first

Who cares about staff layoffs? Law firms are about attorneys. If they layoff a high-priced attorney, then that's an expensive (and notable) decision. If they let the coffee maker go, then who notices?

I'd be willing to bet that if a firm only had staff layoffs, then it wouldn't affect their recruiting one bit. It only matters what they do with their attorneys (i.e. the talent)...

Why does this blog continue to focus on layoffs? Unless there is some positive news such as generous severance packages, why not give it little attention. Just create a list of shame before EIW next year so people know which are the firms that treat associates like crap.

Orrick's DC office will be hit hard.

#4, maybe because everyone who works at Orrick or knows anyone at Orrick is intensely interested in this, and likewise for other firms when they fire people en masse.

How have firms been deciding which first years to fire? Does law school play into it? HELP! Thanks.

Does anyone have a sense of what will happen to incoming 1st years?

Elie's working for the weekend. Good job Elie.

7, they can use utilization- how many hours you bill. The thinking is that if people like you they give you work, if you do a good job they give you more work, and if you hustle for work people give you work. So utilization can measure people's likability, quality of work and dedication/drive.

That thinking is really flawed, of course. A big doc review can feed a mouth-breather for months at 10 billable hours/day, while a great junior associate might get work in fits and starts as partners request them and as deals or other matters stop and go.

#3 -- Shame on you. Staffers, like lawyers, depend on their job to stay alive and possibly support their family. And law firms without staff are just as ineffective as law firms without lawyers.

# 3 -- Spoken like a true idiot

Orrrick who?

4 - are you a BIGLAW partner who's about to layoff some associates? Why else would you advocate that ATL pay as little attention to your nefarious deeds? I'd rather know what's going on and highlight/embarrass the firms that are screwing people over than let partners like you fuck over peoples' lives in secret.

What is an "Orrick?" Is it a infectious disease as in "Holy shit, I caught Orrick when I slept with that slut!"

#3 -- Why don't you try to tell them that to their faces? Get on the bad side of all the secretaries and paralegals, and just see what happens. In my experience, some secretaries' opinions carry much more weight than a junior associate. In any event, a junior associate doesn't know anything, and at the end of the day, your secretary will save your ass because he or she will know more about specific court procedures, etc. I'd like to see a junior file some motion without a secretary's help.

MYSTAL!! YES! This is what you gotta do!!! Get on this layoff stuff. Get out there, smoke out those rumors and PUT THEM UP HERE. I could give a crap about legal weddings.

Who cares about staff you ask? Not to generaize, but a good bunch of you lawyers in many firms barely know how to do anything except turn on your computer or surf Westlaw and many of you can barely carry on a conversation let alone write a decent memo or brief. Amazing how so many of you even got through law school. You'd be hard pressed to get your job done without so-called staff. And by the way, the person who says no one would notice the coffee maker person gone is probably the same lazy ass that would be the first to scream that there was no coffee let alone know how to make it. Surf On!

I have worked at two law firms where the top notch paralegals were given the task of training/showing the ropes to the 1st year associates--and no, they weren't just those from TTT schools. Law school doesn't teach you how to practice law--experience does that. So.....an experience paralegal is not only cheaper, he/she is of greater value than a baby attorney.

I'm pretty sure Orrick manufactures vacuum cleaners. They periodically run infomercials to sell their device that sucks.

Hey #3 go F**ck yourself. By the way why don't you post your name so we can let the paralegals, secretaries etc you work know of your high regard for them.

#3- YOU ARE AN IDIOT! Support Staff is the back bone of any major Law Firm. Without them, they are nobody.

8; As with every biglaw firm that conducts layoffs, the only "safe" first-years are those that bill. If you are at the lower end of the billing spectrum (in relation to other first-years), I'd be very worried.

#3--Are you even human????? This self-important attitutude is precisely why attorneys are despised by the general population.

At least you won't have to do this anymore -
http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/2007/01/articles/legal-practice/new-improved-im-billing-time/

Good luck to everyone this week, and hopefully those folks laid off find new opportunity in their work outside Biglaw.

That said, this post does very little but create more gloom-and-doom sentiment. When the layoffs occur, report and quantify them. Then, everyone knows what is happening where. But making 2, 3, or 4 stories out of what should be just one creates the impression that things are much worse than they are. Stories like "3Ls Losing Offers..." and "Large Law Firm X Layoffs and Delayed Start Dates? Maybe???" are fear-mongering fishing expeditions and nothing more.

Most law firms are not conducting mass layoffs. The ones that do are usually cutting less than 10%. Very few firms are "Hosing 3Ls" and none have touched their 2L summer programs beyond dropping a week here or there.

Here's an idea for a post (or series) that would make a lot of sense and balance the coverage. Contact some of the folks who lost their jobs last summer and fall, and find out what they are up to now that they've had a few months to react. I'm guessing you'll discover that the overwhelming majority is happy or at least very satisfied with the opportunities they’ve had to change career paths, travel, and focus on family & friends.

And by the way: to all of you attys out here with your big ego heads in the clouds: wanna bet that a good majority of staffers will still be able to pay their bills in the coming months ahead. Can you say the same? And...if I lost my job tomorrow it certainly is not below me to ask "want fries with that." Been there and done that and a job is a job regardless of what it is you are doing.

Quit posting about the staff. No one cares. I don't even know my secretary's name.

If you staff people want to comment, find your own blog. Much like the staff lunchroom, you are to keep to yourself.

#3--I am sure that your mommy told you that you were special and was ever so proud when you graduated from law school, but get over yourself! In the "real world" you aren't any better than anyone else. You better pack your bags and move back home so that mommy can massage your ego when the ax falls, because with your attitude, no one else will.

Great work, Elie! Bravo!

Jesus Christ, how did all the secretaries sneak onto our blog?!

Go fix my coffee. Your name will be forgotten three days after you are unceremoniously shitcanned.

Heard it here first - Orrick will revoke 3L offers and ax half of its first year associates.

If your Pee Pee was as big as your ego, you wouldn't be so angry with the world.
Legal support staff rocks!!!!

"Legal support staff rocks!!!!"""

BWHAHAHAHAHA

#31 -- #11 here. I'm not a secretary, I'm a 2L who is appalled by #3's attitude toward staffers.

28, you are probably the jerk that was being laughed about in the so-called staff lunchroom and my guess is they had to bribe some secretary to even do your work. oh but wait..you probaby got through law school on someone else's coat tails & my guess is that you can't do anything unless you plagarize someone else's work.

Secretaries and paralegals are good only for one thing - and that involves them being female, attractive and on their knees.

As much as partners complain about associates being overpaid, "support staffers" are worthless.

Where else except in BigLaw can a someone get paid 75k to type and answer the phone? And how many "document services" people must a firm carry to make copies and screw up sending faxes?

The new reality is that these "support staff" jobs will progressively be replaced by technology.

32, tell me more. Where are you getting that.

Cannot believe fucktards like 37 exist. What a d-bag.

STAY ON TASK PEOPLE. I want to know if I will have a job this fall/winter. (Incoming 1st Year)

"Most law firms are not conducting mass layoffs. The ones that do are usually cutting less than 10%. Very few firms are "Hosing 3Ls" and none have touched their 2L summer programs beyond dropping a week here or there."

I wish I can share your optimism, but unfortunately, this will not be the case 6 months from now when law firms realize that 2010 will not be a year of recovery as 2009 continues to deteriate and less and less work trickles in. Even Warren Buffet has thrown in the white towel.

#3 is trolling you all. Don't respond to him.

What is happening to incoming first years?

November 13, 2008 8:09 PM
Orrick's Baxter: In This Economy, No Practice Area is So Robust it's Bursting at the Seams

Posted by Zach Lowe

The Am Law Daily chatted with Ralph Baxter, chairman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, a few hours after the firm announced it was laying off 40 lawyers--associates and counsel--and 35 staff members.

Hi, Ralph. When did you make this decision?

About three weeks ago. The firm leadership gathered for a meeting and we concluded we probably needed to do this. Unlike other firms, we did not do layoffs in January or earlier in the year. We waited. But we concluded we could no longer wait. That's what the numbers kept telling us.

You've mentioned you did your best to cut costs and move attorneys around, out of the areas hit by the lay offs--real estate, corporate and structured finance. What steps precisely did the firm take?

For example, we cut out all non-essential travel at all our offices around the world. We told people, "Do it another way, even if it's not optimal." We postponed the biannual meetings each practice group has, where all the lawyers from each group travel to one place to meet. We stopped all associate hiring and we postponed hiring certain staff positions. We also shifted some people to other practice areas. A couple went to Hong Kong. It all amounted to a lot of money, but when it was all said and done, the numbers told us we still had a problem. In this economy, no practice area is so robust it's just bursting at the seams.

What do you say to people who will look at your decision to hire 27 former Heller attorneys in early October, a month before this decision?

You take these two facts together (the Heller hirings and the layoffs), and you get a focused picture of Orrick. We're bullish about the future, bullish about the role of lawyers in global finance, and we are boldly taking action to diversify Orrick's practice. All of the Heller lawyers who joined us were in practice areas that are litigation-oriented. Compared with the layoffs, it's apples and oranges. They are mostly partners, and they bring business with them.

Were the laid off associates clustered at a certain level of experience?

No. I don't have the exact demographics, but the only clustering was in the practice areas.

You've mentioned your severance packages being above market. What were they exactly?

We haven't made all the details public, but this I can tell you: for lawyers based in America, they are getting full severance through April -- that's five months. And we're going to subsidize their COBRA payments.

You obviously made a decision to do this openly instead of laying people off in small groups and claiming the dismissals are performance related. Why go that route?

From the very beginning, we all recognized the importance of transparency. When we met three weeks ago, we decided, whatever we're going to do, we're going to be transparent about it. We told the affected attorneys first. Then we told the entire firm before we issued any release to the media, and then we told the external world.

Do you anticipate any more layoffs?

This is the end, as far as we can see. Our intention is for this to be it.

#24--well put. I am not a paralegal, secretary or support staffer. I am an attorney who is tired of getting smeared by the shit that individuals like #3 dish out. We are not all assholes. Many of us care about and respect the contributions of our support staff.

#3 and all his progeny are flame, please stop responding to him!

I love when support staff with associates degrees make comments like "you probably plagiarized your way through law school."

I am an attorney. You are a secretary. Got it? Now blow me and make some coffee.

I love when support staff with associates degrees make comments like "you probably plagiarized your way through law school."

I am an attorney. You are a secretary. Got it? Now blow me and make some coffee.

#41: No.

32: stop fear-mongering

42 - your comment is similar to what 26 was talking about. when the time comes to report layoffs, cross that bridge. but predicting horribly negative outlooks doesn't help anything right now. 12 months ago, in a busy market, nobody would have said that the market would be what it is today. it makes little sense to make uniformed negative predictions about 12 months from now just because the market it slow today.

#3, legal secretaries are on this site everyday. I was in the $70K range, got laid off, and I know the days of making good money are over. Even if I manage to find a job, I'm looking at $50K if I'm lucky. We legal secretaries have mortgages, spouses, kids, pets, car payments, etc. I don't know how to do anything else other than be a legal secretary. It was all I ever did since entering the work force 20 years ago.

#50: Why. Elaborate.

Ugh. First the petty potshots at staff, and now the pointless sexism. Sometimes when I read the comments in this blog I get so depressed with this industry. I feel a little better thinking that these kinds of comments are probably coming from law students too thickheaded to ever get a real job, but I know I'm probably kidding myself. Best of luck to everyone out of a job right now, attorney or staff.

Male Attorney.

Another reason Elie ROCKS: he works 7 days a week.

Good job dude - as always.

9 - Elie is working on the weekend, which means he didn't do a good job of "working for the weekend" (i.e., getting his shizit done during the week so he could have the weekend off).

I seem to recall posting here 4 months ago that BigLaw would be 30 percent smaller at the end of 2009 - that will hold true.

BigLaw got bloated and fat and needs to refocus on client's needs.

First year salaries at the vault ten will be 125K before this year is out, and 100K elsewhere. You heard it here first. Plan accordingly.

52-

Agreed to most of what you said, but I would wouldn't call negative predictions uninformed, and many have said that the market would be like it is today roughly a year ago, when Bear Stearns went under, and even before that.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

42

"But in light of Latham offering a six month package, it could be very hard for Orrick to recruit against Latham if they are viewed as miserly compared to Latham's generosity. "

uh, since when is it NOT hard for orrick to recruit against latham??

kudos Elie. I like the weekend stories while I'm sitting here rotting in my office (but at least I have work to do!)

59/42 - 52 said that your negative predictions were uniformed, not uninformed. He was merely stating that all your predictions look the same, not that they were poorly substantiated (even though they are).

You're both right though. Things might not get a whole lot better right away, but no reason to dwell on it.

53 - I hear ya, my secretary and I keep each other up to date with this site and others. Best of luck to you and please try to stay optimistic. You're never too old to re-invent yourself. Besides, does anyone really want to be around the self-absorbed a$$holes who post here? The ones who probably got beat up for their lunch money on the way to school every day and figured that becoming a lawyer would somehow even the score?

