Notes from the Breadline: It Ain’t No Use to Sit and Wonder Why, Babe
Ed. note: Welcome to the latest installment of “Notes from the Breadline,” a column by a laid-off lawyer in New York. Prior columns are collected here. You can reach Roxana St. Thomas by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.
Cliff does not understand why attorney layoffs — mine or anyone else’s — are, well, newsworthy. This comes to light when I show him what I think is a fairly remarkable story about a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop who, in a display of consummate indiscretion, broadcasted the firm’s layoff plans to his fellow passengers on the Washington-to-New York Acela train (via loud cell-phone conversation).
“Pretty fucked up, huh?” I say. He shrugs. Crickets chirp. “I don’t know,” he finally answers. “I don’t get it. I don’t get the whole thing.” I try to explain why I think the story is remarkable. First, there is the obvious matter of the partner’s imprudence, and the thoughtlessness of announcing personnel decisions that will affect people’s lives — people like me — to the passengers on the 2:00 train. Second, I tell him, putting aside the fact that widespread job losses are the foremost indicator of what feels like our profession’s implosion, they are often fashioned as “stealth layoffs.” Pillsbury had already engaged in some stealth layoffs, and although it is not clear that the partner’s unofficial press release (in the form of poor volume modulation) thwarted the firm’s plans for another, the possibility gives the story a “gotcha” quality.
But, it turns out, while the term “stealth layoff” may be part of every lawyer’s lexicon at the moment, it does not have universal currency. “What are ‘stealth layoffs’?” Cliff wants to know. Growing exasperated, I try to explain the pernicious “enhanced performance review,” and its insidious corollary, the “performance-based dismissal.” My indignation is not contagious: Cliff remains unmoved. “These are private companies,” he says. “I don’t see why they have an obligation to announce anything about who they choose to fire, or why.”
People get fired, he says: it sucks, but why should we expect law firms to act any differently than any other employer? Cliff has worked in advertising for the better part of two decades, where, apparently, things work differently; when he was working at big ad agencies, he tells me, people were fired all the time. In fact, firings usually coincided with payday, so if you got a paycheck you knew that you were safe for a little while longer.
Once, years ago, when he was working at one such agency, someone from management went around and put stickers on the doors of selected offices. Everyone who got a sticker assumed that they were going to be canned, so that later, when they were herded into a conference room, they were prepared for the ax to fall. Instead, they were told that they “were the future of the company,” but that everyone else was being told to pack up and leave. The chosen ones were then sequestered in the conference room until the unfortunate ones, who hadn’t made the cut, were shepherded out of the building. No one had any warning of what was about to happen, much less an expectation that they would get three months of severance.
I understand what Cliff is saying. “But,” I remind him, “you told me that the last few times you were fired, they escorted you out as you threw things down the hall and yelled obscenities.” I also recall him saying, at some point, “Wow, I can’t believe you’re still going into the office. I would be walking in with a can of gasoline.”
“I didn’t say that it doesn’t suck,” he concedes. “I just don’t understand why everyone thinks that these law firms owe them something.”
Is Roxana’s significant other being insufficiently understanding? Read her reflections on lawyers’ love lives, after the jump.
I find myself wondering if this is why lawyers so often end up miserable and alone, or at least paired with one another. We are, on some level, a freakish sub-species, whose members may be better off inbreeding than trying to relate to the rest of the population. The last person I dated was a lawyer, and we did make use of a certain, specific shorthand. When he didn’t follow through on promises, I could justify my annoyance based on promissory estoppel; when he did things on his own initiative, I could express gratitude for his sua sponte thoughtfulness. Still, I want Cliff to understand what I am experiencing, so I try to temper my frustration.
Stealth layoffs are wrong, I explain, because they rely on impermissible burden-shifting. “Strike that,” I say hastily, and start again. They are wrong because they insult the people who are being laid off, and create a pretext of failure or inadequacy on the part of the associate in order to hide the failures or inadequacies of the firm. I wasn’t laid off because of fabricated “performance-related” issues, but what if I had been? I feel bad enough about being laid off for economic reasons, I tell Cliff.
If, after getting a good performance review and a bonus at the last evaluation, I was suddenly told that I didn’t measure up, it would have been a much bigger blow. More importantly, what would I tell potential employers about why I was searching for a new job? When firms are dishonest about why they let associates go, it robs the associates of confidence, on one end of the continuum, and, on the other end, of opportunities with new firms, who may regard them as having not been good enough for their last employer. Why, I ask Cliff, should associates be forced to shoulder the burden of the firm’s shortcomings?
“That’s how the system works,” he says. “The little guy always has to take one for the team. The people at the top aren’t going to voluntarily take a hit if they can sacrifice the people below them.”
Frustrated, I do what any woman in my situation would do: I complain to a friend. Giovanna and I have talked about how hard it is to explain our situation to family and friends who are not lawyers. First, Giovanna points out, people don’t seem to understand that the entire industry appears to be collapsing. “They don’t realize how many lawyers have been laid off,” she says. “No matter how many times I explain that about 6,000 people lost their jobs, I swear they still look at me and think it’s because I suck.”
“They don’t think you suck!” I insist. But, even as I do, I know that I wonder the same thing when I tell people about my situation, and that I often find myself adding, almost as a disclaimer, that the firm laid off a lot of attorneys — not just me. In the era before lawyers started showing up, en masse, in the breadline, most people assumed that if you got fired it was because you had done something wrong. I didn’t drop the ball! I want to tell people, even if they are complete strangers. I didn’t cite Dred Scott in a brief! I didn’t send an email about confidential settlement talks to the New York Times!
Moreover, both Giovanna and I have encountered the widespread belief that lawyers are recession-proof. “If I had a dime for every time someone said to me, ‘You’re a lawyer! You’ll find something,’ I could just stop looking for a job,” I tell her. She agrees. All the non-lawyers she knows are convinced that jobs are out there waiting, like low-hanging fruit; all we have to do is run out to the orchard and decide which one we want to take a bite out of. Giovanna and I, however, see no evidence of the charmed life that we are presumed to lead. “This whole recession is going to get worse and worse,” she warns me ominously. “You mark my words: there’s going to be a shantytown in Central Park. I’m setting up my tent by the Boathouse so I can at least get something that’s waterfront, with a nice view.” I picture us camped out by the Boathouse, wearing fingerless gloves and watching a static-y television powered by electricity siphoned from the nearest light pole. “We’d have to hustle for odd jobs so we could get a digital converter box,” I say absentmindedly. “And I guess it’s a good thing we have that firewood connection.”
