Nationwide Layoff Watch: Seyfarth Shaw Cuts 50, Cuts Salaries, Cuts Back on Summer Program
Seyfarth Shaw just announced an extensive “hybrid tough love” package. The firm is laying off employees as well as cutting salaries. It is also reducing the length of the summer program and pushing back start dates.
According to a firm wide memo, 50 people will be let go:
Today, we have completed a reduction in attorneys and staff of approximately 50 people out of approximately 1,600 people nationwide. These reductions are spread across all offices and practice groups. We deeply regret the need to take these steps. The people affected are our friends and co-workers who have made contributions to the growth of the Firm. We have reached out to every affected person prior to the distribution of this e-mail.We cannot predict the future but, as we said above, it is our goal by taking this step to avoid any further reductions in positions for the remainder of the year. We know that we will be asking each of you to take on additional responsibilities. We thank you in advance for your continued efforts on behalf of our clients and the Firm.
Seyfarth laid off 30 people back in December, and another 30 people in January. Hopefully, this is the last time layoff survivors will have to worry about their jobs. At least for this year.
After the jump, we get to the other news.
Seyfarth’s new salary structure is another indication that the salary cut movement could just be starting:
Effective May 16, we will be reducing salaries for segments of our associate and income partner team members. While not all people in those categories will be affected, some salaries will be reduced between 5% and 20% prospectively. Our Office Managing Partners or local LDC chairs have contacted, or attempted to contact, all affected associates.
The statement from the firm makes the point that full equity partners are sharing in the salary reduction pain:
Our Firm is in solid financial condition. With the additional measures described below, we believe that the profits of the Firm will decline by 5% to 7%. While we recognize that this may not seem like much when measured against the general predictions for our industry (down on average 10% to 15%) or by the challenges faced by many of our clients and friends; nevertheless, it does have an impact on our equity partners.
Do associates at Seyfarth feel like they are in this together with the partners?
Summers and incoming first-year associates are taking the expected hit:
We have informed our incoming associate class that their start dates will be deferred until 2010. We have also shortened our summer program and reduced the compensation structure for our summer associates.
The remaining staff should expect “keeping their jobs” to be the only bonus this year:
Finally, along with a variety of other expense reduction efforts, we will forgo the normal staff compensation increase typically put into effect in August.
When will the bad news stop?
Good luck to those affected by today’s decision at Seyfarth.
Read the full memo below.
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Seyfarth Shaw Lays Off 30 Attorneys
Nationwide Staff Layoff Watch: Seyfarth Shaw
Prior ATL coverage of salary cuts
SEYFARTH SHAW — MEMO — ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Response to Economic Conditions - A Note from the Executive Committee
We are living through extraordinary economic times.
As you know, despite the challenges of the economy last year, we were able to improve the financial health of the Firm. We also completed the first quarter of this year ahead of our budget. These are unusual results in this economy and reflect the hard work and commitment of many people in the Firm. Nevertheless, the global economy continues to present challenges in 2009, signaling profound and fundamental changes in the world and for our clients. We need to recognize, anticipate and adapt to those changes.
We exist in partnership with our clients. The economic environment they must navigate is increasingly difficult. As a result, a number of clients have asked us to help them reduce costs with actions, such as freezing or reducing rates, finding different ways to perform services at lower overall costs, or by deferring or delaying projects. This puts downward pressure on the revenue of the Firm, requiring us to think differently about how we operate. Simply put, this means that we must become leaner and reduce our expenses.
Our Firm is in solid financial condition. With the additional measures described below, we believe that the profits of the Firm will decline by 5% to 7%. While we recognize that this may not seem like much when measured against the general predictions for our industry (down on average 10% to 15%) or by the challenges faced by many of our clients and friends; nevertheless, it does have an impact on our equity partners.
Throughout the first months of the year, we have steadily implemented a number of changes designed to reduce expenses. We are taking additional actions now that, while consistent with steps taken by many firms, are nevertheless difficult; however, we believe they are appropriate and prudent responses to these extraordinary economic times. Our objective is to implement these actions at this time with the belief and intention that we will not need to take similar steps in the future.
1. Today, we have completed a reduction in attorneys and staff of approximately 50 people out of approximately 1,600 people nationwide. These reductions are spread across all offices and practice groups. We deeply regret the need to take these steps. The people affected are our friends and co-workers who have made contributions to the growth of the Firm. We have reached out to every affected person prior to the distribution of this e-mail.
We cannot predict the future but, as we said above, it is our goal by taking this step to avoid any further reductions in positions for the remainder of the year. We know that we will be asking each of you to take on additional responsibilities. We thank you in advance for your continued efforts on behalf of our clients and the Firm.
2. Effective May 16, we will be reducing salaries for segments of our associate and income partner team members. While not all people in those categories will be affected, some salaries will be reduced between 5% and 20% prospectively. Our Office Managing Partners or local LDC chairs have contacted, or attempted to contact, all affected associates.
3. We have informed our incoming associate class that their start dates will be deferred until 2010. We have also shortened our summer program and reduced the compensation structure for our summer associates.
4. Finally, along with a variety of other expense reduction efforts, we will forgo the normal staff compensation increase typically put into effect in August.
We believe that these actions allow us to move forward with confidence. Driven by the Firm’s core values and practice mix and coupled with the commitment of each of us, we will continue the Firm’s historic pattern of success.
We will be having office-level meetings to give each of you the opportunity to ask questions or raise any concerns or issues you may have. Thank you for your understanding and continued support for the Firm.
(189) Comments
Comments
The ship be sinking...
Just the way I like to observe Law Day!
who cares
So associates lose their jobs or between 5% and 20% of their pay, and they are supposed to be comforted because partner profits will be down 5% to 7%. This is starting to get incredibly insulting. Partners cry because they may take home less than $1 million. Meanwhile associates lose jobs and 10% to 20% of their pay.
Fuck them. Fuck collegiality. Fuck the profession. It's all about PPP now. Their is no honor.
Not sure if I've ever heard of this firm. Are they accredited by the American Bar Association?
"Their is no honor"?
5 - It has to be about PPP. That's the air that makes the firm breath. Think about it. Partners bring in all the business. If firm A has a 7% drop in PPP and firm B is having no drop. What's going to happen? Partners defect to the other firm and take their clients too. Then, the whole "ship be sinking." Unless all partners, in unison, commit to not defecting and decide to stick to their firm regardless of PPP, then firms may not have to worry about PPP so much. So, in reality, it's not a worry that partners might lose that 7% in pay each year that drives the firms to lay off associates. It's the worry over defection as a result of that 7% drop. And that's truly death to a firm.
