More Layoffs Expected in 2009
Dan DiPietro, client head of the Law Firm Group of the Citi Private Bank, doesn't think we've seen the end of lawyer layoffs. In the American Lawyer, he writes:
Among our 175-firm sample, head count for fiscal 2008 was up 4.5 percent from fiscal 2007. I showed the flash report of our sample to a colleague of mine who lends money to Fortune 100 companies. Her response? "So, Dan, the way law firms make money is to grow head count when demand drops?" This is a neat way of summing up the problem firms faced as they entered 2009--too many lawyers chasing too little work.
But I thought that all the struggling firms have already laid all the attorneys they could afford to spare?
With fairly aggressive layoffs evident in all but the top New York-headquartered firms, the decline in bonuses, and no foreseeable movement in salaries, expense growth will moderate, if not decline. This should net out to a 5-10 percent decline in profits per equity partner from 2008 levels. (After the meeting, several managing partners told me I was still too optimistic. To them and others at top New York firms I say: "Think layoffs.")The pessimism expressed at that meeting has been repeated to varying degrees in the 16 regional roundtables that my colleague Cindy Tambourine and I have just completed throughout the United States and in London. To put it simply, the mood in the U.S. outside of New York is grim; in New York it's grimmer; and in London it's the grimmest.
After the jump, are there any non-layoff paths to recovery?
As usual, DiPietro suggests that the only answers involve changing the nature of the law firm as we know it:
So the need for bold action and innovative thinking is upon us. Firm leaders have the chance to fix a broken business model--a model that relies too heavily on leverage and billing rate increases to drive profit growth, thumbs its nose at the concept of pay for performance, especially at the associate level, and assumes clients will continue to accept the billable-hour model.These are times that cry out for boldness and innovation. But the window will not stay open for long. Who among you will be the first to act?
As long as we're changing the broken business model of Biglaw, is there any big time consultant that is willing to take a critical look at profits per partner? If we're going to say that first year associates aren't worth $160,000, that lockstep raises are a thing of the past, that associates who bill 2000 hours a year aren't entitled to a bonus, are we still absolutely sure that partners are worth $2 million or $3 million or $4 million a year?
Who among the big time consultants is willing to look law firm partners in the eye and say "you guys get paid too much, your clients can no longer afford it."
Cravath took at 23% hit to PPP. But they also haven't laid anybody off, haven't frozen salaries, haven't deferred any associates, and aren't looking to cut salaries. Firms were all too happy to follow Cravath during bonus time, but the "not laying people off" thing hasn't really caught on.
I'm just saying, it would be interesting if one of these consultants mapped out a business model where everything was on the table, including PPP.
The Am Law 100 2009: Recession and Repair [AmLaw Daily]
Earlier: The AmLaw 100
(79) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
First
What's going on at McDermott Will & Emery?
NY to 190!
Let the ballsack licking begin
you're an idiot if you think Cravath hasn't asked people to leave...
Every major law firm subscribes to this BS report and they all swear by it to run their business.
So...more layoffs indeed!!! Good luck, suckers!
Kudos, Elie... particularly on the last four grafs.
Is that any real insight, i.e., that things were bad in 2008? I expect many of the biggest law firms already have headcount in 2009 lower than in 2008.
Squeal like a pig for me, boy!
oink oink oink oink oink oink oink
Partners trim some of their profits!?
Really, you've got to come off it.
They'll merely point out
The idea's bandied about
By an artist formerly known as Sophist.
--Above the Limerick
First to say that Fugitive from Justice was featured on Dateline's To Catch a Predator. He was filming 6 year old Vietnamese boys having sex in his basement.
Sick, dude. Sick.
Why does this Citibank guy always sound like such a tool?
"I showed the flash report of our sample to a colleague of mine who lends money to Fortune 100 companies. Her response? 'So, Dan, the way law firms make money is to grow head count when demand drops?'"
I'm not sure that anyone who works in lending at Citi should be smug about how poorly other businesses are run. It doesn't take a genius to know that law firms have to cut headcount, but acting like they don't realize that is just condescending and naive. Their business model made them shit-tons of money for two decades, and now adjustments have to be made to the model or specific aspects of it. It doesn't mean that they are so stupid for continuing to hire people strong students and laterals - it just means that their assumptions and modeling of attrition and available work need to be adjusted.
