Damnit. So close.

Chompers bit my Gump and now it is Akin.

and I'm like so hoping this is at least substantiated

I'm bracing myself, had to come up in the lottery sometime.

don't worry E!

I've gone down at Akin Gump before, for 2 grand an hour... "fully equipped", natch!

"Have the designated associates report to the conference room. We are ready to give them their severance."

This site is shit! (not "the shit")
Please, for the love of god, will someone who has recently been laid off start a competitor site that is not shit? I, and I imagine many of the people on this site, will not only read a better site, but will advertise for it here on ATL.
Anybody?

Deep cuts have happened today at Akin, at least for paralegals and staff. I was there and know several people cut today. Attorneys are to be cut also, just not sure if that happened today also.

Pretty simple, in order for the haves to avoid a 6, 8 , 10, etc. percent loss. A bunch of people have to experience a 100% loss.

I just hope 9 doesn't write for this new site. I can't count the number of things wrong with the sentence:

"I, and I imagine many of the people on this site, will not only read a better site, but will advertise for it here on ATL."

Nothing to see here, move along.

11-

The only issue is the comma splice between 'site' and 'but.' Plus, some fluency could be added with an 'also' after 'will.' Other than that, the sentence is fine. Have you ever heard of appositives?

That's right; nothing to see here, just keep moving along...

We're still hiring in sector 7G

Attorneys were laid off today. It is a FACT. This economy is going to complete shyt!

OCEANS RISE.

CITIES FALL.

QUINN REMAINS.

13: There are no appositives in that sentence.

18... I'd quit posting that shit on every post you get a chance to. Karma can be a bitch.

God, somebody shut the Quinn idiot up. It was funny the first 17 times, but not the last 2,348.

16... I'd quit posting that shit on every post you get a chance to. Karma can be a bitch.

16... I'd quit posting that shit on every post you get a chance to. Karma can be a bitch.

I got laid off from Quinn last year. They said I was too big for their small law.

Apparently they hired my replacement...

Rumor is it is over 30-50 people nationwide.

24 is correct for attorneys. There were also numerous staff laid off.

I have a question. What happens to Quinn after the oceans rise and the cities fall.

17-

Appositive: (of an adjective or adjectival phrase) directly following the noun it modifies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appositive?qsrc=2888

'I' is a noun, and I do believe that the phrase "[...]and I imagine many of the people on this site[...]" modifies it to include other readers. Another example would be as follows:

My father, and all of his rich friends, will be coming to the barbecue later this afternoon.

The relationship between such phrases is known as apposition.

Apposition: [Grammar.] a syntactic relation between expressions, usually consecutive, that have the same function and the same relation to other elements in the sentence, the second expression identifying or supplementing the first. In Washington, our first president, the phrase our first president is in apposition with Washington.

I appreciate the help ma'am, but I've got it.

Rumor is that several class years were affected, including first-years. Apparently, some the individuals did not know the axe was coming for them until today.

No clue what type of severance they will get.

THIS IS WONDERFUL NEWS - MORE SCUM ATTYS ARE UNEMPLOYED. GOD IS SMILING !

I think the attorney layoff number is closer to 60. All class years affected, including numerous first years.

3 months severance.

In Houston several long-time support staff, staff attorney, associates.

Oy, my achin' gump!

any first years in NY?

The scariest thing I've read here this week was the comment in the McDermott Will thread about GCs saying that biglaw firm billing rates are unsustainable.

But it could also be a good thing. If the clients are no longer willing to pay the rates, maybe they will no longer be in a position to demand the sacrifice that goes into being on-call 24/7 to provide service to them.

Could it be a glorious return to the 9-5 grind for lawyers (as in fuck off if you expect me to be here past 7pm when I'm getting paid less than 6 figures)?

Achin' Rumps??? Hell, they 'rect'um!!!

I like 34's suggestion. government-like salary for government-like effort.

I am shakin and achin to hump a recenly laid off akin & gump associate. The downside is the partners will have already left a gaping hole in that commode they call a soul.

Any numbers out of the Century City office?

47 lawyers, 57 staff

OCEANS RISE.

CITIES FALL.

QUINN REMAINS FULL RETARD.

31 - who?! or at the very least, out of what departments and how many?

First and Second years: Do not despair. If you have been laid off, I may hire you. I am a partner at a bankruptcy boutique firm that represents dozens of companies that are going out of business. My clients need bodies that will assist them with liquidation and fire sales. If you can stock shelves and do freight loading, I may have some temp assignments starting out at $20 an hour. I know it's not $160K a year but at least you will be doing something productive rather than rotting away in self-pity and depression. As a bonus, my HR dept. will help you with your law school loan forebearance applications. Stay tuned.