What did they cut the summer down to? Isn't it a little later to be cutting weeks off of summer programs; some start on Monday.
SeyfarTTTh Shaw
SeyfarTTTh
Seyfarth Sh**
SeyfarTTTh Sh**
"With the additional measures described below, we believe that the profits of the Firm will decline by 5% to 7%. While we recognize that this may not seem like much when measured against the general predictions for our industry (down on average 10% to 15%) or by the challenges faced by many of our clients and friends; nevertheless, it does have an impact on our equity partners."
Way to sugar-coat it.
The freighter be sinking.
I think clients are not paying their bills. 180 days+
What would happen if an associate approached the management committee proactively and said, "I'd like to ensure my place here at [insert TTT firm name] and I'm willing to take a pay cut to do it," and then proceeded to negotiate a healthy pay cut in line with his desire to keep his job. What would the firm say?
Top-tier labor & employment firm.
What's the latest at McDermott?
A LITTLE LATE TO BE SHORTENING THE SUMMER PROGRAM!!!!!
Screwing over summers on their housing commitments?
TTT. Period.
I'm just thinking out loud here, guys, but do these summer associates have a possible reliance -- ie, promissory estoppel -- claim against this firm? I remember I once tried a case like this and used Restatement 90 to prove that my client should win. Does Restatement 90 apply here?
Why is everything PPP? I don't understand 7's hypo. Why would the firm that has seen no decline in PPP want to take on a boatload of people looking to flee a Seyfarth Shaw?
It seems as if partners with portable books of business (rainmakers), who are the partners other firms would be interested in having, should be getting paid more than the average PPP at their current firm anyway. What does it matter what the service partners are averaging? And what firm wants a boatload of service partners willing to leave their current firm because its PPP is declining?
Seyfarth never was (and never will be) a top tier law firm. They're just like the other 50 firms out there that jumped on the bandwagon last year to pay their first year associates $160k yet didn't (and still don't) have the clients or the talent to maintain those salaries at those billing rates.
As many have said on this board before, it's a day of reckoning for many of these AmLaw 150 firms. After this recession, there is going to be much greater stratification among firms. Those that are able to distinguish themselves as the world's premier top-tier firms and those like Seyfarth who will solidify their status as a mid/lower tier firm.
Moral of the story to Seyfarth: you can't buy a seat at the big boys table. Go back to the kid's table.
I must say, this news has put a smile on my face. I usually do not comment on law firms, but a toilet such as Seyfarth Shaw cannot be relieved of a brutal tongue lashing from yours truly.
Any law student or legal professional thinking about going to this firm should think twice. It's management is poor as well as its structure. Salary cuts and lay-offs are inevitable in this economy, but the way in which a firm conducts them is key. Here, Seyfarth Shaw has demonstrated to the world that it is clearly a firm on the decline. To potential clients of Seyfarth Shaw, I would ask you to take not of today's actions by the firm and ask yourself whether you can tolerate truly second-rate work product.
I once spent some time with a partner from Seyfarth Shaw. He insisted upon showing the group I was with what a "rainmaker" he was by inviting us to play golf at exclusive US Open country clubs and taking me out to dinner at expensive restaurants. In a 5 day span, this partner spent over $100k on us. He then turned to my friend who was going to attend W&L Law and asked why he "couldn't get into a prestigious law school like Chicago or Northwestern (his alma mater)." I was shocked at this man's arrogance. Today, I laugh in your face Mr. M. As your PPP slip and the reputation of your firm crumbles, the smile on my face will grow wider.
The purpose of a law firm is to make money for the partners, not to provide associates with salaries. That being said, however, none of these measures are going to help generate additional business for Seyfarth, which is the problem they're trying to solve; all of them are designed to buy a few extra months in which the economy may or may not rebound.
The so-called "creativity" on display here would be a lot more effective if it were directed at saving the firm's CLIENTS money, which would result in more new clients and more work from existing clients. In other words, it's not enough to cut the firm's overhead by cutting salaries and deferring start dates--you have to cut billing rates and explore alternate billing arrangements (such as fixed-fee billing) too.
21 - That's a good point. But not all firms do it like that. Some first have an "eat what you kill" mentality. But many do not. And it's just pure equity among the partnership - regardless of how good of a rainmaker they are.
Hey guys, the affected associates are meeting up at Fudruckers in a half hour. Pizza shooters will be served.
Can't, take, it. Toooo much. When will this stop?
23 is Elie
I know nothing about law firm partnerships, so excuse me if this is a stupdi question.
Why would any rainmaker stay at a pure equity firm or even one that isn't mostly 'eat what you kill'? What's the motivation for big earners to support service partners? I understand that it can be difficult for partners to switch firms (client conflicts, etc.), but still...
Actually, there are some great folks there. Terrific L&E talent but management needs to rethink marketing, biz development, and IT - they really have fallen behind in these areas when they had shown much promise as the century began. It seems leadership is afraid to make tough choices and the offices needing real help can't get the attention they deserve.
If the V15 are blue chip firms, what color chip would Seyfarth be?
I love how many uninformed people comment on these boards . . . . Clearly a bunch of nervous law students and first years who understand nothing about law firm economics.
Boy, 29, you are dumb
"The purpose of a law firm is to make money for the partners, not to provide associates with salaries."
My point is -- this was not always the case. There was a time when being a lawyer for a firm meant being a professional. As professionals lawyers were not money-obsessed whores like bankers, but had a code of ethics and were interested in intellectual challenges and collegiality. That is all dead (and has been dead for 10 years or so). But this Great Recession is really proving that it has become a business with no integrity.
So, again, fuck the partners.
-- 4
On the number of layoff victims, this is about a quarter-Latham.
Do all these cuts include the 30-something non-equity partners that were canned late last year or in January?
31-
Seyfarth would be brown. The same color of 30's nose. "Terrific L&E" you say 30? Get real. I know several solo practioners and boutiques that will kick Seyfarth's ass in L&E litigation at a mere fraction of their fees.
37, you must have been rejected by Seyfarth. Get over it already.
2008 Revenue - $467 Million, with ~800 lawyers
2008 RPL - $630k
2007 (Can't get 2008) PPP - $700k
Not exactly stunning financials to start with.