Partners have to face trimming the fat from their own wallets they will outsource most of the back office (including associates) to avoid potential stock sharing and cash in on an IPO because the writing is on the wall.
When I took this law firm job, I really expected, and I think justifiably so, that I would be employed for several years. I don't really think my expectation was unreasonable. There has to be something I can do.
------------------------
Restatement (Second) Section 90 -- Promise Reasonably Inducing Action or Forebearance
(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.
(2) A charitable subscription or a marriage settlement is binding under Subsection (1) without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance.
YET ANOTHER COMMENTER CLAIMS BIGLAW MODEL "BROKEN," OFFERS NO SOLUTIONS.
Totally agree with the analysis. There is a built-in assumption to this analysis that 2007-2008 was what profits should still be looking like, rather than considering and accepting that was an unnatural boom year.
Remember, most firms are able to pay their bills and give their partners $1 million per year or more per year in these down years. That isn't struggling, and most industries would take that in a heartbeat.
PROPOSED BUSINESS MODEL
Admittedly, I'm an inexperienced, know-nothing 3L. But, I'd like to know whether you people think this model would work.
First-year base salary: 80k
Hourly bonuses: 10k for every 250 billable hours
Cap: total pay capped at 160k
Second-year base: 90k
Hourly bonuses: 10k for every 250 billable hours
Cap: total pay capped at 170 (is that what 2nd years get? or is it 175?)
etc, etc...
WOULD THAT WORK?? This doesn't seem like a bad deal for anyone involved. I could be wrong, I guess.
Since Citigroup makes its money by begging the taxpayers for it, this guy's colleague should STFU.
PLUS the normal "total hours" bonuses and special bonuses that firms have given in the past.
- 18
7-figure PPP and they're all depressed about a 5-10% decline? Cry me a river. They'll still be well into 7 figures but are quite willing to ruin the lives of staff and debt-laden associates to keep their 7 figure pay. Their clients are losing money. They think they're entitled to keep making money. Reality has to set in at some point.
18&20 - Dream on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since Citigroup makes its money by begging the taxpayers for it, this guy's colleague should STFU.
ATL SERVER UPGRADE TO CIRCA 1991 TECHNOLOGY ACHIEVES UPLOAD SPEEDS NEARING 14.4KBPS; POSTING MAY TAKE SOME LESS THAN ONE MINUTE.
Given the fact that consultants are generally brought into businesses to figure out how to help the company maximize its return to shareholders, I'm not sure why one of their solutions would be, decrease the amount of money that the firm makes. What consulting company is going to come in and say, "Let's cut your profitability to save your workers?" That's what a union rep is for. Is Elie really that naive about what consultants do?
Elie, it's not about figuring out what partners are worth, its about maximizing return on equity.
Judging by his posts on here, a 20yr old lawyer from Bangladesh who barely speaks English could deliever equally satisfactory results to clients as Partner Emeritus.
"To put it simply, the mood in the U.S. outside of New York is grim; in New York it's grimmer; and in London it's the grimmest."
And in McDonald's, it's Grimace.
Retired partner here: Expecting anything approaching inovation from lawyers is fantasy. For all the talk, very few attorneys have any ability at all to think outside of the box. Over the past 30 years or so, the best and the brightest have gone to law school, because they perceived it as a straight shot to riches. Over the decades, I've met many doctors who wanted to become attorneys, because they thought attorneys made big dollars with little effort. The easy money boys now run most of the large law firms in America. Expecting them to do something meaningful is fantasy. They will layoff, cut costs, merge, and do all the things that seemed to work in the past, or which appear to produce an immediate uptick in partner income. Yes, the entire business model is broken, but then it's always been broken. It just takes time for all the pieces to hit the floor. Good lawyers are almost always bad at running a business, and that's because good lawyers are busy practicing law. For many years now, practicing law has become a sideshow for large firms, and there are few good lawyers left in any of those firms. They now have to contend with an absence of good attorneys, combined with an inability to run a business, combined with a complete inability to think outside of the box. I'm glad to be gone.
You know what's not grim? My balls.
Retired partner (28):
What do you think the solution is? Do you think merely hitting one of these firms with a complaint alleging, among other things, promissory estoppel will make them see the light?
