Nationwide Layoff Watch: Ropes & Gray Sends Dozens on Permanent Holiday
The “spring review process” at Ropes & Gray got underway this week, and early reports indicate the Boston-based firm is doing some heavy spring cleaning.
Sources tell us the firm has spoiled the Memorial Day weekends of 30 to 40 of its associates. Upon information and belief, approximately eight first-years [Ed. note: see update below] two first-years are among those whose three-day weekends will be spent firing up laser printers instead of barbecue grills.
The departed are being told it’s for “performance reasons.” An attorney in the Boston office indicates that the firings could continue into next week:
Stealth layoffs are going on at Ropes & Gray right now. Performance reviews started this past Monday and will be continuing through next Friday.So far, more than 10 associates, almost entirely first and second years, have been fired.Word on the street is that the layoffs are widespread, but the firm hasn’t acknowledged anything.The firing takes place at the review itself. When associates who are getting laid-off show up for their reviews, there are two people there — the partner and HR.People who have been laid off have 1 month to leave.No word on what kind of severance they’re getting.
The firm’s spokesman would not confirm the number let go, but says the firings are part of the “normal review process.” Ropes “understand[s] that associates who have received disappointing messages in this environment can readily interpret the reviews as layoffs,” said the spokesman, but the firm says that’s not the case, in its statement released to Above The Law this morning. Here’s an excerpt:
Ropes & Gray is completing its normal associate performance review process, just as we do twice each year in the spring and fall. Like our peers, we have an “up or out” system, so this process, as in the past, will result in the departure of some associates across all departments, primarily from the mid-level associate ranks.
The spokesman declined to confirm total number of associates fired or that first years were let go. He said that “very, very few, if any” first years were among those fired. But tipsters say otherwise.
UPDATE (1:30 P.M.): After the post went up, Ropes decided to release more information. Here’s the firm’s additional statement:
First, a total of two first-year associates received reviews resulting in the end of their employment, and the total number of first- and second-years receiving negative reviews is considerably less than 10. Second, there is no HR person in the room. These are reviews, not terminations. Third, it is not correct that “people who have been laid off have one month to leave.” The departure time is considerably more generous than that.
Full statement from the firm, and more from sources, after the jump.
One attorney said the firings did not necessarily come as a surprise. Associates were warned that “the bar would be raised during this review period.” That’s rough. It’s hard for first-years to raise the bar in this climate.
From the attorney:
Ropes is headlong into its spring review process and apparently there’s a blood-letting this week. We were already told in small groups that the bar would be raised during this review period. I’ve heard of two first years, a few second years and some fifth years being let go over the last couple days. Weird to me that you may become a less talented lawyer in poor economic times….Everything I’ve heard has been conjecture — I’m guessing there will be no official statement and no admission that this is economic. The latest I heard this afternoon was that the grand total was 40,
including 8 first years. They are absolutely saying these are performance related, it’s under the guise of our associate review program — I think Ropes has been very careful to avoid public attorney layoffs. We’re petrified of losing our recruiting edge for those coveted HLS students.
These are the first associate firings we have reported from Ropes & Gray. Those being let go may wish they had taken the New Alternatives sabbatical option back in March.
The number we keep hearing is 30, which includes associates in years one through five. There is severance, according to the firm’s spokesman, who was unable to tell us how much.
To all who were let go, good luck. And remember that “performance-based” is a slippery term these days. Here is the statement from the firm:
ROPES & GRAY — STATEMENT — ASSOCIATE REVIEW PROCESS
Ropes & Gray is completing its normal associate performance review process, just as we do twice each year in the spring and fall. Like our peers, we have an “up or out” system, so this process, as in the past, will result in the departure of some associates across all departments, primarily from the mid-level associate ranks. Even with the departures, however, our overall attrition rate is expected to be lower this year than our historical average. Indeed, we expect that the total number of lawyers at the firm will be higher in 2009 than in 2008.
Our expected growth reflects a commitment to invest in our people so that we can meet the demands of clients when the economic environment improves. As just one aspect of our investment in our associates, we have been very pleased with the response to our NAP program. We just received our 100th application for public interest fellowships. The NAP program provides opportunities for associates to continue their professional development while contributing to organizations in need of help, and it also increases the opportunities for other associates grow professionally on client matters in what is unfortunately a time of lower aggregate demand.
Earlier: Ropes & Gray: Defers Start Dates, Offers ‘New Alternatives’ For All Associates




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Thank you! I've been waiting for this post.....
Friday firsty
still better than Latham. they laid off half the first years.
Man, I hope Dr. Spock doesn't get terminated. Speaking of which, have you seen the new Star Trek movie? It was really good. You should see it.
Oh, snap!
Ropes & Gray is a proud, proud firm. They would never openly admit to layoffs.
What a TTT. First years are completely screwed. Good luck classes of 2009 and 2010. At least the class of 2008 had a chance to pocket some coin before getting tossed.
Even an obtuse Baron Harkonnen can see that the layoffs are only the beginning of more deportation programs to Salusa Secundus.
The Imperial Bureau of Relocation thanks you in advance for your support.
Funny how they're embarrassed about admitting that they are not immune tot he recession. pretty pathetic since we all know what the truth is and that more prestigious and better positioned firms have made it OK to say "it's the economy..." Is Ropes management egos that fragile?
Locke Lord Dallas puts Ropes and Gray offices to shame.
In other news, Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit has been assigned security from the U.S. Marshal's Service. Guess that puts an end to that question.
Well, kids. The best revenge is living well. My advice: find an in-house job, work your way up, dangle work in front of those assholes who fired you, and pull it away. Rinse. Repeat. It feels fantastic.
Burning bridges is a two way street.
In House Lawyer who was "fired" for performance reasons after the tech bust.
Slopes are Gay.
The ship be sinking...
I can't believe firms are dumb enough to think that stealth layoffs are fooling anyone. Everyone knows what is going on here. I think firms that elect to go this route actually end up looking much worse. Morons, the lot of them.
Ropes and Gray learned this lesson from McDermott Will & Emery, which is a really crappy firm.
May I add my expressions of regret as well?
I will add the resumes of those affected associates to the inbox on my desk although that is already overflowing with extremely well qualified candidates and my company is not hiring.
We'll get back to you in, say, one or two years.
In the meantime, keep yourself busy during that time frame and we'll take the pick of the cream of the crop. If you're not cream of the crop (AKA top 5 percent in your class, law review, honors, etc.), please desist from sending in your resumes.
On the plus side, you'll get the opportunity to travel the known universe and interact with quality individuals like Baron Harkonnen.
~In House CHOAM Counsel
What a crock. Those partners should be ashamed of themselves.
This is bad form, but only in one sense -- you don't fire people while summers are there!
Have some class and do your "midyear reviews" at the end of the July / beginning of August like the "Peer Firms" so that you can cut people right after the summers leave.
Speaking of... better get back to my discovery drafting, reviews are coming up.
Sounds like the people in HR who hired all those poor performing first and second years need to be fired too. I'm sure they were, right?
Gotta love the douchery from law firms crapping on the people they are screwing over. FIRE YOUR GODDAM HR DEPARTMENT FIRST!
A$$holes.
@ 6 If Ropes were still a "proud, proud firm" it would not pretend these were performance-based layoffs
Nice welcome to the summers.
On the plus side, this is an excellent start to the Memorial Day weekend for the fired associates!
They won't have to be dragged in over the weekend to do billable work by nasty partners. How cool is that?!
Instead, they can fire up the grill and use that to torch their resumes as kindling. Might as well go ahead and torch their law school and college diplomas as well because Mickey D's doesn't require a college diploma.
Who cares about all these layoffs.
I’m still waiting for the next Legally Blonde sequel!
Have the summer associates actually started at Ropes & Grey?
Jews are not Mormons.
Comment removed by moderator.
Time for any firm rankings to include 'Treats New Associates Like Crap Ratio.'
Time for EM to starting including these acts of a$$holery to firm profiles on ATL, or at least creating huge DB for dubious 'performance' layoffs. People need to remember which firms have no class.
Ballard Spahr is a Minor Law Firm for a Minor House. In sum, inconsequential to the affairs of the Landsraad and the Great Houses.
how many summers started this week?
When the Ropes & Gray hair firm is dead, Magua will eat its heart. Before it dies, Magua will put its partners under the knife, so the Ropes & Gray hair firm will know its seed is wiped out forever.
Yes, some summers started last monday, the rest start this coming Tuesday.
Nothing stealth about it. When layoffs in the industry first started showing up people were put on notice. People at Ropes had months to show their best efforts before performance reviews came around, anyone claiming a blindside hit just got the wake-up call they needed.
27, that comment is way too long. It will probably get yanked. Why not just post a link instead?
I have to wonder when law firms will themselves go through a performance based layoff?
HACKS! Heard this one coming through the pipeline a few months ago. Surprised it took them this long. Al and I stomped all over them twice in court in January, then once again in March. They were bleeding money before, and after those losses I can't imagine they have much capital left. I give em' 6 months (truly) before they are acquired for a very very low price.
Terrible firm, terrible management, terrible attorneys. Stay away from these hacks at all cost.
-Denny Crane
Hey guys, I've been browsing though older atl articles and thought you might find the following funnies from the pre-MysTTTal era:
1. http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/03/whats_up_at_latham_watkinsmora.php
What's Up at Latham & Watkins? (Morale - thanks to a 'no layoffs' promise.)
Bob Dell "also addressed the challenges ahead for 2008. He specifically addressed the issue of layoffs. He said multiple times that he believed it would be a bad business decision to lay off associates. Latham made that mistake in 1990 and Dell said the layoffs hurt their profitability after the recession was over. Dell said "there will be no layoffs" and that it was not even on the table for discussion."
2. http://abovethelaw.com/2008/04/featured_job_survey_and_your_f.php
Featured Job Survey: And Your Favorite Firm Is . . .
"Overall, Latham & Watkins dominated the field, pulling in almost one fifth of all votes. Latham was the most popular choice among voters in L.A., the Bay Area, and Washington, DC, and was particularly favored by tax lawyers and litigators.
Runner-up Wachtell was actually the top choice of respondents in New York, narrowly besting Davis Polk and Latham."
Law firms have obligatory turnover rates. It's a part of their questionable business practice. Low level associates doing low level work is what keeps the law firm machinery running. Another part of their business model is to bring in attorneys with a book of business so that they can throw as many warm bodies as the can at those clients to generate billables. Why do law firms always operate at overcapacity? There is always a scarcity of work, yet they make it appear as if there is an overabundance of work. The buck has to stop here.
31-
Well-played.
Attention Ropes & Gray summer associates: the firm has another surprise waiting for you at the end of the summer (and it's not exactly consistent with it's "99% offer rate").
Can we get back to #11's comment?? More details please!
33- good point. Its not either a layoff or performance related. It can be both. The economic climate necessitates layoffs, and who gets laid off depends on who the firm values over the others.
I think what's happening is that normal attrition has slowed in the mid to senior associate ranks due to the economy, so some of these associates are having to be forced out, whereas in a normal economy they'd leave on their own.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what it is like to work in a high attrition environment where first years are terminated for performance related reasons. But this is just shameful.
Whichever attorney brings the first (of a series of) class action lawsuit against law schools and law firms for their deceptive practices is going to be very, very rich. The cause of action would definitely be fraud and deception.
40; I've heard similar rumors; summers -- work hard and try to be in that 50% of the class that actually gets offers at the end of the summer. 90%+ of you are NOT getting offers, period.
