what does Idaho have to do with anything?

86 is not 92.

86

90--Jewish Lobster doesn't sound kosher.

47 is about to be a performance-related layoff somewhere. Stupidest. Comment. Ever.

I am going to lock myself in my kitchen until SRZ agrees to rebuild Gaza University.

/s/

NYU Sophomore

105 = genius

I just had my Lobster blessed by a Rabbi. He is now named Pinchy Pincus.

You keep making your list, 97. Check back with us in a couple of years to report whether you actually have a job offer.

Ditto 86. How can the prestige hierarchy remain in tact if a firm like Schulte continues to be successful while still treating its associates well? Irresponsible story.

107 = racist

Schulte's high attrition rate in the past has been due in large part to the substantial exit opportunities among the firm's clients. Many Cerberus employees, including the COO, hail from Schulte. This story should have dug deeper.

Performance Layoffs = replacing the fired attorney

Economic Layoffs - no replacement for the fired attorney

I look forward to seeing plenty of new, shiny replacement faces on the SRZ website.

To those who ask why this is a story: This is a story the same way any other layoffs at another firm is a story. SRZ has been laying off associates in its Structured Products group, RE, Banking & Regulatory, M&A and others throughout the year.

The second story here is that the firm has been cloaking the layoffs with the claim that people are being let go for performance reasons. While IM is performing VERY well for the firm (and no one has been laid off in that group too), other groups have lost A LOT of business in the past year and that is where there have been performance related layoffs. The question that must be asked is whether the performance of the associate is at issue or the performance, financially, of the group is at issue.

There is no question that a firm has the right to, and in fact should, make personnel decisions that will allow it to function as an ongoing concern. If that means letting people go when there is not enough work that is what needs to happen. That is a fact of business. However, rather than take the honorable route of recognizing that your profits are taking a hit and you need to let people go, the firm is stating that layoffs are performance based, staining the reputation of those who may have not made the right "political connections" been placed on the "right deal" or just don't click with the people making the decisions. Should that person be laid off, sure, why not. Should they be labeled as an underperformer? No.

Even the I-banks don't stoop that low.

No, Mr. Winthorp, you can not have my bag of gold.

Performance Layoffs = replacing the fired attorney

Economic Layoffs - no replacement for the fired attorney

I look forward to seeing plenty of new, shiny replacement faces on the SRZ website.

112/115 :

113 here. You make a VERY good point. It will be interesting to see if there are new attorneys at SRZ (and 1st years don't count) or not. The Structured Products group (performance layoffs earlier this year that went unreported) has not brought on new associates.

Good post 100... and to think, the Jews did it all w/o affirmative action and diversity programs

108-

You've either misconstrued my post to mean that I won't work for a firm that did layoffs, or you mean to tell me that all v100 firms will behave in the same manner as SZ and stealthily lay off associates.

All I'm saying is that law students know which firms give their people enough respect to come out publicly and state they're conducting lay-offs for economic reasons and which ones are too worried about their image and PPP to do the right thing (i.e., conduct stealthy lay-offs). I'm not saying firms need to give LW size severances or what have you, but the basic thing these lawyers deserve, after all they've given to their respective firms, is being let go with respect and dignity.

As someone who worked in business for a couple years before going to law school, I can tell you that being laid off for performance is akin to being fired in the eyes of future employers. If I'm sitting in an interview with someone, and they tell me they were let go for performance reasons, but that they're bogus, what am I going to think? "Ya right, this guy's full of shit. No one gets let go because they're bad employees...riiiiiight." It is a black mark on them for the rest of their career, and it is not fair to do that to people who have committed themselves to a firm.

Like I said, it is painfully obvious who knows how to treat their people with respect as well as those who care too much about their image and reputation to give their employees common decency and respect. There are plenty of those firms in the v100, and those are the firms that will be rewarded come Fall OCI. Firms still need fresh talent, and all the fresh talent I know are keeping tabs on which firms are worth a damn and which ones aren't.

My heartfelt sympathies and hope go out to all of the lawyers who have been laid off.

-T6 1L who, along with his friends, is keeping track of all the firms who handle these unfortunate layoffs with class and those firms that don't

118 - a good idea would be to not rely on above the law for that information.

every firm in NYC (from sullivan to schulte to cravath to skadden, etc) has "stealthily" laid off associates recently.

here's what happens: firm decides it needs three less associates given the lack of work in a specific group. when year-end reviews come, they tell the worst three people in that group that they should look elsewhere, but let them hang around for three months with full pay and use of their office, e-mail, etc.

what's wrong with that?

