I got the most bogus review ever. But I don't want to say more because I managed to keep my job (at least for now).....

If these 40 associates were axed for performance reasons, should we not be seeing 40 new associate opportunities on the Ropes & Gray career site?

ATL, you should ask the WilmerHale attorneys that are being "transitioned" out of the firm for performance-related issues.

4th donut for MysTTTal today

ATL, you should ask the WilmerHale attorneys that are being "transitioned" out of the firm for performance-related issues.

Hey did that happen at Sutherland? Sounds like something they would do.

I was told that I was too awesome.

Reviews that send a signal to the associate that they may not make the cut are a direct response to a growing fear among Biglaw partners that under the Restatement (2d) § 90, associates are likely to have good cases that a good or mediocre review relied upon by the associate in showing up for work every day gives rise to a claim of promissory estoppel in the next round of layoffs

Dubious Open Thread Discusses Dubiousness of Performance Reviews in Economic Downturn.

When Piter de Vries died from an airborne poison expelled by Duke Leto, he received a negative performance review from me.

~Baron H.

7

Sutherland: That's How We Roll!

Seriously, associate layoffs and freezes are on hold while the partners determine who has the tapes.

3 - They'll be replaced with former summer associates. Act like you've been here before.

Partners care less about your performance reviews than they do your weekends.

These reviews have absolutely no bearing your employment history and partnership prospects unless your firm is like Paul Hastings that engages in shady stealth layoffs.

The most important thing you need to know about performance reviews is this:

Don't work at Paul Hastings

Uh, Latham?

Didn't they stealth someone just because a supervisor had written that he didn't volunteer enough for work? Sounds like bullshit.

Don’t be a pussy when it comes to fighting back on these bogus “performance related” reviews. You don’t want this crap on your resume. Also, some TTT firms will use it as a reason to deny you unemployment. Fight the power, boys & girls, fight the power.

Word of advice for all who receive a bogus performance review or suspect partner manipulation of the narrative and/or hijacking of the review procedures: you MUST file a formal challenge to the lies contained in your review, using whatever mechanism the firm has in place for such a situation (yes, they all have them).

But beware, because everyone--even those you trust, especially those you trust--will tell you it's a "bad idea" or that the shifty partner/liar in-question might "go off" and, so goes this tortured logic, your job will be even further imperiled. These are just more lies. More precisely, they're informal institutional constraints on the formal review challenge process that serve to choke off the last bit of air from your hopes for continued employment at the firm. Don't trust anyone's response when you tell them about the lies in your review.

Formally challenge the bastards and get yourself on the record. Administrative lies just morph into administrative truth otherwise. If you fail to challenge the review, you're toast. And furthermore, you'll feel like a meek little bitch afterwards for not standing up for yourself.

The institutional machinery at the Orrick SF office is especially geared to "discourage" such legitimate formal challenges to partner lies in performance reviews. Do not trust the advice of anyone there or in any firm when confronted with this nauseating professional conundrum. Get on the record for future settlement leverage once you're forced out (and you will be)!

I recently enjoyed a nasty unscheduled review only two months after my fiscal year end review which was generally positive. I still have my job for now...

I recently enjoyed a nasty unscheduled review only two months after my fiscal year end review which was generally positive. I still have my job for now...

You mean to tell me that management arbirtrarily raises the performance bar as part of a belt tightening / cost cutting response to the economic climate???

*SPOILER ALERT*
This happens in just about every industry.

Reviews and the review process are BS. If one really spends some time thinking about it, one realizes that reviews serve no purpose other than to permit some person with an inferiority complex and a desire to haze just as they were hazed to let you know that they are better than you. That's it. Think about it. I've left biglaw voluntarily (and was even asked to stay), but there are some real asshole partners at my last firm that i'd really like to give a piece of my mind because they just loved making people feel small in reviews. I am so glad that I never have to experience that again. So glad.

20,

**DIPSHIT ALERT**

Reputational damage is more severe in professional services than in other "industries."

Now, finish studying for your final so you can immediately enroll in an MBA and master the art of groupthink, shitclown.

I had one of these unscheduled negative reviews with suspicious timing. It is to be followed by another meeting a few months after the first. I'm toast aren't I?

My bad 22, didn't realize professional services was specific to law. Sorry I'm so dumb and stuff.

:[

Yeah 20, it's the characterization of the termination decisions as "normal performance-based terminations" that everyone has a problem with. We all understand that in tough times people get terminated. You could call the decision to terminate everyone except the top five rainmakers "performance-based", but is that the reality?

22,

I was thinking about getting an MBA from Zarb - the B-School at Hofstra. I hear it's a super good program.

Also dear attorneys in a unnamed firm that does not allow associates to "read" their actual reviews:

That's against the law and you have a right to demand them, correct your file, and add statements of your own in response to reviews. Just saying.

Also? Yes. Performance reviews are absolute utter bullshit. Like amazingly full of it.

17 - please tell me you're joking. WTF is the point of making yourself more of a pain in the ass and giving people a reason to can you, when you're already in an AT WILL environment? And don't give me some retaliatory BS... if you can't understand or accept the criticism, all the more reason for them to show you the door.

Are you just pushing others to do stupid things as an act of self-preservation?

25,

Firing all but the top 5 would be painful for sure, but as shady as that might sound - yes, it would be performance based. Just sayin'

14 - You got that right! Paul Hastings could write the treatise on sleazy employment tactics. One minute you're "Meeting" or "Exceeding" expectations. The next minute you're a "Developing Performer." The old, PPP obsessed golf playing goats that run this place have absolutely no shame. Summers and 1st yrs beware.