27: Thank you for the grammar lesson, but I remain unconvinced that there is an apposition in that sentence. An apposition requires that the two phrases standing in apposition to each other refer to the same entity. For example, in your sentence referring to George Washington, "Washington" and "our first president" refer to the same person. However, the sentence in question refers to two distinct entities. "I" is not the same as "many of the people on this site". Because it is offset by commas, this would have to be a non-restrictive appositive. A non-restrictive appositive cannot change the scope of what it modifies. In this sentence, it would change the scope by adding a group to "I". This is more of a dependent clause than an appositive.

OCEANS RISE.

CITIES FALL.

QUINN REMAINS A WANNABE FIRM.

why don't firms just ax their entire summer programs to save money. there will be a ton of low and mid-level attorneys to hire when business picks up again.

any numbers out of the NY office?

Left 'em gaping??? Hell, they tore 'em a new one!!!

Here's the skinny (as far as I know):

About 10% of the associates have been laid off nationwide (including 7 or 8 first years).

That is all.

Ouch, the TX firms are definitely feeling the heat as well. I know personally that Bracewell has been performing stealth layoffs and have heard multiple reports of layoffs at Baker Botts and Andrews Kurth.

The firm eviscerated some of its DC regulatory practices, laying off roughly half the attorneys in certain areas. The cuts included everyone from first years to senior counsel. Partners - including equity partners - are rumored to be on the chopping block at the end of this month.

They're basically exiting (at least two) practice areas that the firm identified as major long-term priorities just a few months ago. WTF? Is anyone in charge there?

PS - severance pays through the end of June, so almost four months. Not Latham, but better than average.

4,

Why are you hoping these layoffs actually happened? You want people to lose their jobs?

Firmwide email from the Chairman:

I regret to inform you that today the firm laid off 47 lawyers and 57 paralegals and staff in the United States and has entered into redundancy consultations in the United Kingdom. These layoffs are driven by the weakened economy and the subsequent decreased demand for legal services. Those lawyers and staff who were laid off will receive a comprehensive severance package.

Over the last several months, we have taken numerous measures to mitigate the effects of this decreased demand, including redeploying lawyers to different practices as well as streamlining and reducing our expenses.

We regret the impact these actions will have on our talented lawyers and staff and deeply appreciate the many valuable contributions and committed service of those affected by this decision.

50 says "They're basically exiting (at least two) practice areas that the firm identified as major long-term priorities just a few months ago."

Any sense what those practice areas are? Are they NY-based or DC-based?

Hey #7

Want to party? I just picked some vitamin E.

Akin Gump Attorneys and Staff - You're fuckin' out!

50 is wrong, so far as I can tell.

53 - Not NY.
56 - About which part?

57 - I'm not aware of the firm exiting any of the areas it said it would be focusing on.

- 56

58 - Not officially, but it is the practical effect of some of the cuts.

BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING

Cravath- 1st start date is October 26th... aka NOVEMBER

50 is definitely not wrong. that is my understanding as well.

are you Akin to take a DUMP?

wow...some of these comments are SO clever!!!

Which practice areas were so affected?

62: LOL! OMG! ROTFL!...... J/K.

I have a friend at AG - based on what she told me - 52's post seems accurate.

50 is correct; probably the voice of one of the discarded. And the partners in those areas ... start working on your resumes. It's gotta be sad for Mr. Strauss to watch as the NY parvenu close in to complete the evisceration of any soul remaining in the firm.

11 attorneys in NY

27 - I'm sure I'll regret asking this.

It seems that 11's sentence doesn't contain a purely adjectival phrase. Your example; "My father, and all of his rich friends, will be coming to the barbecue later this afternoon.", contains an apposition as I understand it. However, 11's sentence includes the verb phrase "I imagine" in his modifying phrase.

"I, and I imagine many of the people on this site, will not only read a better site, but will advertise for it here on ATL."

Presumably "many of the people on this site" is supposed to be the modification to "I", but he is imagining that such will include many people on this site. While not truly changing the intended meaning of the sentence, it seems to be an awkward insertion without another comma after "I imagine". I get it. He doesn't want to state the inclusion of "many other people" with certainty. Yet, it just seems off to me.
Hell, it seems an awkward inclusion with another comma too.

Is that not the case? Doesn't his modifier become too complex with that verb description?

Yes, for realz. I asked a sincere question about sentence structure on ATL. That alone will probably condemn me to the screennameless forever.

69: you're a disgrace to your number.

OCEANS RISE.