You people are crazy. Schulte has positioned itself better than most firms. All of the new SEC regulations mean that Schulte's clients (pretty much every big hedge fund out there) are going to need a lot of legal work/advice in the future. Not to mention that there is a foreseeable amount of litigation work to be done as a result of everything. This is no Latham. This is no Caldwalder. This is a firm who let 20 people go 4 months ago, and announced that there would NOT be a pay freeze after those layoffs. If it was so bad, why not just freeze salaries like every other firm?

119-

No need to rely on ATL when you're in NYC. Also, true performance attrition is the name of the game anyway in BigLaw--there's no denying that. What I'm upset over is how people with great reviews are flat-out lied to and told they're not making the grade when it's convenient for the firm to do so. The firm gets to save itself some short-term negative PR, but the associate is going to have to look for jobs with a scarlet letter on his chest. That sort of behavior speaks volumes about the work culture at these firms. I, along with many of my peers, refuse to work in an environment where we aren't treated in a professional manner.

Can you honestly tell me that if you were in my position, and it was Skadden v. SZ, you wouldn't factor in the stealth lay-offs as being representative of how they treat their people?

-T6 1L who, along with his friends, is keeping track of all the firms who handle these unfortunate layoffs with class and those firms that don't

120, they won't freeze salaries unless Cravath, Skadden, etc. also freeze. Shulte is a Tier 2 firm that acts like they are one of big boys, but deep down they know they are far from that level.

121 -

You're an idiot. First of all, I assume by SZ, you mean Schulte Roth & Zabel, which is generally referred to as Schulte or SRZ. Second of all, you're missing the point (but that's merely because you are an unsophistocated law student with no real world experience). The point is that EVERY MAJOR FIRM in NYC is making the same type of stealthy layoffs as SRZ appears to be. Also, I'm sure SRZ didn't lay off people that got great reviews - that's the whole point. They laid off the bottom of the barrel.

120-

Have you, by chance, checked the stock market lately? Do you read the WSJ, by chance? Who the fuck cares if there's new regulations for hedge funds, they've been obliterated by capital calls and bankruptcies (Bear Stearns, anyone?)--I'd venture to say that over 40% have closed their doors since 2007, and that's a conservative estimate.

It's like saying we're going to need more people at the DMV because of new horse transportation regulations. With Big Brother cracking down, hedge funds are going to go the way of limited real-estate partnerships in the 80s--and how many Subchapter K attorneys do you know are making their bread over the regulations for those defunct entities? Gimme a break.....

120 doesn't understand the market - even a little.

Oops. Meant to say 124 doesn't understand the market - even a little.

123-

If that's the case, then so be it. I've never said it's reprehensible to cut out the deadwood. All I'm saying is that people pick up on how law firms/companies treat their people, and if SRZ is using the guise of ordinary performance lay-offs to blackball well-performing associates in work-strapped practice areas, then that's inexcusable.

Those people deserve to retain their reputation as they search for a new job in an extremely tough economic environment. How can you disagree with that?

-T6 1L who, along with his friends, is keeping track of all the firms who handle these unfortunate layoffs with class and those firms that don't

They are TOTALLY full of shit! People who were getting very good reviews for years were all of a sudden "poop performers". They could spin it any way they like - the fact is that the fat pigs at the top wanted to make sure the PPP stayed high - no reason for the half-Skadden either!

124 is an idiot.

First of all, so what if 40% of hedge funds have closed up shop. SRZ has the top hedge fund practice (see Chambers). Even if they just represent 20% of the funds and those 20% need help because the SEC is changing securities laws on a daily basis, that's still a boat load of fees.

Next time, think about what you are saying before you post.

124 is an idiot.

First of all, so what if 40% of hedge funds have closed up shop. SRZ has the top hedge fund practice (see Chambers). Even if they just represent 20% of the funds and those 20% need help because the SEC is changing securities laws on a daily basis, that's still a boat load of fees.

Next time, think about what you are saying before you post.

They are TOTALLY full of shit! People who were getting very good reviews for years were all of a sudden "poop performers". They could spin it any way they like - the fact is that the fat pigs at the top wanted to make sure the PPP stayed high - no reason for the half-Skadden either!

127 -

you wrote:

"and if SRZ is using the guise of ordinary performance lay-offs to blackball well-performing associates in work-strapped practice areas, then that's inexcusable."

i think "if" is the key word. again, you have no evidence that SRZ is doing that (other than unattributed speculation on here caused by an irresponsible posting by ATL). slow news day means let's post a story about a firm who got rid of a little "deadwood."