22 is right. Hospital doctors, accountants, consultants, bankers, and other "professional service" industries don't have reviews, especially ones where the performance standards can change according to the employer's labor needs. Law is so unique in that regard.

There is an element of performance to every decision to terminate the employment relationship.
So if a firm said, "If you're not the founder and chief rainmaker you are hereby terminated as part of our normal performace based review and termination process." No one is buying this crap.

There is an element of performance to every decision to terminate the employment relationship.
So if a firm said, "If you're not the founder and chief rainmaker you are hereby terminated as part of our normal performace based review and termination process." That's a performance based termination? No one is buying this crap. Firms might as well be honest about it.

I regularly write reviews of the items I purchase at Amazon.com. Performance reviews, if you will. The state of the economy and the legal profession has forced me to be much more critical in my evaluations than I was in the past. But even my new-found cynicism, I cannot besmirch the genius that is “Hardcastle and McCormick”, now available on DVD.

31: Of course people are reviewed in other industries. But they are also not part of a job where there is an expectation that 90 percent of your employees will leave and/or be fired in 8 years. Most companies want to keep people in their position because it's expensive and inefficient to hire and train someone new. That incentive is apparently lost on firms.

Also? All of you will be fired for lacking "attention to detail."

K&L Gates is the king of unhelpful and untrue performance reviews.

Orrick DC is the worst. Sorry, new summers.

"But they are also not part of a job where there is an expectation that 90 percent of your employees will leave and/or be fired in 8 years."

Seriously 35? Yes, because bankers and consultants are generally "lifers". Jeebus.

35, I don't think you understand how employment in consulting and banking, or even the big accounting firms, works. You know that the "up-or-out" concept did not originate with law firms?

Yes, you poor lawyers are so special and deserve so much sympathy. Let me call the waaambulance.

14/30 - That's what I experienced when I got canned in the last round of PH stealth layoffs in NY.

BTW, the office chair in this office is an indecent pos.

consulting and banking, or even the big accounting firms

Yes. Up and out is part & parcel of these business models. Duh.

But not every.single.damn. accounting firm follows what the big 4 do. There is massive variance in the industry and I say this as an accountant. 90 of firms operate in this manner.

37 - Speaking from experience?

Thanks 41. Your point being?

A firm that feels the need to trump up shitty reviews to have an excuse to fire people is a shitty firm. There is no shame in needing to cut people, but only shitty firms try to claim that it's completely or mostly the individual's fault (that the individual's performance is the proximate cause of the layoff, if you will). The public statements about "performance layoffs as part of our normal process" which just happen to include a bunch of people who have nothing to do and were recently plenty good enough aren't fooling anyone. I am amused that every crappy press release that firms like Sonnenschein, Greenberg Traurig, DLA Piper, Baker McKenzie, K&L Gates, Dechert (I am sure that I am forgetting a bunch of other shitty firms that have done this, but I try to forget them most of the time, plus they are never across the table anymore), etc. put out just verifies that they are a joke compared to real lawyers at quality large firms. When I interviewed at DLA as a lateral 3 years ago, it was completely obvious that they were an also-ran and not fooling anyone, least of all their actual lawyers (including partners). My firm might suck sometimes, but at least we haven't unnecessarily smeared departing layoffees just to try to make a few rainmakers feel better about lining their wallets.

41, yes and many small or medium law firms (which are the vast majority of law firms) don't do up-or-out either. There is massive variance in the legal industry too. What's your point?

Ugh. I would fire all of you whiny bitches.

Performance reviews are SUPPOSED to rank the associate pool so as to faciliate decisions about promotion and termination in a more or less transparent way. When the market gets tight, performance reviews are SUPPOSED to transparently identify who is likely to get the ax.

Believe me, the star associate's performance reviews were just fine. If you got a shitty review, take a hint.

Ditto to all those shooting down 35. She is a whiny douche who has no business working in an industry of men.

You may as well re-titled this article: Dewey & LeBoeuf Performance Reviews.

I got the following comments before I was told to leave the firm (German firms don't usually fire you, they just make your life miserable until you quit):
- my gait was being imitated
- the way I'm sitting at the desk indicated that I'm a "dreamer"
- I was told that I should not rule out a non-law-related occupation

40

Are you talking about the fucking gargoyle who sits in the corner office lording it over everyone and plotting his misdeeds?

42-Uh, yeah. And there are many others--some who still work there--that have not-so-kind feelings toward Orrick DC.

90 percent of firms operate in a manner that 5 percent of accounting firms do. While I might buy this stuff from Cravath, I don't think a less profitable firm can play the same expensive, resource consuming game. Nor should it from a business sense. (And this includes firing as well as paying an identical pay scale in boom times).

Also: 43 you're fired for failing to provide sufficient attention to this detail, which forced me to spend 3 minutes holding your hand so that you can understand basic business principles.

Dear people who suddenly got shitty reviews,

Has it ever occurred to you that, during the boom years, the firm needed every hand on deck, so they artificially inflated your performance reviews so that you won't leave? And now, when your important due diligence/document review skills aren't so desperately needed anymore, the firm is finally being more honest and forthright? In other words, you've been a shitty associate the whole time?
That is all.

Kirkland is the worst of the lot. If you're not friends with the partners on the review committee, you will get screwed.

Welcome to the Lake Wobegone legal industry, where every associate is above average and nobody ever truly gets fired for performance reasons.