-R&G 5th year
How horribly hurtful
45 - that makes no sense
40
I guess that means that summer associates at R&G should not ask to go to strip clubs or drink jello shots in the office during office hours?
long live denny crane!!
its hard to show your best efforts when the economy has gone to shit and there is no work to do to show the partners how invaluable you are. in most instances associates are aligned with one or two partners who are supposed to feed them work. who gets fired can depend largely on what your supervising attorneys bring in. supervising partners clients dry up--fire their associates and let them stick around to ride it out. tale as old as time.
Dear Trophy Generation:
Welcome to the Boomers and Gen X. We don't care that you graduated from HYS; we don't care that you were on law review; we don't care that you won your law school's moot court competition; we don't care that teachers and professors gave you (and all your classmates) A's just for showing up. Everyone is not created equal. Even if firms do say layoffs are due to economic reasons, you are still being ranked by performance against your peers. If you are fired it is because you are not as good as your peers who are not fired. Do not blame the firm for this.
Does anyone know where the buck has to stop?
Kash, will you please explain how this will affect the annual Ropes & Gray summer associate ass lobster bake?
R&G takes in way too many young associates each year. 100 or so per year in Boston is sheer madness in these times. Very sorry to any young associate who is dealing with this today ...
Good math there 45....
Don't take it personally if you're fired. In this economy, it's not a reflection on you or your work.
Elie should have a post on how fired associates deal with being fired and how they look for jobs and what they do in between, etc. I'm sure we'll get a lot of positive feedback in that thread.
45 is clearly crazy as he is talking to himself.
44 - So stupid. What fraud and deception?
Lawyers here still haven't comprehended current conditions at Biglaw: many top law firms right now are insolvent and involuntarily cutting staff as their bank accounts exhaust. Within the year many top firms will have dissolved.
45
On reflection, it is clear why you are a fifth year associate and not a partner. You are mathematically challenged.
What offices is this affecting?
Life is not fair. I'm so sick of the notion that people are ENTITLED to a job. If you are not billing the hours, you are not making money for the firm. End of story. Law firms, by the way (newsflash!!), are BUSINESSES!! Why do you think you should keep your job if you are not pulling your weight, regardless of whether you have access to hours or not? Wake up, people.
30-40 layoffs is what percentage of total Ropes associates?
59 - Is this your educated speculation or are you in a position to know this?
Wilmer and Goodwin fire associates in 3, 2, 1...
45's math is fine. His writing is poor.
R&G has been doing stealth layoffs since November (people had to be out by March 1st). This doesn't surprise me. R&G has never had enough work in the NY office. People have been sitting around begging for work well before firms started layoffs. The fact that nearly 200 summers are officilay starting on Tuesday doesn't help their already needy cause.
The sad part is that they are pretending this has to do with performance (particularly in NY) when R&G never had the business to begin with.
11 - Act like a lawyer, provide some basis for your comment about Judge Woods ~
Is it true that firms generate the vast majority of their profits from low level document review work, which is why it is difficult to progress past the first few years as a law firm associate?
Advice to 2009 Ropes summer associates: Keep looking for a job. First, you may not get an offer from Ropes. Second, even if you do get an offer, Ropes may not be around next year.
Enough villifying the partnernship at Ropes (and any other law firm). No partners = no associates, no staff, no nothing. Kind of like, no "rich" people = no jobs...It is really very simple.
69: No. Now go back to studying for the bar.
Guys at my law firm fired 40 associates during normal reviews all the time, it was no big deal.
Is it true that firms generate the vast majority of their profits from low level document review work, which is why it is difficult to progress past the first few years as a law firm associate?
200 summers? Looks like multiple posters have math problems today.
Worried about getting laid off?
Don't waste your time kissing up to and trying to get face time with partners. Their only interest is PPP.
Spend your time talking on the phone with and improving your direct relationship with all of the clients you do work for. Clients interest is in quality representation at cost-effective rates.
Focus on doing that (only in compliance w/ all applicable ethical standards in your jurisdiction), and soon you'll have a nice collection of your former partner's clients.
I drink your milkshake.
68: It is what it is. Can't comment on how I know.
Is it true that firms generate the vast majority of their profits from low level document review work, which is why it is difficult to progress past the first few years as a law firm associate?
64 evidently doesn't keep his ears to the rail but rather expects the train to hit him. 64: Many top firms depended on Structured Finance and M&A as their greatest revenue source; the Banks' destruction have annihilated those two sources; tell us all how top firms have since replaced lost sales, and tell us your base for presuming Litigation and IP to suffice for $100MM/year rents.
200 summers, 1 Cup
78: Yes. Now go back to studying for the bar.
Comment removed by moderator.
12 - Thank you, that is JUST what I am doing. Was laid off several months back as a barely second year under the guise of "perfomance reasons" when it was purely economic based. I recently landed a low-on-the-totem-pole in-house position with "growth potential". This company does exactly the kinds of corporate work my old firm coveted ... at this point, I'm living for the day that I've worked my way up enough to dangle work in front of those bastards only to tell them where to shove it. I smell justice ...
Louis Zaccareli is going to have a 10x better weekend than any of you poor slobbering slob slobs.
This firm is a bunch of girlie man, terminating first yeers and saying its for performance reasons and all of those things. I mean, I can look at a chick who's a little out of shape and if she turns me on, I won't hesitate to date her. If she's a good fuck she can weigh 150 pounds, I don't care.
83: I hate to rain on your parade, but you will never realize the "justice" you are daydreaming about. Even if you work your way up to a spot in the company where you are giving out business, by the time that day arrives, most of the people at your former firm (including many partners) will no longer be at that firm. You will screwing over people who never fired you, and who never even met you. Now, if you have a particular partner in mind that you want to screw over, well, that's another story. But screwing over an entire firm (which is nothing but an ever changing collection of lawyers) is not possible in any meaningful sense.
83,
Good for you! It is nice to hear that someone laid off has found a new job, even if it is "low on the totem pole."
Getting laid off sucks but you have to keep going. No one is going to fix your career for you. The other laid off kids who keep bitching and whining in these threads about who they got screwed should follow your examle and start applying for jobs rather than spending all day whining about how life is unfair.
83,
By that time, the partners who fired you will be gone. Either dead or retired.
First years were definitely fired at R&G this week. Just FYI.
83:
Prior to US Banks' total destruction, Biglaw drafted prospectus for IPO's and OTC derivative contracts, advised PE firms on M&A and Hostile Takeovers, and advised I-Banks on regulations. Now after US Banks' total destruction, Biglaw accepts virtually 0 sales from their hitherto greatest sales source, and can't sustain $100MM annual rents with just Litigation and IP. Many top Biglaw firms are right now insolvent, and their helter skelter ad hoc involuntary scrambling detects their current infirmity and future death.
31 rocks! My fave movie of all time.
88 and 86 - 83, here. Fair enough re: about future departed or dead partners, but my former practice group was dysfunctional and horrible through and through. And, besides, I'm only being half-serious; I'm merely expresing that it feels good to get a new job in-house (die billable hours!) and hope that MAYBE (but probably not) partners think twice about burning bridges ... things have a way of coming back around in relatively small legal communities.
First years were definitely fired at R&G this week. Just FYI.
So what percentage is 30-40 associates out of Ropes total associates? I am guessing that this has to be at least a 15% percent associate layoff.
If so, that's huge for one firing. This firm is in trouble.
No, it's nowhere near 15%. This is a 1000 lawyer firm.
Really, 55, 57 & 60? Are you really that stupid?
Instead of correcting 45's math, perhaps you could have read it again and observed that he was refuting the firm's promise of a 90%+ offer rate. He was not saying only 10% will get offers.
Idiots.
- NOT 45.
Ok, 95, I did not know that Ropes had grown that big (and perhaps they are regretting growing that big now). If its a thousand lawyer firm, how many of those thousand are partners and counsel? 300? If so, then a 40 associate layoff is a layoff of just shy of 6 percent of all associates in one swoop.
Now, how many other associates were let go in prior layoffs/performance reviews? I would be surprised if this firm has not shrunk by 15 percent from peak levels, which I am assuming were reached in 07.
But, agreed, the situation is perhaps not as dire as I originally thought.
94
I'm sick of you losers claiming that layoffs are not a reflection on your ability.
When we lay people off, it is not random. We keep the top performers and those who show the most promise as future partners. We cut those who are not as good as the ones we keep.
It's that simple. The only variable is how high we set the bar. If you want to avoid getting laid off, be a top performer. Stop whining about not getting work from partners - there's a reason some people are busier than you - I suggest you figure it out and change appropriately.
This firm does not operate on the "everyone gets a ribbon" theory of development. To rise, you must compete and win.
I feel sorry for you that you're just learning this now.
It's the end of May. First years started 8-9 months ago. Isn't it possible that some of them were ACTUALLY fired for performance reasons . . . especially when the firm gives offers to almost any summer associate with a pulse? There's got to be one or two who are really not cut out for this who would've lasted at least a couple of years in a good economy.
I'm not condoning firing someone before they get the chance to prove their worth . . . I'm just saying that we might not be dealing with that case here.
And my thoughts go out to all those fired, whether or not they were fired for performance reasons. Getting fired sucks. Whether or not a person is cut out for this kind of legal practice, we have to show sympathy.
Ropes is in trouble. Saying the layoffs are for performance reasons is reprehensible.
@12:28 - OUCH. That's a bit harsh, don't you think?
83 doesn't have to worry about the 55 year old partner. He didn't screw him/her. In fact, he probably barely knows who he/she is and whether she was fired/laid off, etc. And yes, he'll probably be dead and/or retired in ten years.
The bitches I routinely fuck with are the "income" and "non share" partners who were about 10 years older than me when I was an associated. They were the ones who wrote the "performance reviews" that resulted in the bulk of the layoffs because they're probably the ones who supervised said associated.
In my case, I started seeing them regularly since we severed ties with our "relationship firm" (like most companies) and started accepting beauty pageant pitch presentations for new matters. They're still hustling for work (frantically as of late) and they're the ones that you'll see ten years after working in-house.
And yes, dear second year, I continually shove my high heel up their asses on a monthly basis. It feels fucking fantastic.
-In House Lawyer who was "fired" for performance reasons after the tech bust.
33 - aka Ropes partner apologist - the "stealth" in stealth layoff does not refer to whether an associate knew or did not know they were going to get f*cked over by the firm before it happened. It refers to whether the firm fesses up that it was a "layoff" or adds insult to injury by pretending it was a legitimate, same as every year, performance-based firing. The outer "stealth" lies in the attempt to fool the market into thinking that 30-40 people at your firm (some of whom just started in October) have suddenly become so bad (or your standards have suddenly - but organically - become so high) that they need immediate expulsion, when in most years only 10 reach that point by the spring reviews. "We're not laying people off, the market doesn't affect us, we just have an unusually large amount of chaff amongst our wheat this spring. Nothing to see here!"
Ropes has engaged in a prototypical "stealth layoff". They don't want to admit that they need to layoff 30-40 associates, so they "raise the bar" in reviews, enough so that, voila, it "just so happens" that 30-40 associates don't clear the hurdle (while the "normal" bar would have netted only, say, 10 departures). That's the inner attempt at "stealth," the false idea that the "raised bar" is achieveable by all who are notified. In fact, 30-40 are gone, even if it comes down to choosing between superstars and super duper stars. That's the definition of stealth layoffs.
#98 is not harsh. But, may seem harsh in the world of "everybody wins." Reality sucks, huh?