122 - What is it, exactly, that makes SRZ not one of the "big boys." Associate compensation? Client list? Profitability? Or is it that a T14 dork who ended up with a good job in a good firm is worried that the prestige of his position depends on ripping down competitors. We all know, you have nothing else going for you.

129/130

These new regulations of which you speak will not be meant to ensure everyone plays nicely. As we hear Obama rattle on about the evil of leverage, guess who's going to be made the fall guy? Hedge funds, that's who. When the economy got rough in the 80s, limited real estate partnerships got targeted and absolutely wiped out by legislation.

Any new regulations won't be meant for compliance, they''ll be meant for taking out hedge funds altogether. This isn't about market dynamics, it's about political retribution ON TOP OF the capital calls and bankruptcies that have decimated hedge funds already. You're delusional if you think hedge funds will be given a slap on the wrist during this era of class-envy and collectivization.

Again, ask a Subchapter K attorney how much s/he gets in fees from a limited real estate partnership. Hedge funds are headed in the same direction, and being overly concentrated in that area is NOT a good thing. But you can keep blindly refuting those who disagree with you--I've been around long enough to see the writing on the wall.

Insofar as not understanding the market, let me ask you two questions--multiple choice:

How many new hedge funds will open as the DJIA slips past 7,000?

A: 0
B: 10
C: 1,000
D: 10,000

How many hedge funds will close down as people sell off all of their equity investments and re-invest in government-backed securities (say, driving down the US 10-year rate under 300 basis points, which is absurdly low)?

A: 0
B: 10
C: 1,000
D: Too many to count

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct answers:

1. (A)
2. (D)

132-

If that's the case, then I have no issue with them, but that's not the word around Park and 3rd...

I think we can both agree that it is inappropriate to lay people off under dubious circumstances that only serve to help the firm and hurt the attorney. One could at least say that performance attrition helps an attorney who is in over his or her head by allowing them to move to another firm that will better support their development.

-T6 1L who, along with his friends, is keeping track of all the firms who handle these unfortunate layoffs with class and those firms that don't

134 -

I would agree with you except for the fact that Hedge Funds are the only ones on Wall Street without their hands out.

124--

You have no idea what you are talking about. You will soon be joining 47 in the performance-related layoff category.

132 - that's not the word around "Park and 3rd"? Can you let me know where they intersect please.

136-

You'd be shocked to know who has come a-calling to 33 Liberty Street (Federal Reserve of New York). A lot of hedge funds have been forced to sell due to the political stigma that would come with bailing them out. That doesn't mean they haven't asked.

As a 20 year veteran of PE, I know all to well that gaping tax/regulatory loopholes never stay open long. Hedge funds were exactly that, and now Obama and the SEC are about to turn the lights off on the party. Well, it's not much of a party anymore as most people have left already.

They're the perfect political target. They represent absolute capitalism and, for some, irresponsible leveraging. They have absolutely 0 sympathy from the Joe Blow blue-collar voters, and if they were targeted, I'd say that 95% of Americans would be out there with their pitchforks and torches to help the process along. It's a no pain, all gain proposition for the current administration, and they know it all too well.

the point

--------------------------------------------

136's head

136
How about Cerberus having their hand out with Chrysler and GMAC??

Cerberus is not a hedge fund, you ignorant schmuck.

You guys are all pretty ignorant. Hedge funds aren't going anywhere. Some funds will close but it will be a "flight to quality" (i.e., big funds will just get bigger). New regulations (Grassley-Levin anyone?) will require a significant amount of lawyering for the big funds that are left.

a lot of the layoffs are not performance based, but more of who didn't kiss ass. a lot of good workers are le go, while work hoarders, hour milkers remain. they are the same ones that pass their work on for someone else to do, while they get the credit.

113 = Thank you. You have, in a cogent manner, explained why this is a story.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with firings for economic reasons. But, lying about the reasoning is bad, though not surprising at SRZ.

143-

Flight to quality, lower risk thresholds allowed, higher reporting standards, submission to the SEC for regulation, more capital within the funds.... Sounds an awful lot like mutual funds because, well, that's exactly what's going to happen. The hedge funds will lose their carte blanche, and they will be forced to submit to the same regulations as mutual funds. Anyone with a good economic/business sense knows that they won't submit to any more stringent regulations as hedge funds--so either hedge funds are regulated less or the same as mutual funds. If they're regulated the same, they'll be de facto mutual funds anyway. As far as being regulated less, I would love to see the current administration, in all of its Big Brother glory, passing up a golden opportunity to regulate a scapegoat of the current economic crisis.

This is just like the demise of limited real estate partnerships bolstering the already-present REIT market. That's what any regulation of hedge funds will be intended for, and what it will do. Hedge funds will be yet another legal anomaly that is folded into a well-established market force after it loses its special status and/or appeal.