If only women were told that they were not "agressive" enough then let ago, there might be a discrimination claim. Yes, even at-will employees can make claims for discrimination.

Document, document, document.

It is one thing if these attorneys are being dumped because the economy sucks and they are told "sorry can't afford so many associates anymore." It is quite another to make it performance based which can be cited when inquiries from future employers are made. Partners should not be allowed to ruin someone's career just to make more PPP.

So what if fighting for your rights gets you labled as a pain, being quiet won't save you either. Might as well stand up for yourself (which would be considered "agressive").

In 1975, I was was a junior partner that was assigned the unenviable task of performing reviews on associates. Here is a tip for partners performing reviews. Prior to the review, email the associate/lout that you are reviewing. Ask him/her to identify at least 10 weak points, and ways in which they can be a better associate. Insist in at least 10 flaws. At the review you harshly attack the associate on the 10 flaws. I found this technique to be effective and time saving. If the associate comes back and says the review was "bogus," you can print the self-incriminating email where he/she admitted to the faults. It works, trust me.

37 - We probably worked together. Sad to see what was once a really cool place to work go downhill like that.

42

I'd love to see some objective performance reviews as to how well Partners are doing in fulfilling their responsibility to bring in work and provide meaningful training.

My experience with deal related training at Thompson Hine has been that a partner will waste a bunch of time telling you about how they did a (vaguely) similar transaction 5 or 10 years ago, and then you spend a bunch of time trying to figure out the most diplomatic way of informing them that their approach is obsolete bordering on malpractice.

My experience with litigation training at Thompson Hine has been that a partner will insist that he knows of a case that is directly on point and supports the result they want. Then, you waste a bunch of time explaining to them what the case law actually is, while trying your best to deflect their insistence on receiving "the case".

Fortunately, I don't have to mess with that waste of time. I feel bad for our youngest associates, though.

I hear it is "frustrating" (to put it mildly) to sit there while the person that should be bringing you work sits and tells you about the cutting edge case law from 5 years ago.

Listening to a partner who doesn't have a fresh research memo from an associate bears a surprising resemblance to listening to a fat, old person run at the mouth about their opinions/desires with little relevance to the actual state of and practice of law.

But, if you don't work at Thompson Hine, maybe your situation is better...

Kirkland is the worst of the lot. If you're not friends with the partners on the review committee, you will get screwed.

I think it is hilarious that the partners/gunner associates glaze over the fact that the performance reviews have nothing to do with actually measuring an associates performance and jump right into justifying their use as ass-covering termination device.

Wow our industry is totally screwed.

If these 40 associates were axed for performance reasons, should we not be seeing 40 new associate opportunities on the Ropes & Gray career site?

I reveiwed these comments for performance.

You're all fired.

If these 40 associates were axed for performance reasons, should we not be seeing 40 new associate opportunities on the Ropes & Gray career site?

49-Yes! I was talking about our favorite misanthropic fucking gargolye.

61, the firm hired them already. They're called incoming first years. But since Ropes and Gray has 180 incoming first years, I guess that means....

I was fired for having Cheetos fingers.

Retired partner here: I did associate reviews for a number of years at my former firm, although I hated doing them. There was a strong tendency to soft peddle weaknesses. There was a strong desire to keep associates with the firm, so shortcomings were frequently allowed to persist for too long, even though many efforts were made to solve the problems. In bad economic times, I think there is a natural tendency by partners to be less forgiving of shortcomings, and hence the appearance that performance reviews are used during poor economics times as an excuse to fire. There's some truth in this, but not a lot of truth, at least from my experience.

You know why so many performance reviews seem contrived? Because there is no easy way to tell associates that they just don't get it -- in other words, that they have bad judgment or that they don't think strategically or that they simply aren't smart enough. And don't tell me how well you did in law school. Any successful lawyer will tell that there's a big difference between being a good law student and a good lawyer. Many make the progression, not all do.

Oh, and by the way, the reason you got a good review last year and fired this year is that as you get more senior, more is expected of you and the shortcomings described above become more obvious.

In your hearts, you know this is true. Flame away.

47 - I completely agree. D&L likes to keep it on the DL.

WilmerHale is definitely transitioning people out and using the cover that they don't meet the benchmarks for senior associate, counsel, or partner or the new in 2010 position of "special counsel." The writing was on the wall in December when they announced the new lawyer seniority structure and now they are "transitioning" people out as a part of the spring review process.

52 -- You make a good point, but I do not think reviews were artificially inflated during the boom years so much as associates could fly under the radar and partners just gave generic reviews unless the associate was really bad.

Basically, with as crappy as this economy has been, if you have not been laid off yet...you have a good argument that you are a badass and would be lauded and cherished during normal economic times.

58 - No partner has any duty or responsibility to associates for training or to give them work. If you get any of that it is because the partners want you to get it. If you don't, it is YOUR responsibility to take control of your career and figure out a way to get training and clients. Do not put your career in other peoples' hands - you will only end up blaming them when you fail, and it will be your own fault.

Way to go 20!

All terminations are performance based. You got fired, someone else did not; how do you think they made the choice?

Every complaint sounds like whining from people who expected their dead weight to be carried by a firm for a couple of years until they got pregnant or quit.

70: How many people are being transitioned out? And if you haven't heard yet, are you in the clear for at least this round?

Great thread....since we are sharing...