38: considering 37 can form complete sentences I highly doubt Seyfarth turned him down.
40, your comment makes no sense.
41 - Based on your deduction skills I take it you work at Seyfarth.
42=unemployed attorney
What the hell is a Seyfarth exactly??
Agree with 34. I like a lot of the Partners at my firm as individuals. But system is despicable. The pinnacle of greed. Much moreso than Wall Street or anything else.
There is no 'crisis' for law firms. There would be no epidemic of layoffs if Partners as a group did not insist on maintaining or even trying to increase profits during the worst Recession in history.
Nothing like a Friday afternoon/evening layoff announcement to keep it classy. That's like dumping someone via email. ALL CLASS!
United forever in friendship and labor,
Our mighty republics will ever endure.
The great Soviet Union will live through the ages.
The dream of a people their fortress secure.
This is fabulous news to end the week/start the weekend. Although not a peer firm, Seyfarth's decision to adopt my hybrid tough love package shows initiative and strong survival skills for an organization. Many of you seem to think management committees consider how law students and young attorneys perceive peer firms. That may have been true years ago, however, the cycle has changed and the truth is with market saturated with unemployed attorneys, there will always be talent willing to work at peer firms. Due to the current economic tsunami, it seems we will be in the position to perform a downward readjustment of starting salaries. Go ahead and stage your pitiful demonstrations (such as the weak one today on 53rd and 3rd) and proclaim "We Won't Forget." The sad truth is, most of you are forgotten after thoughts that are beneath "has-beens" (never was). I worked for decades to bring in clients and generate business and work for associates. IT IS NOT MY GOD DAMN RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP YOU ON THE PAYROLL WHILE SACRIFICING MY BOTTOM LINE! I DID NOT PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND FORCE YOU TO LEVERAGE YOURSELF TO THE TUNE OF $150K IN NON-DISCHARGEABLE STUDENT LOANS SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE A HIT OFF OF CRACKPIPE DREAM. In case you haven't been reading Barrons or the Economist, this is the worst economic period since the Great Depression. President Obama's plan to print more money and tax the wealthy will only slowdown the market's recovery. Face it, you chose the wrong profession/President. And for those of you that are planning to enroll in law school this Fall to "ride out" the recession, I would defer another 5 years on law school before considering that strategy. Who knows, by then, we will have outsourced most of the firm's projects to foreign based attorneys.
Associates who made their hours last year and are on track this year are not having their salaries reduced at all.
40: Ironically, 38's second "sentence" is not a complete sentence. 38's punctuation (or lack thereof) is also not up to par.
Think like a fucking partner for once in your miserable lives (hopefully at least a few people on here will make partner someday). It sucks, b cuts in salary and layoffs are a part of doing business, get over it. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
Fine, I concede. I'll stop calling Partner Emeritus out. I don't think this 1L section is funny at all. Only a waste of space. But apparently some people do.
Fine, I concede. I'll stop calling Partner Emeritus out. I don't think this 1L section is funny at all. Only a waste of space. But apparently some people do.
48 -- by which metric are these rags defining "worst"? It's not unemployment -- it's at 8.5% compared to 25%. It's not % drop in GDP. It's not % drop in trade. It's not % drop in productivity.
I have a feeling it's being measured by % drop in a$$-hole partners' and bankers' wealth and # of cars and houses in the hamptons. But, believe it or not, not everyone cares about those things.
The memo is less than clear w/r/t incoming summer associates.
1. Compensation has been cut IN HALF (not just "reduced").
2. "Deferred until 2010"? WTF is this supposed to mean? Current summers wouldn't start until Sept. 2010 at the absolute earliest anyway! The deferrals were until "the very end of 2010 or possibly 2011," with no firm commitment.
Restatement 90 guy > Partner Emeritus
I am laughing my Black ass off!
For all you dipshits that think 700,000 in PPP is nothing, I hope you never plan to make partner.
And a word of wisdom to you youngins' - PPP of $1mm tells you nothing about the firm. My firm is north of 800k, but for every partner at 1.2mm, there is partner at 400k, etc. Do the math.
The real answer is the ABA. Cut the accredidation so that there are only 125 law schools (like the 125 medical schools). Then lawyers become more scarce, we can raise rates, and maybe, just maybe, you might get some actual experience.
Long live Partner Emeritus.
The Sheriff
Was there really a protest today at Latham?
QUINN REMAINS
This comment is addressed to post no. 54.
Take off those rose tinted frames and read real news. If you want to measure the economy by the GAO's cooked numbers, then go ahead and cash in on the change that Obama is bringing to you.
How many people have to die to satisfy your lust for profits KILL-patrick Stockton?
Stop this layoffs madness people and just hold these attorneys until the economy improves. Everyone's overreacting.
Restatement 90 guy <<< Partner Emeritus
How does all of this work out for A. Reich? turd
Just wait till you see what my baby dadda gonna do to your taxes, crackers! You think a 20% pay cut is bad, you gonna hate a 50% tax increase! And that crusty old whiteboy Partner Emancipate take heself too serious.
Young sharks: there's blood in the water. No need to cry about how the big sharks took your lunch money. Lick your wounds, shark up, and prepare for the feast that awaits the cunning and the ambitious.
61-63 - Christmas Bonus? What were you a secretary or something?
For once, I'm completely on the same page as PE. The fugazi unemployment numbers that the DOL puts out are a fantasy. The pols are just glad that your average prole (yes, law students, that includes you) is too stupid to recognize how fake the numbers are.
This sucks. This economy situation has been a trickle now effect in all industries....
You should remove comments that refer to specific people at the firm. Totally unnecessary.
MIchelle Obama = funniest commenter on ATL
PE, you play a very good character. Your comments are always so very on - always a cut above the other characters. Thanks for always keeping me entertained with a good chuckle.
If anyone has the energy left to respond to this post, I need to know something. What's with the need to put rank firms as TTT and criticize them.
A job is a job, especially in this economy and as long as the firm is still around it must be doing something right (see Heller and Thelen).
You really don't see this among Fortune 500 companies. Comments like those above are the reason why the legal profession so f#$%ed up. All about prestige and money and all the bs entitlement that comes along with it.
You could be with the best firm in the world, but at the end of the day you are nothing but a cog in a lifeless, billing machine. When you boil it down to what it really is, does it really matter which one you work for?