Giovanna had her first job interview around the same time as mine; hers did not end well, either. “It was awful,” she tells me later. “I was waiting for Ashton Kutcher to jump out from behind a plant to tell me I’d been Punk’d.” The partner, she says, spent most of the interview attacking her (with varying degrees of subtlety). At one point, when he asked her to talk about what she had been doing for the past few years, she described her work on the case she had devoted much of her time to, emphasizing what she thought were her strengths. When she was finished, he said, “If you’re so great, why did your firm let you go?” At the end of the interview, she says, he told her to ask him some questions. The only ones she could think of, initially, were “Does your head get stuck in every door you walk through?” and “Are you running for Chief Douchebag?” “He wasn’t just a tool,” she tells me, “he was a toolbag. In fact, he was a toolshed.”
But, it turns out, despite her ignominious beginning, Giovanna proves to be much more recession-proof than I am. Shortly after being turned down for the first job, she gets an interview at another firm. After two interviews in quick succession, she is offered the position. “This is a miracle,” she says. Then she adds, gravely, “I’m 100% certain that God decided to give me this one because he knows I had a terrible childhood. I’m telling you: it’s my one break.”
I don’t know whether her good fortune is the result of divine intervention or a perfectly-tailored skill-set, but I am beginning to think it is the former: I do not know anyone else who, after being laid off, has been able to find a job. But, whether it is an act of God or a lucky break, I am relieved that at least one of us is working again: unemployment has been hard on us both. Before she met Tony and I met Cliff, each of us had been on our own for quite a while, and neither of us is used to the subtle degradation that comes with losing financial control of one’s life. It is one thing to do without minor luxuries to which you have become accustomed; it is another thing entirely to contend with the grinding uncertainty of not knowing how you will support yourself as your safety net continues to fray beneath the weight of unrelenting financial demands.
The problem, I tell her one day, is that she made it look too easy. “You found a job so fast,” I explain, “that I think Cliff is wondering what the hell is wrong with me, and why I can’t find something.” I have tried to explain to him that the stars aligned perfectly for Giovanna, but that her experience is the exception to the norm. Giovanna is sympathetic; she is not sure that Tony understands how lucky she was to get a job so quickly. “Don’t worry,” she reassures me. “I’m sure he understands that you’re doing your best.”
A few days later, however, I wonder whether he does, in fact, understand that while I am doing my best, I am also swimming against the tide. We are in the car — for the record, his car, not mine — when I get an email from a friend, who wants to know if I am interested in environmental law. She thinks she knows of some positions with a public interest organization that might be looking for people to work on policy issues and impact litigation. I read the email out loud and say, “I don’t think this is for me.”
“Why not?” Cliff asks. “Why not just try? Can you really afford to be so selective?”
“I’m not being selective,” I say defensively, “I just don’t have any environmental experience.” I try to explain that, given the state of the market, employers can hire anyone they want. Why would they want someone like me, who has nothing remotely related to environmental law on her resume? I’m not sure I have anything on my resume that would demonstrate so much as an interest in those issues. I think I even used plastic bags the other day at the grocery store. It isn’t a question of what I want (which is a job, doing just about anything); it’s a question of whether I’m qualified.
“Just apply,” he says. “What do you have to lose? If they’re not interested, maybe they know someone who is. Maybe they’ll like you and pass your resume along. You need to just get your resume out there, even if it’s not a perfect fit.”
I bristle at his advice. In my experience, people who apply for positions for which they are totally unqualified don’t seem innovative; they seem tone deaf. And, in the unlikely event that I were to get an interview, how long could I even sustain the illusion that I was actually interested in the position, as opposed to the mere promise of a job? Probably, I think, long enough for them to thank me for wasting their time. On the other hand, I suddenly feel as though I have to justify my continued unemployment to Cliff. He has been working long hours lately, and it seems important to me to show him that I am not spending my days on the chaise lounge, eating bon-bons while I fan myself with a palm frond and watch re-runs of Designing Women. “Fine,” I say. “I’ll look at the jobs on their website when I get home.”
I look at the jobs on the website when I get home. Most of them require more technical expertise than I will ever have. In fact, I don’t understand what half of the job duties are. “Um, I don’t think this is a good fit,” I tell Cliff.
Still, I feel guilty, and the next time I come over I bring a bag full of groceries. I am not sure exactly why, but I need for him to know that I am trying, at least, to pull my own weight. He may not understand how much effort I put into looking for a job, but it seems important to show him that I have not become complacent, and that I have something to contribute. Maybe life was easier when women didn’t have high economic expectations for themselves, but what can I do? If I got a job tomorrow, I find myself thinking, I would buy Cliff something new and shiny, just because I could. As soon as the thought forms, I recoil. Maybe I am becoming an asshole.
********************
Cliff and I have since split up, for reasons unrelated to the vicissitudes of unemployment. The day after we had “the talk,” I woke up with a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. I couldn’t place it initially, but then I was struck by the uncertainty of everything around me and I realized what it was: fear. If I had been able, at that moment, to smack myself with a rolled-up newspaper, I would not have hesitated to do it; after all, I had experienced so many difficult things, on so many occasions, with very little support. Why should I be afraid now?
But, I realized, being unemployed and uncertain about whether — and where — there is room for you in a radically changing profession is, in a word, scary. The possibility of having met a kindred spirit is a glimmer of hope. It smooths some of life’s more precipitous edges, and reminds you that there is plenty of lightness in the world around you. And, of course, it always helps to have a hand to hold at the end of the day, someone to make you laugh, and a sense that you’re not alone on a difficult journey.
Still, when I get the rare — but occasional — ding letter, I think of what Cliff would tell me. “Fucking savages,” he would say. “Burn the place down!”
___________________________________________________________________________
Roxana St. Thomas is a laid-off lawyer living in New York. You can reach her by email, at roxanastthomas@gmail.com, or find her on Facebook.