RA was on point about partners insisting on cases that are just not there! I once had a partner and her bitch senior associate swear there was a case in our Circuit that was the exact same fact pattern as ours. Of course, I didn't find it. I direct them to a case with a similar fact pattern in another Circuit (9th), but they insist that I'm wrong. Three months later another associate does a research memo and one of her cases is the case I referenced, in the 9th Circuit. The partner and her associate look at me with smug looks on their faces -- obviously forgetting that I was the one who told them about that case. Needless to say in my performance review there was a comment -- Looks up cases for the wrong circuit.
Another comment on the review said that I need to "improve" on my deadlines. I was criticized for turning things in a day or two before the deadline as opposed to a week or two beforehand.

So IMO most performance reviews are BS. Especially when they are looking for a way to get you out. So glad I got out of there and found a better job. Heard bitch associate was experiencing that stealth taste though. And of course partner is STILL not bringing in any business.....

The problem is not so much with formerly having good reviews now having bad ones, it's inconsistencies and/or reviewers not being able to explain things clearly.

That said, if e.g. performance = billable hours, there's nothing inconsistent with e.g. having had good performance over last year (as a whole) and this year having poor performance (meaning poor billables). It's using the word "performance" in a specialized, particular way.

Ultimately, most lawyers are at-will employees anyway, so while it may be a good idea to respond (purposefully, not angrily) to unfair criticisms, there's no point in blowing a gasket. E.g. if a lot of your work, while good and efficent (not wasting time/client money) was written-off to appease certain clients, and others didn't have their time written-off, make that point but not in a whiny way. But if you're fired anyway for "performance" reasons, vent about the unfairness anonymously or to trusted friends. With your former/soon-to-be-former employer, just briefly express your principled disagreement and move on to negotiating severance details.

Ok, stupid question: why would the performance review ruin your careers? When would future employers get to see them? Assuming you can pull two references out of the wreckage I'd assume you're ok.

73,

Try reading the article, shitfuck. No one is "blaming" anyone for their situation.

Attorneys (read: not assclowns still in law school who puff their chests about the books of business they do not have) are concerned about the shifting definition of the term "poor performance" - which mysteriously coincides with the firm's lull in business.

So go back to you unpaid internship, fuckbot. Maybe one day you'll be fortunate enough to be fired by one of the firms regularly trashed on this board.

As a model associate, I know that anything negative included in my review must be a part of a greater conspiracy against me.

Hey PE: Since they didn't have email back in 1975, how did you do it back then?

58 Rogue: "I'd love to see some objective performance reviews as to how well Partners are doing in fulfilling their responsibility to bring in work..."

Uh, it's called their share of PPP, and plenty are being 'objectively reviewed' 15% to 30%. I'm not crying for them, but that's all the motivation they need [to cut overhead].

79 - I was responding to the post, not the article. Also, ad hominem attacks on an anonymous internet message board tend to expose the following flaws: lack of creativity (although I did chuckle at the word "fuckbot"), lack of intelligence and cowardice.

Please try to add something intelligent next time.

I wish I was a fuckbot.

I pounded my secretary in her ass during my performance review and was immediately made partner and given my pick of the liter in the steno pool to pound in the ass whenever I so chose.

3 is a genius but remember boys and girls, it's the partner's money.

What goes around comes around-- karma is a bitch!

34 - You have got damn good taste in TV action/drama.

PE nailed it.

What is the standard practice in terms of severance when law firms fire people/do stealth layoffs? I know of a couple that have paid out severance in the same ballpark as those firms that have let people go through layoffs, provided of course that the departing lawyer sign a release. If the severance is the same, isn't the only difference really just the reputational atmospherics?

78 -- dude, getting canned in this economy could definitely ruin or at least negatively impact someone's career. Even if you have good references -- do you see anyone hiring?? Meanwhile, there are thousands of other laid-off lawyers competing for the very few openings that do come up.

78: You are correct. And you really don't even need two references, much of the time. I got a bad review in BIGLAW (mysteriously, just a few months after a stellar review) and left of my own volition as I saw the writing on the wall. Nobody ever once asked about reviews or anything like that.

Wrong 89, 81 nailed it. No email back in those days - proof that PE is just a law student.

Hey 56, I heard email was all the rage in law firms in 1975.

Definitely happens at Sutherland

52 and 67 got it right. During good times, partners are much more forgiving in reviews, in part, because getting okay work out of an associate is better than getting no work out of an associate when there is a lot of work to be done. In tougher economic times, the partners are forced to be more critical, for two reasons. One is the bottom line (revenue versus expenses). The other is the idea that a firm is better off rewarding good associates with a steady flow of work (and an opportunity to possibly be financially rewarded for that work). Me personally, I would rather keep the good associates flush with work than spread out the work among good and mediocre associates (tends to make everyone nervous).

One additional thing to consider is this. Last year's review should have no bearing on this year's review. As you progress as an associate, expectations about an associate's work product increase. Just because you were fine during your third year does not mean that you should be fine for your fourth year if you have not shown appropriate progress. Sometimes, a bad review is simply evidence that an associate did not step up in the prior year.

96

Yeah but a good review followed by a poor review at an unscheduled time (a few months later) which just happens to coincide with a crash in the firm's revenue?

I was laid off from a large firm recently as part of an "economic layoff" but had also gotten a bogus performance review during review time. Several of my colleagues got similar reviews and were let go right then and there, though I survived until the next round of layoffs.

Anyway, it was obvious that these reviews were written as part of a directed effort to set the stage for the next several rounds of layoffs. There were no specific negative comments in mine other than the general statement that there was a "significant downgrade" in my performance (I had only positive reviews prior to that) and that my hours were too low (as if this was surprise and there was something I easily could have done about it) - nothing else to substantiate the "downgrade." It was clearly just written up by the firm "attorney development" staff with instructions to simply write a negative review, but don't worry about any particular documentation of sub-par performance if there wasn't any to share.

