nice find, Elie!

Well, maybe they hired too many incompetent associates in the first place.

Buncha' jagoffs.

Elie - what do you mean they've laid the groundwork to push back to 2010'ers?

shearman: the same shitty firm it was in 2001 when it did mass layoffs, except now they go the stealth route.

I don't know what kind of economic forecasters they have over at Shearman, but where I come from an upwards-shooting Dow means a recession is over. It has been over a month since we hit bear market lows and the Dow 's resiliency has established that this isn't a flash in the pan bear market run, but the start of a new boom. History will not look kindly on Shearman here. One can only hope that other firms have more sense.

Elie -

Litigation has gone down because of a decrease in business-to-business litigation (i.e., ordinary commercial litigation). Its not as flashy as products liability or securities litigation, but its basically the meat and potatoes of any litigation house.

Companies that are struggling to hang onto every last dollar and cut costs are not going to pay over-inflated billable hours (flat fee system anyone?)

sounds like this firm is already not V20

What else is left to cut? Partners!

I was thinking the same thing as 9. I don't think it matters if they cut salary or not, the next rankings will not include S&S as a V20.

Wow that's bad.

How many associates is that going to be? Were 1st years subjected to these "performance reviews"?

Can we please get Elie an actual journalism course or two so he can learn how to do things like establish sources at all these law firms who feed him information so we don't have to ask these questions? You get the idea he just cold-calls the front desk. That isn't working, go out there and network!

8 - IP litigation is the flashiest form of litigation.

Quite simply:
IP lit > securities lit >>>> products liability >>>>>>> general lit

FIRST to be glad this firm thought it was too good to hire me

12 - what does "do not seem to discriminate by class year" mean to you? Sounds like 1Ls were impacted to me.

Partner Emeritus, be a man.

*squawk* "Kitchens & Bathrooms call on line 2! Kitchens & Baths line 2!"

*Picks up phone* "Kitchen's and Bathrooms, Shearman speaking...."

-On the other End- "This is Kohler... you sink shipped!"

*Click*

Elie,

The correct phrasing is "safer," not "more safe." Thus, the following sentence is incorrect: "Generally, litigators have been more safe than their corporate brethren."

You should have written, "Generally, litigators have been safer than their corporate brethren."

8 is right:

"The real surprise: litigation, usually a countercyclical practice, was soft. In response to a question from the audience, Jones acknowledged that some litigation work may be going to smaller -- i.e., non-Am Law 200 -- firms."

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/jim_jones_hildebrandt_presentation.php

18 - Are you sure about that? There is more than one way to skin a cat.

20 = animal-abusing racist

18= racist

I wonder if the laid-off associates might be able to bring a "reliance" (ie, promissory estoppel) claim against Shearman & Sterling. That is, if they relied on Shearman's assurances of a job, it might have worked to their detriment. In some of the reliance cases I've tried, I've used Section 90 of the Restatement to prove the case.

17... comedic genius!

Well, not really but sorta funny.

I was looking forward to having windows in my bedroom again.

--Still Renting for (at least) One More Year.

I believe comment #3 is the voice of reason here. It is entirely likely that 5 percent of Shearman's litigators were lousy, lousy lawyers. Not everyone can grow up to be Partner Emeritus.

How long is it going to take for people to realize that the end of the recession, whenever it comes, isn't going to restore BigLaw firm practice to what it was? Among other things, the recession is serving as a catalyst for clients to rethink and restructure their relationships with outside counsel, in billing as well as other areas. The likely result will be a very different look for the major law firms, including a trend away from difficult- to- manage mega sized firms and much greater focus on the "efficiency" with which legal services are provided. Bet the company situations may be an exception, but there will be fewer of those. The legal world as we've recently known it has changed, likely forever.

Yawn. Happy hour?

18 - you should have written, "I am a huge douchebag who enjoys getting teabagged in Atlanta."

Shearman's not responding or commenting because they're trying to figure out how desperate SkaddenDC parters who'd run out of associates of their own to fire could fire Shearman associates.

5% of the lit dept -- that's what, 10 people max in NYC. Is there a way for S&S to get rid of people during a performance review without it being labeled a "stealth layoff" -- this feels all too sensationalist to me.