I'm an attty and I'd hate to see what firm "Mr. blow me" works at. Talk about a sexist loser! You give the the legal field a bad name!

At a recent meeting, Baxter was asked which firms he considered Orrick's peers/competition. His response? Skadden, Wachtell, GDC and L&W.

(cue the laugh track)

all these law firms are failing - these layoffs won't help. didn't citi lay off 30,000 people last month? and now the government owns 36%. this economy is so bad, layoffs aren't sufficient. many of these firms simply won't exist anymore, and i think layoffs are a good predictor of which firms...

41, IMHO, best advice is to get you hands on bar prep material and start studying. If necessary, call/email recent grads for copies of their old bar prep materials. Sign up to take as many bar exams as you can. Send your resume to small and medium sized firms and, if asked, just say that your offer was rescinded. Make some contacts and get a govt job, staffer, legislative aid, bill drafting, etc. If necessary, apply for quasi legal jobs, like FDA reg officer, USACOE reg officer, trademark examiner, anything is better than being unemployed.

I recognize the importance of support staff in certain areas of law, like litigation and IP. But in my area (securities) they are more like mere word processors. While there are some outstanding, hard working staff at my shop, many of them are just lazy - playing solitaire, shopping online, chatting with fellow support staff or on the phone with their friends. They give you attitude if you find a lot of mistakes in their documents. It's like pulling teeth to get them to stay pass 5 pm just to turn the prospectus.

I recognize the importance of support staff in certain areas of law, like litigation and IP. But in my area (securities) they are more like mere word processors. While there are some outstanding, hard working staff at my shop, many of them are just lazy - playing solitaire, shopping online, chatting with fellow support staff or on the phone with their friends. They give you attitude if you find a lot of mistakes in their documents. It's like pulling teeth to get them to stay pass 5 pm just to turn the prospectus.

How are Chicago based firms doing? Looking at their client base reminds of the client base that Cleveland firms had in the 1980's. Will the Chicago office be relegated as a founding office per Jones Day?

My firm wasn't planning to do layoffs but after reading this blog it seems like everyone is doing it, so why don't we do so as well.

I agree. Layoffs are a good predictor of the firms that will not survive. Those firms that do not face economic reality and downsize their workforce in time to remain profitable will not survive.

The industry has changed and it's time for law firms to eliminate unnecessary perks -- like maternity leave.

62-

My bad, I misread uniformed. I don't come around here to the comments much and I apologize for sounding like doom n gloom. I am pessimistic as a junior associate with little work coming to us in our office, so whenever I hear of any hint of optimism, I unfortunately cringe.

26 - I was an incoming associate at a firm that dissolved and disagree with your contention that most who were laid off are happier today. I have been searching for a job since last summer and am yet to find anything. It is important to cover the layoffs as a way of knowing which firms to avoid and as a place to commiserate with others who are laid off.

67: Yes, 41, do just that. Lie to your future and potential employers about the status of your employment. Reserve for yourself jobs that others may actually want to perform, just in case you change your mind.

Then, come to ATL and express your heartfelt sympathy for those laid-off attorneys, or unemployed 3Ls, who are unable to secure employment. Make certain to sound sincere. Keep the unethical hand in which you hold your multiple offers (procured through deceit) hidden behind your back.

Later, earnestly defend the legal profession from those who wrongly perceive it to be riddled with self-absorbed assholes.

NOW is the time to panic -- ahhhh my head ahhhh the sky is falling ahhhh. get over it so you are being sh*t canned. at least you are educated and are hopefully being saved the delight of grinding hours for the next 40 years while other people raise your kids and your wife spends all your money

26 - "Here's an idea for a post (or series) that would make a lot of sense and balance the coverage. Contact some of the folks who lost their jobs last summer and fall, and find out what they are up to now that they've had a few months to react. I'm guessing you'll discover that the overwhelming majority is happy or at least very satisfied with the opportunities they’ve had to change career paths, travel, and focus on family & friends."

-

Would you like to lay money on that?

If you're a first or second year and have just been fired (especially from a stealth "performance" firing) it might be difficult enough to just land a new job in a regular economy--but this one?

All the talk about getting out and enjoying life is nice and it has some merit, but that's not why most people got into this and it doesn't pay your rent or student loan bills.

Please continue the weekend posts...

Orrick has 1100 attorneys, right? So laying off 160 would be 15%, or the largest percentage cut to date?

I love when people tell others that the sky isn't falling and to quit bitching. Reminds me of some of my friends who where at Lehman when they overheard the laid off Bear Stearns people "complain" that they can't find a job with all this school debt.

I wanna execute a STINKY PUSSY FART right on Ralph Baxter's ugly head.

Hey people at firms with layoffs, that pregnant female associate gets at least 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. Combine that with accrued vacation, and she could easily be paid to do no work for half a year.

How does it make you feel to subsidize breeders at $12,000 a month plus medical insurance costs?

Is Orrick that slow?

Please start a thread on the law firms that are surviving this mess.... it'd be interesting to see which ones are well-managed.

83 -- It makes me want to puke.

so does this mean that Orrick is the bad guy this week, not latham anymore?

latham has not burned down yet.

83, not to mention that the female lawyers trying to get pregnant tend not to be that young anymore, so the rest of us are also subsidizing their $20,000 IV fertilization treatments.

How are the top DC firms doing? Williams and Connolly, Covington, Wilmer, A&P? Haven't heard anything about layoffs or cutbacks at these firms.

they better offer at least 5 months severance

"The economy is traveling in reverse faster than the government can measure:" http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/

BIGLAW laid off attorneys: Band together, along with some of the first-rate staff that have been let go, and brush up on bankruptcy law. Soon, no one will want (or be able) to pay the exorbitant hourlies of BIGLAW attorneys and you'll be well-positioned to pick up the business.

I can't believe this is happening. I wanna kill myself. While I understand that other industries like banking and automobiles are subject to your regular economic forces such as inflation, supply and demand, I simply cannot believe or accept that a law firm's name prestige is not enough to resist these forces. Law firms should be first in line for a bailout (line sequence as determined by Vault rank).

Two questions:

1. What were Orrick's 2008 numbers? Namely the 1yr % change in overall revenues and in PPP?

2. How slow have they been? Are we talking droves of associates billing 10 hrs a month or what?

Orrick to 7 months severance!

It's obvious that everyone on this blog (attorneys, paralegals and secretaries) is REALLY stressed, understandably so, and ALT allows folks to vent. Better here than at the office. It is true that everyone is getting screwed in this economy. I'm sorry for everyone that has been laid off - - no one is safe. I am personally surprised that I haven't yet been axed. You can bet that I am stashing cash.

Wait...they make vacuums, right?

This is really fucked up. I went to HLS and now I have been unemployed for 5 months. This doesn't make any fucking sense. Is BigLaw completely out of my league? What the fuck has this world turned into?

92,

I hope you are kidding about killing yourself. The law ain't worth it. Just so everyone knows, there are many smaller law firms where normal people practice law and make good money. Not $255k as a fifth year, but enough money to buy a $1m house and have a good life.

can you imagine if Orick fires some of the people they just hired from the Heller sinking ship -- talk about a rough 6 months

Staff are very important, especially when I am looking for some ass to fuck in my office.

I heard that they were going to lay off 10% now and give 80% of associates 3 years' notice.

I'm seriously amused at all the associates whining about "subsidizing" the maternity leaves (or IVF) of associates who get pregnant. My guess is that most of you are either (1) single hetero male associates who are bitter that you can't score with women, let alone find a girlfriend or wife; or (2) partnered/coupled male associates who likely are going to have kids, but are incredibly hypocritical and aren't going to do your 50 percent to take care of any kids you might have.

Honestly. The number of attorneys who are out on maternity leave at any given point in time is comparatively negligible, and the hours they work (between doing a disproportionate share of raising the kids that men like you usually end up wanting, and doing their biglaw jobs at the same time) are usually over-the-top when they come back.

Signed,

A female associate who has no desire to have kids now or ever, but really doesn't care if firms do something to make it a bit easier for other women who want different things

#26

I agree. The favoring of negative news is #2 reason why we are even in a recession.

I am so fucked. I know my firm needs to make cuts, but they have not announced layoffs yet. No way in he'll they will have room for all of us incoming associates.

I am expecting a call or email this week.

92 - I understand how horrible the world seems now, but don't let BIGLAW elite to screw with your mind. You are no doubt talented and will eventually land somewhere doing something. Also, for those of us who have tortured ourselves with BIGLAW existence for a number of years, there is definitely an upside to not doing the grind. I know that this doesn't help pay your bills, but it certainly is not the end of the world. Take care.

100 - I love getting fucked in the ass. I just love it, but my experience tells me attorneys too often have tiny toys and not worth the time, which also explains a lot about their delusional sense of self-importance.
I prefer the men in the mail room. Good luck 100.
You might consider paying for it.

Anybody else get the feeling we have some partners and human resources people who are posting here to try and make themselves sleep better at night?

83/88 - It takes two to breed. Sorry if you get so little pussy that you've forgotten. How sad for you. As for fertilization - some plans cover a portion of the cost, some plans cover none at all. But good work with the offensive, sexist generalities. If your logic is always this sophisticated and nuanced, perhaps you are better suited as a gas station attendant. Leave Biglaw to the bitches that can hang.

92 - Back off the suicide talk. If you didn't know that law firms are subject to market forces like any other industry, you are either quite young or quite naive. And that's okay. Trust that eventually things will rebound. Things may look and work differently, but they will rebound. Take a breath. You will land on your feet.

This does not bode well for the long-term health of Orrick. The hillbilly running that circus has repeatedly said they are not going to react to short term changes but will do things in accordance with the long-term strategic goal of world domination.
If these firings are part of their long-term health the books must be looking really bad in the long haul.

The O upstart is going to get a thrashing in the woodshed of BIGLAW.

And on those Heller folks: seems like they didn't bring the business they anticipated. OUCH!

No inside info about Orrick layoffs, but I do know that even litigation has been very slow in the DC office for the past few months.

Good work Elie. This is more bad news in a horrible time. Good luck to all who get the bad news Monday. Again, as trite as it sounds, most of us don't really like this job - use this time to find something that you are truly passionate about and allows you to use your JD the way you always wanted to but the loans/prestige got you on this crazy train.

Biglaw first year hoping and praying his firm isn't the next to sharpen the long knives

The conference rooms are a dead giveaway that layoffs are going to happen. Same thing happened at MoFo, Latham, Orrick: A conference room reserved for a partner meeting and then a bunch of conference rooms marked off for the day (some for the layoff discussions, other big rooms to host the post-layoff presentation to survivors).

Latham's six month severance is interesting--anyone know if that is in addition to the 60 days WARN notice that California associates receive? MoFo had originally set the high market severance package wtih its end of January layoffs (60 days WARN notice + 2 to 4 months severance depending on seniority + vacation + bonus). For senior associates, MoFo's package is probably still more generous (up to 8 months salary without cap) but junior associates came out better under Latham's plan. Will be interesting to see what Orrick does.

3 and similar associates are the ones who are being let go. I made some of these decisions and the distinguishing factor, particularly for more junior associates, was attitude.

I guess O followed the Bryan Cave model to success --- Pick-up a bunch of loser partners/associates (O + Heller = BC + Pogo) from a dying firm and then have mass lay-offs.

has latham burned down yet?

#26 and #102, you are delusional and ridiculous. I used to be a journalist before becoming a lawyer and the "favoring of negative news" did not and has not created the current recession. Actually, I would argue the opposite, "positive" news about the health of the housing market duped undesirable candidates into thinking they could be homeowners. You do not pollyanna your way into fiscal health.

You highlight the problem I had with law students and now with lawyers: you're smart people but you think you have a clue about things that are completely foreign to you. Above the Law has been doing some excellent, useful reporting as of late (finally, the site shows some utility) and is providing us with information about the state of our industry. Writing puff pieces on happy laid off attorneys only serves to placate your nerves. The truth of the matter is that Big Law is going through a massive shift, even if most firms are not laying off lawyers, as 26 asserts, there are THOUSANDS of individuals who have lost the benefit of having a steady income. THAT is reality, THAT is news. Please keep your naive, useless suggestions to yourself. Thank you.

Viewing the size of a severance package as a recruiting tool is sheer idiocy.

No recruit with a real choice would even go to a firm that had mass layoffs like LW.

Any decent recruit who does choose such a firm is not going to go there with an eye toward being laid off. The decent recruits think they will be the survivors, and the survivors don't want to see the firm's cash squandered on severance packages.

Any recruit who is looking at the size of the severance packages expects to be laid off and is probably lazy. So a big severance actually attracts the worst kind of recruit - the lazy lawyer who is just looking to coast as long as possible.

113 - does a junior associate's law school / grades come into play when making those decisions as well?