Listen, 98, Ropes is a Boston firm that grew beyond its ability to support itself. It will now shrink by firing people. This time next year it will be 2/3's the size it is now, and much more focused on its home market of Boston. So, the layoffs were not a product of performance, but rather the product of flawed business model that could not support itself outside of a rapidly expanding national economy. The profits that were made by partners of the firm during the good years were not sustainable, and now will be paid back in the form of losses incurred on the current firm partners. Those current partners are trying to minimize that by firing associates. While they cannot be blamed for that, it is not a performance based firing. Just look at the fact that first years were fired if you need any more proof.
To quote Clinton, "its the economy, stupid."
I don't understand the comments about certain Ropes associates not being busy. The partners that be, at least in the litigation department, have made clear that all work must flow through the assignment coordinator, and associates have been told NOT to take work directly from partners counsel or senior associates.
Doesn't that mean those who were let go simply weren't close enough to the assignment coordinator, who isn't even a lawyer?
98:
Are you the managing partner of your firm? If not, explain how you know your firm to be solvent right now. Otherwise, any layoffs seem to indicate desperation as firms irrationally slash and burn staff rather than providence or discipline. Major Corporations have started submitting Biglaw fees to auction, and many Tech firms have slashed R&D thus slashing Biglaw's IP sales. Unless your firm is a Bankruptcy boutique, your firm could be borrowing money to pay partners just like Heller Ehrman did before it dissolved. I'm still shocked that a $15MM debt could be a major cause of a 100-year-old law firm's death.
What does TTT mean?
PE,
Is Ropes Gray trying to insinuate that it is a peer firm? PE, please weigh in.
Hey 106, are the layoffs being concentrated in satellite offices then? Genuinely curious, not contradicting you.
It's not "almost" every summer associate with a pulse, 99, it's every summer associate. And there's the rub - Ropes has hired a lot of very poor attorneys the last five years (ever since they supersized the program but maintained there "every summer gets an offer" policy). The fact that they need to conduct layoffs now even though they've been steadily doing stealth layoffs for two years bodes ill.
103 -
You don't get it. There's no such thing as a "stealth" layoff. We know people were fired. This isn't a secret. Anyone who gets fired is getting fired because the firm doesn't want to employ them anymore. In good times, the firm needs more bodies. In bad times, the firm needs fewer.
What you're failing to miss, however, is that NO ONE is leaving voluntarily. In good times, people who feel the hammer approaching will leave on their own for greener pastures. In bad times, greener pastures don't exist. I don't doubt that the firm is being truthful when they said that their attrition rates are lower than in the past, even counting for the recent firings. The impact of the bottom 10% or so not leaving on their own requires at least _some_ action on the firm's part. I'm sure that most of those who were fired were fully aware that this was coming. They just wanted to get paid until the last possible day.
There really is no opportunities out there for lateral moves. Give it 9 months to a year and we might see a different story, but for 2009, this is the way things are going.
Is it really that hard to believe that 30 or 40 associates could be fired for performance based reasons? Another consequence of "everybody wins" mentality. Not everyone is cut out to be a law firm attorney.
Oh wow how many R&G human resources trolls are on this page today? It is ridiculous.
R&G: Congrats, you are officially on the "you fucking suck" list. What you did, and how you spun it, there is no way to argue it is normal, or acceptable. It was the economy, fine. You laid people off, fine. But to say it was normal attrition due to performance? You fucking suck.
103, yes the bar for performance can change. When the economy is booming, the firm needs every hand it can get, so the bar is lowered. When the economy is depressed, the bar is set higher. There is no such thing as a "normal" bar. What exactly is so surprising about this?
And yes, it is possible to have performance-based layoffs when the firm already had a set number of layoffs in mind. Do you know how "rank and yank" works in other industries? Nobody ever expects the bar to be achieved by everyone.
If you were laid off but certain colleagues were not, because they had better performance reviews than you, then you were fired because of your performance. While the economy may cause someone to be unemployed, performance is a but-for cause of your OWN unemployment.
105, that was James Carville, *advising* Clinton. Drink.
I just LOVE the smell of an imploding law firm and dashed associate dreams in the morning; smells like .... victory.
It makes me want to light up a cigar in my office.
Here's to you, losers.
~Skadden 4th year
I am loving the Ropes HR trolls.
If these are partners trolling in the comments, I'd be seriously worried. Shouldn't they be finding new business and/or uh, working?
Ropes is an old time Boston firm that made a play to join the big leagues. Now that the money has dried up, it will be going back to its roots as a simple Boston firm. Once a Boston firm, always a Boston firm.
Funny how the boom times made every tin-plated law firm from some region think that they could be a national player, or compete with the NYC firms for first tier work. With the economy dead, those firms are learning that they never really had what it takes to compete nationally.
Ropes is an old time Boston firm that made a play to join the big leagues. Now that the money has dried up, it will be going back to its roots as a simple Boston firm. Once a Boston firm, always a Boston firm.
Funny how the boom times made every tin-plated law firm from some region think that they could be a national player, or compete with the NYC firms for first tier work. With the economy dead, those firms are learning that they never really had what it takes to compete nationally.
"If you were laid off but certain colleagues were not, because they had better performance reviews than you."
According to this definition, everyone is fired for performance unless a whole department is wiped out. Most people would take a broader view of "economic layoffs" than that.
How is the Chicago office of Ropes doing? Are they busy? I think that this dude from my old firm who knocked up a junior associate while both were married to others is running it now.
Did they fire that certain second-year who once pleaded no-contest to pedophilia with a child of the same gender down in the South?
109 = PE
The sad part is that R&G had a Town Hall mtg with all its staff and the COO was asked directly if there'd be anymore firings...to which he replied "no". Ropes is still not done chopping....no one is safe!
This is TTT behavior from Ropes and Gray. Don't throw your fucking people under the bus and further stigmatize them. Come out, own up to economic layoffs, and make sure everyone knows that you've lost some good men out there today. That is how classy firms do it. The bullshit only reveals you as a second-rate, striver firm. Nobody believes it. This is thoroughly TTT. Pathetic, really.
The sad part is that R&G had a Town Hall mtg with all its staff and the COO was asked directly if there'd be anymore firings...to which he replied "no". Ropes is still not done chopping....no one is safe!
Sack up and admit you're laying people off for money reasons.
The partners are sackless, squirrely a-holes.
121, you're incorrect, since a firm could fire an individual associate for a variety of non-performance reasons not based on performance, like randomly, partner animosity, your workload at the time, etc.
If you were laid off because (even if partly) of your poorer performance compared to your still-employed peers, then your layoff is performance-based. That's what "based" means.
113,
It's way more likely (obvious, in fact) that having that many layoffs is due to the partners failing to exercise proper risk management and irresponsibly growing the firm.
Even if there were 30-40 layoffs for performance reasons (extremely unlikely), that also reflects extremely poorly on the partners' judgment, analysis, and overall hiring practices.
So, we can debate why the partners at Ropes are so shitty (poor risk management? shitty judgment/hiring? both?)... but what's important to remember is that they are shitty partners.
Well, at least we know that WIlmerHale stands alone at the top of the Boston food chain.
failing to miss, huh huh
What is TTT? It sounds like some sort of disease.
Paul Hastings is next. Starting in LA and NY (according to my tipster in LA).
"If you were laid off because (even if partly) of your poorer performance compared to your still-employed peers, then your layoff is performance-based. That's what "based" means."
I realize you are trying to make this the definition but that's not how people use the term. If you have a 100 person department and fire the lowest 80 performers for money reasons you can call it performance-based and insist that it fits strictly within the logic of the term, but no one is buying it. Good luck.
Was anyone from the Fish & Neave practice groups impacted?
135 makes a good point.
It turns out that a vigorous game of semantics can't cover up the fact that a shit firm is floundering.
NY to $8 / hour!
Any layoffs in the Chicago office? Half of the lawyers in that office graduated from Indiana University.
I hear Chutes & Ladders is hiring.
If they are firing associates, then why did they hire someone that was kicked out of BYU for academic dishonesty?
Too bad the firm lies about the layoff. That creates a worse reputation than the layoff themselves.
Wonder what the ass of Cravath would say about all this?
What? No quote from Harry Rubin?
102 - I normally pay a not-insignificant sum for that service, and am looking to cut costs. What do you charge for shoving your high heel up their asses on a monthly basis? And would you be interested in participating in a beauty pageant pitch presentation with other potential providers of this service?
Ropes is hugely oversubscribed on summer associates - 68 in New York, 110 in Boston, so probably close to the 200 number firm wide. In New York that's equal to a third of their entire associate count.
50% offers sound necessary. Whatever growth this firm was betting on isn't going to happen now.
There is no need to berate the non-peer firm of R&G. R&G is not immune to the inefficiency of an Obama administration that has just performed terribly on economic and domestic issues. Indeed it is a gray day for 30-40 terminated personnel, the majority of which probably voted for this type of change. Let us join in communal prayer and hope that these terminated folks don't contemplate the use of ropes for their gray misfortune.
How is this poor management or bad planning? We hire associates when we need them to produce for us and we fire them when we no longer need them. There is an oversupply of fungible associates, so we can do this. Welcome to the new economy. If you want to keep your job, be valuable to us.
-98
102 - I normally pay a not-insignificant sum for that service, and am looking to cut costs. What do you charge for shoving your high heel up their asses on a monthly basis? And would you be interested in participating in a beauty pageant pitch presentation with other potential providers of this service?
102 - I normally pay a not-insignificant sum for that service, and am looking to cut costs. What do you charge for shoving your high heel up their asses on a monthly basis? And would you be interested in participating in a beauty pageant pitch presentation with other potential providers of this service?
133 - "TTT" means "The Top Three"; a short-hand reference to Harvard, Yale and Cooley.
Despite this, Ropes is still the big dog in Boston. Goodwin had lay-offs AND froze salaries. Wilmer is D.C. based, and Bingham is Bingham.
136 - IP people were laid off.
Clearly there are Ropes HR people on this message board. Very strange move. Not sure what I feel about it. Reeks of bad taste. You're going to rightly have fall out as a result of the "performance-based" layoff of 40 mid-levels. A true performance-based layoff wouldn't disproportionately affect one particular group. You know your label is a bit dishonest so get off these boards and accept that people will hate you for a minute. It'll all be forgotten by next week, so just let it go. Let these people vent. ROPES HR - GET OUT OF HERE.
148--these associates are being fired. They are being terminated for "performance reasons."
Which if I was a client and I looked at my bill and saw a name of a "performance terminated" associate, we're going to start asking questions about the firm's quality control issues and whether their representation of us was compromised.
Also, people need to understand that the terming of the layoff or firing of associates matters to the one thing that has kept most of big law working for the first six months of the year: the banks holding the line of credit. These banks likely have minimum utilization/realization rates that must be met or the credit is pulled.
Because truthfully law firms aren't necessarily "owned" by lawyers. The banks that fund the line of credit that keep firms afloat for the first part of the year plays a big role in the actual management of the firm (see: credit agreements that contain minimum attorney utilization/realization requirements for instance).
So 100 people have applied for Ropes fellowships. Is that good?
118 - I am a partner trolling these boards and I am shocked by how naive and clueless most of the posters are. Regardless of what anyone tells you (partner/associate liaison/mommy and daddy), deciding who gets laid off is always performance based (althought he reasons for the layoffs in general may be economy based). However, "perfomance" means many things: analytical, drafting and speaking abilities; potential; connections; enthusiasm; availability; hotness; etc.
As for why a partner would be posting here, sometimes it is entertaining to frolick in the land of the Lilliputians.
So 100 people have applied for Ropes fellowships. Is that good?