LOL that Elie assumes that S&S didn't have associates deserving of layoffs. I can assure you that the bottom 5% of litigators at any firm are LAZY. LOL LAZIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Question. If firms adopted a flat fee system (presumably from client demand), would lawyers get to work fewer hours, since they wouldn't be pressured to pad their bills, just get the job done?

I'll ignore all the posts calling me an idiot and making jokes about my mom and hold out for a truly thoughtful response...

@33: yes

28,
Yes, bring the money with you.

Thanks 34.

-33.

31: Firing 10 people in one place is a big deal. If a firm has 10 people that deserve to be fired, all in the same review period mind you, either they are not doing an adequate job at recruiting or they are trying to lay people off without the press.

33 - I don't think so. Under a flat fee system, you'd probably just get staffed on more deals such that you "earn the firm the same amount of revenue."

Firms wouldn't make a change that would enable them to make less money (even though they are run by the business-minded challenged). Thus, they would need more work (at less cost) to produce at the very least, the same amount of revenue.

33: no. Lawyers will still "bill" their time for internal measurement purposes and to gauge the profitability of a fixed fee engagement. Even in a fixed-fee world billing time will remain the number one performance measure for associates.

Bankruptcy lawyers rule.

Kneel before Zod.

The ship be sinking...

what a toilet

Since law school, I have been stricken with "Irritable Bowel Syndrome." Unfortunately, it has really picked up since the dream-crushing offer rescission.

The worst part is that the ventless bathroom in my apartment is so close to the kitchen, it makes cooking or eating an unpleasant experience for up to an hour after an IBS attack.

--Still Renting for (at least) One More Year.

BITCH SPREAD THE BUTT CHEEKS SO I CAN SMELL THE JUICY INSIDES!

Once these firms get a taste of Indian cooking, the fat will just fly off!

scary. can we assume that corporate, finance, and the rest are to come shortly? if S&S lit is hurting then Corp must have one foot in the grave.

To defer or not defer is a pretty difficult question right now for the (ludicruosly large) 100+ class of incoming 3Ls.

Shearman is screwing themselves...I am going to defer until 2010 and if i find something else within the year, i'm taking it...although I think that's what Shearman wants.

47---hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Retired partner here: Regarding the flat fee issue, the use of flat fees should result in fewer hours being billed to specific cases, because effectiveness and efficiency would be the goal, not the production of billable hours. As for whether this would mean fewer hours overall for associates, you can wish in one hand and spit in the other, because the firm is still going to want high billables. As for whether fewer associates will be needed due to flat fee arrangements, that's hard to say, because it would depend on the amount of business. As for associates not becoming real trial lawyers, the fact of the matter is that large firms have few real trial attorneys, just litigators. To find truly accomplished trial attorneys, you need to go to mid-level firms that handle lots of cases that actually go to trial. Large firms litigate, which is to say that they waste tons of billable time prior to settling. Billing is the goal, not trying the case. For trial attorneys, trying the case is the goal. It's what they live for. In today's world, very few companies are willing to take cases to trial, both because of the risk of losing and the overall cost.

Flat fees solve all problems. Except for internal billable hour requirements and wolrd hunger.

-- Accounting Firm Tax Lawyers Pwn You.

and spelling errors

47, good luck in your search. Could you also let me know when you find the Easter bunny or a prestigious Shearman associate? Thanks.

Can't fault Elie for assuming that these "performance based" layoffs happened to good lawyers. When the partners bring in work, these are good lawyers who put their personal lives on hold to do the dirty work. When the work dries up, guess whose performance was below par? It seems like most firms care more about reducing their layoff count than treating their associates like human beings. Biglaw sure pays big money, but it is currently being run by a bunch of soulless thugs dressed up in business attire. And to all you posters who think these recently laid-off attorneys got what they deserved for their "laziness": just wait. The partners don't give a damn about you either and will gladly sacrifice your job for another few thousand in their pocket.

How much more of this underhandedness, deception and complete disrespect will it take for a generation of young and energetic attorneys to give biglaw the final "fuck you"?

47: lol. greatest post of the day.

Agree with 39: it would still be a billable-hour world even if firms started to charge flat fees.