Whatever happened to hanging a shingle. I truly respect the attorney who goes out on his own and puts him or herself on the line to be their own boss. All of you would probably consider him or her a failure.
F** BIGLAW and show some initiative on your own. Above the Law is full of elitist asshats.
If anyone has the energy left to respond to this post, I need to know something. What's with the need to put rank firms as TTT and criticize them.
A job is a job, especially in this economy and as long as the firm is still around it must be doing something right (see Heller and Thelen).
You really don't see this among Fortune 500 companies. Comments like those above are the reason why the legal profession so f#$%ed up. All about prestige and money and all the bs entitlement that comes along with it.
You could be with the best firm in the world, but at the end of the day you are nothing but a cog in a lifeless, billing machine. When you boil it down to what it really is, does it really matter which one you work for?
Whatever happened to hanging a shingle. I truly respect the attorney who goes out on his own and puts him or herself on the line to be their own boss. All of you would probably consider him or her a failure.
F** BIGLAW and show some initiative on your own. Above the Law is full of elitist asshats.
If anyone has the energy left to respond to this post, I need to know something. What's with the need to put rank firms as TTT and criticize them.
A job is a job, especially in this economy and as long as the firm is still around it must be doing something right (see Heller and Thelen).
You really don't see this among Fortune 500 companies. Comments like those above are the reason why the legal profession so f#$%ed up. All about prestige and money and all the bs entitlement that comes along with it.
You could be with the best firm in the world, but at the end of the day you are nothing but a cog in a lifeless, billing machine. When you boil it down to what it really is, does it really matter which one you work for?
Whatever happened to hanging a shingle. I truly respect the attorney who goes out on his own and puts him or herself on the line to be their own boss. All of you would probably consider him or her a failure.
F** BIGLAW and show some initiative on your own. Above the Law is full of elitist asshats.
22 = Jackson Lewis or Littler associate who was no-offered by Seyfarth.
Just before anyone can comment I'm responsible for comments 75, 76, & 77. This website f-ing sucks, Above the Law, "You're fucking out!"
If there is a place where misery loves company it's at ATL.
75, 76, 77 obviously never played sports. It's not about elitism douchbag, it's about competitiveness. It's the same reason schools go apeshit about law school rankings.
Dean of Career Services at HLS is a Seyfarth alum.
75-
http://buildasolopractice.solopracticeuniversity.com/
75, 76, 77 - Why do people get so bent out of shape about sports teams? Why do people of one team bad mouth the other team? After all, does it really matter what team they support? Do the sports fans really have any impact on the outcome of the game? No. Yet, sports fans are more fanatic, even to the point of violence, than anyone I've ever seen. Like 81 said, it's about the competition. It's about being on top. And yes, we'll look down on people below us. That's the game. Just like the winning college team thinks they're "better" than the losing college team. It's human nature. And don't think for a moment that other companies aren't like this. You don't think Goldman Sachs knows they are better than the rest? Or that McKinsey is better than Accenture? Comparisons happen everywhere, in every industry.
18,
in my view things are real bad at mcdermott; at least for corporate income partners and associates. worse than other shops. junior associates are screwed more than others because people like me are hoarding the low-level commodity work we ordinarily would pass down the line. it sucks (for the juniors who get no work/experience -- save only biz-dev), its wrong (for the clients footing the bill), and its no good for morale (for anyone).
what's the latest at Milbank?
WE WILL NEVER FORGET
29, eat a dick. you a miserable fucktard. please don't come to my firm. i hate you.
what's the latest at bryan cave?
81 let's not bring in sports metaphors because that mentality just really doesn't play when the economy takes a shit, nor does it adequately represent the legal field.
Most professional athletes are the best at what they do, so maybe they can afford to be a bit picky and take a pay cut to play for a winner (although most never do), so they can be with the best team. All in the interest of competitiveness of course, but life and the law doesn't work that way.
Sure let's try and be the best but the economy is shit so if you've got a job (even if at a TTT, fuck that term by the way) right now you are a winner and it is just defeating right now to maintain the attitude that because of the place that you work you are not somehow succeeding, call it elitism or competitiveness it's just, as you would like to say, douchebag to consistently put people down because of their life choices or the limited abilities they may have. I think collegiality has been eradicated in the legal field because of this desire to feel elite and the best and frankly it hurts the profession.
84--in your sports metaphor lawyers would be like the players and not the fans (although ATL readers probably to a lot more cheering than doing). So the competitive nature thing I don't buy. I highly doubt that the average lawyer at a big firm does that much more groundbreaking legal work than someone who is at a midsize, small, or solo firm. It's again, a defeating mentality to fall back on competitiveness when this idea that people are failures because of who they work for is allowed to be dominant in the legal profession. People make life choices and are certainly limited by their abilities, but right now success must be measured in who is still working and what firms are still around.
Most of these jobs at the big firms are no different from each other, so I'll ask the question again, what does it really matter which firm you work for?
Also I'm sure the bigwigs at most companies like to believe they are better then their competitors, that's the mentality they should have. But most associates are like the workers on an assemblyline, not the managers. If you work for Ford, Ford is great, but if you get laid off (like most Biglaw lawyers) from Ford, what worker is going to be against Honda if it meant having a job.
The fact is most ATL readers are the assemblyline, not the managers so they should either be happy where they are or show some initiative and do it on their own if they think they are so great.
Weren't the protesters supposed to be at Lathem today? What happened?
49: yes, associates "who make their hours" are safe, which is telling as to the state of our legal profession. I'm so tired of this billable system, where the value of an individual is based on the number of hours billed to the client, no matter how dull or useless the assignment is. Most associates pad their time by the way, for fear of not meeting the firm's expectations and being terminated. Enough is enough. As to clients putting pressure on the partners to "cut costs", they should start by cleaning their own mess. How many hours have we sacrificed to serve the arrogance of these self-proclaimed masters of the universe? Cliens have always complained about legal bills, even in boom times. That's what they do best. Most of them despise lawyers and treat them as slaves. You know that you're in trouble when you cannot differentiate between a law firm partner and a banker. Time has come to fix the system. The future belongs to law firms that refuse to be guided by fear.
Amen 92! Preach it.
No shit. Well said 92.
Seyfarth has been laying people off for over a year. However, those laid off last spring were said to be performance related. Small-time bitches.
Gorgodsakes, cut our salaries but don't fire us. I can handle a reduction in pay but don't make me look for another job in this economy!
-Biglaw Attorney
I like DDUK and I cannot lie.