When do those new Vault rankings come out?
This year should show some very interesting shake ups in the rankings. I'd hate to be a Vault writer, because all the nice normal crap they write is going to be replaced by gloom and doom.
Anyone know anyone who works for Vault?
129 - Arguing the definition of "based" - what? Are you stupid. It's what you define as "performance" that matters? Is having less of an increasingly smaller hour pie a "performance" or "economic" issue. You can argue either way, but to think that we should be arguing the term "based" is stupid. You sir are an idiot and hopefully not a litigator because you would get taught by some first year transactional associate.
157 is telling the truth! After all, a law firm partner would be the first to say so if the reason for layoffs was there own incompetence.
What a tool. How about you go find clients, you bloated, overpriced piece of dead weight.
160 is a moron.
-not 129
162/129 - How is that?
How many people did Ropes want to take the public interest fellowship? Is 100 applications positive news?
161 - Why don't you go find clients and stop relying on other people to provide you a job and a grossly extravagant salary. This is the mentality of your generation; that it is someone else's responsiblity to provide you with with training, work and a salary - all you have to do is show up. You are a parasite.
If the attorneys in question would not have been laid-off for their performance in any other year, then the lay-off is NOT "performanced-based." It is that simple, folks. Those firms that hide behind the performance rationale are morons and cowards.
- 15
Partners/senior associates/counsel/associates - "the little, stupid differences are nothing next to the big, stupid similarities"
166 - Why do you care the reason? So you can make a list of the "nice" firms and the "mean" firms, and then show all your friends the list, maybe get it published in the American Lawyer? Good luck, we will just use the list as toilet paper anyway.
What WilmerHale is doing is worse. Someone should do a story about the number of counsel shown the door. They have until the end of the summer. I guess no one wants to worry the summer associates. WilmerHale is making it much harder to become counsel/partner this year. Heck, word on the street is that there will be associates told that they won't evenmake senior associates.
161 - the word is "their." And your grammar is atrocious.
Your performance is sub-standard. It's only a matter of time before you are let go.
Yes, it will be performance based.
166 -
Define any other year. An average year? A really good year? The number of people fired for performance reasons change based on economic conditions. The only firms that have "purely economic" layoffs are those who need to dump entire practice groups because a revenue generating partner has left or because there's otherwise no business for the group.
Getting rid of a bunch of real estate associates because there's no real estate work = economic layoffs. Getting rid of a bunch of associates in random practice groups during performance reviews = performance based.
What people MIGHT be able to complain about is whether or not the standard for measuring performance is fair. Is it based on nepotism or merit? Is it based purely on hours or is it based in part on the quality of work produced during those hours? If it is based purely on hours, are hours doled out fairly to those with the capacity and ability?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I don't work for Ropes. I'm just frustrated when I see so many people complaining about "stealth" layoffs. There's nothing stealth about it. WTF does that really mean, anyway?
What WilmerHale is doing is worse. Someone should do a story about the number of counsel shown the door. They have until the end of the summer. I guess no one wants to worry the summer associates. WilmerHale is making it much harder to become counsel/partner this year. Heck, word on the street is that there will be associates told that they won't evenmake senior associates.
157 is yet another of the many Ropes partners with no business and plenty of time to surf the net and comment on ATL. 157 is exactly why Ropes is in as much trouble as it is.
15/166
That's the second stupidest thing I've ever seen here.
I'm surpised they are letting first-years go. When I was at Ropes, they generally gave associates three or so years to get up to speed (I had classmates who were given multiple chances at review time). I'd bet the two first-years who were laid off were head cases who didn't even try to bill some hours. Reminds me of that summer associate a few years ago who didn't get an offer because she billed less than 100 hours during her summer - this was because she had another day job. It's that kind of behavior they don't tolerate.
165,
LOL at anyone from the boomer generation ridiculing other generations. Take a look in the mirror, pal. Your generation has a shitty track record itself.
I just heard that the firings are done today by 5:00pm. The memo announcing the "departures" is being written as I type this.
173 - 157 here. I have plenty of time BECAUSE I have some business. Once you have business, you will see the logic in this.
173 - 157 here. I have plenty of time BECAUSE I have some business. Once you have business, you will see the logic in this.
176 - I am not a boomer. Late Gen X. 36yo.
What's the story at Wilmer??????
157, if you and your partners had some business, you wouldn't be laying 40 people off today. If its just you that has some business, you will soon be lateralling out of the failing firm that Ropes is, because all your no-business partners at Ropes won't be able pay you a decent draw. So, which is it 157? Are you a no-business partner that will be forced to sink with Ropes, or are you a partner with business that will shortly be leaving the sinking ship that is Ropes?
173
By the way, 157, I don't have to worry about having business. I am in-house, so it is my ilk that gives business to firms, and we can smell a failing firm a mile away.
What's the story at Wilmer??????
Squisha squisha!
Ropes, why oh why would you want to take a page from the Latham playbook? Just own up to the fact that your partners were not able to provide enough substantive work for your associates! Doing this under the guise of performance-based terminations only means that folks can't collect unemployment as easily.
Ropes, first you move away from lockstep bonuses and now this. You really are a complete follower of a firm. SAD SAD SAD. Go back to Beantown and get out of the Big Apple, ya hear!
182 - I do not work at Ropes. Also, I do not get work from in house counsel; usually comes from the CFO or CEO.
a 36 year old lawyer might as well be a boomer, spiritually, culturally, physically...
Didn't something major happen with a Ropes partner recently? I heard he was escorted out and he promised not to practice law again so he wouldn't have to go in front of the BoO. He was also screwing a few of the assistants and cheating his clients.
170 - your grammar is atrocious. You meant to say that the spelling was incorrect.
Furthermore, grammatically it should be, "his or her".
in the future:" don't be such a t0ol.
What we need to see are those credit agreements governing a firm's line of credit. I wish ATL would interview a banker so we can actually hear from the real owners of the firms.
169: False. WilmerHale isn't showing anyone the door, or telling associates they aren't being promoted.
Just accept that Ropes has been exposed, and be happy your employed. Or not.
Has anyone been fired who was an advisor or coordinating lawyer for a summer?
Has anyone been fired who was an advisor or a coordinating lawyer for a summer?
I did a Ropes course once.
nice reference to The Departed for this boston firm, kash. you are good.
ATL should run a comparison of head count numbers from 2008 with those from 2009. Cut out all the performance vs. economic layoff BS and let the numbers speak for themselves. I think AMLAW has those.
Kash/Elie let's do this.
168, you are such a moron. I've known several people who work at R&G, and they always seem to push the idea that they work at a "nice" firm. Your firm also seems really pleased with itself that it gets on surveys that show high attorney satifaction (in the past of course). Is this a concerted effort toward an identity change for the firm? I wonder how many of your associates think of you in that way now. You may not care now, but you certainly have cared in the past and will in the future -- if you survive into the future.
195; what reference? I'm curious...
Wow, what a surprise, ATL got their facts wrong. Honestly, this site is worse than the National Enquirer. At least their made up stories are entertaining.
Okay so this round of layoffs sucks. And I feel for the kids that were told bye-bye. But you know, I can't help but think 30-ish out of 700, 750 associates doesn't merit this much coverage. My firm laid off that many people in ONE office, yet no coverage on ATL. I'm told by my classmates that some of the V10 and V5 NY firms laid off this many people, yet that has gotten minimum coverage. What about Paul Hastings? Mofo?
166 is the dumbest thing I have heard all year. If the firm has certain performance standards for any single year, it can never raise the bar for performance in the future? Wow, talk about the entitlement generation.
Here's how it breaks down.
The fact that Ropes and Gray is having layoffs in general is "economic-based."
The fact that a specific associate at Ropes and Gray got laid off is "performance-based." It so happens that 90-95% of the firm had better performance than that one associate.
@157
"As for why a partner would be posting here, sometimes it is entertaining to frolick [sic] in the land of the Lilliputians. "
While that's a "clever" Swift reference, while looking down on us, you might keep in mind that Swift described the Lilliputians as smooth and beautiful, while it was the giant Brobdingnagians that Swift described as looking particularly grotesque. I'll let you imagine what I think about your condescension and book jacket understanding of Swift.
~ A Lilliputian
198 -
"The departed are being told it's for 'performance reasons.' An attorney in the Boston office indicates that the firings could continue into next week:"
Perhaps it was unintended and I have nothing to do but overread ATL posts, but I think Kash is just good and snuck that in there.
Ropes & Gray has a very strong marketing/public relations department that, amongst other things, monitors legal blogs. Once I tipped ATL on the bonuses. When the story was posted, I saw a partner (Jeanne Curtis) run by my office. Soon thereafter, a bunch of comments were posted on ATL saying how lucky we were to have bonuses to begin with, and how mature R&G with.
Bottom line: R&G has Astroturfers on the comment threads. Don't pay them any mind.
HOW CAN MULTIPLE FIRST YEAR LAYOFFS BE PERFORMANCE RELATED? Not enough billables? Personality just fell off? Who does that reflect upon... a terrified first year willing to do anything to work or a dried up intake?
Also, nice use of "considerably less than" or "considerably more generous than" by the R&G HR damage control without actually confirming a number. What's considerably less than 10? 9.75?
"HOW CAN MULTIPLE FIRST YEAR LAYOFFS BE PERFORMANCE RELATED? Not enough billables? Personality just fell off?"
Two first years were let go.
While I think it is worth noting, as some people have mentioned above, this is the first round of "layoffs" for the firm, and R&G is not cutting as deep as some others have, it really doesn't make sense for them to conduct the layoffs/firings this way. Since so many firms have had economic based layoffs, R&G wouldn't seem so out of the ordinary by casting them as such. It really shows what R&G's partners think of their associates -- they have gone out of their way to give these associates an extra slap in the face.
Boston is having a bad month.
Bruins - eliminated
Celtics - eliminated
Fish & Richardson - on verge of dissolution
and now this.
oh well, serves them right. most people from Boston are insufferable asshats who fail to realize the Red Sox suck donkey balls
Why should first years be immune to lay offs? Yes, you have ahd a shorter amount of time to prove yourself, but you have still had time.
No firm is going to fire a rockstar associate. Look at your colleague that are still employed and think about what you did wrong.
In-house counsel here...Will not even look at R&G for the way they handled this. Shame.
In-house counsel here...Will not even look at R&G for the way they handled this. Shame.
As has been stated several times before in this context. What does R&G's firing of so many people for performance reasons say about their judgment in recruiting people. It's a prime question for R&G clients. Some anal clients who are willing to review past bills will say "Gee, that bill in February with X or Y (now terminated) associate seems awful suspcious if the firm is now telling me that person is a no-talent ass clown." Thus, R&G has effectively said "we have no credible judgment for selecting competent attorneys." This is an argument that the firms that blame the problems on economics avoid. Economic-reason firms are not saying the person is untalented (as R&G is), they are simply saying we can't support all the associates we've hired.
Thus I would be alarmed if I was an R&G client without a long-proven relationship with the firm. Why not go elsewhere?
Tuesday's the big day. I'll be lying if said I was not a slight bit nervous. In the race for The Offer, I'm confident that I will come out on top. Some of my classmates have already started their summer positions. I've rechecked my clothes, my mont blanc pen, and my new bag. Now is the time. I'm ready to join biglaw, or what my older friends call, The Show.
I know one of the first years let go. He/she is NOT a head-case, is hard-working, incredibly smart and never made any "huge" (i.e. substantive) mistakes; nothing beyond the typical first-year learning-curve stuff. Wrong department, wrong time. Ropes should be ashamed, but they aren't.