And 33: your mom's so ugly, the last time she went to a haunted house she walked out with a paycheck.

Not that you litigators don't already know I exist, but...

56,

A prom. estop. theory would be defeated by the employment at will doctrine... and common sense.

47: shearman IS screwing THEMSELVES?????

recruits like you are probably the reason why the firm is in such a mess.

57 -

I promise you I'm aware of that. I'm a schtick.

56/59,

Sorry that I didn't realize you were a schtick.
I thought that a schtick was supposed to be funny in some way, like the Fratstud or Quinn or Texas/Lexis schticks, or the conjoined twins schtick.

What happened to that conjoined twins schtick anyways?

57

53 - there's no doubt that partners don't care about anyone's job if it keeps a few more thousand in their pockets. In some firms, partners are already turning on each other and it will only get worse. As for your last question, just where will these energetic young lawyers go, if not into biglaw? There aren't many decent paying jobs for attorneys in smaller law firms or corporations and those student loans are expensive.

56/59 and 57

I think section 90 has a shot here...

Don't read too much into the percentage difference between the 2008 and 2009 summer classes. According to NALP, S&S's incoming 2009 summer class is only somewhat smaller than the summer classes they held for the last several years with the sole exception of 2008, when a greater percentage accepted S&S offers after other firms started to cut back their programs, leading to a larger-than-expected 2008 summer class.

After the tremendous recent layoffs and salary freezes at several California firms and a few New York firms, it's amazing that S&S still gets so much attention for layoffs from about 10 years ago. This time around, it sounds like they've cut a handful in performance reviews like every other Vault firm does every year.

Finally, that S&S hasn't even frozen associate salaries when a few dozen other firms did makes me doubt they'll be the first major firm to cut associate salaries unless things have really went south quickly.

I don't think there's much story here unless someone on the inside cares to shed some more light. Must be a slow day at ATL.

There is no justification to this comment other than visceral hating and horrible interview experience at S&S that resulted in a offer but a loss of 6 hours of my life I will never get back... but I hope this firm continues its headlong slide into mediocrity. They are well on the way.

Section 90 is one of the best schticks in a while. Way better than Partner Emeritus or the ship be sinking clown.

31: not even. According to the website, Shearman has 130 litigation attorneys worldwide. Maybe Elie thought the title wouldn't be as interesting if it said "4 attorneys stealth laid off."

http://www.shearman.com/practices/detail.aspx?practiceid=dcbfeec8-864d-4dea-b218-06451733a290

Shearman's primarily a corporate firm and they're getting though this so far.

BREAKING NEWS : Partner Emeritus is doing one hour overtime work at the other side of the glory hole!

--Mohammad

66: 5% of 130 is not 4.

63: hi recruiting person, i would start updating my resume if i were you.

68 - I'm guessing 66 thought there might be a partner or so among the litigators.

How much do associates at firms like Patterson or Brown Winnick in Des Moines make?

63 = Recruiting

Are you f'ing kidding me? They had just finally gotten over the '01 reputation and were getting some top students to join up -- at least in their non-NY offices. Yikes.

yeah, 63 sounds very close to someone in the attorney recruiting and retention office. koolaid drinking and dispensing cheerleaders.

It's funny that lawyers try to fast talk other lawyers--the one group that will call them out on their b.s.

anyway, if you've been laid off, come share your thoughts on my blog:

www.laidoffdiary.wordpress.com

I'm trying to find a new extreme or just random ass hobby--today I looked into urban spelunking...probably not for me though.

OK, I know how this is going to sound, but I will be in Seattle for 3 days next week for depositions. Can anyone provide good restaurant recommendations? I really will be in Seattle, so please don't think that this is a joke. Thanks.

When I think Volvo, I think safety.

When I think Shearman, I think 2001 layoffs.

75, sign out of your The Dow Is Up Guy account when you make comments out of character. Thanks.

When you have a flat fee litigation case you don't touch the file. Everyone knows which cases are flat fee and they know not to do any work on it. Only the bare bare minimum gets done. (Flat fee cases from the biggest corporations have been around a while.)

Shearma to V50!