111: "most of us don't really like this job ....
Biglaw first year hoping and praying his firm isn't the next to sharpen the long knives"

Awww, the wittle first-year doesn't like the $160k job he's had for six months. It's so haaaaard.

PWN PWN PWN PWN

has latham burned down yet? are we old news this week?

this blog is a joke and everyone is so panicked - its great! must be hard to be a lazy associate or a law student? where do I go? what do I do?

I am sure support staff are titans of the profession and I feel personally sorry for them, but posting their layoffs as equivalent (one lump sum) is still wrong. The point is to know which firms to avoid, and 1 attorney layoff is WAY more of a bad sign than 1 staff layoff.

To the posters who have suggested that these firms are screwing people over by laying them off, your comments hint at the entitlement that is the underlying cause of these layoffs. Firms screwed us over when they raised first year salaries to $160K two years ago. It was obvious at the time that many of these firms would raise salaries to keep with the pack, even if they couldn't afford it in the long run. Nonetheless, the self aggrandizing lemmings on this site rejoiced like firms were finally realizing the worth of clueless brats who were yet to pay their dues or bring any useful experiences to the table. Some of you shouldn't have been so quick to celebrate your own execution.

While these layoffs are VERY painful to watch, we associates were screwed over two years ago, many of us just didn't have the foresight to get nervous then.

Foley & Lardner will be announcing layoffs Thursday. Preliminary estimates of 80-95, primarily business law and litigation.

"While these layoffs are VERY painful to watch, we associates were screwed over two years ago, many of us just didn't have the foresight to get nervous then."

-

You mean New York's not going to 190?

So who will it be after Orrick?

last week you wrote an article on Dewey layoffs...are they ongoing?

OMM will also be announcing big cuts this week.

McDermott Will & Emery will lay off another round of attorneys in April.

I'm guessing many of the other big California firms (OMM, GDC, etc.) will make some cuts. At this point, all firms have excess capacity (e.g., associates not hitting their hours, lots of staff with nothing to do) and the stigma of layoffs is less than it had been in the past. So a lot of firms are going to use the layoff tidal wave as cover to do some restructuring....

I am a secretary and it's true that many of us don't like this job. It's bad for the soul. The only good thing about it is the combat pay.

129 - how will that bode for 3Ls?

To the people being snarky about maternity leave -- the first 12 weeks of time off is the same medical "disability" coverage you might get if you were hit by a bus and couldn't work for that period of time. That's how employers budget it and that's how it's considered for tax purposes. What's above 12 weeks, though, is a different story...

Good to know that the support staff will hate me when I (hopefully) arrive at my law firm in the fall. I expected as much, but nice to have confirmation.

3 -- I personally value my staff and feel the firm could not run smoothly without them. Let's not make all of these layoffs just about attorneys. It affects everyone in every way. Show some compassion.

123 - I love you (I hope you're a guy).

Cute DC Biglaw Senior Associate

Nah, 134. The attorney/support-staff divide is very exaggerated on this board. There are snobby attorneys (see, e.g., no. 3), just like there are support staff who do nothing but surf facebook all day and have a bad attitude when asked to actually work (see, e.g, no. 69). I think this round of layoffs will take care of a lot of these problems (separating attorneys who have terrible attitudes and staff who are not needed or who do not have good performance reviews).

If you are hardworking, polite and professional, you will find that you get along just fine with the similarly hardworking, polite, and professional staff.

Signed,
An associate who is very thankful to be able to work with a really terrific legal secretary

137, there are many legal secretaries who hardworking, polite and professional, yet they get picked on unmercifully by partners who yell at them and berate them. It depends on the attorney. Some attorneys are appreciative and respectful, but others are mean bastards.

Good thing Orrick didn't merge with Dewey. D&L is unaffected by this crisis. No layoffs at D&L.

136 has to be a joke. There's no way a woman could be simultaneously competent enough to rise to senior associate at a biglaw firm and yet inane enough to post that and describe herself as "cute" on an anonymous internet blog. Does not compute.

And some attorneys wonder why the public just despises us.

7, I get the sense that first years (and other attorneys) who did not pass the bar the first time around are getting the boot (at all firms). Arbitrary and capricious.

#137, I'm a laid off, innocent staffer who just happened to be in the wrong (slow) department. The attorneys got canned, too. Please don't think that it had anything to do with poor performance. It had to do with the area of law.

What's with this hate on support staff? A good paralegal or legal secretary is a great help unless you're a young associate doing document review.

There is simply no way I could do my job and bill the hours I do without my assistant.

Are people working today, or writing from home?

Part of the problem for staff is that they are a cost center, not a revenue center. I have been so lucky to have had great secretaries throughout my career, but I think that the job is slowly but surely going away. Most attorneys I know do their own typing, time entry, etc. You don't even really need a secretary for filings anymore because everything is going electronic (e.g., no need to make a million copies in order to get something out the door). to the extent you do need help, the firm model is to push the work to someone that can bill for it, like a law clerk or paralegal. As more and more partners in their 50's and 60's move out of the work place, the demand for secretarial service will go down so that you see more people paired up with a secretary or the secretary pooled. I have told my secretary that it is time to retool for something more like paralegal work.

CADWALADER HAS PROVEN A MARKET LEADER TIME AND TIME AGAIN!!!

145

Working.

148,

Me too. I know a lot of people are getting laid off, but there are many more attorneys still working all the time billing hours. Hopefully, they'll be spared from the greed.

139, ask around about the capital calls and attorney productivity, You might be surprised by what you learn.

145: Working.

145: also unhappily working.

128 - source?

117 - I agree with you. To the extent it has recruiting value, I think it's in keeping people if things turn around. Mid-levels 2 years from now might be less likely to leave if the firm showed some loyalty to their laid off friends. But even that's a stretch, and honestly what are the chances we even have a functioning economy and legal system 2 years from now?

148---what we are seeing isn't greed, it is a prudent (albeit unfortunate) response to a global economic crisis. Take a few minutes from document review and read the newspapers. This isn't just a big law partner grab for money. Layoffs are happening everywhere. Economics 101

What's happening at OMM??!

148---what we are seeing isn't greed, it is a prudent (albeit unfortunate) response to a global economic crisis. Take a few minutes from document review and read the newspapers. This isn't just a big law partner grab for money. Layoffs are happening everywhere. Economics 101

83- There's a thought. I plan to get pregnant straight away!

Gee, I'm glad that I chose Orrick over Williams and Connolly and Wilmer because of a specific practice area that interested me.

- 2L who is scheduled to summer at Orrick...

As a former Orrick associate, I am saddened to hear of what it likely to be an absolute bloodbath at my former firm. Irrespective of whether you think Orrick is overrated, had this coming (or makes vacuums), there are some really great people at that firm.

One of the reasons I left Orrick was my fear of the way the firm had attempted to follow in the shoes of some of the major international law firms. Ralph was always swinging for the fences, ignoring the fact that, while we were a very good firm, we were not Latham or Gibson. Yet we kept growing, especially in structured finance. When times got lean, we were told that our "core values" would no doubt carry us through to brighter days. When other firms were laying off attorneys, well, that just meant that it was a "buyer's market" for talent at the big green O. Structured finance attorneys walking around the offices like they own the place, causing everyone to hate them? Why, they're the next in a long line of new breed of lawyers, specializing in an area of the law that will keep growing and growing and growing...

To my former colleagues, I wish you the best.

When firms conduct layoffs, does a junior associate's law school / grades come into play when making those decisions? Is it just based on his/her attitude / likability?

146-I disagree... partners are always going to have secretaries. Some are more self-sufficient than others but as a whole, they are not. In addition, there are no "young" legal secretaries... the average age at my firm is between 45-50. People are not entering this field and haven't been for quite some time.

"Gee, I'm glad that I chose Orrick over Williams and Connolly and Wilmer because of a specific practice area that interested me."

Not to be an ass, but people do this? Orrick over W&C AND Wilmer?

That sucks dude. Good luck with it. Hopefully things turn around this year rather than next year or in 2011.

113-- I like your style.

161--Your law school doesn't matter once you leave law school (except for bragging rights on ATL). The only things that matter are work product, practice area and personality.............and ultimately, if you survive, your book of business.

Can anyone comment on Milbank?

161, I am a mid-level associate so do not have any authority on this point. But, from what I have observed, work product and attitude are more important than grades or school. (Grades and school may, however, have some correlation to work product.) I don't think partners pull out law school transcripts when making these decisions. But it is pretty easy to identify--even very early on--which associates are not going to cut it. Sometimes this can be identified over the summer (but the firm still extends offers rather than being tanked in their recruiting efforts on ATL or Vault for no-offers). And, of course, some of the junior associates being separated are just very unlucky. So rather than worrying about your law school or grades (which are past and can no longer be controlled), put your head down, work hard, build up your skill set, have a good attitude, and cross your fingers.

127--Dewey does not conduct layoffs, only performance based firings. We are immune to this Great Recession.

signed,
D&L HR

I love how Orrick waits until AFTER the deadline for completing the Vault surveys (this past Friday) and AFTER people release their time for February.

Any advice for incoming Orrick SAs?

127, Dewey layoffs will be ongoing until March 31. Bonuses are paid on March 31 and we would like to ensure that undesirable high billers are shitcanned before that time.

Don't worry, mid year performance reviews will commence shortly after March 31. Your time will come.

LathamClassAction@gmail.com

If you have been laid off, counseled out, or asked to leave Latham & Watkins for any reason since January 1, 2009, please email LathamClassAction@gmail.com.

Please indicate your name, position, class level if an associate, and office.

If you have already signed a waiver of your right to sue, you may not be eligible for this class.

LathamClassAction@gmail.com

Not to steal Capt. Obvious's thunder, but ... if you don't WANT to read about the tragedy befalling your peers and the staff at many BigLaw outposts these days, you don't HAVE to do so. You can go ahead and inhale deeply whatever you're smoking these days and then stick your head back into its hole in the sand while the rest of us commiserate with our fellow human beings and try to figure out what our prospects are in this slip-slide economy. Pardon us if our apprehension and empathy are raining on your parade.

And you thought a law degree was entitlement to 160K/year.. sorry to burst your bubbles.....(Biglaw partners knew this day of reckoning was coming and knew it would kill off the weak firms and that they would survive because they make the rain)

161- grades don't matter at all. School might matter *a little* for first and second years.

This would never happen at a Texas firm. We here in the Lonestar State treat out staff with dignity and respect. This is truly pathetic.

Forth Worth

Vault deadline was extended...

I hope ass lobsters were not included in this round.

Vault deadline is Monday March 6 (this is 177 - I had to go look it up)

March 6 is a Friday

We secretaries don't hate you. Don't worry about that. It truly is combat pay though. It's no picnic working in BigLaw.
_________________________________
Good to know that the support staff will hate me when I (hopefully) arrive at my law firm in the fall. I expected as much, but nice to have confirmation.

Seriously, someone should post the Orrick EAP program info. It's not a joke. The anxiety level at most firms is at an all-time high and the rumors/impending tran-wrecks via comments and any potential ATL posts is enough to send some over the edge.

143 - don't kid yourself. Superb support staff are worth their weight in gold. If you were a superstar, you would have earned yourself a lifeboat.

If you are a female associate you may try getting on your knees and pray (that taking a shot works) -- of penicillin that is.....

NY to 190 ... days spent sitting unemployed in my apartment in my underpants, eating ramen and desperately refreshing my email for some sort of job interview.

re:Good to know that the support staff will hate me when I (hopefully) arrive at my law firm in the fall. I expected as much, but nice to have confirmation
______
Everybody hates you, not just support staff.
You now have that confirmed as well.

Partners: Beware of associates wanting to get liquored up with you -- remember Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? they have an agenda -- saving their ass, not letting you have some.....

180 -

hmmm. That's what the email to me said so not sure if the partner meant Monday or the 6th. Either way, the deadline was extended (at least for our firm?).

Anyway, I'll give Orrick and Latham a crappy rating for y fellow ATL posters even though I know very little about the firms.

Guys in my high school used to sleep with chicks all the time and told them that they would make sure they didn't get kicked out of the pep squad -- it was no big deal

"Everybody hates you, not just support staff.
You now have that confirmed as well."

Awesome. Thanks for the confirmation.

Anyone heard the rumor that a half dozen offices will be closing, including a major one?

I really don't think associate salaries going from $125k in 2001 to $160k in 2008 is the issue (besides, salaries barely beat inflation while PPPs soared). The issue is just the lack of work--there's no point keeping people around billing 10 hours a week--at $125k or at $160k.

188---and that is why Vault rankings are meaningless......

I want to know what's happening with the creme de la creme of NYC firms.

Sullivan?

Paul Weiss?

Debevoise?

Davis Polk?

Cleary Gottlieb?

Skadden?

Cravath?

Any whispering of layoffs?

194: You are next HHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA

It's the economy , stupid.

What's the difference between Paul Weiss and Paul Hastings?

Why don't they just slash pay?

Why lay people off?