213 - We use BICs in Biglaw, now. Haven't you heard of the recession?
Back in March, something like 80% of the layoffs at Pillsbury were first years - some of whom had only been there for 2 months due to start date deferrals.
Is it just Boston and NYC, or are there layoffs in Chi, DC, SF, and PA too?
It's shitty to layoff first and second years. If the economy dictates, I think mid-levels are fair game. For those just starting off, layoffs are a really, really low move. Stay classy, Ropes.
202 FTW
217: what world do you live in?! that's the stupidest thing i've heard. why would you lay off the people you've already invested a significant amount of money into over the years with training? mid level associates bring more to the table than junior associates. last time i checked, law firms weren't nonprofits. if you want firms to remain "classy," then, at most, you can ask that they be honest that the layoffs are economic based rather than outright terminations for lack of performance.
217: what world do you live in?! that's the stupidest thing i've heard. why would you lay off the people you've already invested a significant amount of money into over the years with training? mid level associates bring more to the table than junior associates. last time i checked, law firms weren't nonprofits. if you want firms to remain "classy," then, at most, you can ask that they be honest that the layoffs are economic based rather than outright terminations for lack of performance.
If a firm lays off any fewer than all of its associates, then the ones who got the ax were performance based.
Any chance that someone will answer the question about what offices these layoffs occured in?
Here's the rule: if you wouldn't have taken this action but for economic considerations, they are economic layoffs. Choosing people to lay off based on who had the worst reviews does not turn economic layoffs into performance lay offs. It is simply the method by which you make the economic lay offs. After all, you've only "raised the bar" because of economic considerations, i.e., you aren't generating enough business and/or collecting enough. If you would not have made the same layoffs in the best of boom years, then it is not performance-based. Period. In this economy no one is going to judge them harshly because they've laid people off for economic reasons - unless they lie about it and call it performance-based. Then they suffer much more of a hit than they would have from anything else. Choosing the worst business path so as to protect managers' egos is poor management.
For the 2009 summers, what did Ropes tell you on the first day of orientation about offers? Were you warned that some of you won't get an offer?
This will likely come as a shock to most of you, but a firm can have performance based layoffs during a down economy. The truth is that most firms are willing to put up with sub-par performers for some period of time when the economy is good, simply because they need the bodies. There is, however, much less tolerance for those same sub-par folks when the work that previously kept them employed dries up. Just because an associate wasn't fired during an up time does not mean that their performance merits a long-term investment by the firm.
Is this firm more concerned with saving face than showing respect for the dismissed attorneys? I interviewed with their NY office in the fall... they feigned an attitude of "we're unaffected by the financial crisis because our clients are middle-market... in fact, we'll be increasing our summer class size as usual." Wonder how that's working out for them.
3 - how the fuck is this better than Latham you douchebag? Latham gave SIX months of severance and health benefits while Ropes and Gray is giving 1 month severance. I know you're a retard, but surely you can compare two offers one of which is SIX times better than the other. Jesus, these fucking Latham trolls are annoying as hell.
224: Something like there's space for everyone / they're fully able / would like to make everyone offers, but you have to earn your offer of course. "Earn" seemed to be code for just don't be horribly reckless or cause overt problems and you'll be fine. There wasn't any warning about some people not getting offers -- in fact, the tone was exactly the opposite.
228 again. Whoops, that was the 2008 spiel. Can't speak for what they said in 2009.
225 - how big of an idiot are you? Seriously. If there is a difference between how a firm deals with "sub-par" associates during good times and bad, that is what a economy-based layoff is, you fucking moron. The fact that firms are less likely to carry retards like you is because of the economy, which makes firings such as these one economy-based and not performance-based.
227 -- Ropes' layoffs have been much smaller (in absolute numbers and percentage-wise) than Latham's layoffs. Also, Ropes didn't target first-years (2, after 8-9 months) nearly as much as Latham did (tons, within 3-4 months).
Therefore, you're correct to say that if you've been laid off, you'd rather have been laid off by Latham than Ropes. But, I'd rather not be laid off at all and there seems to be a better chance of that at Ropes right now.
230, you and other retards seem to think that "economy-based" and "performance-based" are mutually exclusive. No. If the economy is causing me to lay off one employee, and I lay off my worst performer, that person got fired based on his performance (or lack thereof). Same with firing the bottom 5%, like the case at R&G. Let me repeat that again, you were fired, while others were retained, BASED on your inferior PERFORMANCE.
228 - they said the exact same thing this year to the 2009 summer class
83 and 102 - Thanks for the (helpful) in-house advice. Where does one start looking for those types of positions, particularly as a relatively junior (2nd/3rd year)? Is that something for which you use a typical recruiter (NYC area)? Are there particular recruiters who are better at locating in-house positions for mid-levels? And what is the range of in-house salaries? For some background, looking to leave a mid-size NYC firm where I've been since graduating,, with general corporate experience. Thanks.
1 month severance? Better be at least 3. Hopefully more to save face like Latham and Skadden.
I thought this stealth layoff stuff was out of style. I guess the memo didn't make it up to Boston. Or Ropes is a bit insecure.
another in-house counsel here - I will no longer use R&G.
CEO of a Fortune 100 company here -- I will be suing Ropes for malpractice and IIED.
234: in your dreams ITE
Shameful how these layoffs are couched as "performance-based." For those who are arguing that it's absurd to assume at least some of these people are perfectly competent, even talented, lawyers, a large number of lawyers I know at various firms have seen the same thing happen to colleagues who are typically high-billers, had nothing but very positive reviews in the past, and all of a sudden find themselves being told they've become incompetent over the last 6 months -- ironic and unlikely to say the least, given that the vast majority of lawyers haven't had much to do over the last six months. In these times, any smart, motivated, typically high-billing, hard-working lawyer with consistently glowing reviews in the past can find himself in a conference room sitting across from a partner who he once irked when times were good (and "irked" can merely be saying he wouldn't be able to get something done the same night so he could have dinner with his wife once in a month) hearing that he has somehow overnight become alarmingly incompetent. Really, what that boils down to is that said partner's firm is tanking, said partner is taking some sort of hit to PPP, and said partner, realizing that he has no choice but to cut the ranks by a number that necessarily includes talented people, decides he may as well pick in a way that allows him to get even for that "attitude" he got about dinner with the wife four years ago. A silly example, but sometimes that's all it is -- not "performance." Hang in there, everyone. A colleague put it well: to the bearers of "performance critiques" that have no basis in reality, have your fun for that 20 minute conversation. It speaks more about you than it does about anyone else.
A true in-house counsel (litigation) here: Perhaps if R&G didn't insist on such high billable-hour rates they would have attracted enough business to avoid these layoffs. They just didn't realize that they are not worth the money. Clients can compare people, rates and, most importantly, results. I wouldn't hire R&G -- not because of these layoffs (whatever the reason), but because I have no confidence that they'll obtain good results and because they are way too expensive.
Performance Based Firing = Firm tries to replace you because presumably you were not doing your job well but there is still work to be done.
Economic Based Firing = Firm has too many people and needs to get rid of salaries and hence does not try to replace the lost lawyer.
Just because a firm lays off people in a non-random way (it keeps its best lawyers for the work it has) does not make it just a performance-based layoff. If these spots are not filled, it means that they do not have enough work for everyone and is thus economic based.
Obviously, when firms do this it is a top-down decision. Management says fire 40 and even tells the practice groups how many each. Sure, they don't fire their very favorite people, but the numbers are arbitrary and trust me, some partners are not happy about the people they fire. Nevertheless, they have to insist the decisions were based on performance to tow the line.
If this is not true at Rope, by all means Ropes, tell us how your review process works.
Was anybody from the Fish & Neave IP practice impacted?
well put 239.
And despite what some have suggested, there are some of us still leaving voluntarily for greener pastures. I know at least four other people who finally admitted to themselves that it just wasn't worth it. They (finally) got out, albeit after months of looking. It took some time (nearly 5 months) but I finally got out nearly two months ago, on my terms, and haven't looked back. Just because you weren't smart enough to realize how unhappy you were at your firm sooner, and didn't leave until you were asked to leave, doesn't mean people are only leaving involuntarily. Stop trying to scare people. It may take some time, but there are still jobs out there.
Mad props to 239 - 242 for injecting some sanity and perspective into this very silly thread. (I'm talking to you, "You-were-fired-for-poor-performance" trolls.)
One of the Latham stealths here, laid off under circumstances much like those outlined by 239. I honestly think my "irking" offense was not laughing hard enough at a partner's jokes -- actually, not HIS jokes as he was usually just reciting what he had seen on Jimmy Kimmel the previous evening. I know this sounds paranoid but it's literally the only thing that makes sense. My "bad" review, which was the first and only one that I received, was limited to a vague, conclusory assertion that I could have volunteered for more work on one of my matters. That's it. That was by far the harshest thing in my entire, generally glowing, 4-year old file. I swear I am not making this up.
Since my severance ran out at the end of April, I have been keeping afloat with contract work, and since getting my bad news in January, I've been working on a screenplay, which I'm now about halfway through.
My heart breaks for all the R&G folks affected today. I am sure that, with no more than a couple of exceptions, you are all great lawyers who would be an asset to any employer. I wish you the best of luck. Fight the power. Don't let the bastards get you down. And know that this, too, shall pass.
242: it's toe the line.
153, thanks. I did not look before reposting, 136, 243
I just want to clarify a few points raised by people in the comments, and share some information about the firm's workings:
The rumor around the office is that the people who were let go were picked based almost entirely on comments, and not on hours (this is definitely true regarding the two first years). There is a rumor that one of the first years was let go because of a comment that a client made regarding said associate.
The standard severance for performance review firings is 3 months. I have no idea what they're doing now.
I would just like to point out that a certain number of people are told at each review that they have 6 months to shape up or find another job. Under normal economic circumstances, all of these associates will lateral or move inhouse. Given the economy, the people given 6 month comments in November may very well have stuck around to collect more checks, thereby inflating the "fired" number to include people who would normally be considered "voluntary departures."
Also, the firings are heavily concentrated in Boston, and we're still taking another floor in NY, so there is no reason to think the firm is withdrawing from other markets (we're expanding Chicago and DC too).
The ghost of wolfblock is visitng RG tonight.
The ghost of wolfblock is visitng RG tonight.
Ropes raised its rates this year. Brilliant strategy.
241, "Just because a firm lays off people in a non-random way (it keeps its best lawyers for the work it has)"
so you're saying that some people kept their jobs based on their performance, and conversely some people lost their jobs...wait for it...based on their performance?
The fact that the firm is having a layoff is based on the economy. The firm overall had an economic-based layoff.
But the fact that the firm fired you out of an average group of 20 people is based on your performance. _You_ as a specific person were fired in a performance-based layoff. Maybe their performance measurements weren't accurate, but that is a wholly separate issue.
252- I'm pretty sure we agree. I'm just saying that when a firm isn't planning on replacing those that it lets go, it means that poor performance isn't driving the process (It's being driven by the fact that there are more bodies than work). I agree that when you shrink, you ideally try to get rid of the low-performing associates (or apparently those clients complain about). I think the basic point I'm trying to make is that there are more attorneys than there is work. In a hypothetical world where every attorney was the same, you'd have to still fire some which is why I would say this has an economic tilt.
Speaking of Boston-based firms that over expanded and are on the "Ropes" bandwagon, I am looking forward to the EAPD summer associate happy hour in Boston next week. Anyone else get the invite?
Hmmm I wonder if that mid-level associate who sexually harrassed three women and physically assaulted one was "let go"....