- Curious in Cleveland
Law Students,
Please curb your excitement over Restatement §90. I know in law school you are taught that anything is possible [woohoo!], but the real world has something called 'politics.' I would love for you to show me the judge that is going to rule in favor of your smug little assertion that you "reasonably believed" you should be paid 160K out of law school when hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs. I wish you luck.
- Partner at V20
The only reason why this Restatement §90 stchick isever even remotely funny and not simply infuriating at this point is because of posts like 31.
All of this could be solved easily by allowing a few minutes out of your day to take the time to pound your secretary in the ass. If everyone did this, the world would be a better place.
PASS IT FORWARD
Yes, 31....the Restatement 90 talk is just a joke.
Citibank should run the whole country. Not only should they run their own business...they should run law firms too.
Except for the fact that law firms make money every year or they fold. Except for the fact that Citi has been a major player in the whole send-the-economy-to-hell thing. Except for the fact that law firms aren't asking for government bailouts. Except for the fact that Citi would have gone under without taxpayer dollars. Except for the fact that Citi was completely irresponsible in their lending, because they shared little of the risk from bad loans. Except for the fact that partners own money is on the line every time they make a decision, and therefore have an incentive to do the right thing with their money.
If it weren't for the fact that they have all of my money, I would burn Citi to the ground. And law firms should only listen to Citi insofar as Citi is paying the bills. Other than that, they should be ridiculed and banished to the very outskirts of society.
Was the person who killed himself this morning at Kilpatrick Stocton a recently fired associate? Partners worried about PPP should stop, take a deep breath and think about how they are ruining peoples lives before they worry about taking a temporary hit to their bonuses. Shameful.
Newsflash is pretty damn funny.
Cravath will be laying people off and/or pushing back start dates and/or rescinding offers. There's no way around it, unless partners will take another hit. Which they won't.
Lastly, no one who posts here is a partner. You lose credibility just by asserting it.
Damnit, people. Would this model work?? Let's talk about something substantive for a change instead of the ridiculously stupid and annoying Restatement 90 talk.
PROPOSED BUSINESS MODEL
Admittedly, I'm an inexperienced, know-nothing 3L. But, I'd like to know whether you people think this model would work.
First-year base salary: 80k
Hourly bonuses: 10k for every 250 billable hours
Cap: total pay capped at 160k
PLUS - year-end special bonuses that have been given out in the past
Second-year base: 90k
Hourly bonuses: 10k for every 250 billable hours
Cap: total pay capped at 170 (is that what 2nd years get? or is it 175?)
PLUS: year-end special bonuses that have been given out in the past
etc, etc...
Was the person who killed himself this morning at Kilpatrick Stocton a recently fired associate? Partners worried about PPP should stop, take a deep breath and think about how they are ruining peoples lives before they worry about taking a temporary hit to their bonuses. Shameful.
Thanks a lot for trying to instigate more layoffs ATL
But wait - I guess that's good for your business, isn't it?
the big firms wouldn't have to lay off more attorneys if they just rescinded all offers to incoming 1st years and stopped summer associate programs for 2 years. I was laid off to make room for an incoming class that the firm won't be able to keep busy.
41 which firm?
While reading about Promissory Estoppel and pounding my 3500 sq ft. secretary in the ass, I remarked that Quinn remained while this ship be sinking. Partner Emeritus came in and said: "Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole." I responded: "Yeah, but check out my balls."
38 - On its face, your salary ideas are good ones. But it doesn't take into consideration the firm's interest in maintaining its sweatshop fear culture. Your scheme would remove the fear that pushes associates to bill 2000 hours, to slightly exaggerate time billed (i.e. steal), and the intra-associate competition for those gunnin' for partner. I could be wrong, but I think the last thing the firm wants is for associates to control their own destiny when it comes to billable hours and salary.
38 - On its face, your salary ideas are good ones. But it doesn't take into consideration the firm's interest in maintaining its sweatshop fear culture. Your scheme would remove the fear that pushes associates to bill 2000 hours, to slightly exaggerate time billed (i.e. steal), and the intra-associate competition for those gunnin' for partner. I could be wrong, but I think the last thing the firm wants is for associates to control their own destiny when it comes to billable hours and salary.