As an associate, I defended Shearman time after time over the past few years. My advice to law students is, I suppose, if you MUST go to Shearman, only go during good economic times, because the claws come out when the DOW goes down. They've been letting people go for "performance reasons" through wildly fanciful reviews (often even the people giving the reviews admit that they don't understand them) for months now. Meanwhile, Rohan has been telling associates, reportedly with a straight face, that there will be no layoffs this time around because the firm suffered and learned from its actions in 2001. They didn't get the memo that this time around, open layoffs are the honorable route. They'd rather give their associates the good 'ole semantic shaft and then pat themselves on the back about how they are better than firms X, Y and Z. Fuck 'em and the gigantic egos they rode in on.

77, Troof that. We received discovery production of 800+ pages of foreign language documents. One secretary retyped the pages that looked interesting and created translations by copying and pasting her typing into Google's auto-translation website.

It was complete crap. We ignored the production.

Listen. To those few law students who still have options (and the many who will when the economy [finally] recovers), don't go to Shearman. Layoffs are rampant, and superior firms are suffering. Nothing unique to Shearman. But Shearman sandbags its associates with a smile on its face, pretends it's not, and pretends nothing is wrong.

81: so you're saying Shearman is Lathaming its associates?

8 and 13 - wtf are you smoking? products liability litigators are bottom feeders, right down there with personal injury lawyers.

I thought there were no more than 100 S&S lit associates or so. So are we talking about 5 people?

I think we need a different term for this sort of behavior than "stealth layoff". Layoff, to me, says that a given company is reducing the overall size of it's workforce. If a firm is laying off ten associates here, ten there, and picking and choosing which ones it is firing rather than doing it in broad sweeps, it's not really a "layoff". A firm in that situation has probably grown. I bet Shearman has more lawyers working for them right now than they did this time last year. The entire business model/pyramid scheme of a big firm is built around high attrition, and right now, no one is leaving. They need those people to leave in order to maintain the proper leverage rates, so if it isn't happening, firings become almost unavoidable.

These firings come as a shock to a lot of associates, because biglaw is such a nasty place to work that there was usually high enough attrition without any need for firings at all, but they really aren't "layoffs". They are more like "forced attrition". When you pick your five worst lit associates to dump because none of them have quit for a year and a half, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is an entirely different animal than cutting 100 lawyers in one fell swoop.

83 -

Not on the defense side they're not.

65 -

Michael Ray Richardson is awesome - may be my favorite schtick. PE is ok, so long as he doesn't veer off into one of his anti-Obama rants. And I say that as someone who didn't vote for Obama.

We at Shearman have been astounded that this has stayed off the pages of ATL so long. Layoffs have been happening for months and among all practice groups. So while this layoff might not seem like much in absolute number terms, it is the tip of the iceberg. More than just litigation associates were fired yesterday, for instance, and this is hardly the first such day in the past 6 months.

This is absolute bullshit. There are about 50 litigation associates in New York.

The 130 number above includes international arbitration, which includes around 70 worldwide. Are we really talking about 2-3 people getting cut because of performance? Is this news?

Elie, why do you have a vendetta against this firm? Either you're a stupid fuck, or you are knowingly misrepresenting the situation. Come up with some hard numbers, and please spare us your "analysis." It's painful to read -- you choose to come up with irrelevant conjecture

Get this everyone: EVERY v100 firm in the United States has conducted "stealth" layoffs. ATL has done a terrible job catching most of them. Maybe that's something these dumbfucks can start working on.

ATL would rather have some unemployed NY lawyer broad in her skanky panties vomiting out her stream of consciousness all over their blog.

I personally know of 6 associates who were fired. I'm sure there must be more. And as has been stated before, Shearman has been cutting for a while. 10 associates here, 6 counsel there, pretty soon you're talking real numbers.

Whoooooaaaa. Who are these crazy people who think it's "normal" to fire people after a performance review, just like that!? I don't care how lazy or stupid an associate might be, this is not the way it's done at biglaw (and biglaw is a different animal than most other corporations, for so many reasons that we all know).

Common practice is to give the associate another review a few months later, and if the work product etc. hasn't improved, let him or her know they have up to six months to find another job.