Client Troll here -- real Fortune 100 client. I find a lot of the comments on here utterly bizarre, and am glad 248 stepped up because I really was wondering about the spin on socalled "performance" layoffs. But we, could care less about these kind of layoffs (as opposed to Fish and Richardson's situation) -- we use a firm very similar to Ropes and Gray that will probably do something similiar, and since we hire lawyers, not firms, will probably make sure the associates we care about are ok. (Actually we'd like to hire at least one of them should we ever start hiring.)
Otherwise, like everyone else, we have hiring freeze, pay freeze, pay cuts, forced retirement, etc -- so I dont think hitting the in house market is a great strategy.
In the Fish and Richardson situation, we will probably not give them future work, because it looks like they are imploding (eg key partners may be leaving with their business). Here, the cuts, while economics driven, are somewhat in their normal cycle.
When I started back in the 70's you needed big firms to handle the big cases. Copy machines were rare and VERY expensive. You needed secretaries to type dictation at night on briefs. The first Wang word processers needed teams of hundreds of people and books were in a library that was expensive. There was not any voice mail. You had to take messages. Faxes were not invented, we used a weird precursor (see eg MoFo's all time great teletype address) All of these things meant that a big firm had big advantages in meeting client needs, such as the ability to handle and turn out enormous quantities of paper that smaller firms could not match.
Technology has eroded that model substantially. Witness Oshinsky leaving Dickstein to go out west with a smaller firm and far less overhead.
I will also note very quickly that several attorneys that we used a few years back when they were 400 or 500 dollars an hour joined big law firms, or started big offices, and were forced to charge 800 dollars plus for their time. We stopped using them. Now they are jumping to places where we will pay them 600 an hour. The difference is that they shucked 200 an hour in overhead!!
Likewise, as many have noted, the bigger matters which could soak up lots of bodies, like on document review, are gone. We allow our big case firms to "supervise" the contract lawyers. Mark them up or whatever.
Basically, its a different world, and if you don't KNOW that you are safe right now, then you aren't.
Best of luck to all.
Could folks please comment on what the market rate of severance is (other than 6 months for Latham)?
248: Thanks for the inside info -- if it's legit.
I don't see a problem with what Ropes did, or how they did it.
Just because we're lawyers, and just because many of us have substantial school debt, DOES NOT mean we are entitled to jobs. Law firms are not in the welfare business. They need to make money, and the only way to make money is to retain top talent. Like it or not, "top talent" is not first years. It isn't mid-levels either. Top talent = partners with clients that pay the bills.
Do those partners need associates to do the grunt work? Of course. And partners/firms will reward those associates who do the grunt work efficiently and tirelessly. And partners will keep those associates they like to work with and who do a good job.
But that doesn't mean firm management will always make perfect decisions. This recession blindsided and embarrassed a lot of people in ALL industries. And, as a consequence of the downturn, virtually all industries (except the government) have been right-sizing.
Some firms will cut too deeply. This will affect their culture, their associates' morale, and the market's perception of the firm's ability to manage themselves and their clients' issues. And as a result, some firms are going to fail (some already have).
Some firms will not cut at all or will not cut enough. They will slowly bleed associates through "attrition", performance-based firings, or layoffs. These firms will keep going back to the firing well, and their culture and employee morale will suffer because associates will constantly live and work with the fear of being laid off at any moment.
Finally, some firms will right-size well, and will successfully change/adapt their business model to fit the shifting demands for top quality legal services. This might require more discounts or write-offs, lower rates, different billing and compensation structures, and/or different recruitment and retention programs. But these firms will not merely survive; they will FLOURISH in the downtown and will emerge with more market share and a better reputation than other legal dinosaurs.
Sorry for the Goldilocks example, but the comments on this thread clearly reveal that lawyers generally are idiots.
You lost your job? Yeah, it sucks. But whatever your now-battered ego may tell you late at night, you were never "entitled" to a job based on your law school/firm performance. You are not "owed" anything by your employer firm. So don't go on a hate campaign against your firm while hiding behind the anonymity of the "Guest" commenter on ATL... unless, that is, your firm REALLY screwed you over (ahem, Latham)
EPIC FAIL.
UUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH
- (hopefully) Incoming Ropes 1st year
Good points, 256 -- it's good to hear input from non-Big Law people (if you're legit).
I think Big Law and law schools need to find some middle ground between their current models and the models of other professionals -- especially medicine. The problem with lawyers is that they're too many of them. This worked fine during irrational booms, when everyone had money to pay top dollar, and deals were constantly churned out.
But now, there is gross over-capacity. There are too many big law firms, and they (try to) charge too much for their services.
I think 256 shows that clients and in-house lawyers aren't as petty as many immature Big Law junior and mid-level associates. If the price and the service is right, clients will hire your firm. If someone you worked with and like starts charging you too much or produces shitty work, you rethink that business relationship and possibly move on.
And finally, 256 hits it right on the head: what client will want to pay a junior associate $300-400 for doc review, when a contract attorney will do the same job for far less? Times are changing ("this ship be sinkin," some might say), and Big Law better get its act together.
As for the rest of you schmucks:
EPIC FAIL
Oops... "there are" instead of "they're". I gotta stop drinking a beer between each Friday night ATL posts.
EPIC FAIL
Perhaps r&g took a page from its building-mate in chicago, Locke Lord (actually, I heard LLBL subleases to R&G).
LLBL laid off FIVE first years in its chicago office alone (something like HALF its first-year class. R&G's two first-year layoffs are nothing in comparison.
239 -- Hits it on the head -- however there is one slight oversight...the other problem with stealth layoffs is that in light of glowing performance reviews the average person (a) believes there is no need to be searching for a new position; or (b) may turn down other positions/offers based upon the last review period.
232 -- you sound like a real fu(king asshole...prolly have a small penis too.
119/120: Substitute "Goodwin" for "Ropes" and your statement still makes much sense.
These lower ranked firms keep laying off fewer first years than latham. that makes me hate latham even more for destroying half its first years
147--
"Let us join in communal prayer and hope that these terminated folks don't contemplate the use of ropes for their gray misfortune."
Agreed for once. Firearms are more effective.
Lawyers tend to be poor managers, as study after study demonstrates, but Ropes has brought the opaque, soulless management style of the bureaucratic law company to a new level. Having spent some time there, I can say that Ropes has some tremendous legal talent, but also has adhered to an idiotic associate hiring policy (the resume can't be wrong) that has saddled it with a ton of overcompensated, overpriced lawyers who look good on paper but can't cut it in the real world. Ultimately, that is a function of bad management rather than poor associate performance.
227, Ropes is better because they only laid off a couple first years. Latham laid off 33 first years in the NY office alone.
It's better to keep your job than get a severance. I'd take the better odds of survival and lower severance at Ropes any day.
258 is an epic jackass.
I really don't understand the argument that a firm shouldn't lay off first years because you can't tell which first years are underperformers. As a mid-level, I worked with first years and I have a good sense of which one are stars, which ones are average and which ones suck. If you average out the reviews of everyone who worked with the first years for 8 months, it's not hard to pick those who should be let go.
Let's look at the FACTS. The total number of lawyers at Ropes & Gray will be HIGHER in 2009 than in 2008. Of how many law firms is that true?
Those wanting to take ad hominem shots, go right ahead. What I'm interested in are the FACTS.
157: Bullshit
Based on first-hand experience, NOT all people are laid off for "performance" reasons - the reality is that the firms have over-hired in the past 10 years, and partners, just like the associates, have no work to do.
When faced with the prospect of sharing a small amount of work with an associate, or firing the associate and taking all those billables for themselves, they fire the associate.
It very likely has nothing to do with "ability" - analytical or drafting or whatever.
If you are really a partner, you should know that most of what biglaw associates do could be done by a trained monkey - there isn't much "analytical" thought involved in organizing discovery documents by date or cut and pasting party names into contract documents.
Okay,let's look at the facts Opie. R and G is a cesspool, a gut maggot with no guts. It is still overleveraging itself by expanding when it didn't have enough real income to justify what it had 5 years ago. The other fact is that Davis Polk pwns all n00bs
Based on my experience, you can from day 1, whether an employee will be a star or a dud.
Agree strongly with 208 except for the last sentence. There was no reason for the firm to have taken such a reputational hit (at least with its own associates, potentially with other firms, and possibly with clients).
But talk about hysteria! What's with the the endless need of ATL commenters to shred a firm's (any firm's) reputation, regardless of actual knowledge about that firm? Grow up, people!
Oops -- 275 meant to refer to 204, not 208. Though I make no comment on the Red Sox and donkey parts.
Oops -- 275 meant to refer to 207, not 208. Though I make no comment on the Red Sox and donkey parts.
271 - Is that a good thing?
You don't become a less talented lawyer during poor economic times.
Less talented lawyers become unemployed lawyers in poor economic times.
This just goes to show that BIGLAW is a terrible industry. They chew you up and spit you out.
Even firms that people though were decent places will throw their own under the bus.
BIGLAW is every man for himself. Just because you survived this round doesn't mean you'll survive the next. Even the partners have to watch their backs.
256 is right. Now that everyone has a copy machine, big firms are toast.
Seriously though, copy machines, faxes, voicemail have been widely available, even to small businesses, since the 1980s. This "issue" has NOTHING to do with the current problems that big firms face.
270 at LATHAM none of the first years had written reviews and most people had no say whatsoever in the decision, meaning there was a good chance that the person who chose to whack you knew nothing about you.
Apparently Ropes treats its staff better than its associates. Let's not forget that when the firm canned 106 staff in January they cited only economic reasons. Now in May when canning associates they blame them, ensuring that any subsequent job search will be even more difficult because they do not have a positive reference. Classy.
Let's also recap the events of 2009 for Ropes:
January: fires 106 staff
February: shortens summer program to 10 weeks
March: defers start dates and offers associates public interest options
May: fires a few dozen associates
Riiiiiight. All of theses other steps were taken due to the economy and now somehow this associate canning is strictly performance based. Ok Ropes HR, whatever you say. If that chain of events isn't a sign that the ship be sinking then I don't know what is.
I think it's pretty clear what is going on here. In normal economic times firms lose people naturally to attrition. Even out of a first year class they would probably lose at least at least two associates to attrition. But given the state of the economy, no one is leaving, because there is nowhere to go. Ropes has stated that they will have more lawyers next year than last year, so they aren't getting smaller. This may say much less about the amount of business they have or the accuracy of their summer class sizes than it does about the fact that people simply are not leaving like they normally would.
What Ropes should have done was be upfront about this. They should have used more precise language than "we have an up or out" system. They should have explained that attrition is not what it has been and therefore for "economic" reasons they were forced to layoff associates who in normal economic times would still have jobs. They should have also announced a generous severance package of 4 months or so plus health insurance. This honest approach would have saved them a great many reputatational points amongst lawyers, law students, and clients. It is likely that many firms are already doing the same thing or will be doing the same thing this year as attrition rates fall far below historical averages.
Lessons: 1) Honesty is the best policy 2) Don't shit on people when you have to let them go
268:
Any meaningful comparison between Ropes and Gray and LAtham would have to take into account the repesective size of the firms.......
++++++++++++++
227, Ropes is better because they only laid off a couple first years. Latham laid off 33 first years in the NY office alone.
It's better to keep your job than get a severance. I'd take the better odds of survival and lower severance at Ropes any day.