To all partners thinking to make more cuts: think twice about it. This market is going to turn, eventually. Once it does, there is going to be a lot of moves all over the place. Make no mistake about it. I know a lot of associates waiting for this to happen. One thing you taught us: there is no loyalty anymore. That's fine. Don't expect any loyalty from us.
WHITE & CASE ROUND III: May 11th.
"Top-tier labor and employment firm" is an oxymoron.
Low rate, ethically unpleasant commodity work.
WHAT ABOUT SEYFARTH NY TOXIC TORTS?
Does anyone have information about the Paul Hastings merger negotiations?
Off topic note to those of you unluckly enough to be at McDermott. MWE has been conducting stealth layoffs in litigation department in Chicago and it will spread to other departments beginning in early to mid-May.
fucking dealbreaker
98- You're easy to replace, in any market.
I am sure the ones laid off all voted for the ONE. The now have a chance they can believe in. Voting for someone who has no regard whatsoever for the private sector when you work in the private sector was stupid beyond belief.
I am sure the ones laid off all voted for the ONE. The now have a change they can believe in. Voting for someone who has no regard whatsoever for the private sector when you work in the private sector was stupid beyond belief.
The lack of business-sense on this blog is truly mind-boggling. Say I own a company that has 10 employees. Because of this economy, my sales are way down - what would a normal, reasonable owner do? Fire some of the employees! Biglaw is the EXACT parallel - when there is not enough work for hundreds of associates, some of them have to be fired. And those idiots who are suggesting that the partners take larger cuts to avoid job losses: the partners are the owners of the business and therefore the pain they will feel is obviously going to be less than the pain felt by the employees. And if you have a bunch of associates hanging around billing less than 100 hours/month, it's just bad for associate morale.
And to those idiots, who think this will kill recruiting when the economy turns - in case you didn't notice, there is a enormous glut of quality lawyers on the market, and thousands more added every year - Biglaw will be fine, worry about your fired ass.
I heard Seyfarth made the cuts so that they can bring in Bert Van der Werff as an associate. Something like paying him $4 per matter worked on, while keeping $1 for the partner pool, makes a lot more financial sense than a bunch of dead weight at $160k. Also, the quality of Seyfarth's work is expected to increase.
When equity partners become more willing to share their obscene profits when times are good, then and only then will I feel I should take the hit when their profits are down.
108, you are mosty right in everything you say. Firms are going to fire once the drop in PPP gets to be too much. It's logical and makes sense. That's business.
But there still will be a reputational hit to supposed-top firms that HAVE to make greater sacrifices than their suppposed peers to maintain profitability. These firms are poorly managed and have made bad businesses decisions to get where they are that go beyond even the flaws inherent in this business model. No one wants to be there if they have other options. And one day people will again.
For example, if Latham doesn't see a drop in the caliber of lawyers it can attract when the economy recovers and demand is high again, I'll eat my shirt. This is despite the CURRENT glut of (somewhat) qualfied attorneys. Everything is cyclical.
108 -- Few BigLaw partners are "owners" in the sense of an investor/shareholder or an entrepreneur who goes out on a limb with an idea and mortgages his house to finance it. The former must be kept happy because their capital is needed. The latter is taking a huge risk and should be compensated for it.
By contrast, a large law practice is little more than a pyramid scheme. Those at the top started earlier and have gained more experience, so yes, they should be compensated more than those farther down. But they do not take on the risk of an entrepreneur, nor are they silent investors in an enterprise who must be kept happy. Sure, if PPP fall and partners leave, the firm will cease to exist ... but those departing partners do not cease to exist. They just reform or join another firm. So long as their clients remain, they are relatively unaffected by the name over the door.
So, while we all know that law is a business, it is not subject to the typical business model.
112, what is your point? You think this nature of Biglaw makes it more or less important for the health and survival of a firm to keep PPP high at all costs? It makes it more important.
These are the firms where associate layoffs are least likely. The are the firms with the hightest PPP.
1. Wachtell: $4,010,000
2. Quinn Emanuel: $3,335,000
3. Boies, Schiller: $3,065,000
4. S&C: $2,940,000
5. Paul, Weiss: $2,655,000
6. Cravath: $2,520,000
7. Simpson Thacher: 2,475,000
8. Kirkland & Ellis: $2,470,000
9. Cleary: $2,400,000
10. Schulte Roth: $2,290,000
Doesn't mean that these firms won't engage in some small number of stealth layoffs or use the economy as an excuse to axe a few less than stellar performers. Some of them already have. But they won't cut in large numbers. Don't need to. They don't have to worry about Partners defecting to more profitable firms. Partners' options at these firms are limited. It only makes sense for them to leave for another more profitable firm on this list. And spots are limited. Some who are experts in their field with a big book of business can move within this limited sphere and make out better financially. But not too many.
On the other hand, they are profiting from some huge lateral hires at less profitable firms in this economy. Take Kirkland, for instance. Kirkland stole some huge IP powerhouses from OMM, including Dale Cendali.
112, 108 here. While the nature of BigLaw is different, as you pointed out, the fact remains that the profits accrue to the partners, which makes them owners of the business in the broadest sense of the word. And owners of a business make decisions primarily based on maximizing profits, which is what Biglaw is doing by firing associates.
And 111, I think you are wrong. To be sure Latham won't be able to get the top students at HYS (as an example), but surely they can still get the bottom 10%? And if so, they can still show to clients and parade on their website that their associates are still HYS graduates. It's funny to me how associates have convinced themselves that firms that do layoffs will take major reputational hits and suffer in the short to medium term. Presumably, this fallacy makes associates feel better and makes them think that they have greater job security than they actually do.
Let me break it down - the ONLY reason for 100% job security in this market for an associate is if he is bringing clients in has potential clients in the pipeline. By extension, an associate has greater job security if he can convincingly demonstrate that he is very serious and committed to developing a client base. You don't have to guess what I'm trying to do now, do you?
111, who the fuck cares about "level of talent" that can be attracted? The number of truly exceptional, non-commodity law students in a given year is tiny - and almost completely unidentifiable at the time the traditional hiring process gets locked in.
I believe you may be referring to "students with impressive schools on their resume that we can bill clients $400/hour to have read routine paperwork" but no one is putting up with that anymore.
Just letting the summers know now is really shitty.