Think I'm ignorant? Here's a deal, let's give Obama 3 months to pass legislation re: hedge funds, and then we'll see what happens. On May 15, pick the first story after the Morning Docket, and we'll talk about the developments. If Obama leaves them unscathed, I will readily admit you're right. If, however, it turns out as I have said, have the moral fiber to admit it.

This is all true. The only lawyers at my firm that are not living in fear everyday are the Advisers Act and Company Act specialists. The onslaught of hedge regulation will begin soon.

It seems as if this thread is dead or dying, but there is one thing to add here. A lot of people have been referring to Schulte's crown jewel, IM, and explaining how IM will keep Schulte afloat in this economy. What you fail to understand is that IM is a nice source of revenue, but it is not the revenue driver that M&A and Litigation can be.

The PPP numbers have been driven in past years by the significant PE deals that have passed through the M&A group's pipeline thanks to Cerberus (Chrysler & GMAC). Then there were the other PE deals that meant that EVERYONE was busy. This pumped up the hours for the support groups of RE, Employment, Evironmental. New Partners were minted as a result of these huge deals and the tremendous revenue they brought in.

IM chugged along doing its thing. But "its thing" had everything to do with setting up funds, some of which turned to PE and then were passed along from IM to the corporate group. IM is a solid revenue driver, but not to where the firm was in 2005 - 2007. IM will not be able to make up for the loss in hours in the deal group. Litigation will pick up, but that group has never been the strong point of the firm.

There is probably too much information in this post as it is and many are bored. However, aside from Chrysler's current mess, there is little keeping the M&A group going (activist investing is just not cutting it as the market plummets).

Assuming that things stay the way they are SRZ will probably have to cut more people in Q1 or Q2, but since those won't be announced (performance based BS) then the news won't trickle through until September, if then.

Those people who have been defending SRZ and its health on this board have made some cogent points, but they clearly have little real insight. For example, have any of mentioned the fact that SRZ recently expanded their office space 33- 50% and made major renovations on their current floors to accomodate such renovations. While those smart people who are going to say that the building often absorbs part of those costs in return for the lease, that certainly does not make up for the ongoing costs that the firm will have to service for its lease committments.

That office expansion speaks volumes about the fact that SRZ was absolutely BLINDSIDED by this downturn and its capital committments are significant while it is facing significant financial losses. The answer to this problem is obvious and followed by most corporations - slash payroll. That is fine. But don't do it at the expense of the reputation of the people you are slashing. SRZ fails to take responsibility for its missteps and poor calculations. Instead its marketing group walks a fine line of defining who left when (those who left in 2008 were layoffs who left in 2009? Or were the people who let go for performance reasons counted in 2008 even though they left in 2009?). While the language makes sense, and I do understand their fine line definitions...it is all to cute.

The first people to go probably didn't fit into the SRZ game plan, which is fine. Neither do the mountains of I-bankers and business people let go by public companies. I have to assume that these companies do not let go of the people that they feel are the best performers. I guess you can call that a performance based layoff. However, these companies own up to their financial issues and don't use the employees as scapegoats. SRZ did.

If you are looking for great IM experience, it is a great place to go. But caveat emptor.

112 also nailed it. . . fyi: there will be no replacements.

Yes, regulations on hedge funds will increase, bringing more work to SRZ.

But yes there will be less "hedge funds" to do work for.

But the relationships will remain, and when the Wall St. wizards conjure up something new, they will give the work to the lawyers they know.

Might take some time for this to all play out, and layoffs are definitely a possibility, but I don't think this downturn necessarily spells death for the firm.

148 - Their PPP was $2.3 million in 2008. Blindsided?

Normally, I try not to call ATL posters idiots, but 151, you are an idiot. The $2.3 million PPP was their 2007 number published in 2008. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424834825

This table discuss 2008 numbers. While revenue was flat, revenue per lawyer was down.
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202427137779

Keep in mind that 2008 was a long year and the bottom really dropped out at the mid-point of the year. Keep in mind that the better number to look at is not gross revenue, it is the revenue per lawyer. That is down 4.5%. That will hit profits. In addition, additional overhead costs will hit profits.

151 (a.k.a. TTT idiot), why don't you come back in May 2009 when PPP for 2008 are announced and then you can apologize for being an idiot.

re: 150 - I think that anyone that assumes that SRZ is going away is an idiot. They are just downsizing.

152, Idiot here. Why would they post their 2008 profits again in May, they just posted them 2 weeks ago???