(134) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
The First posts are dumb. Nice article.
Since when is it funny to make fun of Tim Tebow?
if you want to avoid getting fired, you may follow the lead of the french caterpillar workers that seized the corporate offices and detained their bosses to stop the layoffs. personally i think the french are pussies but this took balls.
Go away. Please just go away.
Gimme back that filet-o-fish
Gimme that fish
Gimme back that filet-o-fish
Gimme that fish
What if it was you
hanging up on this wall?
If you were in that sandwich
you wouldn't be laughing at all!
"I find myself wondering if this is why lawyers so often end up miserable and alone, or at least paired with one another. We are, on some level, a freakish sub-species, whose members may be better off inbreeding than trying to relate to the rest of the population"
-someone has been spending too much of their time watching Sex and the City reruns
Is Caterpillar struggling? What they need is some good publicity. I would pledge to by a bulldozer for every ISM activist they turn into a pancake.
- Rachel Corrie #1 Fan
The day after we had "the talk," I woke up with a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. I couldn't place it initially, but then I was struck by the uncertainty of everything around me and I realized what it was: food poisoning.
2- It's always funny to make fun of Tim Tebow.
OK, now I really am bored with this.
The day after we had "the talk," I woke up with a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. I couldn't place it initially, but then I was struck by the uncertainty of everything around me and I realized what it was: pregnancy.
Cliff is right on, and you're an overreacting, self-entitled, b**tch, as has been amply demonstrated by your various posts.
He's a lucky man to have escaped the claws of a woman like you. Women, however, are unlucky that you're out there giving a bad reputation to the hundreds of millions of us that are not stereotypes of why women don't belong out of the house. Thanks a lot, Ms. 50s caricature.
Boy, you are out of touch.
Why do you think a law firm is any different than Joe's Sandwich shop? Here's the basic economics -- when revenues drop, expenses need to be cut or the entire enterprise is in peril. Joe's Sandwich shop probably lays off one of the cashiers or delivery boys. A law firm lays off employees, such as admins or paralegals, or when things are tight, associates.
Stop thinking law firms are somehow different than other businesses.
I agree ... never a bad time to bash you a little Tebow.
13 -- it's not that she or anyone else on this board thinks that law firms are different from other businesses, it's that she and they think that junior lawyers are somehow different from other kinds of employees. This generation is so used to getting a trophy just for showing up -- at being told that everybody is special in their own way -- that they can't believe that basic economic rules apply to them. Is it fair? Of course not. Life's not fair, never has been.
Did you maybe have to give up your gym membership after being fired? Could be why he dropped your fat ass.
Here, here, #13. A firm's attorneys are its single most significant expense item. And when times are tough (i.e. "slow"), those attorneys are not operating at full capacity. And when something (or someone) is not operating at full capacity, it's time to either fix it or get rid of it. An associate doing nothing costs the firm the same amount of money as an associate billing 2300 hours. If there are two associates, and only 2300 hours to go around, one of them has to be let go. Law firm economics is pretty simple.
I'm 100% with Cliff on this one.
The day after we had "the talk," I woke up with a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. I couldn't place it initially, but then I was struck by the uncertainty of everything around me and I realized what it was: chest-burster.
Sounds like Cliff has no idea how important biglaw associates are and that its not O.K. to treat the bottom 5% of the associates like they're just staff.
13, I think the complaint isn't the economic background of the layoffs, but the fact that Joe wouldn't invent tales of incompetence when firing his employees, thus damaging their chances of future employment long after they are off the payroll.
wow, that sucked. that's two minutes of my life I'll never get back.
These posts used to be pretty good, but lately they've been going up in length and down in quality.
Does anyone else think the filet o fish comments are the only thing worth reading here?
Team Cliff.
Sorry Roxy, but this post didn't pass the smell test. You law firm hired you to service its clients. It has less clients/work. It doesn't need you anymore. You get let go. What's so hard to understand about that? Bank employees have been laid off in the tens of thousands. Same for auto workers.
I don't understand how associates suddenly became "entitled" to jobs. Did nobody realize that you got great performance reviews over the past few years because your firm was overwhelmed with work and needed you to stay? Now they have less work the wheat is being separated from the chaff.
End of story.
A singing fish never gets old.
Bob Loblaw
Well, at least this column isn't the wedding column.
Lawyers are, by nature, inveterate complainers and whiners. The current batch of 20-somethings have been raised in an era where it's always someone else's fault for anything bad that happens; they have never really known any hard times, and they expect everything to be handed to them.
Put the two together, and it's no wonder 20-something lawyers think the idea of getting laid off from a law firm is unthinkable and unjust. I'm not saying it's doesn't suck hard, but this has happens, and has been happening, in every other industry in every other generation. We're nothing special.
Being an attorney has historically been one of the most secure jobs. That's one of the reason risk adverse people like it so much (if we weren't risk adverse we'd go to B-school.) Stop calling lawyers "entitled"; we are just surprised.
Agree with 23. The first few installments were good, but I think that the series has served its purpose.
Check back in with us during the summer.
I was GULCed by Tim Tebow in the backwoods of Florida.
Well, for one thing, ad agency people, like Cliff, don't have to worry about pesky things like malpractice insurance and ethics boards. That's two things that make the practice of law different from just about any other type of law (with the exception of the medical field). so yeah, it is kinda important that a potential employer understand that attorneys looking for work were not fired for cause, but because of economics, or otherwise 'didn't fit' with the firm's requirements (like just because one didn't really want to work 2600 hours a year, doesn't mean one is lazy)
Well, for one thing, ad agency people, like Cliff, don't have to worry about pesky things like malpractice insurance and ethics boards. That's two things that make the practice of law different from just about any other type of law (with the exception of the medical field). so yeah, it is kinda important that a potential employer understand that attorneys looking for work were not fired for cause, but because of economics, or otherwise 'didn't fit' with the firm's requirements (like just because one didn't really want to work 2600 hours a year, doesn't mean one is lazy)
i just threw up in my mouth....get over yourself honey..the economy is in the shits..stop acting like a pathetic loser..and yes law firms are like other businesses.. Cliff is 100% right about how ad agencies treat their employees..I have many friends who work at ad agencies and that industry is ruthless on how they treat their employees.. So kiss my ass about your Biglaw experience on how you can't get over how bad they treated you..Its life, its business, this is how the world works..so get over it!!