There has clearly been another "stealth" layoff here and, given that such layoffs negatively affect the targeted associates' reputations (like all the comments calling these guys lazy!!!) and makes it that much harder for them to find a new job - not to mention maintain some semblance of self-confidence and dignity, the stealth layoff is a truly disrespectful and despicable practice.

Shame on Shearman. An absolute disgrace.

I've always suspected Shearman & Sterling will be the first major law firm in NYC to completely shut down in a while. I suspect they are running out of cash fast and need to regroup as a much smaller operation or just shut down altogether.

The problem arose at least a decade ago when a bunch of stodgy old corporate partners at Shearman relied to heavily on their ties to the old school at Citigroup and when that old school retired or dispersed Shearman was left without a sold corporate practice and its litigation practice was never strong. They never had the gut to steal partners from other firms and now the whole law firm is falling to pieces. They dont have the funding to keep it together much longer I dont think.

I think sometime soon the conversation is going to turn from how many people Shearman is laying off to whether Shearman is even going to survive.

The rainmakers have other options at other law firms. They can't let the dead weight pull them down forever.

Ahd Shearman is going to be toxic top rate law students forever and a day. They are always the first to shed associates when times are bad. I seem to remember they shed 10% of their associates when times were good!

A little known fact is that one of the two name partners of Shearman & Sterling (I can't remember whether it was Shearman or Sterling) was a gay man living a relatively open lifestyle way back when. Would love to know more details about him.

I remember this because he founded a nursing home for the elderly in my hometown of Harrison New York way back when

the part of the post about firing litigators for lack of other fat left to trim makes no sense. the :"fat" here would be idle associates. it makes economic sense to fire idle associates. it doesn't make sense to fire people who are busy, because they are generating revenue. so if there's no fat to cut, people are busy, and you are saying shearman is firing billable associates.

Shearman has been doing stealth layoffs for a long time. Who do they think they're fooling?!?!? Shame on them.

ahaha. extra extra read all about it!! s&s laid off 2 to 3 people for performance. this is honestly laughable. trying desperately here to make something out of nothing. I have a hangnail. is that news?

elie is awful.

This is horrible. I wish all Shearman associates the best.

Who will Count Layoffula strike down tomorrow?

Shearman is nearly as bad as Latham - no one with other BigLaw options should be considering working there at this point.

What a load of shit, if this is true. Just fire people in the open, everybody else is doing it.

i worked for the largest firm in Northern Virginia (who would that be?). They had a flat fee structure. I worked 6 hours a day, and made more money than I did at firms that had billable hour requirements. I worked very hard during those 6 hours and did come in on Saturdays a lot, but because I work fast and efficiently, I liked the flat fee struction much more than the billable hours approach.

75 - hahahahahahah BUSTED

Last night Jay Leno mentioned unemployed lawyers in his monologue.

Latham will be doing the same in a few weeks after the "reviews" are in. Another 50 people in new york would bring pace up to 90%. Thanks for your help with the left over pro bono - we will take it from here.

-I am safe biatches

95, pointing out that Elie is incapable of understanding simple business concepts is like pointing out that a Special Olympics competitor is retarded.* It's one of those self-evident truths that just makes everyone uncomfortable when pointed out, so you don't need to bother.

* Special thanks to Barack Obama for inspiring the analogy.

S&S may be handling the crisis ineffectively. The partners might be awful people. It might be overstaffed.

But it's complete hyperbole to say the firm doesn't have a corporate practice worth mentioning. That is obviously a comment from someone not well informed. M&A practices are suffering everywhere, obviously. League tables don't lie: S&S was 7th in the world in terms of value for the first quarter. according to Thompson Reuters. The firm clearly has problems, but predictions of dissolution are exaggerated.

This looks like forced attrition. Every firm is doing it because people normally move on, but in this economy, they aren't. Honestly, I think this is terrible, but there should be a little more perspective on what the whole industry is doing. Elie's "analysis" is, as usual, laughable.