115, Latham has never been able to attract truly top talent anyway. And if a lower percentage of bottom feeders they can get from Harvard is the only impact, that's a real hit. Less Harvard resumes to trot out to clients (since that's what you're focusing on and think matters). But that's not the only impact. It will hurt Latham's ability to recruit from all top schools. The students it gets from those schools will be of lower quality and it will have to fill more of the remaining slots from less presitigious schools. (Particularly if it resumes it's irresponsbile practices of overhiring when the economy recovers).
Let me break it down for you. If other people here are talking about job security, I'm not. I'm talking about the longterm health and profitabiility of the firm. And what makes you think I'm associate?
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute Shearman's decline? Shearman's not the firm it used to be. A lot of it is due to its inability to attract top talent. And a lot of that is attributable to its actions in 2001. Most V10 Partners I know are secretly happy at Latham's actions. (Sorry associates.) It's good for everyone else from a competitive standpoint.
Does anyone know whether these layoffs have affected either of the Los Angeles offices (Century City or Downtown)?
118 is right. He's not an associate. He's a law student.
Everyone who is saying the level of talent doesn't matter doesn't work at a V10 firm and doesn't understand how we operate. Level of talent DOES matter at these firms. Both from a performance standpoint and ability to maintain our standing.
It DOESN'T matter at lower-quality firms. There are enough students out there that they'll always be able to continue to fill their slots with exactly the types of lawyers they always hired. Neither work product nor standing will suffer.
120, you can think that. Meanwhile, enjoy life and the level of your job security at your TTT (to use the phrase of the youngsters).
Everyone should review the difference between "less" and "fewer." Read it, learn it, use it. You're lawyers, fer chrissakes.
116, 111 is probably referring to the real work those lawyers will do in a few years. And the ability to attract top laterals who can be reasonably secure that the firm is profitable enough and Partners secure enough that it won't need to resort to mass layoffs in lean times.
Latham is a joke at this point. Who in their right mind would choose to go there at all? Maybe if Orrick was the only other option, but even that's pretty close. All the Vault prestige in the world doesn't mean anything to students when a firm FIRES OVER HALF OF THEIR FIRST YEARS in a given office. The BS an associate there spun at OCI about how much partners care is hilarious in hindsight. There has been a return to the old law firm order. The blue chip NYC firms finally have differentiation again. Bye bye Latham. Bye bye .
I agree with 125: They can call it "tough love" or
good business sense" or whatever they want to , but come on, who reallythinks that in one year Seyfarth or Latham or Proskauer or Paul Hastings will exist or be anthing other than a shadow of what they once were. These times separate the men from the boys; Bye, Bye, boys.
126, it make take longer than that. But 3-5 years from now? Buh bye.
1. People who think firms were going to sacrifice profitability and PPP for associate retention are delusional.
2. People who don't realize that firms that had to resort mass layoffs are either poorly managed and/or second-rate are delusional.
3. People who don't think it will bite these firms in the ass in the end are delusional.
124 - What on Earth does percentile hiring from X school have to do with who will be a decent (and loyal) midlevel associate? The amount of garbage that slips through our hiring "process" is mindblowing. It's not surprising given how we go about it, but it's staggering that we put up with it.
Very, very few firms actually recruit so selectively and interview so intensely that they get what they are looking for. Virtually every other white collar employer is pickier, even within our own profession - try to get a competitive government or public interest job.
129, maybe so. But firms like Latham aren't even going to be able to attract a pool of applicants that might INCLUDE decent midlevels one day. Let alone inspire associate loyalty. Forget about getting quality lateral recruits too. This was a bloated, poorly managed firm that never should have been regarded as a top firm. It was lucky to get the talent it did. And now it won't. It's ship will be sunk.
However, I think that the majority of firms that engaged these kinds of layoffs won't take a huge hit from their actions. They weren't improperly inflated in the first place.
Cheers to Latham! Let the real V10s rise!
-an associate at a real V10
i'm experiencing some schadenfreude. i know a few dispicable people who work at seyfarth. the firm will always be a low-rate one who attracts bottom feeders.
The Real V10:
Wachtell
Cravath
S&C
DPW
Cleary
Paul Weiss
Debevoise
Covington
Williams & Connolly
Gibson Dunn
Fake V10:
Skadden
Simpson
Weil
Not Even a Part of Discussion:
Latham
A three-prong, pincer attack on associate morale.
law associates are worth less than carbon paper these days.
Partner Emeritus, hand the avatar back to your clever buddy from contracts. Does it make any sense that the character would be spouting all-capped rage about the President? Think about it. Don't spoil a good thing now.
113 - My point is that I'm sick and tired of everyone saying "of course you lay off associates -- that's business!" as if that's an acceptable excuse for greedy partners who just happen to find themselves currently at the top of the pyramid. Law firms are not "businesses" in the common sense of the word. Business X makes widgets. If the cost of making widgets is higher than their sales price, Business X is out of business and no more widgets will be made. However, if Law Firm X goes "out of business" because its PPP fall and too many partners leave, those same partners will simply regroup elsewhere.
So long as the overall supply of work is constant, both partners and associates/staff will simply move on to other firms. What does it matter if they work at Firm X or Firm Y? From a macro point of view, the "PPP must be maintaaaaiiiinnnned!" lament is a red herring.
Of course, when the overall supply of work declines as it has for the past 6-9 months, it is not as easy for partners, associates or staff to simply move on. But that's a risk we all should share.
Other than more years of experience (which I do agree is worth something), there is nothing exceptional about many (most?) partners to justify the outrageous income differential between them and the associates and staff on whom they depend for their collections. (For example, many partners simply inherited their book from other, more senior partners who retired.) There is certainly nothing so exceptional as to justify shifting all downside risk onto others.
For the most part, I'm fine with partners making out like bandits when things are going well. However, to justify that upside, they should also be prepared to accept an equally disproportionate share of the downside risk instead of simply passing it off onto others.
That they don't isn't "just business." It's greed.
133 = not-so-subtle Gibson trolling
137: well said. Partners just don't get it. They behave the same way as their most greedy clients. It's greed that put Wall Street on its knee, for the time being. The same thing is happening to law firms. Of course your profits this year are going to be down. The past 10 years were just an inflated bubble. So no, you won't be able to maintain this insanity. More more more, always more $$$. When does it stop? How much do you need to feel good about yourself? All this nonsense about prestige, V10 versus V20, honors, awards, rankings. Time to grow up. The AM Law 100 is killing the legal profession. When the first thing a managing partner does in the morning is to check its PPP number the same way a banker checks the level of the stock market, we're doomed.