3's comment is valid in one respect: regardless of how many staff get laid off, the firm's reputation in attorney recruiting will not be damaged. You never hear of firms having a hard time attracting staff, but if a firm gets a reputation for being quick to fire attorneys, they will no longer be able to attract law school talent. (See, e.g., Cadwalader.) This isn't a heartless comment--it simply explains why attorney layoffs are a bigger deal to a firm than staff firings.

193--vault rankings are important for recruiting. i mean there are so many firms, recruits do rely on the rankings. so firms should care a little bit about them.

How is the massive 6 to 10 inch snow storm set for tonight in NYC going to affect layoff logistics?

Maybe if I bury my head in a drift of snow no one will notice I still work here.

Paul Weiss staff attorney layoffs began last week

"Paul Weiss staff attorney layoffs began last week"

Wait, but aren't those all litigation people?

Is litigation slow?

If so, why? I thought it was all transactional work that is slow.

200--I was referring to 188's stmt "Anyway, I'll give Orrick and Latham a crappy rating for y fellow ATL posters even though I know very little about the firms"

That kind of acton is precisely what makes them meaningless. They simple cannot be relied upon as accurate information on a firm.

203:

Litigation is slow everywhere from what I can tell. By everywhere I mean every market. Obviously, there are a few firms that are still busy.

Perhaps BigLaw will change for the better. I'm sure the bigshot partners have been filled with fear, dread and embarrassment. A lesson in humility.

201--If you bury your head in the snow, you might freeze to death and then it won't matter. I know that none if this is funny, but I couldn't resist. Warped sense of humor. Good luck whicherver avenue you pursue.

What is going on with internal investigations?

Is that heating up at all?

With new administration,a new head of SEC, and a new fraud being revealed every day, I would expect that work to be as busy as bankruptcy.

204

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I was just trying to show some support for the folks on here stressing out.
BTW what firm do you work at? I feel the need to give a low rating to a firm that clearly hires uptight douchebags.

If I were an Orrick associate, I'd call out sick tomorrow.

208- it is, but not every firm has a robust sec lit. enforcement practice

How far will Latham drop on Vault?

Anyone on this thread have a sense of why litigation is slow?

You would think people would be running to courthouse as deals collapse, cash and credit dries up, business relationships sour, etc etc.

Any experts on general commercial lit care to weigh in?

Laid off attorneys should band together and start a discount firm. Change the way the game is played. Don't give so much power to the old geezers. Look at Google, owned by young people. Law should be fun and exciting. Do what matters. Money will come, but money is not everything. The hurt, anger and powerlessness should fuel something great. Seriously, band together. The only thing that caused this collapse is greed. Don't feel bad about yourselves due to the old geezers' greed.

213 - because litigation costs money, and cash and credit have dried up.

Thank the stars that I chose to be a litigator. I'm at a V20 firm and almost all of the litigation associates that I know have been quite busy this year. IP, of course, is still on fire.

215--Finally, someone who understands the economic reality

215--Finally, someone who understands economic reality.

133, there is a difference between taking 12 weeks of paid leave for having a kid and taking 12 weeks of paid leave for accidentally getting hit by a bus. Try to figure out the difference.
(P.S. try to find a medical insurance policy that pays you $50,000 above medical costs for having a kid).

102, so men should support paying $12,000/month for women on maternity leave because it will help their wives? Wow, I didn't realize it was so easy to justify sexual discrimination.
I have an idea. Let's set up some private colleges that let men in only. Women shouldn't complain since those colleges will potentially help people who are their husbands.

Debevoise senior associate here -- litigation is definitely busy, lots of internal investigations too. Corporate could be better as everywhere else of course, but not to complain much about the pace. I'm corporate (although quite specialized) and definitely have my plate full. Good luck to everyone, this is a tough market, but as everything, this will be cyclical. We might not get back to 2007 levels, but things will definitely get better.

220, if you were a betting man, odds of layoffs?

"because litigation costs money, and cash and credit have dried up."

But doesn't plaintiffs' bar work on contigency?

you all are still talking about this crap?? get a life!

wait, latham has not burned down yet? but that was what all you douche bags predicted last week??

and then here goes Orrick - and they won't be the last.

so what firm after Orrick will you all be talking about and bad mouthing? again, get a freakin' life! this site is a joke.

you all are still talking about this crap?? get a life!

wait, latham has not burned down yet? but that was what all you douche bags predicted last week??

and then here goes Orrick - and they won't be the last.

so what firm after Orrick will you all be talking about and bad mouthing? again, get a freakin' life! this site is a joke.

this is just a sign of the times people....the economy.

221 -- I would say no layoffs, but I expect somewhat stronger performance reviews in the Spring for senior associates. Nothing new for Debevoise though, the track is all about performance all the way -- either you make the cut, or you don't. Also, some mid-levels (3-5) might be terminated one or two years earlier than they'd have had in another market, but I have confidence that it won't be substantial. We're lucky not to be dependent on real estate or finance. As to juniors, they seem busy, at least in my department, so would not expect a major risk there either. But mark my words -- I'm no betting man.

I want more dirt on Paul Weiss staff attorney layoffs.

Was it a brutal bloodletting?

How many did they get rid of?

Come on, people. We have a young president. Young people, don't place power in the hands of the old geezers. No partner is worth $700 an hour. The game has to change. These firms won't change (they've shown us). You have to change.

219 --

You do realize that private academic institutions can be single-gender, don't you? Idiot.

Also, you do realize that male biological parents and male and female adoptive parents are all entitled to parental leave as well, just for a shorter number of weeks since they aren't actually dealing with pregnancy (something you would assuredly be too weak and whiny to deal with.)

Again, I'm sorry that you can't find any woman who's willing to help you get laid, let alone date you.

- 102

Wow -- if associates are worried, imagine how temps must feel.

Check out this post from http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/2009/02/desperate-households.html :

"Given the fact that there is currently no work out there, can you do a story on how people are surviving this thing economically?

I used to be able to string together a modest living on document review, but aside from a one week project that I was able to pull down last month, I haven't been able to find anything since last September.

How are we supposed to survive on a measley $400 a week in unemployment?

My credit cards are quickly becoming maxed out, and I shudder to think that any day now the bank may catch on and try to reduce my credit limit.

What then?

I can honestly say that I am just one day away from scouting out food kitchens.

God knows how I will be able to dig myself out of this credit hole once this is all over.

Don't even get me started on my student loans.

With accruing interest, I am underwater and probably now owe more than I ever borrowed.

I could never have dreamed in a million years that things would be this bad."

Why do the really old professors have LLB degrees? Are they so ancient that they went to law school before the JD existed? Thanks.

228, so by your logic, feminists who object on principle to male-biased sexual discrimination are simply women who can't find a husband or can't get laid?

Also glad to see that you are not opposed to the Ivy League schools going back to their single-sex days.

231

You have reading comprehension problems or you are a raving asshole. Stop embarrassing yourself (not 228 BTW).

Please, for the love of god, someone comment on milbank. How have they avoided layoffs?

orrick sucks

231 --

"Sexual discrimination" is what the women who refuse to sleep with you are practicing. Every court in this land, in contrast, has recognized that evaluation of gender-based classifications (even practiced by the public sector) is subject to review per a standard that recognizes certain basic differences between the sexes. One of those indisputable differences is that only women can get pregnant and have children (and virtually always do so in a context where a man is involved, so it's not as though evil selfish women are participating in a single-gender activity for their sole edification.) It is reasonable for employers to recognize this difference and make reasonable accommodations so as not to lose talent.

I have no idea what the basis of your analogy to Ivy League admissions (which have nothing to do with pregnancy or physical differences between the sexes) is.

Again: I reiterate - I'm someone who doesn't want kids, doesn't even LIKE kids, and is one of those unmarried, childless associates who shares the added burden when associates (regardless of gender) go out on parental leave. And, to be completely honest, I'm not thrilled about that. I'd like to see firms subsidize equal paid sabbatical opportunities for those of us who choose not to have children, so that we can pursue our other interests as well. But to me, that's an issue of parent-nonparent discrimination, rather than the "sexual discrimination" issue you're making it out to be. I agree with biological female parents, who bear the additional burden of pregnancy, receiving longer parental leaves than male and female attorneys - biological or adoptive - who haven't had to bear that burden.

Dear 102/228 and 232,

I wish you luck when you get laid off while your firm is paying other associates four months full time for staying at home and busy doing house chores.

Different strokes for different folks.

--not 231

233 - i'm going there this summer too. just calm down and hope for the best. that's all any of us can do now.

123 -- I keep seeing this argument and it doesn't make sense to me. Let's assume that firms had continued to pay first years 125K, how in the world would that have prevented these layoffs? The economy would still have tanked and receipts, for many firms, would still have fallen. It doesn't make any more business sense to pay 125K for an idle associate than it does to pay 160K. So please explain the reasoning behind the assertation that we screwed ourselves by seeking higher salaries. Many of the firms that are are having the deepest layoffs were extremely successful over the past few years. They set the market and hired aggressively during the credit bubble. Associates that worked at these firms were able to work 2300-2400/year with ease and better associates had opportunities to go in-house to work at investment banks (which was the real impetus behind the sky-rocketing salaries). So I think it's ridiculous to suggest that associates should not have lobbied to get a piece of the pie during the good days. That basic self-interest on the part of associates is part of the reason that so many associates will be able to land softly today. Any associate who saved wisely over the last few years is in a good position to weather this storm. People who choose to whine and blame other associates, partners, 'people who bought homes they couldn't afford', the ouiji boards that Greenspan and Bernake consulted each time is dropped interest rates...... are missing the point. Life isn't about the stuff that happens to you, it's about how you handle it. Inappropriately blaming fellow associates for this current situation or sticking your head in the sand, isn't the best way, IMO, to handle the economy that we are faced with. Personally, I see a lot of opportunities out there. We may all be required to make choices that we never expected to make, but that's life. Suck it up and go forward boldly. These are the times in which fortunes and legends are created. Each of us has already shown that we are ambitious and hardworking. So harness those traits (plus a little discipline) and use the current downturn as an opportunity to position yourself for the years ahead.

I've never been so happy to be a patent attorney as I am every time I read about these layoffs. Wow. Scary shit going on.

236 - no problem, as long as they give me at least the same (four months) in severance, as my firm did in its previous round of layoffs. And, as I am at the office yet again for a full weekend, I genuinely mean that.

- 102/228/235

Lit isn't booming for a number of reasons. First, Lit moves slowly ... there's a lag between filing and the start of discovery (MTD phase), and typically staffing is light until the Defendant has lost the MTD, and full discovery begins. Briefing the MTD is pretty much a 3-person operation at most big firms ... Partner supervising, Senior drafting, and junior researching.

Second, you aren't seeing the big securities cases that you saw during the last downturn. There's a number of reasons ... not the least of it is the fact that the big banks and brokers are basically insolvent, so even if the Plaintiffs did get a settlement they'd have to get in line behind the government to get paid. Combine that with Tellabs and the virtual collapse of Milberg Weiss (and the fallout ... other Plaintiffs firms aren't acting as aggressively), and you see why securities lit hasn't taken off like it did in 01-03.

With that said, yes, litigation will always be busy, but its not surprising to see it slow down now as well. It's not as counter-cyclical as it is made out to be. I suspect that once a recovery is underway, and companies have some cash again, then they will seek to pursue some claims that they may have out of this mess. But only time will tell.

238 "Life isn't about the stuff that happens to you, it's about how you handle it. Inappropriately blaming fellow associates for this current situation or sticking your head in the sand, isn't the best way, IMO, to handle the economy that we are faced with."

Bravo! Bravo! Couldn't have said it better myself.

238 -- well said; there is no need for us to apologize for the money that we made over the past several years nor is there a need for partners to apologize for laying off associates in the current environment.

239- you think patent attorneys are safe? go talk to someone at fish and richardson...

231 - You can get a woman pregnant and take parental leave if you want.

238

Frankly - you're not worth 125, either. First years suck. If I ever leave BigLaw and start my own firm I would never hire anyone out of law school. You're not worth our rates. Go cut your teeth in that guy's midwest firm and call me when you have some experience.

So when does this end and how long do I need to hang on for? Will firms cut enough, so that by 2010 I will be in the clear? Or should I expect cuts well into 2010?

Orrick, like Latham, is full of below-median students from lower T14s who never should have been making 160k in the first place. This is Darwinian.

248

Snicker. Some of the worst work I've ever seen from summer associates/first years has been from Ivy Leaguers.

I'm so sorry for all of you law students. All of this sucks. I hope you're all considering plan Bs.

"Orrick, like Latham, is full of below-median students from lower T14s who never should have been making 160k in the first place. This is Darwinian."

So what firms are going to survive, exactly?

245, I asked my firm about my baby mommas, but they would only let me take 4 weeks per shorty at most, while a pregnant woman gets 4 months.
In fact it's worse than that, because they would only let me count one woman.

219 - Your educational institution analogy makes as little sense as the bus analogy. Way to work that one out.