But...I also agree with the previous posters who said that in good times reviews can be artificially positive or can soft-peddle around performance problems. So I guess overall the take-away for me is that in both good times and bad times the whole review process is a sham for those of us who are middle of the road to good performers and generally do everything that is expected of us.

The guy next door to me at our "prestigious" V10 firm, which everyone seems to think is in the pink of health, was stealthily laid-off for ... drumroll please ... missing a group training. See, the Firm doesnt "do" layoffs. Best part of all? He missed the training because he was on the phone will a client.

One of my colleagues who was canned during stealth review-time layoffs, didnt even get to see their actual review until they demanded (numerous times) to see it. They simply showed up for their scheduled review and didn't recieve a review but rather their termination papers from HR. So they were dismissed for perfomance, but didn't even get a review that explained their supposedly poor performance. I guess the firm was hoping this person would be too distraught to even ask? When they did get their review, they said it looked like it was cobbled together at the last minute only after they actually asked for it. Evidently, the firm didn't want to produce and disclose this "evidence" knowing that it was mostly bogus. I assume they were just trying to eliminate or shorten the paper trail?

The guy next door to me at our "prestigious" V10 firm, which everyone seems to think is in the pink of health, was stealthily laid-off for ... drumroll please ... missing a group training. See, the Firm doesnt "do" layoffs. Best part of all? He missed the training because he was on the phone with a client.

Cut the F***ING "I was a partner in 1975" or "Back in 1983 when I was a junior partner" shtick.

No one is dumb enough to think that anyone but law students or associates reads this blog.

7/12/95 - what's this you say about Sutherland? Give details, or STFU.

is ropes a real firm or is this some kind of lame joke?

102 - Partners definitely do read this board. And if the immaturity, naivete, misunderstandings, delusions and vitriol shown by the posters here is representative of associates as a whole, then no one should ever feel any sympathy for any of you.

hey 101 - give us details! what firm?

I was laid off (stealthly) after a review where the only criticism was that I "seemed unhappy." No criticisms of my actual work. All of my previous reviews were good. The executive committee member sitting in on my review suggested that I might "be more happy if [I] take some time off to deal with [my] family issues." My only family "issue" was having an infant daughter. The partners that I actually worked with were shocked. They gave me several months to find a new job, but in this economy? Come on.

well said 44 (now watch those mean DLA cyber bullies come out and comment!) and 100 - that is a common problem too. some firms are laying off high numbers without any solid paper trail, then during sev negotiations, coming up with the "it was perfomance based" excuse. laws have not changed just because the economy did. especially if you are laying off large numbers of protected classes, you should have the legal foresight to train management on how to put people on performance improvement plans and document issues- (of course, sadly, you can always play unfair there too) if you can't document problems in real-time with real facts, you can't blame performance.

107 - are you a mother or a father?

This comment is addressed to post no. 81.

There was no email in 1975. Re-read my post. I did not claim to use email in 1975. I simply made the recommendation to current partners who do communicate via email. In 1975, the associate would be advised by the HR manager to provide a written list. The experience was akin to the death row inmate providing his executioner with the syringe and potassium chloride.

102,

Don't be a fool. Partners read this site all the time.

Remember the Sonnenschein layoff memo a couple weeks ago? It made explicit reference to blogs that cover law firms hour by hour (an obvious ATL reference).

They read it. They hate it. Do you think they post to either try and shout out people that hate the system? Of course they do. Do you think they try and portray themselves as being prick associates that no one could/should sympathize with? Of course they do.

Fortunately, they compete in a technological forum about the same way they fuck - slowly, clumsily, and with little regard as to whether they are accomplishing anything other than making themselves feel good.

to PE: The experience was akin to the death row inmate providing his executioner with the syringe and "potassium chloride"

it's potassium cyanide. potassium chloride is akin to table salt which is sodium chloride.

I think it is safe to say that 103 does not have the quasi-mythical Sutherland tapes.

This comment is addressed to comment no. 112.

Back in 1981, the firm handled a pro bono death penalty case in NJ. In arguing the cruel and unusual element of the lethal injection, I became familiar with the process. Cyanide is not used. It is a three injection process. The first injection (sodium thipental) slows the nervous system. The second injection (pancuronium bromide) causes paralysis. The last injection (potassium chloride) stills the heart. Please bore someone else with your rudimentary knowledge of chemistry.

What the heck are Sutherland tapes? You think anyone here knows what the hell you're talking about? Englighten us!

Trying to save your job during your performance review is like asking the Chinese Government if they took me prisoner. The goal of the review from an associate’s perspective should be to gather information and or to take action. In this economy if you get a stellar performance review, you may survive to see Day 8. If you get any negative comments, be prepared for an ambush that may be quicker than you think. These comments can take many forms from the obvious “sloppy work product” to the slightly more subtle “we’d love to see more productivity.” If you are in fact terminated during your review, now is the time to negotiate severance. For those of you who say severance is standard and cannot be negotiated, you probably would believe someone without first putting a pen through their eye. Partners expect you to be disoriented, hostile or both. You need to be calm, collected and focused on making sure you can get as much as you can. They are mentally preparing themselves to deal with explaining why you need to leave and how to do in a way that doesn’t cause the story to be on this very blog. Talking immediately about severance and doing so in a calm and reasonable way is the best way to maximize your individual package because exceptions can be made. If that fails there is always the pen through the eye.