It is Shearman's continued emphasis on corporate that gets it into trouble. When deals are up, Shearman is up, when they are down, Shearman is in triage mode. This is the second time in a decade that Shearman has done significant layoffs (this 5% is only the latest installment, it is more like 15% over the last year - though partners say that they think they are done with them). Shearman has all the same problems other biglaw firms have. It is just more stupid so the problems are exaggerated. So now we have to endure these "performance" reviews, where they say things like, "in every specific area you get good marks, but at least one person said that you often fail to match your shoes and belt, so because of that you should know that you are underperforming for your class." They then tell you that you will have an interim review in 3 months (instead of the normal 6 month cycle) to determine if your shoe/belt matching skills have improved. It is embarrassing for the partner giving the review (often wearing unmatched shoes and belt) to do, it is humiliating to the associate. It is disrespectful and it is a litmus test for whether the firm is the kind of place where one would choose to work if they have have a choice. Shearman has failed that test. When the economy recovers they will find that many of the associates they didn't fire will leave in great numbers with no sense of loyalty to the place. Morale has hit rock bottom. The place may not go under, but it deserves to.

Agree with 107.

Sorry I meant agree with 106.

--108

I also agree with 107.

I also agree with 107.

I also agree with 107.

Me too. 107 is right.

I also agree with 106. Sorry I kept saying 107.

No one agrees with 106 except 106. Who keeps trying to confuse things. 107 has called things correctly!

Jan. 10th start date is completely made up. non-deferring associates "insisting?" ahaha worst website ever. this is not news.

83- in re Bilski is going to make the IP litigators the bottom feeders.

83- in re Bilski is going to make the IP litigators the bottom feeders.

Completely agree with 107 regarding the performance review process, except even if you are lucky enough to be told you are at class level, they will still tell you that, even though your shoes and belt match, they don't like the color. Morale is indeed very low, as would be expected when associates are treated this way. Why not fire people you are unhappy with openly instead of subjecting all of us to these excruciating performance reviews where comments are made for the sake of being critical that would be comical were it not for the fact that your continued employment, either now or a few months down the road, could depend on it. I dont have other personal biglaw experience to compare it to, but I would hope it is not this way everywhere, as I will certainly be looking to abandon ship as soon as the economy starts recovering and opportunities begin to arise. On the whole right now, Shearman is an impersonal machine that is looking to crank associates out to the curb in every way possible, as long as it does not involve being up front and transparent about it.

Here is what is happening a Shearman. In 2008, revenues were down only 5% compared to a record year. Yet senior management has decided to cut costs in whatever manner thinkable over the course of years to soften the revenue loss that they would otherwise recognize (in their pockets). This took the form of expenditure reduction, outsourcing, staff cuts, secretarial cuts, and associate cuts. Soon partner cuts.

Shearman has been cutting associates in performance reviews for months, without any transperancy or honesty. Rohan has said with a straight face that he does not want to do layoffs, when stealth performance reviews were going on all around him. He said that he wanted to adopt an alternative program to put good associates in public interest or government service opportunities for a year, but the program has not been implemented, and associates and secretaries are getting cut in the meantime. Shearman even had their 135th anniversary party in November, the same week that a handful of associates were laid off. When times are good, Shearman is transperant. When time are bad, they are silent. There is denial at Shearman, not transperancy.

The anxiety of associates is palpable - especially since Shearman decided to move up its performance review cycle by one month, conveniently right before the summer program starts and the week of 4th year associates' payout of their (measly) retention bonuses. But management does nothing to improve communication or to address the rampant morale program.

ATL, if anything, has underreported the number of associates "Shermanated" and the number of practice groups. Keep in mind, also, that the layoffs are not done yet. Only a few practice groups are finished with their performance reviews. Rumors have it that a significant M&A layoff will be imminent.

I am chagrined that a poster would be so callus as to call the affected associates "lazy." In this market and in this industry, it does not serve you or your ego to pass judgment on something or someone you know nothing about. Layoffs are something you, your friends, your family, your colleagues and your clients will deal with in a lifetime; it's a big deal emotionally and financially, and you should learn to be more sensitive to your peers, starting right now. Once you recognize this fact instead of posting such accusations on message boards, you may have a chance at maturity and professionalism.