Hey 34 - keep voting for guys like Obama -once he and the liberals running Congress "stick it to the rich" - there won't be a job to be had in this country and you'll be out there sucking dick for beer money.
Yeah fuck the partners (ie the rich)...they're only the ones out there creating the jobs.
Now that's change we can believe in!
137 is a dope. 139 is not even a dope. No law firm can afford to have a bunch of junior associates billing 90 to 110 hours a month.
Ha Ha Ha Ha. Still laughing my Black ass off.
When are first years delayed to?
LOL Seyfarth is second tier in Chicago, always has been. Plus, I fucked several of their male associates and partners up the ass doggie style with my big cock.
-Stud associate at a better firm in Chicago
The salary and jobs will never come back even after the economy recovers. The writing is on the wall.
Partner E, do find it hard to hide the fact that you're gay? You're an insecure scumbag with a very small dick that you're terribly ashamed of.
PE --
I don't know whether you are who you say you are -- i.e., a retired senior partner of a peer law firm. But assuming what you have revealed about yourself is true, can you explain to us what's the basis to your harsh views of associates? Associates and other lawyers have made you and other law firm partners wealthy over the years -- so what's your beef with them? What's the reason why you seem to despise them so much -- to the point that I'm beginning to think that your views are phony.
1has it almost perfect except for the use of present tense. I hate to be wordier but -- As a 1980 grad from a nowhere school, hardly qualified to join with those on this list, many of whom have posted dispositive analyses, I note that no has flagged the key sentence here: "Our Firm is in solid financial condition."
Obviously not.
1has it almost perfect except for the use of present tense. I hate to be wordier but -- As a 1980 grad from a nowhere school, hardly qualified to join with those on this list, many of whom have posted dispositive analyses, I note that no one has flagged the key sentence here: "Our Firm is in solid financial condition."
Obviously not.
137's post is the single most embarrassing thing I have ever read on ATL. It frightens me that non-lawyers might read it and assume most lawyers have such a shoddy grasp of basic microeconomics.
137, oh boy. So much that's wrong with your post I really can't even touch it. Suffice it to say, you lack a basic understanding of economics. Beyond that, you seem to be living in a dreamworld.
Rightly or wrongly, greedy or not, Partners as a group are not willing to take a bigger cut to profits to save associate jobs. That's just the reality.
-113
137 -- For a lot of firms, these measures are not just about maintaining PPP, they're about keeping the doors open. A growing number of firms have gone bust in the past year, due in no small part to over-staffing, bloated salaries (at all levels), and fleeing partners.
Your idea that associates with nothing or little to do should be continuously employed simply because some of the client work will find its way elsewhere should the firm bust or its partners leave is a non-sequitur. The firm that employs under-utilized associates would very much like to keep both the work that it has and the partners who have made capital contributions to the firm, regardless of whether their current clients' legal work would exist if the firm did not. Thus, the firm is going to do everything it can to cut costs and maintain PPP at a competitive level.
That said, I think that your point that equity partners, by and large, have not taken great risks to get where they are, and are likely just 15-30 years from being in the position of an associate is worth considering. Most equity partners have never branched out on their own, risked their job or house for their idea or passion, and have generally just managed to excel in an institutional system, where they very well may have inherited firm clients. This isn't to take away from their accomplishments, because they're substantial, but maybe the knowledge that they're just an associate 20 years removed should temper their efforts to purge the current associate ranks.
137-
Your analogy assumes that legal work is constant. If Business makes X widgets, and demand is also constant, a new business will pop up to fill that void when Business closes, or an existing competitor will take on those new clients. The same goes for a law firm.
There is no difference between the business and law firm in your example, except that widgets are tangible and legal advice is not. Either way, it is a packaged product that is being touted. Both have the potential to dry up. Are you so blind to think that business don't reorganize?
Unfortunately, demand for widgets and legal services has dried up, and there is a good chance it will remain dry for quite some time. Thinning the ranks is simply an inevitability. Trust that I realize this sucks, it might be unfair, and I wish it were different.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I really recommend you take some business courses and/or start regularly reading the WSJ and Economist so as not to embarrass yourself in real life.
***** McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY *****
rumor is that the dynamic-duo will begin touring U.S. offices next month. unlike 2 years ago when the associate compensation committee went office-to-office explaining its below-market bonuses and discussed "supplemental bonuses," during these town hall-style meetings, JS and PS will discuss "cost-cutting measures" including
- associate & counsel-level pay cuts
- new (non lock step) compensation structure
- involuntary two-level comp system (associates who hit "x" hours will be paid at one level: associates who hit 2000 hours will be paid at normal, market level).
not that the news is surprising for big-law generally, but i'm shocked its hitting MWE before other top shops.
18 hours later. Nothing has changed. Associates suck.
The Sheriff
BTW - Where my ladies?
Seyfarth would be in a much better position today had they not saved that rotting corpse of a firm D'Ancona & Pflaum a few years ago. They (D&P) were dead as a Real Estate & small Corp. practice firm when times were good, imagine the anchor-type conditions they present now.
Isn't SS currently expanding on the East & West coasts right now? Nice Mgmt.
I spoke with a Seyfarth partner this past summer. While telling me about Seyfarth her fears for the future became very apparent. Things weren't good even before the recession really hit...I can't imagine how they are now.
I am interested in purchasing existing life insurance policies. The criteria must be that you have been insured for at least two years, have a suicide clause, and own a handgun and have been recently laid off. I am particularly interested in those that meet the above criteria and are over 45.
#158 - how much of a haircut are you offering?
153, I generally agree with you except the part about reading the Economist. If you substitute Chronicles magazine instead of the Economist then I'm in complete agreement. Although, if you do start to read Chronicles you must then fight the urge to buy property in Montana and stock pile weapons.
Don't respond to 137, he is obviously very stupid. It is not worth the time.
160, why the hate against the Economist? It's one of the best news sources out there. Certainly one of the best written.
The issue isn't whether firms should (or have the right to) maintain PPP. If course they should. It's whether the way they are doing so is a short term fix that will have long-term negative effects on PPP. (The economy at large is in a mess caused, in part, by decisions to maximize short-term profits to the detriment of long-term ones.)