CITIES FALL.

QUINN REMAINS WITH EGG ON ITS FACE(BOOK)

OCEANS RISE.

CITIES FALL.

QUINN REMAINS WITH EGG ON ITS FACE(BOOK)

So does nobody actually know which specific groups the layoffs came out of?

70 - For you, perhaps.

For Grammar Police, getting that question was probably the more exciting alternative.

Unless you're in the bankruptcy practice, your group probably saw cuts today.

69 -
I think the phrase "i imagine" is an aside, so the sentence should read

I and, I imagine, many of the people on this site will not only read a better site, but will advertise for it here on ATL."

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

"QUINN REMAINS" GUY HAS STILL NEVER BEEN LAID

Look Akin Gump is no different than other Biglaw firms. Associates need to bill at least 150 hrs/ month for the business model to make sense. Corp. M&A is non-existent and doesn't look to come back anytime soon. I'm surprised the cuts didn't go deeper.

The balancing act that firms must play is to balance the profitability of the here and now vs. capacity for the long run.

Some partners and some groups are doing well. If they don't take home enough bacon, they'll walk across the street or set up their own shop.

If you cut too deep, then you won't have the bench strength to take on deals when the deals come back.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been let go.

I was one of them in DC, I am actually very happy to leave. The greed in this firm is amazing, well not only at Akin,,,,everywhere,,,all the nice people have left this firm so nothing worth is left,,,so sad to see the decline of a great place.

The Gump in Los Angeles laid off its only African American male associate. They may have one female remaining from what I'veI heard. This guy worked there for two summers and for one year after receiving an LL.M in IP from the London School of Economics and a JD from a top 20. wow. Layoffs are affecting really good people.

PENISES RISE!!!

VAG'S SPREAD!!!

I EAT THEM ALL!!! (for a price)

Which departments in DC were affected?

I have been so worried about my old assistant...

49 - Andrews Kurth laid off about 20 attorneys, mostly in the slow practice areas you would expect.

It was pretty universal. I know of 4 attorneys in lit, at least 2 in labor, 1 in tax, and several in corporate and environmental. I am not sure about the numbers of staff.

Anyone know with certainty which NY departments lost associates?

surprised ATL still hasn't figured out the exact numbers at akin. the official email went out to the firm last night. good reporting

which offices lost lit associates? I haven't heard of lit being hit my sources. I know of corporate tax and funds people, but not lit or IP and of course no one in bankruptcy.

78 dismisses as a "fact of life" what actually is the problem. Good stable firms historically recognized that virtually all practice areas were somewhat cyclical. Those having a good year essentially subsidized those having a bad year, the expectation was that all were in the firm together through good and bad years and that over time all would do modestly well. That model died over the past 15 years. Now those in rate insensitive and demand intensive practice areas take over. "Either you pay us what we want or we walk." There is no such thing as firm stability with that mindset. Firms become aggregations of lateral partners, moving where they think they can grab the most money. Associates get paid huge salaries, in part economically compensating them for the fact that it is extremely unlikely they would ever be made partner. Layer on two-tier partnerships and "weighted" partnership voting schemes (how much money you make dictates the number of ballots you are handed) and you have a recipe for long-term instability. Add equal parts of ridiculous rate increases, a cohort of non-practicing "managers" who look out for one another's inflated compensation packages, greed, hired propagandists who conjure "core values" and manipulated messages to associates, hustling for pro bono and diversity awards simply so that such awards can be advertised (often incestuous awards from organizations to which pro bono services are provided) -- and you have the modern BigLaw Souffle. Bake in this economy and, well, POOF! 79 has it right on.

88 has it right on.

89 is right on

What did Akin do with associate bonuses this year? Did laid-off attorneys receive year-end bonuses?

When I heard this news yesterday, I was akin to take a dump, now I am akin to hump.

What is ironic is that Akin actually paid pretty decent bonuses this year (outside of NY - NY got the standard market). The firm decided to layoff after Latham's bloodletting. It seems like Lathams layoffs opened the door to the decision. Thanks Latham.

So will laid-off associates receive severance, in addition to their bonus?

AG pays bonuses in January. Anyone who was getting one already received it.

I love Big Law, its the work I hate

95 - If you take the bonuses into account, it would seem that the effective Akin severance could exceed Latham's six months. I was under the impression some of the laid-off Latham associates did not receive a bonus.

Texas and Caliornia will be gone in two years. DC will be a hub. The wizards in NY will run all. Also, not only did they lay off 50+ associates, the bankruptcy associates were the only ones to get the pay bump (plus special bonuses depending on hours). They don't even tell the other associates this. The bankruptcy department, which leans on tax and corporate, keeps all this a closely guarded secret.