115

Read this thread and be enlightened on Sutherland.

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/nationwide_layoff_watch_king_s.php?show=comments#comments

LMAO, Rogue Associate!

I got on an overall good review once --

"She is missing that special something, though I can't quite place it."

I found another job pronto!

If you as an associate (or even a summer) do not subscribe to the below, prepare to receive a below average performance evaluation and be terminated.

"We are here to make money by billing clients as much as possible that's all. Either fit in or fuck off"

111 - Then stop letting the partners fuck you.

We would much rather get a BJ - a lot less work on our part.

My last performance review criticised me for not being "intuitive enough" re: my supervising partner's wishes. He also thought I needed more cowbell, if I remember right. I quit asap and now work in a firm where they do not do performance reviews.

PE----you were using e-mail in 1975??!!??

"The partners that I actually worked with were shocked. "

lol. If they mattered in any way, they were consulted prior to the decision. They just played stupid and let the hatchet man do the work.

Did any of them march down the hall and demand to know what the f-ck was going on, firing good associates they needed? No? ha ha ha

You know how many times partners claim to be "shocked, shocked" that their associates got fired? Too rich. How old are you, 27? 28? Time to get a clue.

109- Mother.

109- Mother.

109- Mother.

120 hit it on the nail.

If you don't bill, out you go.

Sucks to be you.

~IP Dork

125 speaks truth - partners love to hide behind the veil of the partnership

In past years, if you had a pulse, you were hired.

Now, if you have a pulse, you're fired.

117 - that is the dumbest thread ever, and you're clearly one of the trolls perpetuating it.

PE is definitely a partner and is full of wisdom. If he says there was email in 1975, I believe him.

Wow, 20 is some dipshit.

Karma is for laidoff losers who keep a diary.

107 - latham, huh? they waited until a good midlevel went on maternity leave and suddenly someone who did great work wasn't given any when she returned. Nice to call it "performance" when they refused to pass down work.

My review claimed that I had "expertise" in a certain area of the law that I "refused to share with the group." It sounded like they were implying someone had offered me a project in that area and I had said "No, can't do this, because I refuse to share my knowledge with the group." We haven't had any work in that area for over a year, and I had done plenty of business development projects in that area, so I have no idea what they were talking about.

107-A friend of mine was laid off this fall over the phone when his baby was only a few days old. The partner tried to spin it as "think of the extra time you'll get to spend with your family." Vomit.

Getting laid off must suck. On the other hand, get sucked off is sometimes better than getting laid. It all depends on who's doing the sucking and the laying. As for pounding in the ass, that's what female associates are good for, and little else.

the hammer is going to fall. law firms need to downsize by about 20%. there's a lot more to come.

96, the best part about that sort of twaddle is the idea that partners can judge associates that precisely.

You guys often suck at lawyering worse than the associates working for you. I used to hire biglaw partners to do the overflow work from a place I worked. I just needed bodies, so partners or associates, it didn't matter--I knew I would get the same off-point memo three days late regarding an issue of law when I really just needed a goddam answer and some sharp thinking about what to do.

I didn't really learn how to serve a client until I became one. Once that happened, I understood how limited and small almost all law firm experience was.

If you are a good associate, you should want layoffs. They protect you by ensuring that you have a full plate of work and a chance at promotion. The person at the bottom might not be bad per se, but they are relative to others.

A whole thread on sneaky, contrived layoff techniques and not a single mention of McDermott? I'm shocked.

I am a first year associate that wants to keep my job. Sure, I don't like work so far this year because there's little of it. I've had to fight for what little work I've had.
However, I've watched and listened and learned the rules. I know that a deadline that's given on Friday of next week, really means Friday of this week. I learned that the hard way.

I've learned that I'd better not be out sick even if I am, as my absence will be noted. I've learned that while face time is not a requirement at my firm, If I leave early, arrive late, it's noted. I've learned that the secretaries report on all of us, comings goings and attitudes to the review committee. I've learned what not to do, but I've been given little chance to learn what to do which comes with doing, and there's been too little of that.
When I get reviewed, I don't know what they can say, or I can say. It's like giving a grade to someone who was forced to miss class half the time because the school was closed for Swine Flu. Until very recently there's been so little work. What's going to happen next? I've been spun around so much this last year I'm numb.

Dear 144,

To borrow PE's review methodology, what are your 10 biggest flaws as an attorney?

In some firms/practice groups the following is undoubtedly has happened:

When business was humming, mediocre and sometimes even bad associates were valuble. In practice groups where there's a lot of routine work, this would could be steered to them, at hourly rates of 200, 300, 400, etc. If the first draft is awful, so what? In that case the partner could bill his reviewing work plus several more hours of the bad associate's time spent turning the new draft. And heck, why not a third draft after that?!

Only the truly truly awful couldn't find a place for themselves in this kind of environment. Given that partners were understanably reluctant to upset this gravy train, they undoubtedly gave "good" or even "very good" reviews with perhaps mild criticisms baked in. There was no incentive to give these mediocrities and underperformers good reviews. You might say that professional development of associates would be an incentive, but that isn't important in these kinds of places.

Of course, the world changed last September. Fat needed to be cut. The associates described above started receiving ACCURATE reviews, either coinciding with or auguring termination.

It isn't these accurate reviews that are wrong. It's the fact that these associates never had the privililege of receiving honest assessments of their work prior to last fall. If they'd gotten those, some of them might have actually improved and been better positioned when the world changed.

