The ship be sinking...

FOURTH! and what's the word on the incoming summers and 3Ls?

Any word on which offices these are at?

as long as acela bob is spared, that firm will be okay. that gentleman brings the level of excellence up a notch, and that is what companies look to when selecting counsel. he is a great "face" of the firm, and one that the firm should leverage for strong growth in the future.

You can be sure that no-business partners at Pillsbury are being laid off, too. That process involves a much smaller number of people, and is being handled slowly over the last few months and very quietly, but it is happening.

Unlike large scale associate layoffs, which are now impossible to keep under wraps thanks to ATL, partner lay offs are being handled in the polite old-fashioned way. The departing partner has every reason to keep the reasons for his removal hidden. The firm does everything to keep these partner layoffs secret because it does not want to get a reputation for forcing partners out. A firm that was known to fire partners would have a hardtime attracting new partners who actually have business. The firm also stretches out the partner firings over several months so that the firm does not trigger any departure covenants in its credit facility.

Accela Bob: You better say something funny, this one is on a tee for you

Two 3L’s from Seton Hall are driving along the Jersey Turnpike towards Manhattan. The woman in the car looks up from reading the latest Vault Rankings as the man slows the car down.
3L Woman: “What are you doing?”
3L Man: “Isn’t that Robert “Baskin” Robbins, the Pillsbury D’Oh Boy, by the side of the road? Maybe he missed the train and needs a ride into Manhattan.”
3L Woman: “He has an axe!”
3L Man: “But he is a BigLaw partner. Maybe if we do him a favor, he will offer us jobs at Pillsbury.”
3L Woman: “But he has an axe!”
3L Man: “I’m sure there’s a good reason for it.”
The man stops the car and lowers the window.
3L Man: “Excuse me, Mr. Robbins, but what’s with the axe?”
Robbins: “It’s a . . . . . pastry cutter.”
3L Man: “Hop in!”

You mean a firm that is already 1:1 partner to associate can't layoff 15% of its associates and keep making 15 partners a year? Here's an idea for the partners at Pillsbury: go get some business and stop blaming others for you puny PPP.

i do.

I am beside myself with glee that I accepted my offer from Toll House rather than Pillsbury.

Allowishus Devadander Abercrombie

Man with axe remains the weakest of the new crop personalities, his attempts to update his shtick notwithstanding.

well, at least we got that new friendly flaming logo. money well spent.

Can those who accept the voluntary withdrawl collect unemployment?

14: yes, PWSP promised not to contest.

Dude, 11. If you can't spell your fancy name right, don't use one.

It's "Aloysius", numb nuts.

I would not have called people into conference rooms. I could have just fired them by parking a sound truck outside of the office and reading the names. That's how I roll.

3 month or 6? Jack that up to 6 plus no contest on unemployment and I bet they would have a lot of deals.

Nothing about the CA supreme court oral arguments today?

The severance package is ready, M'Lord.

Sorry #16.

Several 1Ls were canned, after pretty much just starting.

Given the Acela fiasco, does anyone find the line "We would ask that everyone respect their privacy and provide them with the consideration that they deserve" remarkably ironic?

Nom Nom Nom

More GRAPES!!!

Are you kidding No. 6? If you want to attract the right kind of partners, you want a reputation for getting rid of the lard asses who are first to feed at the trough and produce little more than what comes out their backside.

They need to start dumping these asshat losers who are paid to produce.

Are you kidding No. 6? If you want to attract the right kind of partners, you want a reputation for getting rid of the lard asses who are first to feed at the trough and produce little more than what comes out their backside.

They need to start dumping these asshat losers who are paid to produce.

#20, I like that one. Good job!

Partners spared? Partners don't get spared you nimrod. We spare you!

Why hasn't anyone taken the voluntary departure?

This whole voluntary departure thing was ill conceived. In order to get someone to take this, you have to offer them something. I.e., something more than the severance they'd get if they were laid off. This works in unionized industries where you basically pay senior people to retire early. I don't get the point here.

I wonder what the value of the 1 year salary at a non-profit is vs. the value of a regular severance package (say 3 months, if that is standard).

I assume it must be more? Otherwise may as well take severance since I think the offer is only for peopel being fired. If its the same or less they can just volunteer.