I was laid off from Akin last fall. It was in the afternoon on Friday, and I received a call. It was after one newspaper (?) wrote 5 % of attorneys was going to be cut at Akin.

99: And your point is ... ?

Akin pays bonuses in January so anyone laid off would have gotten theirs already. They paid half-Skadden bonuses in NY. However, for the first time ever, and without telling anypne (up until the day bonuses were to be paid!) they enforced a strict hours reqt, so many people did not get bonuses and did not know until they looked for it in their bank account.

101 -

What was the hours cutoff? Did it vary by office?

101,

Akin Gump does not have a minimum hours requirement. Thus, there is no policy to "enforce."

103--Well then explain why several people were told they were not getting a bonus because they did not meet the hours requirement. There IS an hours requirement, though it's not spoken of. Those who did not get bonuses did not know there was an hours requirement prior to not getting bonuses. It was not handled well. From what I know, the requirement is 2000 for associates, 2100 for counsel.

88 misses one important aspect of firm economics. The cyclical "you're up when we're down then we're up when you're down" is an ideal rarely realized. Instead, too often rainmakers never realize their worth, either over the short term or long haul. Those are the rainmakers who get up and go.

If a rainmaker doesn't get the profits he generates who should, and why? Sure, if the game is that of a corporate conglomerate in which counter-cyclical business units are aggregated in a sort of hedge against uncertainty then the partner who generates $2 million in profits one year but none the next and loses $200,000 the third can just be paid $600,000 each year and all others can be paid their "average" worth so as to smooth out the ups and downs of the practice. Or, using this trivial example, he can be paid $2 million the first year, nothing the second and owe $200,000 the third. Either works.

However, rainmakers like me leave when year after year they're paid 20% or so less than their average worth while parasitic partners make 200% of their worth. Along the way you start looking back at the old numbers and realize they've never contributed, that they've always been and will always be net drains on profits.

The nature of the games then becomes clear. These people have inherited a firm with a great reputation and they're acting as rent seekers. But now everything has changed. Everyone has begun to realize that clients hire lawyers. They don't hire firms (save in those instances of incompetent GCs who hire the most expensive firm to run up the bills as high as possible so they can tell their boards that they take their matters seriously). A firm's reputation, above some level, no longer makes any positive difference.

But why pay a lateral his profits? First, he's also picking up a share of the overhead. His prior firm failed to understand this. By picking up a disproportionate share of the overhead carried by himself and his associates he increased overall profits for all. Second, if he continues to generate new business he'll do so faster than his pay can be increased - an arbitrage play he can't make go away. Third, he'll likely throw off work to service partners thereby reducing the burden on all rainmakers. Finally, he'll add to the firm's prestige whether reputational (ability) or reputational (profits per partner).

Many firms are now trapped with aging service partners who have enough votes to stop the change needed to save their firms. They never cared about the firms as institutions. Now, close to the end of their careers, all they want is to extract every last nickel before they retire; and now that they've lost a big part of their savings they intend to leech until the last drop of blood is drained from the host (firm). It's a good plan for parasites. The question is: why would the sharks put up with it if they don't have to anymore?

88 is on point. It's so sad. I wish the best for people laid off because looking for a new job in this economy with all the competition of laid off attorneys and staff is going to be difficult.

I'm with 88. 105 aptly describes himself as a shark, bloviating with the arrogance that plagues anyone who needs to describe himself as a rainmaker who "throw[s] off" the work to the denigratingly characterized "parasitic" "service partners." Gimme a break. It's often "these people" you archly impugn who helped build a firm with a "great reputation."

I'll readily concede that firms should regularly, rigorously, openly, fairly and uniformly evaluate the contribution of each partner to the enterprise, whether junior or the "aging" you'd just as soon garrote or ply with your special Kool-Aid. But "rainmakers" who swagger, or threaten to swagger, from firm to firm looking for that incremental 20 cents on the dollar and measure "contribution" solely by the annual appendage length rubric published in the American Lawyer ("We were in the pool!!"), well, it is my hope that some day all of you will sort out your worth in the same firm, Lord of the Flies LLP.

It is very interesting to hear 31’s comment about the Houston office. During a callback there last fall, I specifically remember an associate telling me “They would never do that [layoffs]” Very interesting indeed.

98: You should confirm your facts before posting. That's just not true.

107 - Not to mention that firms need those "parasitic" partners to get things done. If Mr. Rainmaker wants to close a deal, you need the IP, Labor, Tax, and Environmental lawyers to complete their portion of the due diligence and draft the relevant sections of the SPA/schedules.