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/02/schulte-roth-reports-flat-revenues-and-slight-dip-in-profits-per-partner.html

If I am an idiot, what are you?

152 - YOU ARE THE IDIOT. SRZ did announce their PPP for 2008. They are down 2.7% FROM 2007. PPP of ~2.3m. http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/02/schulte-roth-reports-flat-revenues-and-slight-dip-in-profits-per-partner.html

Will their 2009 PPP go down more (like everyone else)? Probably, but c'mon. Don't call ppl out when you really don't know anything.

I never said anything about the change. I just think $2.3, even if down, is pretty strong for a firm accused of being "blindsided," especially in light of no freeze and above market bonuses. I do not understand where the hate for SRZ comes fro,

Schulte has a great hedge fund practice but aside from that, it is in business for one reason - Cerberus. Although SRZ has worked on some big PE deals, they are all for Cerberus. Without Cerberus and its LBOs, the Corporate group, the environmental group and others essentially have nothing to do. As Cerberus does fewer deals, so does SRZ. Were it not for Chrysler, the entire corporate group would be sitting on their hands. Also, summer associates and law students beware - working at SRZ is its own special kind of hell. Some groups are better than others, but anybody who is forced to work with the corporate group (either directly or in a support capacity) will experience a kind of hell that you cannot imagine. Partners there treat senior associates like crap, senior associates then do it to the midlevels who do it to the juniors. Even the partners in the corporate group treat other partners like crap. Go 5 minutes without answering an email and somebody will send an email to the entire firm looking for you. SRZ may have high PPP, but it will never have the prestige. Associates at places like Skadden work just as hard or harder but get treated with basic respect and dignity.

Schulte has a great hedge fund practice but aside from that, it is in business for one reason - Cerberus. Although SRZ has worked on some big PE deals, they are all for Cerberus. Without Cerberus and its LBOs, the Corporate group, the environmental group and others essentially have nothing to do. As Cerberus does fewer deals, so does SRZ. Were it not for Chrysler, the entire corporate group would be sitting on their hands. Also, summer associates and law students beware - working at SRZ is its own special kind of hell. Some groups are better than others, but anybody who is forced to work with the corporate group (either directly or in a support capacity) will experience a kind of hell that you cannot imagine. Partners there treat senior associates like crap, senior associates then do it to the midlevels who do it to the juniors. Even the partners in the corporate group treat other partners like crap. Go 5 minutes without answering an email and somebody will send an email to the entire firm looking for you. SRZ may have high PPP, but it will never have the prestige. Associates at places like Skadden work just as hard or harder but get treated with basic respect and dignity.

To sum up ATL's and all of the SRZ haters' positions:

It is unthinkable that SRZ might actually be doing better than firms like Orrick, O'Melveny, Latham and many others. Also, we find it utterly ridiculous that SRZ may have positioned itself better than many other firms to handle this economic crisis. It is absolutely never the case that a firm pretty low on the V100 could better prepare for a rough economy than firms higher up on that list. Therefore, it MUST be the case that SRZ is hiding something. They must be laying people off in great numbers and then lying about it. If Latham, Dewey, Jones Day and Sonnenschein are doing poorly, it must be the case at Schulte as well. All this being said, we have nothing concrete to report. Please take this opportunity to rip Schulte in the comments so that those of us at more "prestigious" firms feel confirmation that our perceptions of the legal world are in fact reality.

Thanks,

ATL and associates at better firms than SRZ.

To sum up ATL's and all of the SRZ haters' positions:

It is unthinkable that SRZ might actually be doing better than firms like Orrick, O'Melveny, Latham and many others. Also, we find it utterly ridiculous that SRZ may have positioned itself better than many other firms to handle this economic crisis. It is absolutely never the case that a firm pretty low on the V100 could better prepare for a rough economy than firms higher up on that list. Therefore, it MUST be the case that SRZ is hiding something. They must be laying people off in great numbers and then lying about it. If Latham, Dewey, Jones Day and Sonnenschein are doing poorly, it must be the case at Schulte as well. All this being said, we have nothing concrete to report. Please take this opportunity to rip Schulte in the comments so that those of us at more "prestigious" firms feel confirmation that our perceptions of the legal world are in fact reality.

Thanks,

ATL and associates at better firms than SRZ.

158: It would be nice, wouldn't it, if SRZ had positioned itself better. Unfortunately, you are wrong, and everyone at SRZ, or who was at SRZ until recently, knows how wrong you are. Also, layoffs continue to take place in '09. I echo #9: their layoffs are the scumiest yet.

Ok, 160. The layoffs are the scummiest yet.