25/26: You are correct that partners with business should want to join firms that quickly force out partners with no business. That would be the rational choice. However, in practice, you are wrong. Most partners, even those with consderable business, are wary of joining a firm that has a reputation of forcing partners out. This is because, unlike other businesses, an attorney cannot contractually bind a client to continually retain him or her in the future. Thus, no attorney can be truly secure that his clients will remain. Thus, every productive partner fears that one day he or she will be the unproductive partner. Accordingly, those firms that are known to force out weak partners will not be able to attract new partners with business.

But, in order to pay those new partners with business the money that will cause them to join, firms must eliminate weak partners. Thus, firms do fire partners, but very quietly.

6

25/26: You are correct that partners with business should want to join firms that quickly force out partners with no business. That would be the rational choice. However, in practice, you are wrong. Most partners, even those with consderable business, are wary of joining a firm that has a reputation of forcing partners out. This is because, unlike other businesses, an attorney cannot contractually bind a client to continually retain him or her in the future. Thus, no attorney can be truly secure that his clients will remain. Thus, every productive partner fears that one day he or she will be the unproductive partner. Accordingly, those firms that are known to force out weak partners will not be able to attract new partners with business.

But, in order to pay those new partners with business the money that will cause them to join, firms must eliminate weak partners. Thus, firms do fire partners, but very quietly.

6

2 --

1) Your schtick isn't funny, and I doubt very many people get it. (I

2) His name is spelled M-i-c-h-e-a-l. Get it right idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_Ray_Richardson

6 is a very bright man.

This whole voluntary departure thing was ill conceived. In order to get someone to take this, you have to offer them something. I.e., something more than the severance they'd get if they were laid off.
__________________________________________

Exactly. Doesn't Pillsbury have any benefits counsel that could have structured this appropriately? You never tell people "a bunch of you are about to be fired-- but you're free to leave now and request a severance package, which may or may not be larger than that given to those fired later, and which we may or may not choose to give you."

31, the value of the non-profit 1 year position is higher than severance at jr assoc level. for sr associates, it looks like a break even proposition in terms of $. there is the added plus of having your benefits taken care of the year and possible loan forgiveness. not a bad deal for a jr assoc looking to get experience and add to the resume (given the job market, it might take as long to get a new job anyway). i don't think volunteering has the same gravitas as a staff attorney position on a resume and a lot of these agencies are too swamped to train volunteers.

i'm more senior so i'd probably work my network first if i am terminated and see what comes up before committing to a year, plus i've already made a big dent in my law school debt so i doubt loan forgiveness would apply to me.

it looks like the non-profit option is open to those that took up the voluntary departure offer as well but i would think those people already have plans lined up.

31, the value of the non-profit 1 year position is higher than severance at jr assoc level. for sr associates, it looks like a break even proposition in terms of $. there is the added plus of having your benefits taken care of the year and possible loan forgiveness. not a bad deal for a jr assoc looking to get experience and add to the resume (given the job market, it might take as long to get a new job anyway). i don't think volunteering has the same gravitas as a staff attorney position on a resume and a lot of these agencies are too swamped to train volunteers.

i'm more senior so i'd probably work my network first if i am terminated and see what comes up before committing to a year, plus i've already made a big dent in my law school debt so i doubt loan forgiveness would apply to me.

it looks like the non-profit option is open to those that took up the voluntary departure offer as well but i would think those people already have plans lined up.

36, the FAQs about the voluntary departures had a question about that. The package was the same for voluntary and involuntary. If you knew you were going to quit anyway (maybe you got a clerkship, were moving to the city your significant other was in, etc), you'd get 3 mo pay/benefits than you would have otherwise through this program and potentially spare someone else's job.

If you knew you were going to quit anyway (maybe you got a clerkship, were moving to the city your significant other was in, etc), you'd get 3 mo pay/benefits than you would have otherwise through this program and potentially spare someone else's job.
__________________________________________

But how many employed people in this environment were going to "quit anyway"? And how many people who's jobs were on the line are going to be spared because someone else stepped up? They'll just both be let go.

No, the only way voluntary severance plans work in bad economies is if you will get richer package if you volunteer than if you wait and are let go later involuntarily. That's the only incentive not to continue collecting a paycheck in a environment where termination will likely mean long-term unemployment.

Any word on how the layoffs are split among Pillsbury's offices? How did DC fare?