Let me help you: in what way are other employees subsidizing the $12K/mo you allege is paid out to those on maternity leave? Can you explain this in terms of opportunity cost? Is the Biglaw firm a public or private employer? Prostate cancer does not affect woman. Should we disallow FMLA leave for those suffering from it? What, exactly, is the rule you propose? Private or governmental allowances for medical conditions that affect only one sex are discriminatory, thereby making all of them patently unfair? What about firms that offer paternity or adoption leave? Is your grip on reality so tenuous that you are unaware of the inordinate pressure on women in Biglaw to NOT to take such a leave?

Or are you merely complaining? I'm just trying to work out the parameters of your argument because you didn't feel the need to do so. Feel free to enlighten me.

As certain as I am that many of the women you work with would love to see your balls cut off, they'd probably not deny your leave should you acquire prostate cancer. Your immutable inferiority, it seems, extends even to basic levels of compassion for others. No, but seriously. Rock on with your bad self. Just make certain that at some point in your life you come to grips with your Oedipal complex.

Kisses. Bitch.

I have noticed that a lot of the firms making cuts have had significant presences in San Francisco (Latham, MoFo, Orrick, Cooley, etc.). Is the Bay Area market absorbing a lot of the cuts, or is this coincidence and most of the cuts are occurring in other offices?

123 -- Precisely my thoughts on the "160K" debate. The starting salary became what it became because the law firms could afford it and that's what they were willing to pay for a new lawyer. It doesn't matter what anyone else was willing to pay for a new lawyer if these labor buyers perceived their labor pool as THAT competitive.

As far as who is "worth" what - that is entirely in the eye of the buyer who, in this case, is the law firm. These new lawyers were "worth" 160K on the basis alone that such was what their employers were willing to pay them.

And good point about the skyrocketing PPP in the balance. The salaries paid out really were just an issue of WHO got the money and what proportion of it.

Sorta like the perpetual argument between owners of major sports teams and the players. Global access to viewing and/or ad sales boosted total revenues which are already coming in. So....the question would remain "Who gets it"?

Lastly, great point about the economy being independent of whatever law firms were doing. Of course it was. Law firms are, after all, a CLIENT based service industry. They too got whatever the buyers of THEIR services were willing to pay.

The skyrocketing revenues of law firms, hence PPP, were, IMO, the RESULT of an inflated economy, not the cause of it.

223 = Ralph Baxter

253, prostate cancer, like ovarian cancer, is a disease. Having a kid is a lifestyle choice, not a disease. Brilliant analysis, Einstein.

The educational analogy is a response to the claim that men shouldn't complain about preferential treatment of women because the men will benefit through their wives (For obvious reasons nobody thinks Harvard should go back to being men only.) Society has moved beyond this type of argument years ago.

255

I should be more clear. No first year is worth 160K. That's not a matter of opinion. That is a fact. People sometimes pay $700 for a Cabbage Patch doll. That doesn't mean that they are worth such - intrinsically speaking.

You were last year's Cabbage Patch doll. Now you will be thrown away because you were never worth what they paid for you. And I'm frankly pissed off that some of my senior friends who ARE worth what they are being paid may lose their jobs because law firms - in a fit of crazy - bought a shitload of crappy Cabbage Patch dolls.

251- The most elite firms - the ones filled with HYS magna students - (Wachtell, Cravath, Williams and Connolly, Covington, Gibson) have not had these sorts of layoffs. One reason is that they are managed better. But it's also because they are more likely to win the work in a tight economy than a firm like Orrick.

58 -- AMEN to that. All those Generation Y's dumbasses, whose self-entitlement is about to make them explode, are what is wrong with BIGLAW. They are not worth a shit. Junior lawyers don't bring a thing to their matters, really. They just do doc review or proofread agreements. And that's for $300+ per hour? This is retarded. I hope my firm targets 1st and 2nd years prior to moving higher up the ranks. YOU ARE NOT WORTH YOUR SALARIES.

Pathetic. Who are the worthless losers who betray their firm's confidence and find out the conference room schedule, then think it's OK to broadcast that to a tabloid? I would not want any of you working for my firm.

I don't work for Orrick or particularly care about any of you, but it seems that Orrick obviously has a surfeit of idle minds who richly deserve the ax that is about to hit them.

Instead of laying off Associates and Support Staff, some firms may want to look at their Marketing Departments. Is there any reason why, in today's economic climate, a law firm needs to employ 12 people in its Marketing Department (i.e., Kelley Drye & Warren).

259 -- I would add Kirkland, Sidley, Skadden, and Debovoise to that list. Jones Day too since they are litigation heavy.

249- i guess you've never come across work from people below the medium from non-t25 schools then

260 = off-track mid-level or senior associate at a firm that likely will experience mass layoffs.

235 - Even if you don't want kids yourself, those who do have them do you and all of us a huge favor. Our society and our culture would die without children. And who do you think its going to take care of you 50 years from now when you're old and feeble and childless? Probably someone who hasn't been born yet.

258, I was in error in my addressing. I was really agreeing with 258, who addressed his/her comment to 123.

Sorry for that confusion.

However, "worth" is never intrinsic. Anything that is sold has its "worth" determined by the buyer. The law firms who paid these associates 160K WERE the determinants of the "worth", because by engaging in that transaction THEY said these lawyers were "worth" that to them.

That has absolutely no bearing on what any senior associate was "worth" to these firms. They paid senior associates more than 160K because they were "worth" more than 160K to that firm.

If these firms were never able to afford 160K, they wouldn't have paid it. Just like if they were never able to afford to pay a 6th year associate 275K, they wouldn't have paid it.

Small firms NEVER paid 160K to a brand new lawyer. They simply don't have it to pay.

259, Cravath is by no means "filled with HYS magna students", or even HYS cum laude students or just HYS students for that matter.

265

Doubtful. Speaking for myself and my friends, we didn't want the salary bumps associated with that nonsense first year salary. We realized the cost associated with it. Yes, we have held this against you since day one. And, yes, we put it in your performance review.

258,

Actually, in a market economy, "worth" is precisely what someone is willing to pay. If a consumer is will pay $700 for a Cabbage Patch doll (or $160,000 for an associate), the doll is, by definition, worth $700.

Sincerely,
Adam Smith, Esq.

The ship be sinking
--MRR

270,

You're wrong.

Sincerely,
Ben Graham
Seth Klarman
Warren Buffet

270

And that is why you are a first year who I hope gets canned.

Partners mock you. Honestly. I was speaking with a partner at a firm (who recently has graced these pages) and she laughed over how you think you are worth that starting salary. Laughed.

You may want to adjust the attitude and try looking at this through your reality-tinted glasses instead of the ones you currently are wearing.

270 - just as consumers will pay $700 for a doll at one point, but sometimes won't pay $10 for the same doll once the fad has faded, biglaw firms now aren't willing to pay even $10 for some of their former $160,000 associates.

Litigation is definitely not "slow everywhere". I billed 200+ last month.

Maybe that's because we do SEC Enforcement though..

265 = law student or junior about to get screwed on his/her student loans. I feel sorry for you, you don't have any future in biglaw.

What about OMM? Are layoffs coming or what??

257 - I will give you that prostate cancer is not a great example of a medical condition that affects men, not women, arising from the lifestyle choices of those afflicted. That said, your argument seeks to draw a distinction at "lifestyle choice." If that is the test, then what medical conditions survive the test? I don't need to delineate the obvious errors in purporting to use this as a threshold. I'm certain you are an intelligent person.

Moreover, given the fact that pregnancy is a condition that only occurs to women, then disallowing leave for pregnancy necessarily means that a firm will discriminate against women. It is akin to saying: a man can work here and also start a family, but a woman may not do so, should she hope to advance in a manner equivalent to her male peers. You are necessarily disadvantaging her on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You can make any argument that you want about the sacrifices a father working in Biglaw makes for his career - and I certainly don't mean to diminish their struggles - but those sacrifices are simply irrelevant to the reality that women carry the child in their body for 10 months before giving birth, with all the attendant physical ailments. There is simply no analogy on point.

194- Have heard about stealth layoffs at a couple of them at least.

274 - don't bother. The poor little thing is still trying to noodle through what "intrinsic" means.

276, no. I am a mid-level litigator at a large firm with a very, very low likelihood of being laid off. Frankly, I do not understand why your personal anxiety about your job security and self-worth is causing you to lash out at our more junior colleauges. --265

Re the attorney v. support staff division: Attorneys are what generate billable hours ($). If attorneys get laid off, the people who support them go too. Support staff is invaluable , incredibly important. But they aren't the business of law firms: lawyers are.

Re maternity leave: come on. leave it alone.

Re Orrick layoffs: If indeed it is 160, it will be approximately 30% of all associates. This is a black eye for the firm's management. Truly embarrassing. The fact that the management hasn't sucked it up and announced it yet is ridiculous. It has been rumored (for weeks) that it would happen after bonuses were paid. Morale is extremely low and has been for a long time. Bonuses were paid last week. And some of those bonuses were docked (unprecedented, extremely poor form! absolutely without class). I have lost respect for the way this firm does business.

Orrick does have a lot of great people. But the culture has been savaged by this mismanagement.

I hope that Orrick has trouble recruiting quality graduates. It earned the bad rep.

259

While your overall point is correct,

1. Cravath and Gibson are not filled with HYS magnas. More like above median CCN and median HYS. Perhaps Magna GULC

2. Cravath is far from "well-run" right now. Huge 25% drop in PPP. They almost doubled their summer class at the worst possible time. And they just signed a (decadent and redonk) $900M lease, the 900M figure representing the market price just before the housing collapse (i.e. they are overpaying by probably 20%, or 180M over the 20 year lease period)

273 --

Was the omniscient "laughing partner" one who, in all of her wisdom, bid the associate salaries so high over the last couple of years?

--not 270

278 needs to go back to Biology 101. I f you ever had a 10 month peegnacy, you should probably check with your vet that you're not a cow or a lama. A cow being paid biglaw salaries? Now, that is depressing.

285 - a woman gestates for 40 weeks. Do the math.

284 - no, of course not. I don't know of a single senior associate/partner who supported that nonsense.

286 -- haha. Do the maths? Really? You should check your mail some day. And maybe an encyclopedia. I can't believe that someone pays you thinking you're a smart person. Both of you should just check into a retarded facility.

why do law firm partners tend to be jewish?

why do law firm partners tend to be jewish?

So, of the large bay area law firms it looks like MoFo is the only one that has not been substantially impacted by the turbulant economic times.

What should I check my mail for? Is someone mailing me the definition of "maths?"

Pregnancies are measured in lunar months - which is 10, or about 9 and a half calendar months.

Attention idiots. Associate salaries haven't skyrocketed. $125k in 2001 is about $150k in today's dollars.

Associates salaries comfortably beat inflation, but remember that law firm fees and PPP's soared. There are several firms that reached $3m PPPs (20x the salary of a 1st year).

And the reason associates are worth anything is because their labor incorporated into the biglaw system is worth $750k to $1m. This is why associates are paid low six-figures. Just like a young trader, given access to a bank's capital, can be worth seven-figures to his firm. It is true that neither is worth much without their firm's capital and their second-most productive use may be not worth that much at all, but put to their most productive use, associates are obviously very valuable.

Finally, the BIGLAW model is not broken; firms are just readusting leverage. Scores of firms are still making millions. We will not see salaries reduced to $125k, but will see less associate leverage.

292 - how much time are you writing off in your analysis?

O associates, check your BB.

259 - Don't kid yourself. By the time this is over, most big firms will have cut a significant number of associates. They really have no choice.

288/289 - simple. a jew, in almost all instances, tends to be smarter than your typical goy. the only exception to the rule is that the typical goy knows how to fix a toilet whereas the typical jew doesn't and will usually have to hire a goy to take care of that shit. so...you got that going for you, which is i'm sure, very nice.

Wow -- that does not sound good. Best of luck to everyone there.

amen 261

292 - And 82,000 in 1988 had the purchasing power of 141,000 in 2007. So, you're exactly right. Associate salaries have not "skyrocketed".

In 1988, when they went to 82,000, it was screamed that they weren't "worth" that as well. But these salaries were paid by firms that are partnerships. So, SOMEONE in that partnership had to have agreed to pay these salaries. In fact, more than one person had to have agreed to it.

Whenever entry level salaries went up, wasn't it the case that senior associate salaries were adjusted by the same raw dollar amount over their first year salary?

I don't think every firm handled that the same way. I recall many older associates complaining that the adjustment they received wasn't pro-rated through the years and/or adjusted for inflation.

There isn't a lawyer on this planet who thinks he's paid what he's "worth".

295-Unlikely. A firm like Williams & Connolly operates in a completely different world than a firm like Orrick.

Because TONIGHT, WE DINE, IN HELLLLLL!

124 - You stated that layoffs were coming at Foley & Lardner. Which offices? How slow is Foley right now?

Regarding law school creds.

Ever paid attention to the law schools attended by some of the the bigest SOB rainmakers in your firms? I've worked in some firms staffed the top by Brooklyn, St. John's and Albany grads who had the clients, hence the power.