A salary cut now won't lead to an exodus because there is no where to go, but it's pretty clear that a significant number of firms will not be cutting pay (or freezing, for that matter). Firms can save a few percentage points on PPP now by cutting and firing, but they are clearly firing some good lawyers with cuts as deep as these, and alienating those who remain. These are the lawyers they'll depend on later to run their cases and eventually fill out their junior partner ranks.
Shearman learned the lesson last time around about running out ahead knee-capping your associates. Five years down the line, the good associates at these bad firms will be gone, or looking to be gone, and the tiny percentage of PPP saved now pales in comparison to the losses later.
The future might play out differently, if these firms are concerned that price/profit is in a downward spiral caused by business model shift dictated by the client then they will position for securitization to protect their pension and the juniors of the future just won't matter.
163 You assume that business will some time come back to what is was before the lehman collapse. This is foolish. It is never going to be the same. The firms just dont need and will not need for, at least the next 10 to 15 years, the number of M&A and related levels they have now. They need to cut by 15 to 20% if not more. The supposed reputation injury just doesnt matter.
165: if reputation doesn't matter then explain the deferrals as opposed to layoffs? Kthxbye.
166 nailed it.
166 I dont understand your point. I dont think there is any basis to concluce that firms are not laying off 1st years to maintain their reputation as opposed to differing.
166 was nailed in the ass...by my BIG COCK, fuck ya (and 167 sucked my balls while I was nailing 166)
Nice spelling skills, 168. Are you in high school?
166 - The difference is just jive semantics
163: thank you. You nailed it.
150-153: same partner
You nailed it. Next time aim for the right target.
165 - Wish I knew you; I'd buy you a drink. You are spot on. Most Big Law types - partners, counsel, associates - are afraid to embrace the new reality staring them in their collective face.
- T14 vet downgading to smaller toxic tort firm to survive (and actually practice real law)
you hear that noise? thats the sound of your clients bailing out of your biglaw firms and becoming our clients, in a boutique. we have been in a hiring frenzy, but unfortunately, your skillset at biglaw is just too general, and we really dont need people that can only review documents by their third year. sorry.
-biglaw refuge enjoying midlaw life
Unbelievable. Am I still living in the US or what? All these pessimistic thoughts, all these people living in fear. This nation has overcome a lot. Many great companies were built during the great depression. There are people out there building the future. What we need is vision, boldness, creativity, confidence. This is what this nation is about. The future belongs to us.
Ditto to 177. There has been no fundamental shift that has supplanted the place of legal services in our economy - it's just that the economy itself has slowed, and with it, the CURRENT demand for legal services.
This is not a permanent condition, as people like 165 would suggest. The economy will return. We will remain as litigious. Transactions will continue to require legal counsel. And when the economy reheats, the legal market will reheat as well.
Get a grip, people.
You people who think Biglaw is finished are SO stupid. And probably 22. Why do you even get on here to post like you know something. When you clearly know nothing.
177-179 need to wake up, Biglaw will still be around, at probably early 90's levels. Have you read what "The One" is anticipating?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-says-financial-sector-rb-15110919.html?.v=2
The Obama administration is declaring war on the financial services industry. This will have a bigger affect on some firms than others, but a lot of the work that was driven by the big banks is NOT COMING BACK to the levels present in the last few years if at all.
This is just the sign of the time. Its happening everywhwere. To the person (#61) who called my former boss a ***. Get some class. That was so uncool and rude. Just down right vile. TH is the coolest, decent and all around nice guy. You should be ashame yourself. Your comment was just gross and I'm what some would call a f**. Name calling benifits no one. Grow up. Brian C
This is just the sign of the time. Its happening everywhwere. To the person (#61) who called my former boss a ***. Get some class. That was so uncool and rude. Just down right vile. TH is the coolest, decent and all around nice guy. You should be ashame yourself. Your comment was just gross and I'm what some would call a f**. Name calling benifits no one. Grow up. Brian C
This is just the sign of the time. Its happening everywhwere. To the person (#61) who called my former boss a ***. Get some class. That was so uncool and rude. Just down right vile. TH is the coolest, decent and all around nice guy. You should be ashame yourself. Your comment was just gross and I'm what some would call a f**. Name calling benifits no one. Grow up. Brian C
This is just the sign of the time. Its happening everywhwere. To the person (#61) who called my former boss a ***. Get some class. That was so uncool and rude. Just down right vile. TH is the coolest, decent and all around nice guy. You should be ashame yourself. Your comment was just gross and I'm what some would call a f**. Name calling benifits no one. Grow up. Brian C
can't say i'm surprised. as a law student my only experience with the firm was with a partner who spent nearly an hour bragging to me and another female law student about how well connected he was with partners across firms and how he was personally responsible for hiring alums at SS. when we attempted to take him up on his offer, he was suddenly all kinds of unavailable.
180, you certainly don't have a crystal ball. Companies may very well need at least as much legal advice navigating Obama's 'brave new world' as before. Even if the form is different. That things may never be the same as they were does not necessarily mean the death of Big Law. Smart firms, top firms, well-managed firms will adapt and capitalize. You just need to chlll out and see what happens.
Preach 165, preach! For those who haven't woken up to the fact that the legal market has changed in some major ways, you're in for a rude awakening.
Now, almost every firm out there is trying to compete on price and most clients are strapped for cash. What does all of this mean? A race to the bottom.
If you thought your firm's margins bit ass before the Lehman collapse, wait till you see what happens when your firm's supposedly loyal clients break you off something real proper like. They ain't paying the old rates, period. They want a discount on the discounted rate. And, they'll get it, either from your firm or from somebody else.
178- Maybe if you took the time and read what people that get paid for their advice are saying about your profession. I forgive your ignorant thoughts about the future because you are just a lawyer.
LAW FIRM STRATIFICATION CONTINUES; SEYFARTH MOVES SALARY TO EVEN FURTHER BELOW MARKET, TAKES SEAT ON BENCH NEXT TO LATHAM, SHEARMAN.
Good buddy practices at Seyfarth NY TOXIC TORTS. Needless to say, I banged his wife in the ass at the Brooklyn Marriot.
I wonder if Seyfarth Shaw is regretting their move from Connecticut Avenue to their new location near Gallery Place China Town, especially if their rent went up as I suspect that it did.
There are a million things wrong at Seyfarth Shaw from very top to very bottom.
I once worked in the Chicago office. The HR department is one of the worst I've ever seen. Departmental supervisors are awful. I know of a couple of things that have happened where race played a huge factor.