Have none of you ever heard of irony? (You know, one of those literary devices you ought to have learned about in middle school.) Sheesh.
Tough crowd. Though I admit to little interest in the author's relationship history, the first half is pretty good.
I continue to be amazed and appalled by the lack of empathy and reading comprehension of the authors of many of the ATL comments. Many of you truly miss her point. It's not about whether she deserves a job or is owed a job, but it's about the way ended and the firm's stealth layoffs and the industry's response. Having worked for close to 15 years before going to law school, I experience numerous economic downturns and while layoffs were always involved, companies called them layoffs and were quick to offer services to soften the blow and more importantly support those affected by the layoffs. These services included recommendations to future employers and explanations that the layoffs were not related to job performance but the economic downturn. Law firms are so caught up with their egos that they do not take this step and would rather blame anyone else for what they see as their failure rather than just chalk it up to reality.
Carry on Ms. St. Thomas. Hang in there and remember, "what comes around goes around." I have no doubt that those lacking in empathy will truly get what they deserve.
Cliff is a jerk. Glad you are rid of him.
I think Cliff's perspective on law firm firings is more accurate, objectively, and also much different than the average lawyer's or law student's view. A law firm is a business, and the owners don't really 'owe' their employees (staff and associates) anything beyond the usual conditions of at-will employment.
29: C'mon, you have to admit that many attitudes here go well beyond 'surprised' and pull up a lawn chair smack dab in the formerly-green pasture of 'entitlement'. Most people who have been here a while were on the big "NY to 190!" bandwagon just one short year ago (or even more recently). The popularity of the (lame) 'TTT' usage is another big indicator of typical attitudes around here.
I find it hard to believe any mid level associate needs to clarify why they are looking for a job in this market.
Even my parents (who live under a rock in flyover country) know that it's a tough legal market and that jobs are hard to come by.
29 -- you're not surprised. You're some combination of misinformed and naive. Law firms have always regularly rid themselves of surplus lawyers -- they're simply doing so in greater numbers than is typical. That said, there were mass layoffs in 1991 and 2002. Biggest difference between then and now is the absence of blogs acting as echo chambers for the adversely affected and the fearful. It sucks losing a job, but it's a fact of life.
I have a sneaking suspicion that commenters should be billing instead of commenting if they are really still employed. Roxana is simply voicing what many are going through right now and you snide, rude and insensitive people are attacking this piece with shallow commentary. One's self-worth should not be tied to a job - especially since that may vanish tomorrow.
The day after we had "the talk," I woke up with a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. I couldn't place it initially, but then I was struck by the uncertainty of everything around me and I realized what it was: there were *two* Darrins on Bewitched.
this actually reads a lot like "Then We Came to the End," which is about -- of course -- layoffs at an ad agency.
"personally i think the french are pussies but this took balls"
When it comes to labor, we're the pussies.
37, right on. These comments are just vicious. What's wrong with you people? What's she supposed to do, revel in her unemployment and hope for more? Since when is being down about losing your job some kind of character flaw?
You people either have no idea what it's like to have a tough time on the job market, or you do and are faking the bravado to compensate. For crying out loud, have an iota of empathy. She's not entitled or arrogant, she's just going through a tough strech and is glum about it.
Hang in there, Roxana.
I've been a fan of these columns in the past, but I have to say: author was a crybaby in this one. Sure, her firm shouldn't have been dickish about it, but if she wants a new job now, she has to act like it. Apply for the job first, decide about the "fit" after you have a choice.
i've been recently laid off and these posts make me feel better about myself because roxana comes across at such a whining loser. maybe that's ATL's hidden goal. too meta?
Ignore the haters. We like your posts - keep 'em coming!
she needs to make the entries shorter and punchier because who really cares what she has to say. so at least make it pleasurable to read.
Sorry sister. But he probably missed the $300K you were making... You should have applied to the enviro job.
Roxana needs to find something besides the blog posts and job search to make the hours go by. She is clearly too wrapped up in her own universe. Too much navel gazing here.
Roxanna - I enjoy your articles, keep 'em coming!
This was a mind-numbingly awful post. Unbelievably bad. I award you no points... and may God have mercy on your soul.
Screw Cliff - what an unsupportive jerk.
Pillsbury is about to implode. Partners are not at all happy with management's decision to layoff quality associates.
21 hadit right. It's not that law firms are different than other companies. Other companies, however, tend to be honest about dumping surplus labor. When the local factory cuts workers because orders have dropped, it doesn't claim that the cuts were "perfomance based" - these workers aren't slandered. Some law firms won't own up. That is scummy. It is not whiney or entitled to call firms on this. They don't need to screw up associates' futures with disingenuous tales of poor performance just because they don't want to admit business is slow
- sixth year, still employed (for the moment)
This is Pulitzer-caliber stuff, so help me. The 90% of you commenters who are so proud to have an internet connection and a functioning keyboard should go find yourself a blog about The Simpsons and masturbate to your own geekdom.
58 - i take it you don't read the papers much. pulitzer stuff? please.
this whole pitty party thing is getting old, put something new and interesting on this site..
the economy sucks, we get it. hopefully those recently laid off attorneys saved some of their ultra-inflated salaries..first year associates should make about 70K
yeah, my grammar sucks. who cares. get on a job site if you are so concerned about your employment. don't waste a minute. your ancestors are disgusted.
Why should she have applied for the enviro job if she had no interest or expertise in that type of law - so she can waste the potential employer's time and resources? Of course, people have to compormise in this economy, however, it should be within reason. Maybe insurance defense, med. mal., etc. isn't your dream job, but if you were a litigator at a large firm, you have transferable skills that you can use in such fields (and they aren't surprised that it wasn't your dream in law school to do such work and/or you might only be there until "something better" comes along). Enviro. law seems a bit different from your run-of-the-mill/ wouldn't-previously-considered areas of practice. Those in enviro. generally have a passion and/or interest in the subject matter, and those are the people that should be in those positions.