244,

I'm an associate at a patent boutique. I have more work than I can do right now. At least for the moment, I'm safe. I hope it keeps up.

I guess all these people whining about first-years not being worth their salaries were never first years themselves. The graduated law school already experienced and "worth" their salaries.

305 - true in my case. I'm not "home grown." I came in as a lateral with two years of experience.

Who here thinks the davis polks, clearies, and sullivans of NYC will cut lawyers ?

If so, why.

And show your work! Extra credit will be given for fully explaining your answer.

All sorts of rumors going around that there will be more layoffs at Proskauer this week.

285/287 - You are both idiots. Bravo. Slow clap for both of you. The funny thing is, I considered changing my statement to 9 months, if only to offset the giant douchebags who would ignorantly claim 10 months was inaccurate.

Don't believe me? Run a basic google search, you dumb bitches.

Good work though. I am certain you are indispensable at your firm. What I really love about you is your common sense. That tenacity is irreplaceable, especially in this economy.

kisses.

orrick=bobby jindal?

orrick sucketh

If a first year associate bills 2000 hours at 250/hr (both on the low end), they pull in 500K for the firm. Subtract 160K salary, training, expenses, etc, and you are probably left with something around 200K in profit. I do not see how 160 is all that ridiculous, though I'm sure 95% of first years would be happy with much less.

309

You definitely shouldn't tell him that a pregnancy can last for 42 weeks. He may never recover from the shock of his ignorance hitting him full force like that.

307, historically, most biglaw firms experienced attrition rates of 20% a year. They hired associates taking this into account. For example, they need 3 third years, so they hire 5 first years.
This is also why leverage has risen in the past few years.

Nowadays, voluntary attrition rate is around 0%. This means too many people are graduating classes each year. Those 5 first years are expected to become 5 third years. If firms don't do something, they will have too many third years.

Therefore, firms with a low voluntary attrition outlook for the next few years (i.e., length of the recession) will resort to involuntary attrition to reach the 20% attrition rate expected.

If a first year bills 2000 hours - 1000 of that is probably written off.

307- Because they have already done so, stealthly, of
course.

309 -- I guess they maled you some brains. Hahaha!

In the biglaw family, Orrick is the retarded uncle.

If Orrick only gives two months severance, that's really lame, especially in light of Latham's 6 months. A V50 firm has to pay out at least 3 months to not be considered cheap. In this economy, it will be tough for a laid off associate to find a job in 2 months.

It is common knowledge that first years cost law firms money. The reason they get paid what they do is they have "potential" to become 4th years.

315, as a partner, I can say that I don't write off 1st year time at that rate. If I have a first year that can't do first year work and I need to write off a lot of time, that 1s year won't be working on my projects anymore and that point is made clear in reviews. Word gets out quick if an associate can't carry their load and that work is quickly redirected to those that can.

309 -- I guess they mailed you some brainsa cow, not that it would have been efficient in a cow like you.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/pregnancy+duration

Not that I expect you to know Hutchinson.

And I'm not talking about premature babies or 42-week pregnancies, obviously. 10 month-pregancies are simply ridiculous as a norm. You sure seem like you'll make the next layoff cut with such an intelligence! Be ready for your unemployment checks! I am so happy that all of you law students and juniors won't make it into biglaw!

296 - you are right, I am really good at fixing toilets. On the other hand, I am not that good at fixing showers. Would you please step inside mine and breathe deeply.

You guys ain't that smart.

321

As a senior associate - I may not write off half, but I know that I could do the work in half the time and I SHOULD be writing off half. And the slow down in work isn't helping. First years with less on their plates are foot dragging. Not helpful to my budget.

You don't need to book conference rooms to organize a layoff - just look at Clifford Chance ... when they let go the 20 litigators last October (sadly, small fry by today's standards), they associates involved were simply called up to one of two partners offices and given the news - the sad thing being that when they received a call to go to one of the partners office, a lot of them took a notepad with them thinking they were about to be assigned new work ... but then CHOP!!!!

322

What did your link prove, exactly (nothing like a first year to cut and paste what you already know to "prove" a point).

We all agree that a pregnancy is 40 weeks. Pregnancies are measured in lunar months - which is 10. Even in calendar months that's 9.5 which is as close to 10 as it is to 9 and generally speaking one rounds up (to 10) when faced with a .5 or greater.

321 here. If I had a first year dragging their feet, I would write that time off and then promptly remove them from the matter for the exact reason you state. It blows the budget. You have to give them the work because that is how we all learned. You can do something in half the time because someone allowed you to learn too. The lesson is: no attorney should be effing around as you will be gone very soon. If you have an associate that is not cutting it, move on to the better talent that is sure to be at your firm.

321 - partner here too, and I typically write off about 25%. I could, in many cases, write off 50%. 324, the fact that you can do the work in half the time is somewhat beside the point - do you want to first-year work? And doesn't the first year bill at about half your rate? If anything, you should be able to do a first-year's work in considerably less than half the time.

323 is a comment worth moderating. And I'm not even Jewish.

312 - faulty math.

Using your numbers, that 500,000 is the gross charge, but not what clients pay or is reduced. Cut that by 10%. Now, from the 450k, subtract 160k, which equals $290k. Subtract out overhead (even for the secretaries that were trashmouthed), which is at least $250 if not higher, and the associate is barely making the firm any profit.

But then again, if any of us were good at math, why become lawyers.

at least we get help with COBRA. All these unemployed lawyers, maybe they should march on washington and.....hell I don't know ....smoke a joint ?

327

I wish! Easier said than done. We have a small ratio and it's frowned up to poach from another group. Besides I'm in a nuanced practice area so I'd spend half my time explaining what banking acronyms mean to - who? An FDA associate? Give me a lateral with government or trade association experience in my field any day. I'm happy to pay that person 160. A first year? Not so much.

And they can't write. I mean it's really bad. I don't know if you have that problem but holy Hell. I can't find one of them who can write a decent memo.

328, why do you keep first years that can't do first year work efficiently? That makes no sense to me.

328 here: because they do work that nobody else wants to do, and given our cost structure we can write off about half the time and still break even . It can take lawyers a couple years to develop, so (historically at least) we don't push them out until at least the third year.

330, my firm tends to hire first years who worked before they went to law school. A lot of the bad habits have been beaten out of them. they have a good work ethic, they have some maturity and judgement and sometimes they have experience that actually allows them to be subtantive. I tend to favor laterals over newbies for the reason you describe. The law would benefit if law schools gave more preferences to candidates that worked a year or two instead of going straight through. You would have fewer assholes too because everyone would know what it is like to be a peon.

332

It's not that black and white. First, I'm a senior associate so I can't fire anyone. Second, it's not efficiency (only) it's lack of experience as well.

So now I have lack of experience compounded by lack of efficiency because we are bound to the billable hour as the measure of our worth which incentivizes foot dragging when there isn't a lot to do. Which blows my budget all to Hell.

Or maybe I'm just stuck with a sucky first year. I dunno.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE "O"!

These types of layoffs are great teaching moments. I am sure every one about to be layed off voted for OBAMA. This will be a good lesson to them that voting for someone who wants to cripple the private sector is not great for you if you work in the private sector. The private sector will likely see no economic growth over the next five years if not longer. If you are a partner at a firm your taxes are going up, your house just got more expensive because your deduction of interest payments just got capped , and ppp are falling. You are screwed. The only way to respond is to get profits back up. If you cannot increase the work you have, then the only other alternative is to try to raise margins by cutting costs. A law firm's number one cost is associate salaries. The lay offs will continue and intensify. Thinking "long term about the future for when the ecomomy turns" is to indulge in a fantasy. The future will not look anything like the past.
Change you can believe in. O

Who has the word on Foley & Lardner?

tell the first year they suck. If you don't see a change, then you know you have a sucky first year. A least the mystery will be solved.

I agree -- you need t strike comment 323. that is really terrible.

LOL at 337. Yes, it's all Obama's fault.

oops Sorry 328. I thought I was you but I'm 330.

:)

Firms that lay off large numbers of first-year associates should be permanently banned from on-campus recruiting events. What awful planning. The entire firm management should resign for such awful behavior.

342: Except that the firm management owns the place. Also, law students need jobs. In case you haven't noticed, the days when law firms needed bodies so associates could just slack off and demand the moon are over. Any port in a storm.

340 -dont be a dope. When O wants to make the people that employee you 20% poorer, they look to cut costs. Costs are you.

342, a lot of firms would be happy not to have to incur the expense of recruiting on campus. Law students would be relegated to trying to interview at the firms because they would want/need the job. A lot of students would end up paying for this out of their own pockets because firms won't pay for you to travel for a first round interview. It also would be a scheduling nightmare for the students and not the firm.

Moreover, if your criteria were applied, it would end on campus recruiting because no firm is immune. Every year, firms let go of a first year or two because you do get some duds. None of these firms could come on campus.

So be careful what you wish for as you might not like the outcome.

343-The economy will eventually recover. When it does, these firms should not be able to hire law students.
And when I say firm management, I mean the managing partner/executive committee. Replace them with partners who have an ounce of planning ability.

346, So it is ok for them to come while it benefits you in this slow economy but you suddenly regain your moral outrage when the economy gets better. Get a clue.

304, I am a patent associate at a big firm, formerly with a boutique. We are busier than we have been in years, but we hear that the Japanese clients are evaluating their budgets. Some client's FY starts on April 1, others July 1. European clients are sending us more work than ever. Domestic clients are slashing their R&D budgets but have so much in the pipeline, we will survive nicely.

I would totally support not hiring from law schools. I would poach from other firms, the government, wherever. I think associates in BigLaw should be seasoned from the get go if they're going to have a starting salary of $160K.

337/344 - You're right. These lay offs never would've happened/would be much less severe had Obama not announced he wanted to return partners' tax rates to where they were at the end of the Clinton administration.

Enough with the "this is Obama's fault"/"the past 8 years were atrocious" dichotomy. The entire country participated in creating this madness.

347- It's not about benefits. It's about these firms ruining the careers of fresh law school graduates.

351--Why are new grads any more special than anyone else? Get a clue.

348, please take into account what 351 and 343 said. You cannot agree with 350 unless you also believe 344's statement to be true and 349's to be false. In the end, we could all be wrong, as 347 suggests, and then we'll be wondering what the hell 345 and 346 were talking about tonight.

- 342

288/289: it's very likely in the genes. they also happen to have great work ethic. if you want to read more about it, look here: homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Orrick: Worst firm in California, or worst firm in the United States?

350, the end of the Clinton administration was also the climax of the tech bubble and the middle of the housing bubble.

So yes, high tax rates can coincide with economic growth if you have two bubbles going on. The 1920s had great economic growth too.

But when you don't have two bubbles, as in right now, high future taxes lead partners to expect lower future income, so to maintain their cash flow they will cut costs. Those costs are you.

Foley & Lardner will not do associate lay offs.

355-I'd be surprised if Orrick makes it past 2010 unless it allows itself to be purchased. Big cuts tomorrow, up to 20 percent of attys. First years, incoming 3Ls, and partners will not be spared. Good luck to all!

337 - Yeah right. Obama caused all of this. He's been in office what, a little more than a month? You can't cause this kind of damage to the economy in a month. The market slide and banking bailout disaster started before he was elected and was brewing for many years. A lot of people predicted the bubble would burst big time and it did.

The party's over, it's time to call it a day.
They've burst your pretty balloon and taken the moon away.

It's time to wind up the masquerade.
The piper must be paid.

Now you must wake up, all dreams must end.
Take off your make up, The Party's Over.
It's all over, my friend.

359, so you have always blamed the 2000-2003 market slide and economic recession on Clinton, right?

you freaks are still bashing each other?

latham still hasn't burned down...

This is the best explanation of today's economy I've seen / read. Hopefully we will begin to see recovery by 2010 as Allen Greenspan explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

What is the source of the Foley rumors?

342 - you have rocks in your head.

362: Alan Greenspan? The guy who told Congress in October that no one could have predicted the housing meltdown when, in fact, prominent economists were predicting it as early as 2002? The same Alan Greenspan who gleefully pushed risky mortgage products as Fed chairman and later conceded errors on regulation? No thanks.

322, 309, 287, 285

Have any of you actually ever BEEN pregnant or, at least, been expecting a baby with someone who was?

Due dates are calculated to be 40 weeks after the date of the LMP. Actual gestation is roughly 38 weeks and some days. The reason why the 40 week figure is still around is just mere OB practice tradition since the use of ultrasounds now take a lot of guesswork out of early gestational age. Conception is still just merely estimated to have occurred 12-14 days after LMP.

Calendar months are not exactly 4 weeks long. Such is why 40 weeks can fall within approximately 9 and a half calendar months, yet really have the duration of 10 lunar months.

A baby born at 36 weeks (of which my son fell 3 days short) is still deemed "pre-term" or "early term". Preferred delivery is within one week of due date on either side of it. Therefore, a gestation considered "term" is OVER 9 lunar AND calendar months.