In some firms/practice groups the following is undoubtedly has happened:

When business was humming, mediocre and sometimes even bad associates were valuble. In practice groups where there's a lot of routine work, this would could be steered to them, at hourly rates of 200, 300, 400, etc. If the first draft is awful, so what? In that case the partner could bill his reviewing work plus several more hours of the bad associate's time spent turning the new draft. And heck, why not a third draft after that?!

Only the truly truly awful couldn't find a place for themselves in this kind of environment. Given that partners were understanably reluctant to upset this gravy train, they undoubtedly gave "good" or even "very good" reviews with perhaps mild criticisms baked in. There was no incentive to give these mediocrities and underperformers good reviews. You might say that professional development of associates would be an incentive, but that isn't important in these kinds of places.

Of course, the world changed last September. Fat needed to be cut. The associates described above started receiving ACCURATE reviews, either coinciding with or auguring termination.

It isn't these accurate reviews that are wrong. It's the fact that these associates never had the privililege of receiving honest assessments of their work prior to last fall. If they'd gotten those, some of them might have actually improved and been better positioned when the world changed.

3--

The real problem with your question is that you're making sense...this trait will not serve you well in BigLaw.

This one goes out to all of those who are making the following bullshit argument: we inflated previous performance reviews, but NOW we're telling the truth. First is the simple response: So, you were either lying then or you're lying now. Either way, you lied.

Second, when the economy was good, the firm would not take as much of a reputation hit for terminating midlevel and senior associates for performance reasons because it is not like the terminated associates could turn around and say they were terminated because there wasn't any work. There was plenty of work to go around, and many (not all) of those terminations were easier to justify.

Today, firms have every incentive to lie because they don't want to send the signal to the market that they are in more trouble than the market realizes. So, if a firm has done several rounds of layoffs, they will also engage in performance dismissals so that it does not look like layoffs will be a quarterly occurrence. Now is the time that firms have the greater incentive to lie in a misguided attempt to help save their asses.

at king and spalding associates were given bad reviews for giving confidential client information to the clent - that's right

turns out that several of the parters at kinky spalding were actively screwing over several of the in house counsel since they were not giving litigation work to those parters

one of the partners involved was a lesbian who was allegedly fired from her previous firm for having sex with a client

another one of the partners involved was rumored to be having a sexual relationship with the general counsel of the client

anothoer one of the partners involved was gay and rumored to be having sex with an associate in the home office

the gay mafia is a common phenomena at lots of firms - gays are very ambitious and ruthless

Rogue Associate= Best personality on ATL- he should do a weekly column.

Rogue Associate kicks ass! I only wish it was my firm in the cross hairs (the partners at Thompson Hine must be seething about this).

From some of the comments, though, I'm not sure that RA is a 'he' (though likely that is done by RA on purpose)...

My favorite part is the closing notes to the partners. Classic.

my favorite king and splalding story - a partner found out one of his slave associates was interviewing for another job - was told by a firm staff spy

so the partner grabs the associates name plate off of the wall outside the office and throws it into the office at the associate

kinky splalding is class all the way ...

144 - You actually get it. I would not be too worried if you lose your job; you are the type of person who will find a job quickly. Just keep doing what you are doing.

149 - Yes, people lie. Get used to it. Don't trust anyone. Someone will tell you one thing today, proclaim they didn't say it tomorrow, and then claim that it was actually you who said it on the next day. And then fire you for it. That is life.

As for the praise lavished upon Rogue Associate, you guys are easily amused. If he/she farted, half of you would ROFL.

"If you are a good associate, you should want layoffs. They protect you by ensuring that you have a full plate of work and a chance at promotion. "

Dumbass, the partners do not think much at all about promoting you or any other associate. In fact, they don't care a whit about your career development, except in a very vauge, and passing, "gee, I hope those kids in that African country I don't recall the name of don't starve again this year..." kind of way.

What they want is a rainmaker who can help them spread overhead and contribute to a higher PPP. "Good associates", to the extent they exist at all, are those that increase PPP via revenue. That does not equal being a good lawyer, although sometimes those qualities overlap.

Associates detroy themselves for a decade to demonstrate they are "good" but are then often surprised to learn that what really matters is control over a revenue stream, not all that stuff the firm partners pretend matters while they keep you on the hamster wheel.

"If you are a good associate, you should want layoffs. They protect you by ensuring that you have a full plate of work and a chance at promotion. "

That might work if law firms (or anywhere else) were true meritocracies, but they aren't. When layoffs start, good and great associates can find themselves in the crosshairs of some dysfunctional or sociopathic partner(s) with whom they don't have much of a rapport or decent working relationship, or they may be let go so that the partners don't have to can colleagues/buddies they like just a little better. Very few are truly safe when the layoffs start.

156,

The best shot at finding a meritocracy in the practice of law is to work for the federal government.

I know many extremely satisfied fed. gov't attorneys. Those that end up with a crappy (or just incompatible) boss are far more likely to be transferred to a new position rather than let go. It's almost impossible to get fired from the federal government (full time employees can only be fired for cause).

Success/getting ahead is just like anywhere else, though, you need to work your butt off to distinguish yourself.

155: Truer words never spoken. Revel in the fact that you're completely fungible and don't sweat it. There's not a damn thing you can do to keep your job when the ax falls.

154: So, putting in face time, cowering around, and eating shit will help 144 get his/her next job? How, precisely? The only thing that will help an associate get his/her next job is keeping an ear to the ground and knowing to start looking to bail when things start to look sketchy. Sitting around being obedient will not help.