As an associate at Ropes, I am schocked and disgusted by the way Ropes treated my friends and colleagues at the firm. What is worse is that Ropes puts on, "we are a nice and friendly firm that treats its associate with respect" BS mask when in reality it is exactly the opposite from it. The firm has been criticized for many years by its associates for its passive agressiveness and now the whole world knows its true face. LAW STUDENTS- DO NOT COME HERE! Do not waste your time at a place full of lies and BS.
Through personal connection, I was asked to recommend and pick a law firm for a $900 million transaction. Although I am still employed here, I will NOT and will NEVER use Ropes for anything. Congratulations Ropes, you just shoot yourself in the foot. What you tried to save, your "reputation," was seriously damaged by your disgusting act.
I will be making plans to leave this place ASAP before they use some bullshit excuse to fire me for "performance reason."
Ropes severely miscalculated the depth of this recession. They irresponsibly went ahead with their normal hiring plan last fall, even though it was clear at that point that the economy was crashing. The hiring committee did an incredibly poor job. I'm curious to see their hiring plans for this fall's recruiting season; hopefully they cut way back and realize that this isn't a normal recession and that the work isn't going to come back anytime soon.
It's a solid firm full of good people; management just always seems a few steps behind.
115--
You must be out yo' mind, fool! You really have no fucking clue 'bout how things work. Partners dig associates who are barely good enough to get shit done, but not good enough to toss the partners out on their asses in a few years. That's why a lot of hot-shit senior associates get canned by their firms. Partners are looking out for number 1, and that goes not just for today. They don't give a shit about the firm if doing so means that they might be out on the street in a few years.
Think about all of those nasty motherfuckers in your firm that get work out of other partners in other groups because those partners don't want to give shit away to another firm. If some hot-shit associate can do their work--and they like that associate better--guess where the work's going? Drinkin they milkshake all dayz long. So, if you still have a fucking job, it may only be becuz the partners you work for dont see you as much of a threat.
HTH
98 /157 !!! Who are you kidding? When there is no work, how do you gauge "performance" ? Is it who laughs most at your jokes or smiles most brightly when you walk in the door ? When there is no work, the "workplace" stops being a level playing field , and who stays or leaves is based not on excellence or work ethic, but rather on some random dart-throwing, or worse, on a juvenile popularity contest. Maybe you two are fooling each other, but no one else is buying your self-serving protests.
214 speaks the truth.
286, hear, hear. In my time at R&G, I've never heard of 1st years being "laid off" - period. Very rarely some would leave voluntarily for personal reasons, but never for "perfomance based reasons." Associates were ALWAYS given at leat two years, usually 3 or 4, to prove themselves.
In the case of the two 1st years let go, their reviews were based upon fewer than 6 months of "work", at least one of which was spent in training and orientation in October and the other 5 doing maybe a handful of mundane tasks and the occasional pro bono assignment (thank God for pro bono). I knew one of the 1st years personally - he/she was never given a chance. He/She asked for assignments, but didn't get any. He/She did some pro bono work, but there wasn't enough to keep him/her busy. Fact is, the firm is in bad shape. The firings (let's call them what they are) had very little to do with "performance".
Ropes is in trouble. Corporate practice has stalled. Corporate partners are not entrepreneurial. Tougher times ahead. Stay tuned.
Ropes, just cut salaries 10% already. We know it's inevitable, and notwithstanding all the big talk on this board, associates would much prefer it to more layoffs. We're not oblivious to the fact that the economy has crashed; let's share the pain rather than throw some unlucky associates under the train.
Yet another lame-ass firm that attributes the inability of their partners to generate business to the performance of associates.
I am writing a list and checking it twice to see which law firms are naughty or nice. Those that are naughty will fail to get the business I could get them. Sorry, Charlie.
Any firm that fired any first years that passed the bar is a firm in trouble. Who really doubts that ? We should all check back in a year or two, and see how these firms are doing (assuming they are still around)
Fuck, law really sucks these days. When you have to be nice to those fucking IP dorks, it's all over.
107, I agree completely. For most V100 firms, the next 6 months will be a race toward manageable debt. The economy is not improving and partner draws are unrealistic. The only way this can be managed enough so that an ocean of debt is avoided is firing staff and associates. Associate salaries will plummet. First through third years will be cut. In the eyes of the firm, they do not bring value. The survivors will have their salaries cut 25-50%.
281,
256 here. Touche, with a caveat. "nothing" is a little strong. I think that the new technologies enable my age peers to go out and practice at the highest level without a lot of overhead. That makes the bigfirms more vulnerable to attrition. Otherwise I agree that you, 287 and 297 summarize issues succintly.
Now back to watching the first season of star trek downloaded for zero variable cost onto my laptop -- that motorola razr is a lot slicker than the communicators --
For what its worth, at the state of the firm address earlier this year they really emphasized that Ropes has no debt, and that this freedom from debt puts the firm in a better position than most.
Regarding the two first years, I think its clear that something extraordinary must have been going on there. As much as people here like to think that partners are all stupid and don't understand the market, I doubt very much that the firm made this decision blindly. They must have known that firing first years would have repercussions for fall recruiting, and since they only fired two out of 200, I have a hard time believing this decision was made based on cost alone. If it was just cost, they could have fired two more people at any other level, saved more money, and avoided the reputation hit. There must have been some other reason that the firm choose to suffer this recruiting hit (when the firm has been so careful to avoid formal "layoffs" for recruiting purposes).
Also, business seems to be picking up again over the last few weeks. Personally, I have had a huge increase in the number of matters I'm staffed on recently, and most people I know have seen a similar increase in work load. The partners (who many here are claiming to be incompetent at business generation) have really been hustling, and we have been preparing a huge number of client pitches, some of which are starting to bear fruit. The partnership has also already decided to decrease partner draws for the year (they announced this in January). I know its fun for armchair managing partners to talk about how a firm they are not familiar with "be sinking" but the reality is that most of the firms who have done layoffs are probably doing alright. The only firms that really seem to be sinking are the ones like Fish and Richardson which have gone into a freefall. 90%+ of firms have been cutting costs in a controlled fashion, and will most likely emerge from this alright.
There will be a hit in fall recruiting, and not only this fall, esp from HLS. When top law students have a choice, why take the risk on a firm like Ropes or Latham?
300 - . . . Overreact much? There will definitely be a recruiting hit, but lumping Ropes in with Latham is ridiculous.
299
There may be a slight up-tick in business at Ropes recently, but the damage (to reputation) is already done.
No law student with other options will EVER take a firm that fired first years. End of story. Doesn't matter if the reason was "performance" or economic - the fact that it's even a possibility scares the shit out of risk averse (i.e. all) law students and they will go anywhere else with more security than that.
299- At the state of the firm meeting, they said there will be NO LAYOFFS.
Brad Malt (the Managing Partner) also specifically said there will be NO STEALTH LAYOFFS.
THEY LIED. PERIOD.
I personally know the first year who got fired and can assure you that "something extraordinary" or "some other reason" has nothing to do with him/her. The associate tried very hard to get work but was given no chance. He/she was just like any other first year and did not make any mistake that no other first year wouldn't.
"Something extraordinary" or "some other reason" is that the partners are not doing their job of brining business and blaming it on associate's performance. Many associates have been sitting around for months and months, for a good year with ABSOLUTELY NO WORK TO DO, desperately begging for work but not getting any and seriously scared about layoffs everyday.
Ropes is a sinking ship. Not only is it in a terribly bad financial shape due to significant decrease in revenue, it is managed by people with seriously flawed judgement and decision making ability.
ROPES- NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING ECONOMIC LAYOFF. THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE TRUTH.
Its a cheap shot , 299, to demonize innocent victims of your poor management in a bad economy with your innuendo.. .. Pathetic, really.
293 - Really? 10% salary cut? Since when?
299 here. I'm sorry for the first years that were fired. I think it is awful to fire people after so little time, especially if they had very little work. But I also think that firm management understands the recruiting stigma of firing first years, and given the tiny cost savings (along with the possibility of just firing two more second or third years) I find it hard to believe they made a choice like this just for the hell of it. I know everyone here just thinks all managing partners are idiots who don't understand anything about running a business or the recruiting market, but I don't subscribe to that popular line of thinking. These are smart people who are fully aware of the impact such a decision has on recruiting, and I am sure they considered that in making this decision. Why throw away an otherwise sterling reputation as far as recruiting goes just to save under 400k?
304 - If there was some sort of major mistake or incident involving someone at your firm, what makes you think you'd hear about it? People don't exactly go around talking about what they've done wrong. They try to hide it.
You can't hide anything anymore....major mistakes are always whispered about, and have occasionally even been posted on ATL when they occur, and we all talk about them and read about them. Ropes and Latham and a bunch of other firms (can someone keeeping track post a list please?) let first years go in unprecedented numbers because clients won't pay for them, and these firms are cash-strapped. At least most of these firms have been decent enough to be honest about their reasons to let them go, and are not trying to place the blame where it doesnt belong.
309 - again, I have to point out how ridiculous it is to compare ropes and latham. While letting first years go at all is defjnotwly unprecedented, there is a huge difference between 2 of 200 and half of your class. What latham did clearly resulted I'm large coat savings, but what ropes ha done saves next to nothing. . . If they really did let the first years go solely for financial reasons, then that would make me question the intelligence of firm leadership since there is so little money saved.
309 - again, I have to point out how ridiculous it is to compare ropes and latham. While letting first years go at all is defjnotwly unprecedented, there is a huge difference between 2 of 200 and half of your class. What latham did clearly resulted I'm large coat savings, but what ropes ha done saves next to nothing. . . If they really did let the first years go solely for financial reasons, then that would make me question the intelligence of firm leadership since there is so little money saved.
I'm sure part of the reason was the failure of a merger with fish and neave for their supposed ip practice. billable rates skyrocketed after the merger for this IP practice group and who knows if their existing clients wanted to pay these fees, so many might have jumped ship to kenyon and morgan and f.richardson. ip boutiques are the way to go and the future.
312 - IP is one of the few areas of the firm that is still busy. There are lots of things that can be blamed, but I don't think the merger is one of them. That plus the recent acquisition of a Bankruptcy department from another firm are probably the best decisions management has made, given the current climate.
To all of the summers at Ropes--
Just think about being out on a date with your woman, fly honey, bitch (as the case may be) and some motherfucker walks up to her and slaps her in the face right in front of you. At that point, you got 2 choices--man up and start swinging or act like a bitch. Slapping your woman in front of you means you don't matter, he's got nothing to worry about from you.
For all of those summers who just witnessed juniors and first years getting fired for "performance reasons," you just had your woman slapped in front of you. And that means you don't matter in the eyes of your firm. Good luck in that shithole.
Who will be the next Heller?
A
* Altheimer & Gray
* Arter & Hadden
B
* Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
* Brown & Wood
C
* Coudert Brothers
D
* Dewey Ballantine
* Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine
* Dreier LLP
F
* Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey
G
* Gardner Carton & Douglas
H
* Heller Ehrman
* Hill and Barlow
H cont.
* Hopkins & Sutter
* Howe and Hummel
J
* Jenkens & Gilchrist
K
* Keck, Mahin & Cate
L
* LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
* Lord Day & Lord
M
* Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon
* Myerson & Kuhn
P
* Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl
* Pennie & Edmonds
* Preston Gates & Ellis
R
* Rider Bennett
* Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn, and Berman
R cont.
* Rogers & Wells
* Rosenman & Colin
S
* Shea & Gardner
* Shea & Gould
* Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld
* Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman
T
* Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault
* Thacher Proffitt & Wood
* Thelen LLP
* Tillinghast Licht
W
* Walter, Conston, Alexander & Green
* WolfBlock
309 - List of V100 firms that allegedly laid off first year associates...