Not that I expect anyone without personal experience of a pregnancy to know this at a young age. However, you're all snotting out one another about who is "brilliant" and who is a "moron" or whatever it is. If you're all lawyers, then you should ALL know to seek evidence before shouting insults at the other side.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/snapshots/87.html

365 - Greenspan also advised ALL mortgage holders to switch OUT of their fixed mortgages and into ARMs.

I ain't kidding. He did it circa 2003? 2004? 'Round there.

He was a deranged old gnome by 1987. It just got worse at the printing press as time went on. I think his standard for monterist success was Wiemar level.

367 wins for (silent) comment of the year. Hilarious.

This heated argument over whether a pregnancy lasts nine months or ten months is one of the most retarded things I've ever seen on the Internet.

365 - Greenspan also advised ALL mortgage holders to switch OUT of their fixed mortgages and into ARMs.

I ain't kidding. He did it circa 2003? 2004? 'Round there.

He was a deranged old gnome by 1987. It just got worse at the printing press as time went on. I think his standard for monetarist success was Wiemar level.

When people talk about being slow, what does that generally mean? 50 hours a month? 100?

How is Cleary doing?

368

Although to be fair - he didn't tell people to get into option ARMs. Because those were just nuts. And, I believe he was referring to traditional 7/10 ARMs not 2/3 ARMs which are more typically referred to as "hybrids." The nuance there is that a mortgage typically is held for less than 7 years making such ARMs an economic good choice.

But that was the good old days when banks had this quaint practice of lending money. I anticipate that Allen would not have the same advice today.

369 - thanks, that's the biggest praise i've gotten all year

- concerned staff atty

372

I consider anything less than 100 percent utilization slow.

Allen? Where the hell did that come from? Alan. I meant Alan.

I'm a dumby.

367: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
Rank: 87 (Previous rank: N.A.)
What makes it so great?
Law firm whose roots go back to Civil War paid bonuses to hourly workers despite economic crunch that forced layoffs of 20 lawyers and 20 legal secretaries.

It looks like Orrick's shooting for the top ten next year.

A piece of advice: spend this time getting your resumes in order instead of bashing each other on ATL.

350+ posts on a Sunday? Wow. And most people posting seem to be staff.

Question for the staffers posting here: have there been a lot of "stealth", if you could call it that, staff layoffs? I am guessing it would be easier for firms to layoff staff without making the headlines of ATL. I know my firm had a "reallocation" where they essentially went from 2 attys per assistant to 3. Resulted in a number of layoffs. They fired a lot of the more senior staff as well which didn't sit well with many of us because they were the ones who knew everything. Sad times all around.

I heard that Latham laid off 32 of 61 first years.

That's pretty funkdafied if you ask me.

Who do you guys think Jason (The Bachelor) will pick tomorrow night: Molly or Melissa? My money is on Melissa.

HUGE layoffs are coming at Gibson Dunn in the next couple of weeks. The partners have begun reviewing billables for February, and it's been UGLY.

372, slow = 50 hours a month.

342/353 --

Yes, yes....props on your clear and compelling arguments.

But, I must ask, have you ever considered what 149 and 176 said?

If you have, then you really need to evaluate the premises of 323, 221, 312, and 97.

After all, if you agree with those four, then you MUST disagree with 145, 204, 314, 274, and 212 (obviously). Oh, and don't forget 18, and 208. Those were important, too.

I've never been happier working on a weekend. Billed 24 hours (and counting) between yesterday and today and lovinf every minute of it. How times have changed...

379: i'm spending my time figuring out how that pregnant man pulled it off

- concerned male atty

372 - anything less than 100 hours per month is most definitely slow.

50 hours per month is ridiculously slow. I mean crazy slow. Are you sure you work there? Is there a red stapler on your desk? 100 hours per month is slow.

Where do you all work that you could bill 1200 per year and consider that "normal?"

Yikes.

Under 150 is slow. At that pace, assuming NO vacations, you're only billing 1800. That may be fine at Jacoby & Meyers or some all-Mommy shop, but not big law or even TTTs.

Agree with 390 - if my billables for a month are less than 170 I get twitchy.

Yikes, if you're billing 50 hours a months, you're toast.

372 here. I'm in IP and things are more or less normal for my group. But when posters here talk about their firms having "no" work, I wonder what they mean by that. Hence my question, is it 10 hours a week? 20? Literally zero?

Maybe I'm paranoid but if I went more than 6-8 weeks with less than 20 hours of work, I would worry.

I had no idea things were this bad.

If you go two consecutive weeks with less than 40 hours of billable work you need to do something about it.

Are people really working BigLaw with 20 hours per week of billable work for 6 to 8 weeks? Holy cow.

Seriously? Where do work?

383- Do those layoffs include Gibson's DC office? Seems like a pretty busy place to me.

391 -- Agreed. 390 was a bit too generous. 150/month is most definitely slow (assuming no vacation or big holidays).

Good luck tomorrow, everyone.

What 397 said. Anyone listen to Pac anymore? If so, some "Death Around the Corner" sums up the sentiment nicely.

Please moderate 323. That is awful.

400!

What's up late night nerds???

Grab a cup of that Kool-Aid and drink deep, associates.

#123 here:

To respond to #238, I hear you but I think you don't understand that not all firms can bill at the same rates. They cut deals with clients, many of whom refuse to let first years work on their matters. That means that some firms were agreeing to pay $160K even when they couldn't afford to do so.

Also, while cash flow IS drying up, I also think that clients are reluctant to patronize an industry that they view as paying exorbitant rates to underqualified employees. Don't think that in this economy that a client will be paying for a 24-year-old who surfs Westlaw. The knowledge that firms are bloated with such employees certainly affects which firms clients choose to work with ( I KNOW this to be true as I've worked in-house. I'll tell you that more and more the smaller, more experienced-roster firms are handling non bet-the-firm matters.).

So when you think you're just petitioning for your "cut of the pie", realize this, we don't DESERVE any cut of the pie. That realization is why we're so expendable to firms now!

I want to hear more about the people who are supposedly busy who get cut from Latham and other firms. How busy? How many months have you been busy? It's hard to believe that somebody who is legitimately busy, and making the firm money, would get laid off, but I know these are bizarre times.

2 months severance? that's not a good sign. combined with this being a second, much larger round of layoffs, orrick's future must be bleak.

323 should be banned.

383- Gibson Dunn? Where are you hearing this?

403: it doesn't really immunize you that you happen to be busy. whom do you think firms lay off when, overall, their associates are not busy enough? answer: it's the worst performers. sometimes the weakest happen to be the slowest, because the partners "vote with their feet." but sometimes, the worst performers happen to be busy at the time of the layoff. nevertheless, they are laid off and their workload is passed to other associates who perform superior work in a more efficient way.

those who would rather hire laterals than first years seem to be missing an important detail. Everyone was a first year at some point. The only way to avoid hiring first years is to have other firms train your lawyers for you . . . then you hire them as laterals. Is that really what you have in mind? Do you want another firm training your lawyers? Where are these firms that are going to train your lawyers for you?

Monday, Bloody Monday.

Did you see the Nikkei tonight? How about the futures on the DJIA and S&P?

If our clients don't have any money they can't pay us to represent them. The wisdom of the market crowd is saying things are going to get much worse for our clients. So if the S&P closes below $700 tomorrow, well, all I can say is:

"We're on an express elevator to hell; going down!"

407, right, but in my experience, people with quality issues tend to be consistently slower. That's why I was asking for how long the laid off people had been busy. Somebody who has had consistently high hours for 6 months is probably not a low performer.

those who say a first year is not worth $160k. Fine. How much is a 2nd year worth? 3rd year? 4th?

410: I agree, generally. But in practice groups that had, until October 2008, been busy -- like IP, for example -- there were probably some very weak performers who were nevertheless kept busy. Maybe those groups were unable (or unwilling) to make the necessary termination calls on quality bases when the work was flowing and it was difficult to find replacements via the lateral market. But that all changed since September/October -- when every client, every firm and every practice group began taking the huge hit caused by this terrible economy. After September/October, everything began to change. All of the sudden, work levels dropped for virtuallyl every firm, because every client had to pull back due to lack of money. At that point, it became time to do what probably should have been done earlier: fire people who were not performing well -- some of whom may have still been busy.

Time to put your "O" face on!

412, that all makes sense. I think what I've been seeing (not personally yet, knocking wood), is that there's a first cut for performance issues (some of which are BS, some of which are stricter than in past years) - then a second round, which appears to be mostly based on hours. I'm surprised to hear Latham people who are busy got cut in the second round, but then again, being a busy first or second year can mean something entirely different than at a different level.

Never been so glad to be in office @ 12:15 am Monday morning!

415, no kidding, but I will be even more bitter if I get laid off and I've been working weekends.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you're counting, the tally is four. Four posts on this thread that actually contributed something meaningful to the discussion (less than 1%).

I just got off the phone with my OMM partner - they are making calls late night in California (NB) and they are doing layoffs - I am a 2nd year and "safe" b/c my billing is up to speed but they are doing major layoff end of this week beginning of next b/c Jan/Feb numbers were down - way down. The calls are happening on the hush-hush side.

unbelievable. we all need to hunker down...

414 - The performance evaluation game is tricky. Associates who are getting bad reviews almost never tell any of their colleagues about that. Either they keep their heads down and just avoid the subject, or they make believe they are doing well with their colleagues. So no one among us (except the partners who are doing the reviews) really knows how well anyone is doing. Then, if they get fired, the associates complain (understandably) and that creates the sense that all the fired associates had been doing great and were really either unlucky or the victims of some unfair action. maybe it was unfair. But who knows? It is really hard to know what really happened and whether it's fair unless you know exactly what that associate's reviews were. And the partners won't or can't comment on that.

The most surprising thing to me as a V15 first year associate is how useless so many of the associates at my firm are. I assumed that everybody who got to this point was fairly intelligent, competent and hard working. We have idiots who are lazy and I have no idea how they got the job...

anybody want to order a pizza?

This is a little weird. Late last week a recruiter called asking if I was interested in a position at Orrick.

418: Your post makes no sense at all.

I can't sleep. I can't stop chain smoking. I am nervous as fuck.

422 - That is a little weird, but within the ballpark of reason. Orrick could be slow in one area/practice/location and busy in another. Or it could be letting go of associates who don't have the qualifications they need (or who suck) and trying to hire those who fit the bill. That illustrates that layoffs are not necessarily indicative of "the doom of the firm" doing them. Instead, they can be seen as a (blunt) tool to fix a problem caused by overhiring or prolonged forgiveness of quality issues.

ATL -- CAN WE PLEASE HIGHLIGHT ALL THE FIRMS WHICH HAD BLESSED ASSOCIATES WITH A MERE 2 MONTH SEVERANCE?

ATL -- CAN WE PLEASE HIGHLIGHT ALL THE FIRMS WHICH HAD BLESSED ASSOCIATES WITH A MERE 2 MONTH SEVERANCE?

My biglaw firm has dozens of first years billing 50 hours a month. dozens.

Ralph Baxter has been delusional since he took the helm at Orrick. Orrick never has been, and never will be, an elite firm. Growth does not equal high quality or prestige. Excellent work does. Orrick doesn't do excellent work. SUCK. IT.

I can't believe that there are firms -- honorably -- granting 5 and 6 months of severance, while some (thought to be first tier firms) gave their associates who busted their ass just TWO months.

Anyone else think this needs to be stressed????

I hope these cheaps bastards never get another Ivy League recruit again!

Does anyone happen to know how some of the smaller, less leveraged firms are doing during this economic downturn? (Wachtell, Munger, Irell, etc.)

Getting laid off will likely be the most positive event in most young lawyers' lives. Don't fear the reaper. Use the opportunity to get out of the rat race...learn a new skill, like how to play the cow bell.

Yeah, and what happened to Joan Rivers' face?

429 - I'm at Orrick and I do excellent work. So do the people I work with. I don't know where you work, and would not presume to generalize how you do it. Show some class.

433-Jill, get back to drafting secretary's certs.

I'm guessing 383 is flame.

Elie, I will make you skinny again, one slap at a time. Gooooo Slap Chop!

All talks of "classiness" and "market rate" aside, 2 months severance would be total bush league. That would mean someone laid off at the end of November (and was paid 5 months severance) will have their severance run out AT THE SAME TIME as the people getting the ax this week (while NOT WORKING IN DECEMBER, JANUARY AND FEBRUARY), and got more time off/a head start on job hunting.

There is no way GDC is paying six months severance when they announce their layoffs.

437, Agreed that 2 months severance WAS "bush league."

