Que Michael Ray.
First?

First!

first? really?

Sucks. Boo layoffs.

wow even Davis didn't touch first years.

NYC to 190 NOW!!!!!

I am embarrassed for all of you.

YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS

Skadden Fired (er, I mean Skadden Sidebar, er. I mean Skadden Secure)

2, 3, 4: sorry you weren't first. while studying for contracts though i was thinking that you might have a claim, did you rely on being first?

NYC to 190 NOW!!!!!

Were any of the laid off associates gay and/or contemplating filing a discrimination suit?

What particularly sucks is that the first years who work at S&C could have worked at 99% of other firms and just got unlucky and chose S&C.

Not that I'm defending this firm, but I think you can judge the performance of first years by this point. Except in rare cases, you're not going to be able to say that they're really good. But you should be able to tell whether they're decent or horrible.

Better luck next time. There's always the public defender's office.

NY to 190!

1/9 - i like it. makes me chuckle. still not old.

Can you elaborate on the fired first years? I imagine it is possible to actually be capable of learning that an associate you hired 6 months ago isn't all that great, even if he did have good enough grades from a T20 school to then transfer to a T6 school and be interviewed.

NY to §90!

1/9: I'm not sure if you're just a 1L but every PRACTICING attorney knows that §90 is of no significants. Sorry to burst your bubble.

god. getting laid off for "performance reasons" as a first-year is the kiss of death. Might as well find a second career.

NY to §90 is a great comment!

I can't believe I am saying this, but what does PE think about this?

An attorney is a "who," you idiot, not a "that." An inanimate object is a "that." Didn't they teach you that in your writing class at Harvard Law??

Layoff = commit a crime of moral turpitude = sinister intent = genocide = crime against humanity = chanting of satanic verses

I object to 23's comment on the grounds that it characterizes attorneys as people

agree with 13. Some first years suck donkey dick, and it is fairly easy to figure out who those guys are early on.

"This provides Sullivan with a rare opportunity to prove that its layoffs are performance based. If everything is fine, if the economy is not a factor, if the firm has really just laid off 15 - 20 "bad lawyers," then maybe S&C will reward the good lawyers still at the firm?"

Elie, your "analysis" has the depth of a Dan Brown character.

Am I too big to fail?

-Fat in Philly

Must give credit where it is due: Elie made a decent little argument there for bonuses to not be slashed. Nicely done, and thank you.

Am I too big to fail?

-Fat in Philly

It is hard to believe that S&C would lay-off people unless it was performance-based. 15-20 isn't such a big number. The savings are about $4,000,000-$5,000,000 in salaries and probably a $500,000-$1,000,000 in overhead. Rougly this will probably add $60,000-$100,000 per partners profits.

Wow, great analysis there Elie. I still am at a loss as how everything here is considered economics and not performance. Out of hundreds of attorney's it is reasonable to expect that 15 or 20 will be laid off because they are not very good. Also, after 6 months a firm can tell if a first year has potential or not.

Whatever happened to the S&C partner from a few weeks ago who got "escorted" (love that euphemism--try "thrown" or "kicked" for good Anglo-Saxon words) out of the building by the jack-booted security staff?

"§90 is of no significants"

sigh. F-ing idiots

What did one prestige obsessed stealth-ly laid off SC associate say to another?

@19=EPIC FAIL

-not 1 or 9

I believe the children are our future...

How can firing first-years be performance based when there has been no work handed down on which they could be judged? First years always depend on trickle-down work, and when everyone at the firm knows that the ax is about to fall , work is hoarded and that stream ceases to exist.

Now I know all the boys I've seen you with.
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit.
You made 'em cry, many poor boys cry.
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied.

Mr. Mystal, tell me.
Who do you think you are?
Mr. Mystal.
You're never gonna get my love.

ATL is starting to lose its credibility with the way it reports these "stealth layoffs". It has gotten to the point where I don't believe them at all. It seems that they only try to report stuff that will generate comments and have stopped caring about the accuracy of the information.

Not everything is economic related. People still can get fired for performance reasons.

What I would really like to hear is from those laid-off associates. Were there any rumors at S&C before it happened?

The world is coming to an end.

Though it has its typos, this is the kind of story I like from Elie. He got off his butt, did some research, and found out something interesting. Refreshing.

- Not Mystttal.

Geez, what a crap place to work S&C seems to be.

Typically I'd complain about how the latest firm making cuts didn't cut as deep or as randomly as Thompson Hine (which has been doing deep pay cuts, announced layoffs, and pretty much constant stealth layoffs).

This time, I think I'll keep my powder dry. S&C sounds like about as shitty a place to work as Thompson Hine. I don't know which of us I feel worse for.

Where are my fellow TH associates at? Have we finally found a firm as shitty to work at as ours?

"It is hard to believe that S&C would lay-off people unless it was performance-based. 15-20 isn't such a big number. The savings are about $4,000,000-$5,000,000 in salaries and probably a $500,000-$1,000,000 in overhead. Rougly this will probably add $60,000-$100,000 per partners profits."

May want to check you calculations (the addition to PPP is much, much less than that), but agree that this is small potatoes.

31, assuming your numbers are right, that's not exactly chump change to an equity partner in this economy. Especially if they have to support/supplement thier own 20something kids' education/housing/maintenence costs. I'm pretty sure that firms are generally beyond worried about looking bad for recruiting, at least in the short-term.