7 Latham & Watkins LLP
18 White & Case LLP
21 O'Melveny & Myers LLP
22 Clifford Chance LLP
27 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
28 Ropes & Gray LLP
29 Mayer Brown
30 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
31 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
33 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
37 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
43 DLA Piper
44 Baker & McKenzie
Fact: Each year, more associates make partner at Ropes & Gray than virtually any other firm in the AmLaw 100. And all are equity partners, none of this "income partner" (read: senior senior associate) crap. Promoting associates to the partnership is ultimately where the rubber meets the road.
317 Fact: No one is safe: PPP is dropping, and with it, salaries. Equity partners are now being "de-equitized', first years are being fired before they are given a fair chance, and graduating 3Ls are being given incentives to never set foot in the firms that wined, dined and hired them less than a year ago. No firm is immune, no one should feel smug.
317--
Promoting associates to partner may, indeed, be where the rubber hits the road; but, right now there is too much rubber meeting anus over at that firm sans lube.
HTH
318 - There is no such thing as a non-equity partner at Ropes, so the who "de-equitizing" phenomenon is not occurring here. Partner draws are being lowered though.
314 - If that is the best argument you can come up with, then I feel bad for whatever firm (if any) hired you. If you are at Ropes, then I have to agree with everything that has been said in this thread about poor hiring decisions by the associates committee. That is probably the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life.
320--
Someone who agrees with 314's reasoning--not word choice--here. Argument by conclusion never impressed anybody. Please explain your reasoning. More specifically, tell us why the analogy does not work--at least in your eyes. Let me tell you why it works--at least on some level.
The conduct--either firing associates with summers on site or slapping your date--is not aimed solely at the person being slapped or fired. A message is being sent. That message, essentially, is that the man or summer associate(s) involved is/are less than worthless (think negative equity) in the eyes of the person engaged in the offensive conduct.
As others have pointed out, the timing of the "performance-based" dismissals is, for purposes of my response to your post, the problem. Surely management at that firm knew when its summer associates would begin work. That leaves two possibilities: either management did not care how summer associates would view such conduct (here, think abject disregard) or they were trying to send a message. Like 314, I choose to believe the latter.
Again, if you still think the analogy does not hold, then explain why by using something more than labels.
Pi's comrade in arms
A Quinn first year was fired recently for failing the bar twice and sending silly e-mails. But wait first years can never be fired for performance reasons right?
321 - My objections were primarily to the poor choice of subject matter and phrasing used in the analogy. These qualities are VERY important in our line of work, and the writing skills and taste shown in that post do not suggest someone who a firm would be overjoyed to have on staff. I am reminded of the Quinn first year who deserved to be fired based on the terrible writing and judgment shown by the email she sent. Poor presentation of a valid argument is just as bad as presenting a poor argument on the merits.
Regarding the actual subject, I think there is a third possibility, which you (and 314) ignore. Performance reviews at Ropes are handled by a small group of partners, each of whom has a very large number of people to review. Partner's are responsible for scheduling these reviews, and management does not set out specific dates for any given person, regardless of the projected outcome of the review. Firing first years is extraordinary, but providing reviews for them after the summers arrive is not. If anyone showed poor judgement, it was the associate committee member who scheduled the reviews (although they may not have even known about the firings until well after they scheduled the reviews). Couple this normal process with the fact that the firm took the extrodinary measure of sending a firm wide email addressing the review process, and I think it is fair to say that the firm's actions are not meant as a message to the summer associates. . .
This all just makes Ropes look sloppy, and at best, indifferent to everyone involved. Surpising behavior, really . What they "meant" doesn't much matter. They are being harshly judged by their actions, not their intentions
322 --
Never is obviously too strong a word. But in order for a typical junior associate to perform well, the junior associate need only: (1) be licensed to practice law; (2) be willing to bill and actually bill a very significant number of hours; (3) provide appropriate descriptions on timesheets so as to not invite client attention; (4) not commit malpractice; and (5) not commit some other offensive act (e.g., pissing off a partner or client, etc).
Considering the low level of work that typical junior associates are asked to perform, "quality of work" is a meaningless metric (other than as might consitute malpractice). Moreover, a junior associate's ability (intelligence, potential, etc) does not affect his profitability except in extreme instances (e.g., malpractice) or if a client becomes aware of the junior associate's stupidity (which the partner can easily avoid). Indeed, if a stupid junior associate takes 25% longer to do a task than a smart junior associate but can adequately fill out a time sheet and is willing to work long hours, the stupid junior associate will be more profitable than a smart junior associate with respect to 99% of matters (for which clients are unable to determine that the stupid associate is billing more than a smart associate would). At some point in a stupid associate's career, it will be difficult if not impossible to hide him from clients, such that an up-or-out decision may be necessary. Certainly that situation is inapplicable to a first or second year associate.
The R&G layoffs are "economic" and/or "performance-based," depending on how you define those terms. As others have pointed out, one could argue that all layoffs are "performance-based." Similarly, one could argue that all layoffs are due to "economic" considerations. If tasked with creating a meaningful distinction with respect to a junior associate, I would say that if the terminated junior associate is willing and able to work profitably, and has not otherwise engaged in offensive conduct that merits termination, then he was terminated for economic reasons, and not performance-based reasons. I think most reasonable people would agree with that (or a very similar) distinction.
Each of the laid off junior associates made a bad economic decision by joining R&G. R&G certainly does not owe them continued employ. However, R&G also does not have to damage their career prospects in an effort to save face by declaring, through misleading use of terms, that the terminations were "performance-based" rather than "economic."
325:
You must still be in law school.
316 -- you neglected to mention Pillsbury, which laid off many first years in its NYC office. Otherwise, you are on the ball and deserve praise for your thorough work throughout this blood bath.
323--
321 here. What makes you so sure that 314 is even a lawyer? Judging only by that posting, I would have to say that he/she is barely literate. Judging by your most recent post, it seems that your quarrel is not with 314's reasoning, but with the packaging of that reasoning. That does not make the analogy any less apt and demonstrates that your statement regarding the fact that the analogy was the worst you had ever seen (or some similar phrasing) is a bit of an overstatement. But enough with collateral matters.
More to the point, as I believe 325 said, the Firm is being judged by its actions, not its intentions. The fact that you can offer an explanation of how the left hand may not have known what the right hand was doing does not excuse the fact that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. Your explanation falls more in line--although not perfectly-- with the first possibility I identified (abject disregard) than identifying a third possible explanation.
And the fact that the firm had to send a firmwide email explaining its actions demonstrates the negative effect(s) itsactions have had and the low regard in which the Firm's actions (not intentions) are being held. It is all too convenient to explain, apologize etc. once the fallout has begun. Better to have planned the Firm's processes so as to have avoided bringing this upon those responsible and their Firm in the first place. So, once again, I believe we are left with one of two choices: abject disregard and sending the message 314 described in not-so-eloquent terms.
Let me offer another reason why I hope--for the sake of R&G and those who depend on that institution for their livelihood (much like those just shown the door) your proffered explanation is not correct: Many firms have internal investigation, white collar crime, special matters groups that are supposed to, among other things, manage and assess crisis situations. Indeed many business and general litigation practices do much of the same.
Now, imagine you're a client of a law firm (general counsel), and you have been given the explanation you just offered for R&G's own failings in the context of a crisis matter that has been similarly mismanaged on behalf of your business. Would that be a long conversation with the representative from that law firm? My guess is that it would probably not be; and, that is the point.
If the Firm looks out for its own interests so poorly, how in the world is anybody outside of its walls supposed to have any confidence that R&G is the firm to entrust with matters that have to managed properly.
In other words, the remedy you offer may be worse than the disease. At least sending a message implies that some prior thought went into the process. Oh, by the way, the hypothetical client relationship I described above would, in my opinion, culminate in the just termination of hypothetical law firm...for performance reasons, of course.
HTH
321
316 -- Proskauer Rose had a blood bath of first year firings. Proskauer Rose really did fire first year associates for economic reasons (only weeks after they joined the firm).
Firing 2 out of 200 first year associates at R&G after 9 months of work clearly is for performance reasons. The fact that anyone is suggested otherwise just shows you how stupid all the Wilmer Hale and Goodwin trolls on this site are.
Apparently Wilmer Hale has been conducting stealth layoffs for quite some time. ATL please look into that.
I am also hearing rumblings that Proskauer Rose hasn't even scheduled its "reviews" for associates so the blood bath can occur just after the summers leave.
I got let go from Ropes at the end of year '08. Layoffs have been going on at Ropes for some time, so at least now they're finally admitting that they're doing them.
I like my new job a lot, but I still have a lot of bitterness about how my termination was handled by Ropes. I recognize that every big firm is going through tough times, particularly a firm so dependent on huge private equity deals like Ropes, but they handled it in an insulting, non-transparent, non-accurate, non-methodological way. I only wish I had known how shitty the firm really was when I was picking firms at the beginning of my 2L year.
331--
I am glad you're happy. No need to dwell on the past. I suggest you keep moving forward with your life and forget all about that shithole.
316 - locke lord laid off a large number of its first years in chicago. they are in the 80-100 range. although i guess we shouldnt give a crap about a firm in that range anyway.
Does someone who was laid off for performance reasons that are unfounded have any legal or other recourse?
334 - I hear that promissory estoppel may be relevant, but I'm not sure. Check the Restatement (2d).
Ropes gets rid of low performers EVERY YEAR you morons. This year is no different. The only difference is that there's a blog saying it's a layoff when it's nothing more than people who aren't performing they way they should. And there are NOT 1000 lawyers at Ropes. Get your facts straight before you go spouting off. (Although I DO agree the timing was horrible.)
336 -- Fuck off...these layoffs are anything but normal. The cuts are going waaaayy deeper and nearly everyone is having the seeds of a future dismissal planted in his/her review. Yes, it is bad economy, but let's just call it that and get rid of some people instead of the charade that is being played out here.
Umm, speaking of "spouting off," the R&G website touts 1000 lawyers...but I ain't going to do a head count to verify.
336 - That may be the party line, but that's not the truth. The cuts are going much deeper and this is a veiled cut based on the fact that the firm management has misjudged the severity and impact of the current economic climate. As one of the unlucky attorneys to be given the boot by Ropes today, I speak from experience. I have also talked to others still at the firm who have had seeds of doubt planted in their reviews to justify potential future dismissals during the next review period. At the end of the day, this is a business and if cuts need to be made, so be it. But personally, I would have retained respect for Ropes had the firm simply been honest with me and the public in general. This is bad press, and sorry to say, it's well-deserved. I've given years of my life to the firm, never taken my full complement of vacation, and always gone the extra mile. In the end, I think I deserve better than three months to look for a new job and a sorry, but you should have done better. These are not normal times, and these are not normal terminations. Call them what you want, but in the end this is a simple matter of economics.
338: My sympathies go out to you. But, these WERE normal performance reviews, with the same standards applied as in any year, and obviously the partners who reviewed your work found it to be below par. Ropes & Gray's attrition levels in 2009 will end up being BELOW what they were in previous years. I can understand your disappointment, though, and again you certainly have my sympathy.
339: you are wrong. If you're an RG associate, you are also clueless. However, I suspect you are either an RG HR person or partner/lackey. Just to make it perfectly clear to Ropes decisionmakers -- WE KNOW YOU COMMENT ON THIS BOARD.
340: You should stick to arguing the FACTS, like
i did. Ad hominem attacks might feel good for venting your frustration, but they certainly are not persuasive. Best, 339.