337

337

337

It deserves repeating (on every single ATL layoff story):

These types of layoffs are great teaching moments. I am sure every one about to be layed off voted for OBAMA. This will be a good lesson to them that voting for someone who wants to cripple the private sector is not great for you if you work in the private sector. The private sector will likely see no economic growth over the next five years if not longer. If you are a partner at a firm your taxes are going up, your house just got more expensive because your deduction of interest payments just got capped , and ppp are falling. You are screwed. The only way to respond is to get profits back up. If you cannot increase the work you have, then the only other alternative is to try to raise margins by cutting costs. A law firm's number one cost is associate salaries. The lay offs will continue and intensify. Thinking "long term about the future for when the ecomomy turns" is to indulge in a fantasy. The future will not look anything like the past.
Change you can believe in. O

Orrick is a shitty firm; those axed should consider themselves lucky. They can go work somewhere that doesn't suck... eventually.

first?

383 is full of it. Gibson's February numbers don't even come out until later this week. And the partners aren't nearly as worried about the current state of the market as they are about when a turnaround is likely. I'm not saying GDC won't every lay anyone off, but they take a longer view than most.

What's the word with OMM? Are we all fucked?

What's going on at Gibson? I am afraid to show up to work tomorrow.

445-- 444 here. Ditto to that. Someone wake me up in three years when this is all over.

290: mofo is doing terribly. the only reason they haven't done worse is because a significant portion of their work is litigation, unlike some of the other firms known for their corp practices.

446 - At least you reaped a decent bonus. We got shafted.

- 445

Best of luck to all associates this week.

Law students, sorry to be so blunt, but you are pretty much f*cked. Get your Plan B figured out asap.

3L's are probably fucked.

T14 1L's and 2L's with excellent grades will probably be fine. Firms are cutting their leverage down to size now because they have been too highly leveraged for too long, and the bubble is done. This, however, does not mean that firms will stop recruiting entirely... They will just have to do so in a more responsible manner.

For at least the next few years, you will start seeing reasonably sized summer associate classes (around 10% firm size), unlike the recent 160+ (35% firm size) summer associate classes at places like CravaTTTh.

The result wil be that school rank and grades will be even more important than they used to be. The top 30% of HYSCN will still place fine through on campus interviews, and will pull in at least 160k starting. However, as is rapidly becomming the case, an education from outside of the T14 will generally not be worth the price of tuition.

424: me too.

I just read every single one of these comments. Now I'm going to jerk off, have a cup of coffee, go to my crappy big law job, bill about two hours of decent work and then fill up the rest of my day with some real fascinating document review. God, I'm so happy I'm a lawyer.

I dont know what all the rumors in the comments about Foley are about. Boer is in the paper today.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/40514272.html

On being busy vs. not busy: There are tons of people at my firm that will be lucky to have 50 billable hours this month. Things started getting slower for most (yes, even IP and litigation) this fall, but things really went off the rails in December/January.

But what people need to understand is that hours don't tell the whole story of who is a good performer and who is not. Some really excellent associates who are usually very busy have had their matters end (settlement, clients pulling out), while some pretty bad ones happen to be busy because they got added to matters while all the good associates were taken, and those matters are still alive. It's been luck of the draw as to who is busy and who is not these days, and you can bet that most smart firms are looking beyond Jan/Feb hours figures to make their cuts. It's about sustained, long-term performance. This is also why 1st and 2nd years are not safe. And unfortunately, the transactional/corporate people at my firm are not safe. If you are in a practice area that's never coming back the way it was, you are toast. The other practice groups are too loyal to their crews to redeploy associates to, in all honesty, take away work from people who have been working with them all along.

According to these articles by the National Law Journal and the WSJ, firms save $250,000 for each attorney and $100,000 on average for each staff/assistants laid off: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428052428
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595619998905733.html
Has any associates thought about working under a model where you'd earn a percentage of your billings instead of fixed pay and billing requirements?
Has any partners thought about underpricing other firms to acquire more clients and more work?

Nice promotional/recruitment video of Orrick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQZITA4h9TE

To#38 - no technology available to date can read attorney handwriting and make edits accordingly. Even VR software doesn't distinguish between the innumerable 'no, scratch that, insert this, go back to where I said XYZ and put LMNOP, OK - what's the last thing I said?' and the actual text of the pleading or whatever doc is being worked on. Attorneys might be able to use Word but some sec'y or word processor has to make it look right for submission. Go ahead - run the firm w/o paras and sec'ys and support staff. I'll wait here with the popcorn, ROFLMAO!!

452. i just jizzed my pants. never thought id be on a boat

452. i just jizzed my pants. never thought id be on a boat

I can't believe there are dozens of BigLaw associates billing 50 hours per month.

Wow.

457--it's called a template, moron.

GULC to.....legal aid!

460--why can't you believe that? Look around. Things are really, really bad. The work isn't there for a lot of firms, and a lot of people. Cases that no one thought would settle are settling right and left. Companies are slow-rolling new matters like never before. It is bad, and it will get worse. Really. If it hasn't touched you yet, congratulations and good luck, because odds are, it's coming.

I want the name of the firm where people are billing 50 hours a month.

445 - Gibson is in deep shit. The Feb billables were really bad. Layoffs are round the corner and there's a really good chance that starting dates for incoming first year associates will be pushed to January 2010.

465: You know this how?

Foley might be alright. Their (extremely lucrative) bonus system is entirely tied to hours and not paid to first years. If no one has work, no one gets "extra salary."

Whatever happens, just keep it to yourself until you're outside the building. You don't want to celebrate in front of guys who just died.

464, there are plenty of such firms.

this is a lot of posts~

437, it makes zero difference either way as 1) there was no work in Dec, Jan and Feb and 2) there is no job out there to hunt.

i have a chubby pubic mound. i wonder if that comes from my mom or my dad.

23, you'd like to think that high billers are safe. I was one of the highest billers in my class and I was cut. No, it wasn't because my work product wasn't up to par. I had perfect reviews. It's all about whether you're connected with the decision makers. Don't assume they'll read your file. If they watched the superbowl with some of your low billing colleagues, you're not as safe as you think.

now that the GOP is being fed its talking points by Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, the ATL message board can brace for a deluge of inane comments like those found in 337.

2009 republicans = GOPnwned!

My firm also has dozens of associates billing 50 hours a month. It's possible the other poster and I work at the same firm, but I don't think my firm is unique in this economy.

473 - you're right. despite capitatlst theory its about who you schmooze rather than what you do, how much you do or how well you do it.
The decision makers aren't going to cut their buddies. They're getting rid of the people they don't know or don't like.

but overall biglaw is doomed. It's been a lie and clients aren't going to pay $500 for any service anymore. It's not worth it and hasn't ever been worth it.
Reasonably priced. smaller firms are going to come out well.

473

i once saw a 3000 hour person cut (and i am sure he was really working those hours). the problem was he SUCKED.

473

i once saw a 3000 hour person cut (and i am sure he was really working those hours). the problem was he SUCKED.

When we are talking about "attorney" vs "staff" layoffs, which category part-time law students and patent agents belong?

This is assuming they are registered to practise patent law (before USPTO).

Just curious how badly these groups are affected.

383 is a troll. GDC associates haven't even posted the last week of Feb yet. My Feb was nothing special, to say the most, and I'll have company in that regard. But there are super busy people here, there is strong business in many areas, and the firm is in overall good shape, or so we hear. Hoping for the best.

440-You better watch yourself. You'll be the first to be sent to the re-education camps. Just put on your brown shirt, keep your head down, and shut your mouth.

Spent the last 4 hours shoveling partners' sidewalks & driveways. I'm sure that will make a difference come layoff time.

473: you are right. For junior associates, it's all about asskissing.

482 - that will be taken into consideration as long as you bill 12 hours today. txs

479, most patent agents at big law firms are

1. technical advisor with specific set of skills to serve one or two particular technology-intensive clients, think a PhD in an obscure area;
2. technical advisor with specific set of skills to serve on one or two litigations;
3. part-time law students who were hired because the firm could not find a regular patent attorney.

For 1 and 2, their jobs are safe as long as the client stays. For 3, they are lumped in with regular attorneys, typically getting paid the same first year salary even though they have only a 50% schedule.

Other firms may use them for regular prep and pros work. Their jobs are safe as long as the client stays. If the client leaves, they are gone.

anyone want to come over tongiht and grill up some steaks?

anyone want to come over tonight and grill up some steaks?

how's Bingham doing in this recession?

487---Let us enjoy steaks today, for tomorrow we dine on hamburger.

475 (et al.)

Wow. I'm really sorry. I actually was unaware that things were that bad. My BigLaw firm is on the small side of Biglaw (less than 1,000 lawyers) and things were slow - as in 110-150 per month. I don't know of anyone (in my firm at least) who is that slow.

WSJ article about economic impacts on the profession:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595619998905733.html

383 & 465 --- Are you Latham associates shit-talking Gibson? Provide a source or don't post!

3 = Ellie. Because everytime staff get attacked on any level the 30,000,000 secretaries with nothing better to do than surf the net looking for new ways to hate on the people they work FOR start commenting inanely and like crazy. Post and hit count ++++++.

AcelaBob to $190K !

"But many have little direct business sense or experience."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595619998905733.html

490--are you sure? I, too, was blissfully unaware of how slow things were on my firm until a case of mine settled in mid-January. Then I went hunting for new work, and quickly found out that there wasn't any to be hard. Associates generally don't publicize how slow they are, so I would be surprised if there weren't a sizeable group of under-100 hours per month billers are your firm. It's brutal.

486

Fair enough. I'm going back to work now ...

First

First

500.

3: ATL posts staff layoffs to augment the number of hits that its website receives. What do you think your secretary is doing all day long anyway? Not surfing the web?

495= on of the 30,000,000 associates with nothing better to do than surf the net looking for new ways to hate on the people they work FOR...

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

#380, only 3 attys per assistant? Try 5-8 per assistant at other firms.
###
I know my firm had a "reallocation" where they essentially went from 2 attys per assistant to 3.

#380, only 3 attys per assistant? Try 5-8 per assistant at other firms.
###
I know my firm had a "reallocation" where they essentially went from 2 attys per assistant to 3.

I predict there will be like 420 comments to this post.

-Michael Phelps

Anyone have word on the Orrick layoffs? When are they going down?

Aw, man! I overslept.

Whew. The ship be sinking...

The legal industry is in the midst of a signficant downsizing that, I believe, is probably not close to over. Frankly, the only reason this did not happen sooner is firms were overly concerned with reputation and prestige. Obviously, the dam has broken and those issues are history, except for a small group of firms (Cravath etc.) Many firms have been suffering from low billables for over a year, but now that the markets have really collapsed and economists are predicting that the recovery may not arrive until 2011, firms realize that signficant reductions in headcount will be the only way to survive.

Just like the finance industry, this will be a permanent downsizing, and those being laid off should seriously consider moving on to another industry, as hard as that may be. The reality is that, even if a recovery occurs within the next two years - and, according to some, that is an optimistic view - things will never return to what they were. Moreover, associates being laid off now, particularly junior associates (with less than 4-5 years experience) will have a very difficult time persuading firms to hire them over associates who have recent experience and haven't been sitting on the sidelines until things improved.

In effect, there will be a "lost generation" of biglaw attorneys. As a recently laid off 3rd year corporate associate, I think about this often now and wonder where to go from here. The job market is by all accounts dead, and, unless you know someone who is willing to give you a shot at applying your skills to another profession, you stand little chance of securing employment in the near term.

I hate to be a downer, but if you are a laid off associate, you need to think out of the box and realistically about your career goals and future.

#493, you're right that the secretaries have nothing better to do than surf the net all day. I'm a secretary who got laid off.

Obviously, there are also a lot of associates with nothing better to do than surf the net--hence, the reason for all of the layoffs.

337

337

337

Deserves repeating over and over in all of the ATL layoff posts....

Posted by guest | Permalink
Sunday, March 1, 2009 9:26 PM

These types of layoffs are great teaching moments. I am sure every one about to be laid off voted for OBAMA.

This will be a good lesson to them that voting for someone who wants to cripple the private sector is not great for you if you work in the private sector.

The private sector will likely see no economic growth over the next five years if not longer. If you are a partner at a firm your taxes are going up, your house just got more expensive because your deduction of interest payments just got capped , and ppp are falling. You are screwed. The only way to respond is to get profits back up. If you cannot increase the work you have, then the only other alternative is to try to raise margins by cutting costs. A law firm's number one cost is associate salaries.

The lay offs will continue and intensify. Thinking "long term about the future for when the ecomomy turns" is to indulge in a fantasy. The future will not look anything like the past.

Change you can believe in. O

457, the point is that deciphering a lawyer's edits does not command $75K. As the economy worsens, I think more and more firms will use a pool of clerical/support staff at a fraction of the pay.

38

Somebody ought to have the balls/ovaries to sue their Evil Firm for axing them in order to slow the bleeding.

Oh wait, I already did.

7: Law schools can factor into the decision, sometimes in an unusual way. For example, in the case of Proskauer's layoffs of first years in December, the greatest impact was on associates who came from non-NY law schools where the firm tended to do less recruiting. There were a number of reports of graduates of New York Law School (where the firm has a connection) who had flunked the Bar being retained while graduates of higher ranked schools who'd passed were let go, neither having had an opportunity to do much substantive work.