In fact, the layoffs at Shearman had nothing to do with billables or performance. Bad performance reviews came out of nowhere, to associates who had positive performance reviews in just the last cycle, who have billed more hours than other associates, and who have seniors who advocate the quality of their work. The problem is greed; the partners do not want to take a hit to their pocketbooks, and they have decided to cut associates instead of cutting pay. What Shearman doesn't realize is the PR effect this has on its clients, who think law firms charge too much and unjustifiably cut the associates on their teams for their pocketbooks. What Shearman also doesn't realize is that these laid off associates are still their peers in the industry, who will become their clients. What Shearman doesn't realize is that people do not forget.

Before thinking that the affected associates were lazy or low performers, you should also be aware of the disproportionate effect the layoffs have had on women and minorities. Look at who is left and who is gone. The amount of gender issues in law firms in general and at Shearman in particular are ridiculous. What is most laughable is that Shearman was ranked highly for women's issues - based solely on the initiatives that were taking place to set up an affinity group. But why was this affinity group needed in the first place? Because Shearman does not promote women, does not mentor women, makes it difficult to be a mom and an associate or to keep flexible hours, to telecommute, or to think of creative programs. Women are not retained, either becuase of the conditions and the environment, or because they have been asked to leave because they were never considered to make partner. These aren't lazy, low performers - they are associates who were called "bitchy," "crabby," and "annoying" to their face, and who had no chance at Shearman because of who they are.

To all the law students out there who are choosing a law firm - think twice about Shearman. Its decision to conduct mass layoffs in 2001 has sullied their reputation to this day. I thought that Shearman was never make the same mistake twice, that they learned from their mistakes, that things would be different because they had different management, and that I would be safe. Don't make the same mistake I did. Shearman has a lot to learn in terms of management, transperancy, and diversity, and it shows absolutely no signs of changing in the near future.

Spot on, 120. Reviews at Shearman are fabricated nonsense. After the December reviews, associates who had previously been happy at the firm started looking elsewhere because reviews were so ridiculously divorced from reality that it was pretty clear that Shearman was padding its files in anticipation of letting even more people go. Of course there are no jobs, so the place is full of people shaking in their collective boots waiting to be fired or trying to console those who already have been, but are coming to work everyday to save face. Ridiculous place to have to endure these days.

Great news. I am at S&S and FINALLY fucked my secretary last night. She is 43 and smokin' hot. I ate her pussy out, then we fucked for 90 minutes. So BigLaw is still all good for me.

Shearman associate here. Without speaking to the gender/minority comments I can confirm that 120 has it exactly right. Shearman cut the outright useless people long ago (every firm has them) but it wasn't enough. Utilization is way down so more people need to go. This includes unproven juniors and proven (but not obviously partner material) mid-levels and seniors who, in a better market, would have moved elsewhere by this point. Fair enough, but rather than taking the generous and up front approach like Latham, they are trumping up bullshit reviews and giving people a couple of months to get the fuck out. These are people who have put in serious hours over the years so that Shearman could claw its way back to a semi-respectable PPP. The firm's leadership has calculated that this approach will have less of an impact on their reputation and 2009 profits. It's ATL's job to make sure they're mistaken with respect to the former, and through it, the latter.

Bottom line, the place hasn't been the same since the 2001 layoffs. In 2001, they fired people while the rest of the market held on. Things picked up again six months later but the damage was done. Post-layoffs they were unable to consistently recruit the kind of talented people they needed to remain at the top of the pack (S&S was a V5 in those days). They went deeper and deeper in the ivy league ranks and then they started recruiting at schools no other v10 would even look at. The irony is that they think the lesson from all of this is "don't do layoffs" but the actual lesson is "don't buck the market". Up front layoffs with a generous severance are the best way to go. Stay tuned for the carnage as the rest of the groups conduct April performance reviews. Good luck to all.

As a Shearman attorney, I can confirm that 2-3 people were fired on Tuesday afternoon. 5-6 more were also subject to some sort of disciplinary action, whether it be probation or something else. Ultimately, the 2-3 fired had good reputations among their colleagues, and better reputations than others who were spared. It's bizzaro world. With the latest round of firings, roughly 8-9 people have been fired this year (counting those who were fired in late December), including one counsel. Although these firings are being characterized as performance-based, the reality of the situation is that most or all of these attorneys would be safe in good economic times. They may not have been viewed as 'partner material,' but they would not have been fired. In the most recent round, there is literally shock over who they chose to fire. Their choices make little to no sense.