All 20 or so. (ATL can't even come up with a number). The layed off employees got to stay on for 3-5 additional months while they look for other employment. While they stay on, they can look for other jobs without having to say that they are unemployed.

Really scummy.

161 = Thank you. Finally, someone admits that SRZ has resorted to layoffs.

I don't think that I am speaking for all the so-called "haters" - but my issue with SRZ is not layoffs, nor do I think that they can't weather this storm better than higher rated firms.

The issue is that the firm did not take the classy option of stating that they were laying people off because of the economic times and not because of performance based reasons. Certainly, some of the layoffs were for performance based reasons, but probably not all 20 - 30. It is also unlikely that all poor performers were in the groups that were slowest (M&A and M&A support groups). Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that there was not a single underperformer in IM or Litigation but suddenly there was a rash of poor performance on wholesale levels by associates who were doing well in years past.

I forget which post made this point, but if layoffs were performance based then there should be numerous replacements to the practice areas where associates were shed. My understanding is that there has been fewer than 5 additions (if even that many) while 20 - 30 jobs were shed. That is an economic layoff.

The firm lacks the class to give the laid off associates the dignity of being told that they were being let go for economic reasons. While there are plenty of classy lawyers at SRZ, this is not all too shocking of a move to those who have worked with or worked for a fair number of partners at the firm.

Was SRZ's litigation practice affected at all?

My understanding is that SRZ litigation is doing well. They have some high profile work going on now.

Too bad, there's a first year associate in SRZ's lit. dept. who needs a reality check.

117
No, 117, the Jews did it with the help of reparations and the created nation state of Israel. Get off it. Obviously, World History isn't your strong suit.

117
No, 117, the Jews did it with the help of reparations and the created nation state of Israel. Get off it. Obviously, World History isn't your strong suit.

Not an attorney (yet), but for the record, SRZ has gotten rid of a LOT of staff (secretaries, paralegals, etc.), and those supervisors have been forthright in owning up to the fact that it's due to the economy. (I'm a victim of this, by the way.) Staff employees are all told to leave right away and given severance and offered recommendation (along with a shitty piece of paper with websites to "help you find work" including hotjobs .com, craigslist .org, etc. Totally laughable). They did most of the staff layoffs at the same time as performance reviews and told more than one person, "You're reviews are great; unfortunately, we have to let you go because blah, blah, blah, the economy, etc."

They're calling the attorney layoffs performance-based, which is totally disingenuous. They're not replacing those attorneys, and those attorneys (the ones I know and have spoken with) don't get severance. They get 3 months or so to get their stuff in order and keep working. Everyone at the firm knows it's not performance-based. Everyone at the firm knows that the economic downturn hit the firm hard. Everyone in the firm (attorneys and staff alike) is scared shitless.

161 is absolutely right. Schulte has been more than generous in terms of letting low-performers hang on for as long as they can until they find new employment. Although I can't speak for all 20 associates, every single case that I am personally aware of is entirely performance-based (that is, they were NOT being given billable work even when there was work). I am also aware that there were a couple of associates with high billable hours, but there were questions about the quality of his/her work and/or personality issues.

Not sure what 169 think s/he knows about associate layoffs, but, as far as I know, SRZ has been equally forthright when laying off lawyers as they have been when laying off staffers.

Okay, 170 (169 here), we could totally discuss and name names, but not here, that'd be tacky. Seriously, word gets around, the atmosphere in Schulte is one of fear, and no amount of damage control will keep people from suspecting and, in turn, KNOWING the truth. Your comment about attorneys not being given work even when there WAS work is a load of shit. That was certainly not the case at all. Your comment about the quality of work of some of those who DID have the hours is a load of shit. I know of a couple who are still there with poor work quality (but are buddy-buddy with the right folks) that are hanging around while there are ones that are leaving with much higher work quality (and more billable hours) that don't quite fit their club mentality quite as well now that they can really only hold on to so many people.

Meanwhile, even if they won't own up to the attorney issues, why don't they own up to the staff layoffs? (We were subject not only to reviews but also testing. I was told my reviews were "sparkling" and my test scores were "perfect," but due to the economy they had to let me go and that they wanted to assure me that it wasn't performance or personality-based.)

169 (170 here): Perhaps I misunderstood your 169 post, but now I am not sure what you are saying.

1. What was your position at SRZ? I can only speak as to the associates, so if you were either a legal assistant or a secretary, I have no idea what the atmosphere was like for you.

2. Are you saying that Schulte was upfront with you about the layoffs? (It sounds like you got your severance, but you're still complaining about something...obviously it sucks to lose your job, but not sure what else you were expecting in terms of your severance package.)