104-

I thought Akin was one of the firms that did not have a minimum hours requirement. Was this imposed retroactively for 2008?

I don't think that 105 was being particularly arrogant. Isn't he or she merely stating that in many firms, profits are not allocated in accordance with merit? That is, even over the long-run (taking down and up cycles into account), there are partners that take more than they give?

If so, isn't the solution simply to change the methodology for allocating profits? Why should the service partners continually receive a disproporationate amount of the earnings? And in times like these, why not wipe out the service partners' profit draw in favor of retaining the rainmakers. The service partner has no place to go anyway and when things pick up his/her salary can pick up.

No hours requirement but 2k to get a bonus. And bonuses outside NY blew.

You people mystify me with your stupid comments. Must be an entitlement stricken Gen Y crowd. No min hours? What the f*** are you smoking? How the f*** do you think these places make money??? They all wanna work you like a slave dog and you goddamn better be able to crank 2000 or more at any Am Law firm or yer ass is grass. Get it? Fucking morons... Expect layoffs Monday, whiney little bastards...

114 wants to be 105's beeeatch, or already is.

107 is totally correct. The cut-throat "rainmakers" who joined the firm over the past decade or so have played a huge part in the demise of a firm which not only had a great reputation that was built on a strong foundation by the likes of Bob Strauss, it was once a great place to work.

105 here again to address a few points.

1) Arrogance. Whom shall we say is more arrogant, the man who asks to be paid his value as set by the market, or the man who asks to be paid twice his worth?

2) Teamwork. Sure, the team wouldn't have a chance if it weren't for pretty darn good fielding and clutch hitting by the first baseman but does it really make any sense to pay him Rodriguez or Jeter dollars when he can easily be replaced, if necessary, for far less? And who is it, after all, who brings in the paying customers?

3) Regarding your "Lord of the Flies" reference, who's the bad guy? The one who takes out of the pot less than he puts in? Or the one who eats far more?

4) And to 116's point, you've no idea what you're talking about. Just ask any old man who founded a now-troubled great firm what his biggest regret is. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that he'll say "my failure to rein in the second generation". They're the hangers on and groupies who drain away the earnings of the heavyweight champ.

5) Finally, to 112. Correct. That's my point after all. If you get the incentives and disincentives right nobody leaves and the firm thrives. The problem is that the chronic underperformers hate the disincentives and, being generally sheeples, hate those to whom the incentives run even more.

105/117: Do you have any self-awareness of the sexist machismo which suffuses so much of what you assert as fact? Yuck.

114,

I think 104 may be making a slightly different point. The concern he/she seems to be raising is that some associates may have been led to believe that billable expectations were somewhere less than 2000--1800, 1900, 1950, what have you. Is it then fair to announce a hard cutoff after the year's labor is done?

117-

Re you point #5, why is it a problem if the underperformers dislike the incentives/disincentives? How happy must you keep them? If the solution is changing the allocation methodology, and the incentive aversion is not a problem, why not just do it?

116 --
just keep in mind that the day is going to come when you are "that old man."

Wow. As one of the affected lawyers here, I'm guessing commentator 117 (forgetting the numbers right now, the one who probably DIDN'T vote for our current president) is the reason why in effect I'm strongly leaning towards leaving the practice of law altogether (and I actually bear AG no animosity, it is not my business, I was not an owner of the enterprise, and I can't say I really "blame" them, it's not my money). To steal from one of my favorite Superbad scenes, to all of you still trying to grab that brass ring and become Mr. 117, "Enjoy your remaining years!"

Wow. As one of the affected lawyers here, I'm guessing commentator 117 (forgetting the numbers right now, the one who probably DIDN'T vote for our current president) is the reason why in effect I'm strongly leaning towards leaving the practice of law altogether (and I actually bear AG no animosity, it is not my business, I was not an owner of the enterprise, and I can't say I really "blame" them, it's not my money). To steal from one of my favorite Superbad scenes, to all of you still trying to grab that brass ring and become Mr. 117, "Enjoy your remaining years!"

I feel like 117 is a defector from the Houston office and that I know him. I am going to speak up and say that I think 117 is largely correct - though I also think he is oversimplfying things.

On another note, either kudos to Akin Gump or shame on Ellie for the fact that this is the ONLY website out there that doesn't have VERIFIED information on these layoffs.

Akin Gump London totally sucks. They laid off two American associates on a last in first out basis. These associates never had a chance...word of advice...don't pack up and move across the ocean to work at AG because if anything happens, you'll be sent packing with a shitty severance.