"Cliff and I have since split up, for reasons unrelated to the vicissitudes of unemployment."
Hopefully you split up because you finally recognized that Cliff is an insufferable know-it-all who couldn't even be bothered to muster up an ounce of sympathy for his wounded girlfriend. He'd fit in really well here.
Law firms are different b/c they in large measure employ a consistent, homogenous class of people from wealthy suburbs that have been coddled, told how sweet they are their entire lives, and rarely if ever have been denied material wants.
Law firms are different b/c they in large measure employ a consistent, homogenous class of people from wealthy suburbs that have been coddled, told how sweet they are their entire lives, and rarely if ever have been denied material wants.
I'm usually prone to snark, but I actually enjoy Roxanna's posts - keep up the writing, and we'll keep reading.
Methinks Roxanne is not a 20-something.
I think the clear winner in this whole sordid tale is Cliff.
Really, Roxana did the right thing by not applying to the environmental law position. Unless they made pretty clear that "we'll take a general commercial litigator and retool if necessary" it would be waste of her time. In this economy, there are tons of people with real enviro experience looking, and even if she has a very highly placed friend inside (which doesn't appear to be the case), she can at most get a courtesy interview (still not a bad thing). Having applied to positions in this economy I can tell you that the only places I have gotten interviews were where my credentials and experience exactly matched what they were looking for.
Most of the ATL commenters are Neanderthals. All the good, smart, competent lawyers are either busy handling cases or busy trying to find work (because good, smart, competent lawyers get laid off, too). All the retards are on ATL, misspelling 'whore'.
"I read your book, and 'Tony' had the same problems as 'Cliff', the stockbroker."
"Very good, Roxy. The pressures you feel, and again, I am not labeling them, I'm not judging them, are keeping you from fulfilling your potential -- so no more tomfoolery, no more shenanigans, no more ballyhoo."
Bottom line is that even if layoffs were actually for unavoidable economic reasons, the associates that will be fired are not the ones at the top of their game. Whereas these laid-off associates are not the significantly underperforming laywers, they are, at best, nothing more than average - the hardest thing to suffer here is that an attorney laid off for economic reasons quickly comes to this realization yet refuses to admit to it out of a misguided sense of pride.
Bottom line is that even if layoffs were actually for unavoidable economic reasons, the associates that will be fired are not the ones at the top of their game. Whereas these laid-off associates are not the significantly underperforming laywers, they are, at best, nothing more than average - the hardest thing to suffer here is that an attorney laid off for economic reasons quickly comes to this realization yet refuses to admit to it out of a misguided sense of pride.
new day, same drivel
I'm another snarky bitch who really likes Roxana's posts. Very well-written and engaging, especially for a fellow breadliner.
And, even though Cliff sounds like a douche, breaking up on top of being unemployed can't be much fun. Hang in there, girl!
"I find myself wondering if this is why lawyers so often end up miserable and alone, or at least paired with one another."
Speak for yourself, you whiny bore.
Roxana, Cliff doesn't "get it" because he's a dumb jock. Shame on you for being so shallow! Also, you never considered why he was single in his mid-40s (e.g. 2 decades in advertising)? Think like a lawyer next time, do some due diligence.
To everyone who holds the "law is just like every other business, deal with it" view:
Few other businesses require training that involves such an investment of time and money. The way that our society is structured requires those who are intimately familiar with the nuances of our complex legal system to protect the legal interests of everyone else. At the time that all of these associates made the decision to attend law school, there was a demand for their services. Given the necessary role that lawyers play in our society, don't you think we owe them more than some retarded investment banker who just wanted to get rich?
tl;dr, LAW FIRM BAILOUT 2K9!!!!
Thank you for these posts, Roxanna. I was recently been laid off and daily have to have the following annoying conversation: no, I was not a secretary...yes, law firms are doing layoffs...yes, they are affected by the economic climate, and no, i haven't been able to find another job yet. really. Its like a broken record conversation and its true, non-lawyers don't understand it. It has nothing to do with comparing the two. I don't know what the market pressures are for reporters or advertising agents, so I think its nice for us to have a place to vent a bit.
I don't understand the need to be so harsh to each other. I am in my 20s and have no sense of entitlement. I am carrying a six figure debt, worked through high school and college and realize times are tough for everyone. I am going to survive, but acting like we have to swallow it without allowing some grief, anxiety, anger, more anxiety around this major shift in our lives is unfair and unrealistic. Transitions bring all these feelings. It has nothing to do with being a brat or a spoiled bitch.
Roxana, you are a very gifted writer. Keep on!
good story. keep them coming. ignore the haters.
the piece about lawyers dating other lawyers is spot on.
i just broke up with my girlfriend. she's an out-of-work lawyer just like roxana. reading your story made me realize that i was the cliff in our relationship.
Some people on here warned you this was happening.
This drivel is horrible. You can't even understand half of it because the timeline is so off. Did this all happen six months ago? Three? Last week?
There were two pieces of new information in this whole story. (1) "Her" friend got a job, and (2) "she" broke up with "her" boyfriend. The whole story could have been three sentences. "Giovanna got a job. I still don't have one. Cliff dumped me."
The reason this lastest 2 full pages was because everyone knows that if you're going to make a story up wholecloth, you should fill it with paragraphs of useless emotional tripe to cover up how clear it is that you made everything up.
Sometime after this "series" ends, somebody will out the writer, and every word of this crap will turn out to have been the product of a clearly delusional mind.
while some attorneys are laid-off because of average or below average work quality, plenty of high-quality associates are laid off because of politics. they did do good work, but their good work was not visible to the partners who had to make the decision. the partners who make the decision are always going to protect their go-to associates over some other partners go-to associate.
also, many of the first-years who are getting let go pretty much get their names taken out of a hat. these kids have little in the way of a record to judge and all the second and third years have been hoarding work from them since they started last fall. one or two partners with corner offices get to make the layoff decision, and your odds of surviving are way higher if you happened to have worked for these partners.