There is some truth to what you say, 32. No one feels entirely secure. However, a firm that retains weak partners is a house of cards. Today, it is only about the dollar, and those producing are not interested in carrying those who don't. Look at the stats. How many partners with sizeable books are headed to firms with weak PPPs?

31-

why don't you look at NYC legal-aid's website about increasingly limited legal resources for people in need and then figure out if that adds value?

I'll bet I'm the first one laid off! Just the thought of having to go to the state unemployment office and stand in line with those SCUMBAGS...

40 has nailed it. The voluntary package has to be richer than the involuntary package if you want the program to work. Otherwise, what is the incentive to take the bait. Hang around and see if you get tagged.

Hey 44, that's what the guy standing in line next to you is going to be thinking. Not to worry, you can do it online. You won't even have to put on a pair of pants.

34, you are so wrong. The full exchange between Robinson and the reporter (on wiki) lead to a mixed metaphor that had me on my ass here at the office.

"Again, the firm has not yet released the breakdown between associates that will be laid off involuntarily, versus the associates that accepted the voluntary departure offer. Of course, a tipster tells us:
I don't know of any attorneys that took it.
Neither do we. "

At least one person took it, and maybe more. Stop speculating about crap you can't possibly verify. And you know, if the unbelievable losers that reside at this site spent as much time working as they did posting the inane high-school hot garbage that fills these pages, maybe we wouldn't all be losing your jobs.

i hate 48

Abigail: “I can’t imagine what those people asked to voluntarily leave Pillsbury must be feeling.”
Britanny: “YOU’RE worrying about THEM? They have it easy compared to me! I can’t even fuck my boyfriend without you sneaking in there for some action from him. And not to mention when I have work to do and you feel like going on one of your little pot or ecstasy binges. And don’t get me started about your touching our vagina every time a hot guy walks by at the office. How am I supposed to focus?”

50 - abigail would likely be touching her clitoris or labia, not her vagina. learn your anatomy.

48 = Pillsbury management

50 = one sick f***

50=Virgin 1L

17 - brilliant! great effort

For all of you butt wipes that insist on picking on our Acela Bob, you should know that he was trying to protect associates from layoffs - he was certainly not leading the charge. Bob is a very kind man and terrific colleague and doesn't deserve this disrespect. We love you Bob!

Signed,
Loyal Associate (Not Acela Bob)

34 -- Thanks for putting in context

You're right, I wasn't aware of the genesis behind 2's comment... Good looking out!

"Ship be sinking... and Sky's the limit"! Can't make this stuff up!
Although M.R.R. was probably a genius compared to the player's in today's NBA

56, I bet what's left of my severance that the only ass spared by A.B. was yours --- probably due to your unparalleled ass kissing, and not having a life for the last xxxx years; and, he probably sacrificed 3 normal and human associates in exchanged for saving your ass-kissing butt ...

From earlier posts sounds like he is an inconsiderate, arrogant and obnoxious out-of-shape jerk

58, I totally agree that Acela Bob made a mistake, and from what I understand, he feels horrible about it. But here's the reality check - - he's the scapegoat for every bitter, disgruntled laidoff associate. He doesn't deserve the ass-whipping he has been getting (and no, I'm not in his group). The poor guy was trying to SAVE associates (albeit somewhat publicly and loudly), not lay them off. Bob is a fine gentleman, a terrific colleague and a much beloved family man. Spend some of that severance and buy yourself some compassion.

58,

I work at Pillsbury -- in a different office and different group than Bob Robbins -- but have heard from friends in his group that he is a really nice guy and has tried hard to think of ways more work can flow to associates in this dismal market.

He made a huge gaffe with the Acela incident, but who amongst us hasn't made an embarrassing mistake at some point?

Seriously, people, just let it go. There is much bigger news happening in the world. CA Prop 8 hearing, for example?? I'm surprised at the lack of coverage on ATL -- especially given a ton of law firms (including Pillsbury) worked on it pro bono.

It was very sad to see colleagues being terminated today but I think it was handled as gracefully as possible. Yes, we have some partners that are total jerks (which big firm doesn't?) but it was obvious that partners were willing to open their roladexes and HR to roll up their sleeves to ensure laid off associates landed on their feet.

A few of my friends that were laid off today said they would want to come back in a couple of years if the economy was better. I think that speaks well of their experience here. I think it was understood that this was a step the firm didn't want to have to take.