156: Yup. Describes every place I ever worked, but law firms were uniquely bad in that way.

158 - 144 seems smart and, more importantly, self-aware. Em has already taken the steps to try to survive at the firm, which exhibits the ability to adapt and shows initiative. Those are the qualities that will enable em to find a job.

This is called "drawing you a picture."

160: Well, you're a condescending ass, so you must thrive in BIGLAW. Bravo!

160: I keep forgetting so many associates have never had a job before and don't realize that the scenario 144 describes is true pretty much universally.

161 - Stupid questions deserve condescension.

162 - Very true. They appear to be blinded by the sparkle of all the "glad you participated!" trophies to realize that success actually takes work, creativity and initiative.

164

At this point in time, given the downturn in law firm economics and business, there is no work, creativity, and initiative.

The only creativity and initiative I've seen for Thompson Hine is Rogue Associate. Thompson Hine deserves kudos for employing such a creative associate who is intelligent enough to keep himself busy.

165 - You are so wrong. Tough times are precisely when the real stars shine. Anybody can be a star when the economy is on a roll.

For a bunch of lawyers, this should be pretty uncomplicated. Two things are happening here.

One, if you have only been around a few years, you must come to grips with the fact that 2005-09 was NOT normal. Law firms' standards for retention of associates basically fell to zero, because everyone--no matter how spectacularly incompetent--was accretive to PPP. In other words, there was no economic incentive to fire anyone. Of course, this is unsustainable--just like the housing bubble. We are finally returning to Earth, which means people who would have been retained two years ago will be shown the door today. Is that a "lay-off" or "performance-based?" It's impossible to say. Firms shouldn't blatantly pretend one is the other, but drawing that line is actually kind of hard to do.

Two, this all requires some balanced thinking. Sure, it's unfair to characterize a lay-off as a termination for performance. But it's also unfair to do the reverse. With economic conditions bad enough, some talented, hard-working associates will lose their jobs despite excellent performance, and they do not deserve to be lumped in with the free riders who phoned it in during the boom and have been terminated for cause.

#144 really gets it. I'm a first year too. It took me awhile to develop as much emotional and political intelligence as he has. I was too literal. I thought a deadline, "tomorrow at noon," meant just that. Wrong. It means yesterday. It never dawned on me my secretary would rate me and tell my business to the powers that be, but they all do.

I'm not doing the sort of work I wanted to do, but I'm learning a lot about bankruptcy which, which I jumped on when it was offered, and from what I've heard will be the gravy train for some time to come. I hope I can stay on it.

141. Two points. First, you obvioulsy have never hired me or you would have had a different experience.

Second, reviewing an associate is not rocket science. It is a matter of whether the work product is acceptable and whether the clients trust the associate's work. I have had to shield associates from clients after a bad experience (crappy memo, bad phone call, etc.) while at the same time trying to "grow up" that associate so that they can get a second chance with that client or have a chance of making a good first impression for the next client. Sometimes it works, other times it does not. when it does not work, it is time to move on for everyone.

How can you review a vehicle (me) that's been sitting in a quiet garage (my firm) for six months. No one's even given me a test drive, really. You can't call a few drives around the block a good test of my speed, handling, or fun. Fire me at your peril, for I am every firms dream associate. Whatever vehicle you need, I'm it.
A Porche, a Jeep, a Scooter. Just, use me. Please?

170--

Your request to be "used" will unfold along the lines of the following two words: distended rectum.

167--

Your comparison to the housing bubble basically shitcans your own argument. A lot of good properties are tanking in value now, and it is not only subprime borrowers who are hurting. The whole financial system nearly collapsed. A lot of creditworthy companies can't get any money. Thusly, many very good and, indeed, outstanding associates are now being shown the door under the guise of "performance" reasons.

Isn't funny how the "honesty" streak has come into play only now that these firms have already laid off so many associates? Like 149 said, firms have every incentive to cover shit up so that the banks don't pull their credit lines. Explanations along the lines you offer are just pure crap. Everybody knows it. Hopefully, legit players in the market will price this in and stay away from such firms, now and in the future (assuming those firms even exist).

Any idea whether the same stealth layoffs are happening north of the border?

I was stealthed at Jones Day (NYC office). My PE in November was off the charts bad. Normally, JD boils down all of your evaluations from partners and associates and only gives you one long sentence consisting of a positive and a negative at your PE, however, this year they just listed about every fault an associate can possible have and told me to find a new job by a certain date. Privately, one of the three partners in my PE told me it was purely economics, not performance.

Unfortunately, my situation is not unique. There are a number of associates who have been stealthed. Some were told to be out by December 2008, others were just told to start looking for a new job without an exit date.

Also, and I'm not sure how significant it is, there are quite a few partners (who are younger than the mandatory partner retirement age) that are now listed as counsel on the website--there was little fanfare about their change in status.

Also happen(ing) at the JD Pittsburgh office. I was given a terrible PE as well after years of glowing reviews. Told to look for a new job. At least they didn't give me an exit date. Just milking the money now...

Jones Day actually changed my exit date from july (the date they told me in my PE) to april. i got a call in march and they tried to convince me that i was mistaken about the date (as if i would forget that). perhaps 3 months salary became a material amount of money for Jones Day.

prior to being told to find a new job, all feedback/PE's were stellar, so it can happen to anyone.

-173

All of your stupid lawyers make me sick. Soon you will all be fired because your miserable jobs will be OUTSOURCED

All of your stupid lawyers make me sick. Soon you will all be fired because your miserable jobs will be OUTSOURCED to India and China