43 for the win.
while many average or below-average associates get let go in a layoff, many high-quality associates get laid off because of politics. if you did great work, but your work was not visible/known to the 1 or 2 partners who had to make the layoff decision, then you may well be screwed. the partner making the decision is always going to protect his go-to associates over another partner's go-to associate, even if other partner says "i really love this associate."
also, all the first years getting laid off are not below average associates. no track record; basically names out of a hat at a lot of places it sounds like. again, they have maybe worked for only 1 or 2 partners in the 5 months they have been working, and these might well be the partners who aren't the most powerful. also, all the second and third years have been hoarding work that would normally get passed to the first-years since they started last fall.
77, two responses:
"those who are intimately familiar with the nuances of our complex legal system to protect the legal interests of everyone else."
Um, almost all the associates who were fired were most definitely not in the above category. Learning to click a button on the computer while sifting through documents does not count as intimate familiarity with a legal nuance.
"At the time that all of these associates made the decision to attend law school, there was a demand for their services."
Yes, obviously the economy always grows, housing prices and the stock market always rise, and unemployment never increases.
Did someone say "entitlement" attitude?
#78 - If your in DC I will buy you drinks till the tears dry up.
80: We know this much is true.
Roxanna is probably a dude.
Roxanna went to a third tier law school (Brooklyn, New York Law, Cardozo, Hofstra) and graduated in 04 or 05.
Roxanna did a low level clerkship after law school.
Roxanna got a job at a small/medium sized NYC firm after the clerkship (the type of firm that won't pay for a black car to take you to NJ for a deposition).
Roxanna got fired and only got two weeks pay (again, another clue "she" wasn't at big law).
Roxanna is in "her" 30s. Probably about 33.
Cliff is right. The partners own the business. When times are tough, they get rid of the lowest performers. I'm not being mean -- it's not horrible to be one of the lowest performers at a reasonably good firm from a reasonably good law school with reasonably good grades. You would have done okay for a few years in a good economy. But I guarantee you that the associates who (1) are really good and (2) everybody likes didn't get laid off. I actually enjoy your articles and I do feel badly for you -- but have you thought of moving to another city? One that doesn't have so many well-qualified laid off lawyers roaming around?
Get over yourself.
What all of the "law firms are no different" and "today's generation are just whiners" idiots don't get is that associates are being sold a bill of goods.
When a firm says "we don't do layoffs" and the partners tell you to think of them as your friends and mentors rather than just bosses in order to better coax every last f---ing minute of billable time out of you, to get you to give up your nights, your weekends, your friends and spouse, EVERYTHING, for the firm, they are asking for a LOT more than an ad industry job, than almost every other job (with a few obvious exceptions like medicine).
When they tell you those things in order to squeeze another dollar, another night, another year out of you, they are honor bound to the truth of those representations, and when it turns out all those things were LIES, that they're just like every other employer only excruciatingly more demanding, the associates have been, morally if not legally, defrauded. THAT is where all the outrage comes from, where the sense of entitlement comes from - it's not that people expect something for nothing, it's that they have been asked to sacrifice basically their entire lives to the firm, based not only on today's salary but on promises that the firm was, at least to some degree, looking out for them, and when all those things the partners told you turn out to be lies, there is a well deserved sense of anger at having been deceived into giving up what would have been the best years of your life for nothing.
a little lenghty, but still well written. too many biTTTer commeTTTers.
Please, 77. While law firms may do some great pro bono work and be involved in some really worthy causes, what exactly do you think most of Big Law is? Most Big Law firms represent retarded investment bankers looking to get rich. Or otherwise clean up the pieces when deals and M&As collapse. There's not exactly an overabundance of representing the downtrodden or safeguarding the Constiution going on here.
#89,
1. Yes, it sucks.
2. You must have been extremely naive to buy into that sell-job.
3. Most other high-pay professions also demand a great deal of sacrifice in return.
4. Not every firm that said no layoffs 'lied.' Some are poorly managed and didn't properly forecast the economic situation or the impact it would have on the firm. A combination of poorly chosen statements in addition to that ain't pretty.
Her friend got several job interviews and a job in an apparently short period of time. Yes, Roxanna, it is you, not them. If there are no jobs out there, how did she get a job so fast while you are still being selective?
Oh and if people are unrealistic about the number of jobs out there, what about the unrealistic veiw of BigLaw that their deferred associates can just "do" public interest for a bit until a "real" job comes along?
Boy, these posts are great. The author is totally in-touch and has value to contribute. Anyone who denies this is blind.
92,
Actually, I didn't buy it personally. I left my firm for an in-house job a while back and can't even begin to tell you how much better my life is. But seeing all these people telling the recently laid off that they're just whiners really rubs me the wrong way - most partners are scumbags and the pitch the firms give is disgustingly deceptive from the very start.
Unfortunately, the law schools and legal press are both completely beholden to the firms that sponsor their events and advertise with them. So, when the turnaround comes, you can bet there will be no mention of how this all went down to the next generation of law students entering when the downturn has passed. No, law school placement people and the legal media will happily do their best to suppress any thought or mention of it and route people to personal and professional ruin indefinitely - it's pretty sad if you think about it.
In any event, the point of my original note was that many of the posters here need to find an ounce of empathy. It does not make you a whiner to have been misled by your employer and to feel aggrieved and complain when you're unceremoniously fired.
Regards,
89
If lawyers were the only ones getting laid off in large numbers, these columns (and this blog) would have some modicum of credibility. We've gone from "Greedy Associates" to this. Anyone see the problem here? The IT sector is laying off thousands; the auto industry is imploding along with potentially millions of jobs. You're a lawyer. Does the term of art "employee at will" mean anything to you???
Hang out a shingle. You can probably do the kind of work you were doing on a contract basis or for a much, MUCH lower hourly rate and build up a business. (oh, wait -- you'd have to actually work for that and not just wait for the partners to bring in the business and feed you)
Offer your services to a not-for-profit. Just stop whining. People really do open their pay envelopes in places all over this country to find a termination notice -- the "pink slip". No one does cartwheels trying to "explain" to them whether this is for performance or economic reasons. They're just done.
Hey, Cliff - call me, babe.
Amen babe.
Oh, and 95 - you're just the type of in-house counsel that translates into the nightmare client. Who handles the work that you farm out that you cannot do because you are leaving at 6 PM and you want it done by the time you arrive at 10 AM tomorrow? Or the work that you cannot do because it is "outside your field"? That's right, Einstein -- those partners that you call scumbags. Some of them actually try to make you look good to your General Counsel
As Mr. Dylan sang " Twenty years of school and they put you on the day shift"
Schoolboys.