I don't want to name any names either, but every single case that I am aware of is completely "performance-based", whatever that usually means. As an associate, that could mean any of (i) not billing enough hours, (ii) not producing quality work and/or (iii) not getting along with the right people. As I stated earlier, there were 1 or 2 associates that I am aware of that fell into category (iii). However, the others were so obviously (i) and (ii) (that is, they didn't bill enough hours because what work was assigned to them never got completed in a satisfactory manner--I know, because I completed reviews for a couple of them).

Again, it sucks that you lost your job despite doing everything right. But it sounds like Schulte was upfront with you about it. They clearly told you that the decision was solely due to the economy. All I am saying is that they would do the same when it comes to attorney layoffs. As far as I know, Schulte has NOT done a "stealth layoff" (i.e., cheat associates out of a severance package).

I am curious as to why you think you know something that I don't know.

172 (1-171 here) either you're an idiot or a partner at Schulte. (I'd go with partner-- many Schulte partners have more than enough time one their hands to post on above the law). You, #172, for whatever reason will insist it was "performance based", so let me just tell anyone else who would read this: Schulte has done performance layoffs, (i.e., attempted to disguise layoffs as performance based). I can't say for sure, but would guess the total number (SO FAR- MORE TO COME) is 30+. Most laid off associates weren't billing on target, and that was because *there wasn't work*, period. Yes, a few didn't "fit in". None have been replaced. Laid off associates got 2-3 months. Again, it was because of their inability to bill hours because their group had no work to give/unwillingness to fabricate hours/kiss a*s as maybe they should have, but probably for the best for them. Schulte is just as f'd as any other firm, but sucks more for not owning it.

Perhaps I am an idiot, but I am not a partner at Schulte. I agree with all the FACTS in your posts:

1. 20-30 associates were told to leave the firm at the end of 2008.
2. None have been replaced.

However, I have good reason to believe that all these associates would have been told to leave whether the economy was good or bad. The only difference would have been that if the economy were good, they would have been replaced with lateral hires.

I also agree with you that Schulte may need to conduct future layoffs. However, when they do, Schulte will be upfront to the associates/staff (and you even said that that's what they told you) that it was economy-driven and will give them the appropriate severance package.

171, I'm sorry you lost your job. But, I don't understand your anger at Schulte. In your case, they told you that you were doing a good job, but that they simply had to let you go. I am telling you, based on good information, that was not the case for most associates I know that were let go.

Half the information on this site about Schulte is erroneous. Here's a quick rundown:

1) Layoffs: No, they were not performance based. I know quite a few of the attorneys who were asked to leave. They are all very competent. Most of them were in the wrong year group (mid-level to senior associate) or in the wrong practice group (real estate/ BT/ Structured Products) and were asked to leave on some bs pretext. That's it. I think it's really petty of Schulte to pretend that there were performance-based reasons to let these people go. I also think it's unlike the firm to do this. Honesty would be best in this situation. A lot of the attorneys who were asked to leave for "performance based" reasons were furious - not so much at the layoff, as for the trumped up reason behind it. That doesn't bode well for future public relations. My advice to Schulte management: just be honest. It's always appreciated and understood. We all know the economy sucks.

2) Financials: No one knows the real deal except the partners. Info about this stuff isn't really shared. But it is pretty clear that the firm is doing a lot better than many others. They don't appear to be anywhere close to insolvent. Here are a few indicators - they opened a new D.C. office this year, they raised salaries for attorneys, and they paid out market bonuses on time. That's not bad for a firm that's supposedly a boutique. On the flip side, several practice groups are dead - real estate, structured products, and M&A. But that's true for most NYC firms. IM is still going strong, thanks to all the regulatory changes happening.

3) Religion. Yes, it's a Jewish law firm. This has nothing to do with how the firm is run or it's office personality. It's more like a quirk. The place empties out pretty quickly on Friday afternoon - for the Sabbath - and there are a lot of absences during any major Jewish holiday, but that's it. There's nothing remarkable about it.

4) Lifestyle. Honestly, it's a tough place to work. The hours are brutal, and the partners are really mean. Most associates are miserable, hate their life, and are trying to plot a way to escape. There is no mentorship and piss-poor training. No surprise there - it's a New York law firm. I haven't seen any New York law firm that is friendly or fun. They all suck. That being said, the firm is surprisingly supportive with family problems. As in, if you have sick family members, they will work with you and be very supportive. That's a lot more than most NY firms will do. They also are usually respectful of vacations. If you planned a 3 week trip, they usually will not try to make you cancel. The major exception to this was this past December - and even then, people who had already booked airline tickets were reimbursed or allowed to go. They also aren't too big on facetime either, which is nice.