41 here - not sure why it maters which firm laid me off. I assume 42 cares because he/she is an incoming 1st year and is worried that I may have left their new firm, and they're worried that there won't be enough work. It doesn't mater what firm it was - I'm a transactional attorney and there is no transactional work (except for bankruptcy and some trickling of lending work as banks dole out federal cash and deal with refinancings).
I'll bit a little - it's a mid-sized Chicago firm that for some reason didn't have it's layoff news hit ATL even though it was reported in other media.
Elie, you look like you're having trouble walking in that picture and about to fall over. Are you ok?
What would be interesting is if firms actually ran like sane businesses. They don't, and the associates are taking the hit.
Who actually thinks that laying off associates with one hand and bringing new ones in with the other makes some kind of logical sense? Wake up and act like business people. Try to make coherent decisions, and maybe this profession won't go completely down the tubes.
bit = bite in 46
38, I got an idea. Instead of your elaborate scheme, why don't you set up a system where associates are paid by the hour, with a weekly minimum of hours (like say, 40). And a maximum limit on overtime that caps the salary.
You know, just like every other private industry in the US.
Cravath froze staff salaries and staggered associate start dates so far. They'd do staff layoffs well before associate layoffs, but they don't want to do either. But it may never get there for them. They are really busy right now, considering...
Does anyone know whether LATHAM will be doing anymore layoffs? I know they already cut a huge number of people, but will there be more?
amen 48. I have a great idea - let's lay off a competent and efficient 4th year associate so we can afford to pay ignorant useless 1st years! that makes perfect sense.
Does anyone know whether LATHAM will be doing anymore layoffs? I know they already cut a huge number of people, but will there be more?
I was riding the Acela from DC this morning and I overheard some portly white guy in a suit yelling something into his cell phone about making sure Dan DiPietro was on the list. Not sure what he was talking about though.
50,
Your sarcastic suggestion is quite a leap from mine. But even so, it makes a whole lot more sense than paying 160k in salary when there's no work to go around.
I didn't claim the model was an original idea. I do think that it would save jobs though. If you billed 2000 hours under my model, you'd make 160k as a first year. If you dont bill 2000, you make less, but I think associates would welcome the pay cut in exchange for a little job security.
38
Client Troll here --
Partner compensation is not entirely lockstep. Firms as institutions are entirely dependent on key partners that can generate business -- at some point those partners leave, and if enough of them leave to protect themselves and their key associates, the firm as a whole collapses. PPP is simply a rough metric to guide potential defectors as to where they might go. This is part of the problem of building a firm based upon a profit model, there is less institutional loyalty to keep folks with portable business from switching to another firm.
Example -- Dickstein suffered in the last downcycle in 1990 or so. They had great contingent cases and were able to lure Oshinsky in to provide cash flow in a move that was win win for all concerned. One of the bigger contingent hits, the Exxon Valdez punie damage award went away. A key partner moved to Shulte, and many others have left (leaving lots of good people and rainmakers behind too) but creating enormous uncertainty as to how to proceed.
Firms that want to maintain their integrity as a practice (say a Townsend and Townsend) are simply forced into unwanted layoffs because the work simply isnt there, and many of their partners have portable billings.
Many firms are run by people who truly care, hate the layoffs, but will lay off associates and defer hires before destroying the firm, or they may simply leave it. All the rules have changed, it is difficult to predict the future and it is a very difficult situation for students and new associates. Section 90 may not apply, but there is some notion of detrimental reliance much less survival of both the powerful and powerless.
And, by and large, the clients don't care in many cases. We hire lawyers and not firms, although in certain kinds of transactional work the third party fundors and or the market (especially those playing with other peoples money) want to see certain firms, most of that work has simply gone away, and much of it may not be back.
So I think this board provides a tremendous service in providing some information and a place to vent, but readers should not delude themselves in thinking that there is some well oiled profit machine still operating out there . . . .
Dan DiPietro knows what i'm talking about.
Dan DiPietro knows what i'm talking about.
Look for more "performance" based layoffs at Paul Hastings. Certain big mouths have spilled the beans.