A school (from Greek σχολή (scholē), originally meaning "leisure", and also "that in which leisure is employed"
Shut up 98. These partners are getting paid well, you have no idea. And it's the associates that are staying late, dumb ass. Partners that get called to do extra work, do "punitive billing" to the client.....for sure.
It may not be efficient or always deliver the most economical results for clients, but the business model of a large law firm is a pyramid. The people at the top bring in business (and get paid accordingly) and the work is then distributed to the lower levels of the pyramid. Leverage. We all knew that when we went to law school.
or at least some of us did. Dumb ass.
I am a partner dumb ass, and have been one in two biglaw firms.
Well, good for you! (bad for the clients and the associates who have to report to you, obviously)
Nightmare clients are what made me rich, making my associates work late made them partner material.
Quit your bitching.
That's why I bill $700 an hour. And our first years make more then the 10 year in house council.
I was laid off from my law firm and I enjoy reading this column.
I feel for everybody who has been laid off.....hang in there.
96, you should stop swilling the red Kool-Aid.
More lawyers getting laid-off means there are less problems that need legal attention of high-paid lawyers. Maybe its time to turn their attention to offer free legal assistance to those who were given bad deals or victimized by some corporate giants. Who knows the lawyer can help get the victim get back at his corporate abuser and the lawyer can gain in attorney's fees in the process. There are a lot of valid cases around, the only problem is not all have the capacity to sue because they lack the funds to pay a high-priced high-caliber lawyer.
#5, that was wrong. Now that d*mn song is stuck in my head again.
105 -- you bill $700 an hour and you can't spell counsel? or know the difference between than and then? what the hell is wrong with you?
I've visited several my friends' law firms. While lawyers undoubtedly have high stress, there is one thing I've noticed- the amount of 'real work' I've seen at law firms is fractional(5%?) that of a businesses in other industries. Plush offices, secretaries doing their nails, a sparse phone ringing in the muffled distance & that's it...
Whole lot of nothing...it's amazing, who pays these people to do nothing?
Roxana, I've enjoyed your series and you are a talented writer. Keep at it and good luck. You sound committed to staying in NYC, but you may want to look for jobs outside of NYC. There aren't so many laid off lawyers in most other cities. I just made a major move for a new job after getting laid off, and had to take another bar exam in February, which sucked, but things turned out for the best.
F* Cliff. What a douche. And F* the a-hole that interviewed Giovana.
- Employed, for the time being.
Roxana, I've enjoyed your series and you are a talented writer. Keep at it and good luck. You sound committed to staying in NYC, but you may want to look for jobs outside of NYC. There aren't so many laid off lawyers in most other cities. I just made a major move for a new job after getting laid off, and had to take another bar exam in February, which sucked, but things turned out for the best.
F* Cliff. What a douche. And F* the a-hole that interviewed Giovana.
- Employed, for the time being.
Lady, you complain too much. Get over it. Then, get a job. All the time you are wasting writing on this blog ain't gonna add up to two nickels. Good luck.
111- Sorry, just like most fat ass partners, I drink at night, don't know how to type and rely on my secretary for spelling and grammar.
Cliff is a jerk, and the commenters on this board like to pretend they have it all figured out. Unfortunately, they're idiots who dimly grasp that acting like an asshole will distract from their lack of intelligence... for a little while at least.
77 - Nobody likes to see people out of work. When you choose to go to law school and go into debt you are making an investment. Like all investments, it entails risk.
Law firms are not guarantors of a stream of income (AIG) so what is the point of a law firm bailout?
Another solid post, Roxanna. Keep them coming.
I love the idiots who write, "yeah, she sucks; I wasted my time reading this crap, [blah blah blah]."
Hey dumbasses, if you don't like reading her posts, here's an idea: Don't read them!
Don't mind the haters Roxana. Keep 'em coming.
Cliff is partly right, but lawfirms are different from other large businesses in one material respect. In a corporation like GM or AIG, the owners are millions of shareholders who invested solely to make a profit, and have no personal knowledge of or connection with the employees.
In a firm, the owners are the partners who know the employees personally, and have motives other than profit - for instance, they want their office to be a relatively pleasant place to work, since they themselves have to work there, they want their firm to have a good reputation since their own reputations are connected to it, they want to have good relationships with their employees since they have to see them everyday...
Because of this, it is not unreasonable to expect the owners of a lawfirm to have a somewhat more personal and less coldly-financial attitude towards layoffs than the owners of GM would.
121 - Law firms are no different than other large cap entities. You are describing a "family" biz and large law is not that and because of this your expectations have a low level view of reality.
121- shareholders don't run companies, no one even looks at the proxy statements. The board of directors do what they want unless an activist shareholder comes on board with the money to back them up. Companies have alot more to worry about, like EEOC laws. Law firms don't give a shit about them because they know if one of their own sues them, they will never work for another law firm again.
In business, the big man is awarded stock, which has an option date, in law firms it's all about the current cash flow.
Roxana, ignore the ridiculous 23 year old boys on this site who rip people up anonymously to make themselves feel cool. I enjoy reading your weekly posts.
I too was laid off at the end of the year. However, I quickly found a job, unlike most of my friends who are still fruitlessly searching. I think the reason is not that my resume is so much stronger or that I am more personable, but that I was more flexible in my search. As headhunters have explained over and over again, Biglaw is NOT hiring right now unless you fit a very specific niche, like patent law. I therefore sucked it up, expanded my search and found that second tier firms are taking advantage of this downturn to snap up good associates. I quickly got several interviews and offers once I was willing to go that route.
And yes, it was hard on my ego a bit. And hard on my bank account -- I took a 50% pay cut. But that still leaves me making $150K a year, which is more than enough to pay my bills. (And quite a bit more than the giant ZERO I would have been otherwise pulling down.) And a nice side effect is that I'm actually getting that experience that employers want and biglaw so rarely provides -- in the month since I started work, I have argued dispositive motions and will be taking a series of depositions. I will be second chair at any trials, and it looks like I will have one in September. If I want to return to Biglaw when the economy picks up at some point, I will be much better positioned.