5) Attrition. It's worth noting that quite a few associates did voluntarily leave the firm this year, although the number of voluntary departures aren't nearly as high as they were in previous years. It is true that quite a few associates manage to get in-house jobs at hedge funds. This is one of the main reasons people lateral in to Schulte - they hope to get a cushy hedge fund gig. A lot of people also just burn out, get pissed, and leave. It's not a fun place to work, and the hours seriously suck in all practice groups, except maybe in estates.

6) The people. Well . . . to sum up, the partners are mean and associates can be catty. There are some nice people around, but it's a tough economic environment - and that brings out the beast in everyone susceptible to getting canned (ie, all associates at every level). The social scene there sucks. Most people are native New Yorkers or are from NJ, so they use their own social networks and don't really hang out much outside of work. The few firm events that happen are usually heavily populated by the support staff.

7) The support staff. Excellent. Period. One of the best support staffs in NYC. The tech team is great, and the secretaries are usually very helpful. In some ways, it's almost like two firms - a miserable one for the associates, and a great one for the support staff. They have lots of longevity (except now that many have been laid off), and they by and large love working there. They are also very competent. Just about any attorney who works there loves them.

Half the information on this site about Schulte is erroneous. Here's a quick rundown:

1) Layoffs: No, they were not performance based. I know quite a few of the attorneys who were asked to leave. They are all very competent. Most of them were in the wrong year group (mid-level to senior associate) or in the wrong practice group (real estate/ BT/ Structured Products) and were asked to leave on some bs pretext. That's it. I think it's really petty of Schulte to pretend that there were performance-based reasons to let these people go. I also think it's unlike the firm to do this. Honesty would be best in this situation. A lot of the attorneys who were asked to leave for "performance based" reasons were furious - not so much at the layoff, as for the trumped up reason behind it. That doesn't bode well for future public relations. My advice to Schulte management: just be honest. It's always appreciated and understood. We all know the economy sucks.

2) Financials: No one knows the real deal except the partners. Info about this stuff isn't really shared. But it is pretty clear that the firm is doing a lot better than many others. They don't appear to be anywhere close to insolvent. Here are a few indicators - they opened a new D.C. office this year, they raised salaries for attorneys, and they paid out market bonuses on time. That's not bad for a firm that's supposedly a boutique. On the flip side, several practice groups are dead - real estate, structured products, and M&A. But that's true for most NYC firms. IM is still going strong, thanks to all the regulatory changes happening.

3) Religion. Yes, it's a Jewish law firm. This has nothing to do with how the firm is run or it's office personality. It's more like a quirk. The place empties out pretty quickly on Friday afternoon - for the Sabbath - and there are a lot of absences during any major Jewish holiday, but that's it. There's nothing remarkable about it.

4) Lifestyle. Honestly, it's a tough place to work. The hours are brutal, and the partners are really mean. Most associates are miserable, hate their life, and are trying to plot a way to escape. There is no mentorship and piss-poor training. No surprise there - it's a New York law firm. I haven't seen any New York law firm that is friendly or fun. They all suck. That being said, the firm is surprisingly supportive with family problems. As in, if you have sick family members, they will work with you and be very supportive. That's a lot more than most NY firms will do. They also are usually respectful of vacations. If you planned a 3 week trip, they usually will not try to make you cancel. The major exception to this was this past December - and even then, people who had already booked airline tickets were reimbursed or allowed to go. They also aren't too big on facetime either, which is nice.

5) Attrition. It's worth noting that quite a few associates did voluntarily leave the firm this year, although the number of voluntary departures aren't nearly as high as they were in previous years. It is true that quite a few associates manage to get in-house jobs at hedge funds. This is one of the main reasons people lateral in to Schulte - they hope to get a cushy hedge fund gig. A lot of people also just burn out, get pissed, and leave. It's not a fun place to work, and the hours seriously suck in all practice groups, except maybe in estates.

6) The people. Well . . . to sum up, the partners are mean and associates can be catty. There are some nice people around, but it's a tough economic environment - and that brings out the beast in everyone susceptible to getting canned (ie, all associates at every level). The social scene there sucks. Most people are native New Yorkers or are from NJ, so they use their own social networks and don't really hang out much outside of work. The few firm events that happen are usually heavily populated by the support staff.

7) The support staff. Excellent. Period. One of the best support staffs in NYC. The tech team is great, and the secretaries are usually very helpful. In some ways, it's almost like two firms - a miserable one for the associates, and a great one for the support staff. They have lots of longevity (except now that many have been laid off), and they by and large love working there. They are also very competent. Just about any attorney who works there loves them.