Well said 60.

60 -- "He made a huge gaffe ..." -- agreed; "... but who amongst us hasn't ...." --- agreed

However, also well worth pointing out here, that Pillsbury and most other firms certainly doug up those "gaffes" and laid off the associates responsible for any such gaffes for "economic" reasons (the lucky ones) and for "performance" reasons (the less lucky ones)

and 59 --
I'd reserve the "poor guy" reference for those associates that are now unemployed and receiving $405 per week, even if some of them dared to have a life by browsing ATL, taking a day or two off on the weekend once in a while or leaving before 10pm on occasion (during their tenure at BigLaw)

59: Here's hoping that you will very soon be laid off, keeping my fingers crossed for you buddy. You talk of compassion -- ha!

You scumbag, I'm dying to find out how quickly you'll become "bitter" and "disgruntled" after you're laid off; in the meantime, however, I hope you rot in the office and lose that last ounce of entrepreneurism and spirit that you might have left

60, Acela Bob is not a bad guy, I agree. But don't be a bagman for Pillsbury. The 'even-the-guys-who-got-laid-off-love-the-firm' shtick is b.s. It's a disaster. No one is sanguine, you toadie.

Associates don't deserve anything in my opinion. They were lucky to work with me, I taught them some skills, overpaid them and now I get to axe the dead weight. It has been a joy to see these smug overconfident turds cry when given the pink slip. I had dinner with a partner at another firm tonight. Look for next friday the 13th to be a massacre at another NYC law firm. If you are in law school, you are completely f$%ked! ;)

65, 63 here. I take issue with your opinion that associates don't deserve anything and that most of them are overpaid. Most associates I know work their butts off and their hourly compensation would come out to be quite average, especially in New York City. But I definitely appreciate your candor here. What rubs me the wrong way is the act that the management in most BigLaw lawfirms (including mine) put on for show -- "we're caring... compassionate... we want you to be happy... our associates are our most important resource... spend $100K on diversity prgm --- BULL SH**T

Just say it like it is and there will be no hard feelings -- (a) all we care about is PPP and (b) this is a jungle here: we like it when you kiss as so you better do it; find that one lion (i.e., corner office partner) who will have your back, or else ...

62 - fair enough re: gaffes/layoffs correlation. in lean times, there is less tolerance/forgiveness.

63 - no one is saying it's nirvana here. it's still biglaw. all i am saying is that a higher than average # of partners here care about providing their associates with good training and were genuinely distressed about having to lay people off. i did say we have our total jerks like any other big firm. i just think that assholes are less of the partner pool here than the two other biglaw places (including one of the most "outwardly" progressive biglaw shops) i worked at before coming here.

- 60

Reading 67 and related comments... sad ... seems as though BigLaw management has achieved their desired effect: 10% cuts so that there's enough work again for associates to stay regularly until midnight and those left are soooo grateful that they won't dare question not having weekends, a life or a soul. Oh well, at least in this environment it's easier to justify to wife (for a male associate) missing their child's birth, or for a female associate being 40 and still single with cats --- but, hey, we're the lucky ones with jobs! Hence it's all worth it! And, maybe, in some shops (like Pills, if we take 67's contention as true) the kind partner will offer a compensatory dinner every couple of months to make up for lost time

To the previous poster - did you think you were going to get paid $160K - $285K to go home at 6 pm everyday in any industry, let alone this one? Yes, associates work a lot, that's why we get paid a lot.

67, I am not sure who you work with but maybe you just got lucky. My group is full of passive aggressive asshat partners that would cut their own mothers if it would make them more $. God knows their business development isn't doing that but they'll still have jobs next week.

Considering the percentage of first years that they laid off, as opposed to people who have had time to prove themselves, I hope all law students will reconsider should they have an offer from Pillsbury.

I would.

Hey 69, previous poster here. What does $160-230 (juniour to mid-level associates get) get you in NYC? Can you even live on your own and have a car?

71, what is the percentage of first years laid off? Do we know how the layoffs were spread?

73 - quite a few first years were let go. I don't know the number, but it's significant.

Incoming 3L's should be very worried about thinking their job is safe if they start in October. Some first years were let go after only starting in January.

frankly, I am surprised that other firms did not let go more 1/2 years since they provide few skills and are mostly trainees. I see the law firm model moving away from being a job training facility and instead recruiting those with proven experience and skills in specific practice areas where there are needs. If I were a law student now, I would be worried, very worried.