There ARE jobs out there. Just not in Biglaw right now.
Roxana, ignore the ridiculous 23 year old boys on this site who rip people up anonymously to make themselves feel cool. I enjoy reading your weekly posts.
I too was laid off at the end of the year. However, I quickly found a job, unlike most of my friends who are still fruitlessly searching. I think the reason is not that my resume is so much stronger or that I am more personable, but that I was more flexible in my search. As headhunters have explained over and over again, Biglaw is NOT hiring right now unless you fit a very specific niche, like patent law. I therefore sucked it up, expanded my search and found that second tier firms are taking advantage of this downturn to snap up good associates. I quickly got several interviews and offers once I was willing to go that route.
And yes, it was hard on my ego a bit. And hard on my bank account -- I took a 50% pay cut. But that still leaves me making $150K a year, which is more than enough to pay my bills. (And quite a bit more than the giant ZERO I would have been otherwise pulling down.) And a nice side effect is that I'm actually getting that experience that employers want and biglaw so rarely provides -- in the month since I started work, I have argued dispositive motions and will be taking a series of depositions. I will be second chair at any trials, and it looks like I will have one in September. If I want to return to Biglaw when the economy picks up at some point, I will be much better positioned.
There ARE jobs out there. Just not in Biglaw right now.
FWIW - I have been a lawyer for over 20 years, in BIGLAW and tinylaw, on both coasts and in between, for BIGBUCKS and tinybucks and middlebucks, too. I have found myself without a job a couple of times, through no fault of my own (associate in firms that imploded), wondering how I'd pay off my loan debts, car payments, and the rent. After the last such occasion, I sold a house for a huge loss rather than take the first lousy job that came along, and found that "loss" to be a good "investment" in my future, for in the offing was a great job I got through the grace of God, through a side-door into a terrific position where I matured from "attorney" to "lawyer."
All of my experiences in those firms, and while unemployed, were worthwhile. They challenged me to become who I have needed to be (not just professionally), and to seek new opportunities through which I have gained the perspective needed to know which practice specialties and work environments suit me best, and - perhaps most importantly - which do not.
Interestingly, before my current in-house job (a dream job, believe me!), I most enjoyed practicing law in two radically different settings: tinylaw/moderatebucks in the Southwest, wearing shorts and t-shirts (dressing up in jeans and boots for client meetings) and BIGLAW/BIGGERBUCKS in the Southeast, wearing suits and ties.
How so? Because, after living my 20s thinking that place was more important than people, I grew up. In those two settings I found good people, and good clients, among whom and for whom it was a pleasure to come to work most days.
I encourage Roxana and many other laid-off BIGLAW lawyers like her to grow up, too. In her case, it's going to take a considerable amount of effort to do so, but there are signs here and there in her writing that perhaps she's beginning to see that her charmed BIGLAW years will not be repeated, and that she's going to have to EARN a living, probably not in NYC, and probably not in BIGLAW.
I'll be interested to see how soon she ditches the apartment, Manhattan prices, and what's left of her entitlement mentality. Perhaps then a good firm and a good guy might find her attractive.
But likely not until then, for she is still in what I (and her mother?) hope is the last part of the "why me?" phase, with only glimpses here and there of the questioning that will help mature her: "why not me?" - and - "what do I need to change about me to meet these new challenges?"
I am amazed by how many people continue to advise Roxana, usually with incredible condescension, to expand her search beyond BigLaw. I don't remember her ever saying anything about wanting to stay in BigLaw. Do you haters need to believe that she can't find a job because she's too picky? Does that make you feel better about the harsh reality of the situation, which is that ready, willing, and able people CANNOT find jobs in big, mid-sized, or tiny law?
127: 126 here. Read 125 ... who gets it: jobs are available, but it takes humility and effort to find them and make the most of them.
My point was that they likely aren't in NYC, either. Unless Roxana has family money she hasn't mentioned, at her current rate of burn, she only illustrates to potential employers and potential boyfriends that she is irresponsible with money, so why should either give her a chance to be similarly irresponsible with them?
I'm not sure I get the "irresponsible with money" part. But the suggestion that her continuing to live in NY would somehow cause her boyfriend to judge her as "irresponsible" is pretty objectionable.
129: If she's still in NYC and still unemployed in the summer, then you'll understand - and she should, too.
Many of the recent law grads have never known an economic downturn. Many of the BIGLAW ones (current and past) have never worked for less than BIGBUCKS. This downturn is their wake-up call ... and, if they're reading much, they're reading more and more about how many BIGLAW and middlelaw firms are restructuring themselves to survive.
Many of those restructurings are going to result in the vast majority of recent grads with top grades from top schools not having any realistic hopes of ever being part of BIGLAW for BIGBUCKS. The sooner Roxana and her peers, including, it seems, 127/129, figure that out and make rational adjustments (which won't be easy, and probably won't be cheap, and perhaps won't be without at least one relocation) to their career paths, the better for them. 125 has figured that out, but that seems to be a rare realization for Roxana's peer group.
130: If she's still soaking up unemployment in NY in that expensive apartment with a car in July, then no guy with his eyes open would want anything to do with her. and - by then - do you think any biglaw hiring partner would think she was smart enough to work for his or her firm? The surviving biglaw shops won't want anybody that clueless to help keep their leaking ship from sinking . that may be why Roxana and 129 (if he/she's laid off too) got shown the door already.
Seriously, folks, how did you get those biglaw jobs in the first place if you can't see how stupid Roxana would be if she's still doing nothing constructive this summer?
POLL:
If Roxana is still in her apartment, still with her car, and unemployed, in July:
A - She should sit tight and keep waiting for a job (no doubt entertaining us less and less with her stories here);
B - She should have the decency to get off the dole and stop costing the rest of us money;
C - She should wait no longer, and get out, to somewhere, anywhere, that she might find gainful employment of some kind;
D - Her mother should make her move in with her and teach her how to cook, so she can at least do something useful (while she looks for a lawjob or gives up on that altogether).
D - but MOM might not want anything to do with her. Who would, if she's still clueless by July?
i also love bob dylan.