Here's a comment from a legal consultant (me) - and the only reason I'm making it is because I can make it anonymously. This is not something any firm wants to hear, but it is something that needs to be said:
1) Law firms are NOT businesses in the same way that auto manufacturers are businesses. What I mean is that the capital invested in law firms is largely human capital. Sure, there are liquidatable assets, partner buy-ins and money in banks. When it comes down to it, however, the business model of a law firm is not built around investing money, using that money to engage in an activity that produces returns, and receiving the returns. Instead, law firms use talent to accomplish tasks. Talent is a variable expense. Everyone from a partner all the way down to a first year associate costs a set determined amount and can produce revenue at a predictable rate. Demand for this production, however, fluctuates. NONE of this is news. But . . .
2) Expecting growth from a law firm like other businesses expect growth (generally speaking, return on investment) will DOOM YOU to disappointment. Focusing narrowly on trying to increase PPP will also doom you to FAILURE. Although every partner wants to make a good living, narrow-mindedly focusing on increasing PPP will, a) prevent necessary investment in the future of the firm, b) subject the firm to sharp swings in EVERY OTHER metric (to compensate for stability in PPP), and c) produce reduced PPP increases OVER TIME as compared to firms that are less focused on short term PPP growth (if there are any left). Here's why . . .
3) BECAUSE law firms are not like other businesses - because there's relatively little capital investment - long term stability rests on features that are VERY DIFFICULT to quantify--namely, perceived quality of service, perceived value, internal strength and stability (morale is a HUGE component), talented employees, and talented business-generators. Focusing on PPP increases to maintain the last item mentioned in that list is fine as long as you don't do so AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERY OTHER ITEM.
4) Many law firms ignored this advice on the way up. When business was booming, the PPP bottom line was satisfied, and there was little impact to the other factors influencing long term success. On the way down, however, those firms that leveraged to maximize PPP in the good times are de-leveraging to maximize PPP in the bad times. Problem: THIS will negatively impact EVERY OTHER FACTOR if done incorrectly. By incorrectly, I mean by drastically reducing your workforce, sharply cutting compensation . . . basically look around and you'll get the picture.
5) SOLUTION: Well, you can't go back in time and decide not to over-lever your firm. What you can do is: a) maximize the current output by shifting work responsibilities, b) minimize future "capacity overflow" by implementing a hiring freeze for non-attorneys, c) develop a LONG RANGE and SUSTAINABLE hiring plan for attorneys (this will not fix past mistakes or miscalculations, but it will minimize those made in the future), and, perhaps most importantly, d) TAKE ADVANTAGE of the downturn by using current capacity to explore areas with unsatisfied needs.
IF ANYONE is interested in hiring me or my associates to help with this problem (as opposed to having us simply tell you what you want to hear), please respond in the comments below and include the phrase, "Help me Mike D".
(I didn't write this post as an ad - but since I wrote it, why not? Suffice it to say, I don't expect a response.)
Here's a comment from a legal consultant (me) - and the only reason I'm making it is because I can make it anonymously. This is not something any firm wants to hear, but it is something that needs to be said:
1) Law firms are NOT businesses in the same way that auto manufacturers are businesses. What I mean is that the capital invested in law firms is largely human capital. Sure, there are liquidatable assets, partner buy-ins and money in banks. When it comes down to it, however, the business model of a law firm is not built around investing money, using that money to engage in an activity that produces returns, and receiving the returns. Instead, law firms use talent to accomplish tasks. Talent is a variable expense. Everyone from a partner all the way down to a first year associate costs a set determined amount and can produce revenue at a predictable rate. Demand for this production, however, fluctuates. NONE of this is news. But . . .
2) Expecting growth from a law firm like other businesses expect growth (generally speaking, return on investment) will DOOM YOU to disappointment. Focusing narrowly on trying to increase PPP will also doom you to FAILURE. Although every partner wants to make a good living, narrow-mindedly focusing on increasing PPP will, a) prevent necessary investment in the future of the firm, b) subject the firm to sharp swings in EVERY OTHER metric (to compensate for stability in PPP), and c) produce reduced PPP increases OVER TIME as compared to firms that are less focused on short term PPP growth (if there are any left). Here's why . . .
3) BECAUSE law firms are not like other businesses - because there's relatively little capital investment - long term stability rests on features that are VERY DIFFICULT to quantify--namely, perceived quality of service, perceived value, internal strength and stability (morale is a HUGE component), talented employees, and talented business-generators. Focusing on PPP increases to maintain the last item mentioned in that list is fine as long as you don't do so AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERY OTHER ITEM.