71/72: 11 of the 55 total were first years in NYC. At least one 3rd year took the voluntary package. There were 24 first years total in the new york office. The first years in laid off were mostly in transactional groups, and some had their start dates pushed back to november or january.

Laid-off NY corp 1st year here. I'm planning go through the non-profit placement program for a year, get some experience, and get back out on the job market next year when it is hopefully better. Hopefully, I'll be more marketable when I've got something else on my resume besides being here for a few months. I'm just debating whether to take a transactional position or a litigation one and whether I should stay in NY or go home where the cost of living is cheaper.

Canned on Thursday. So many doo-nothing partners left who have not billed their monthly salary in months, while we associates and secretaries and staff who were productive are out. Such bad management omg you would not believe. Those NICE PEOPLE they mention on their recruiting Web site? Pure fantasy. They just pretend to be nice. Must be nice to still have a job.

" I think it was understood that this was a step the firm didn't want to have to take."

LOL. Yes, I'm sure the firm didn't want to have to take this step, but only because it makes them look bad. At the end of the day, though, overfed pillsbury partners would rather destroy careers than downsize their yachts. That's cool - it's their prerogative and biglaw is not charity... nor are biglaw associates fluffy little kittens with altruistic motives. We're all greedy little shits who want to grow up to be big, fat nasty bastards like Rob Robbins et al.

All that said, let's not act like Pillsbury gave a flaming crap about the people they shit canned this month. It's, frankly, disrespectful to the people who lost their jobs this week to pretend like the people who made these decisions are hurting in any reasonable sense.

These people are fucking multi-millionaires and made cuts this week so they could remain multi-millionaires. Maybe they don't deserve all the bile they're getting... but they certainly don't deserve my sympathy.

If I were a potential client, I would be none too impressed by Rob Robbins train performance. If the firm can't keep layoffs a secret... god knows what else they blab. I would also imagine that anybody wanting to sue P'bury for malpractice or incompetence could at least point to this example as one that indicates colossally bad judgment.

79,

The partners will still be multi-millionaires even if they took a hit on pay.

I am sure if they have to lay off more people, they will. I wonder what will happen to the summers and the 3L incoming class.

Pillsbury laid off over 25% of its associates in Houston.

Pillsbury laid off over 25% of its associates in Houston.

What makes me nervous is was a question on the FAQs about future terminations -- it certainly didn't sound like they were ruled out and if anything, you'd get less severance (2 mo only). I just fear that firms do a RIF because it's an efficient (and no longer taboo, in fact almost expected) way to clear out a bunch of assoc/staff they couldn't do on the down-low but will still continue to clip people stealth. In that way, the # in the RIF is in line with peer firms (and therefore not newsworthy) and they save on the severance pay for the follow-up stealth layoffs.

This RIF comes after stealth layoffs have been going on for a while. So who knows what the actual total is at PWSP or in Biglaw more generally? And now that firms are doing second round (and even 3rd round) RIFs, all bets are off.

Scary times out there. I'm beginning to think the best advice anyone gave me was to continue to live like a law student until you are a partner.

Hey, #60-

It has been over a month since I was laid off. I still look at this story over and over. I'm glad you have let it go. I haven't. You think it was graceful? You weren't one of the ones who were called up. Opening up their rolodexes to make sure we land on our feet? That hasn't been my experience, but I'm glad that is what you are telling yourself. Would I come back to Pillsbury? Not in a million fucking years.

Hey, #60-

It has been over a month since I was laid off. I still look at this story over and over. I'm glad you have let it go. I haven't. You think it was graceful? You weren't one of the ones who were called up. Opening up their rolodexes to make sure we land on our feet? That hasn't been my experience, but I'm glad that is what you are telling yourself. Would I come back to Pillsbury? Not in a million fucking years.

Hey, #60-

It has been over a month since I was laid off. I still look at this story over and over. I'm glad you have let it go. I haven't. You think it was graceful? You weren't one of the ones who were called up. Opening up their rolodexes to make sure we land on our feet? That hasn't been my experience, but I'm glad that is what you are telling yourself. Would I come back to Pillsbury? Not in a million f***ing years.