4) Many law firms ignored this advice on the way up. When business was booming, the PPP bottom line was satisfied, and there was little impact to the other factors influencing long term success. On the way down, however, those firms that leveraged to maximize PPP in the good times are de-leveraging to maximize PPP in the bad times. Problem: THIS will negatively impact EVERY OTHER FACTOR if done incorrectly. By incorrectly, I mean by drastically reducing your workforce, sharply cutting compensation . . . basically look around and you'll get the picture.
5) SOLUTION: Well, you can't go back in time and decide not to over-lever your firm. What you can do is: a) maximize the current output by shifting work responsibilities, b) minimize future "capacity overflow" by implementing a hiring freeze for non-attorneys, c) develop a LONG RANGE and SUSTAINABLE hiring plan for attorneys (this will not fix past mistakes or miscalculations, but it will minimize those made in the future), and, perhaps most importantly, d) TAKE ADVANTAGE of the downturn by using current capacity to explore areas with unsatisfied needs.
IF ANYONE is interested in hiring me or my associates to help with this problem (as opposed to having us simply tell you what you want to hear), please respond in the comments below and include the phrase, "Help me Mike D".
(I didn't write this post as an ad - but since I wrote it, why not? Suffice it to say, I don't expect a response.)
how the hell were you able to find your way into a decent law school, elie? you are an idiot. the consultant works for the owners of the business - the partners. the business owners ask the consultants to figure out how to make the most money. that is what the consultants do. LAW FIRMS ARE NOT A FUCKING JOBS PROGRAM FOR ENTITLED DIP SHITS LIKE YOU. its a business. its aim is to make the partners money. jesus christ.
no wonder if fell the fuck out of the firm and are now writing drivel here.
Could we maybe delete #61 and ban him from posting again (maybe via IP block). He's using the site to advertise, and, more importantly, being a wuss by not going directly to partners and speaking truth to power. If you can't do that, but have to whine anonymously, you're obviously not that talent you think you are.
64 -
Yeah, consultants make a lot of money by telling people to suck it up and take a hit so that their firm will be better 10 years from now. The problem is that no one is willing to pay for 61's advice. He's not advertising because there's no market. More like he's shouting into the wind.
#46 Close. I am a 1L who is making my list now of firms that fire really easily when the going gets tough . If , when the time comes, I have choices: No Latham, No Proskauer.....
Any word on further MWE layoffs?
#46 Close. I am a 1L who is making a list of firms that fire really easily when the going gets tough ( it seems that many firms dont). So if I have have any choices when the time comes: No Latham, No Proskauer......
68 - If you're a 1L looking at graduation in 2011, you'll have plenty of choices: McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, IHOP.
If you're a 1L looking at graduation in 2011, you'll have plenty of choices: McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, IHOP.
=========
Retired partner here: When I was 15, I worked at the grand opening of the first McDonalds in my hometown. This was before they had inside dinning. The food was sold to those who walked up to a window, then eaten outside or taken home. I was paid the grand amount of $1.05/hour. This experience was one of the things that propelled me through college and law school, and then into the practice of law. I didn't want to be poor. The fact that I like trying cases in front of juries was just an added benefit.
At 70: I too remember the good old days when one could enjoy a quiet Big Mac meal in peace, back before all the dinning.
@71 -- LOL
38 -- your idea ignores the reality that it's the partners' job to bring in the business, and the associates' job to do what they're told. Punishing the associates because the partners can't do their part doesn't make sense.
I say, pay people a salary (whatever salary you want -- $80, $160, the number doesn't matter) forget the damned billable hour, and pay a bonus at the end of the year that depends onthe firm's profitability. Or the group's profitability. That's how real businesses do it. You come in, do your part, and share in the overall success or failure of the group effort.
Latham will be laying off more people in May.
Cravath is doing stealth layoffs right now.
Every vault firm is doing layoffs. Trust. The only difference is that some are being less than open about it and should be outed.
But don't for a minute think that just because you're going to a V5/10/25/50/whatever, you're safe. Everyone needs to watch their back.
75
To be followed by Paul Hastings, the industry leader for these.
Incoming Cravath associate. Heard about all of these layoffulas and newsflashes.
Am I fail?
78, your schtick is on 4 other threads.
u r fail.