Why don't big firms just tell the truth. Maybe NYC needs a "Doopest" Attorney too.

15-20 associates is, what, 2-3 per class? Come on. "Stealth," please.

#37 - ROTFLMAO

I rarely comment, but I feel Elie's smug, melodramatic announcement of "Above the Law is now in a position to confirm," but then failing to back it up with any reference as to the source of his "information" is both irresponsible and pathetic. Either do some real reporting and get some facts, or stop making things up. Did you contact the firm? What are the S&C sources saying? Do you have more than one source? Do they even work at S&C? Have you talked to any of these associates? You don't need to give all the specifics- protecting your sources is laudable- but you need to come up with more than this

I'm not saying it is impossible there were layoffs. But 15-20 people at a firm with over 750 lawyers doesn't seem to suggest anything solid about what the real reason was for the cuts, unless you have some good information to back it up. This website used to be useful, not it seems willing to grasp on to anything in order to accomplish its sole mission- higher page views.

38, there is still work everywhere. And first years are getting it too. Work is just light. If I assign a first year to write a research memorandum and they hand me retarded gobbleygook, it's a pretty safe bet that they are not even close to being good. Safe thing if they take the first crack at drafting a complaint and produce absolute crap. Even if they're just doing doc review, producing privileged documents or repeatedly failing to redact confidential and propriety information is not a good sign.

I'm litigation, but there is still work to be done even in corporate and even by first years. Even if not much. They can still fuck it up. I've heard stories from other senior associates about juniors who routinely mess up very basic due diligence.

People called me crazy when I told them that I pounded Rodgy Rodge in the ass on Sunday nights, but who is laughing now?

Still employed S&C ass pounder

I work at a peer firm to Sullcrom (ok, so they wouldnt think so, but its what gets me through the day) and we've been pushing people out ... call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is, these are people who in the good times would have produced pretty good work product. But in the bad times, whens theres no work, they become expendable. Is that preformence related? I guess so, in the sense that the firm is keeping the people they really like and parting with those they dont. But do these lawyers suck? No, not really.

#49 - RJLKAPWHJF

50 - I suppose it's nice to see that Sullivan and Cromwell HR people are still finding something to do with their time.

Firms refute stories of stealth layoffs when they are false. When the rumors are true, just lots of screams to "prove it".

"Unless you name your sources so we can fire them, you're definitely making stuff up!"

Laughable.

This would never happen in Houston.

Lord of Locke Lord

I thought attending law school would pay off,
But I have just been dished out a stealth layoff.
I have nothing to do
But sit home sniffing glue
And to stare at Mystal while I J-off.

-- by: The Lim Ricker

Did S & C layoff more than half the class in NY, like Latham?

I think it is performance based. Because apparently S&C is hiring too.

I am a second year working in one of the V10 firms. I just got a call from a recruiter, he asked me if I want to work at S&C. I said thanks but no thanks. I just don't think I can survive in that environment.

What did one prestige obsessed stealth-ly laid off SC associate say to another?

15-20 feels like performance-based, probably needed more so than in the past due to lack of attrition.

but the firm could also be doing poorly, which would justify a no bonus.

it's not that there stop being crappy associates who need firing when the economy is down... you can have both.

My advice to this law firm,
that termination and severance
is so much quicker and easier,
appears to have fallen on deaf ears..

S&C is firm that is declining -- they will not be considered first tier when the market improves. Wachtell, Cravath and Cleary will likely hold on as first tier, but S&C will not. Not that S&C will fall far, it will still be equivalent to a Kirkland or Millbank, but it will no longer be first tier.

S&C is firm that is declining -- they will not be considered first tier when the market improves. Wachtell, Cravath and Cleary will likely hold on as first tier, but S&C will not. Not that S&C will fall far, it will still be equivalent to a Kirkland or Millbank, but it will no longer be first tier.

The S&C layoffs were reported on by New York's CBS affiliate just last week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

This is old news.

#51 No. There is not work everywhere. That is why ATL has so many posts so quickly. There are quite a lot of nervous lawyers with lots of time on their hands.

I'm at S&C, but not one of the laid off associates. I know quite a few of the laid off associates, and what it comes down to is that these are associates that would not have been laid off if the economy was good, who are now being let go for "performance".

Apparently, the word is that the firm has contracted to provide all of the laid off associates out-placement assistance. This is something the firm had never had on a standing basis before, but was occasionally provided on an ad hoc basis, but was formalized in response to the number of people they're letting go now. If this is just "normal" attrition, why do you suppose they would have done that?

Is V&E now more prestigious than S&C?

UT2L

66, I think the reason ATL gets post so quickly is because everybody on here is a law student who sits around all day

It is now, 68, it is now.

"It is hard to believe that S&C would lay-off people unless it was performance-based. 15-20 isn't such a big number. The savings are about $4,000,000-$5,000,000 in salaries and probably a $500,000-$1,000,000 in overhead. Rougly this will probably add $60,000-$100,000 per partners profits."

May want to check you calculations (the addition to PPP is much, much less than that), but agree that this is small potatoes.

68, Yes

44 - I don't work at TTThompson Hine, but I have friends that do. It's sad that people at shitty Ohio firms keep trying to compare themselves to NY firms.

I'd rather be a janitor at a NY firm than work at an Ohio firm. And, if God decided to punish me and I did have to work at an Ohio firm, it'd have to be Jones Day or someplace people have actually heard of.

Lol at the thought that Milbank is equivalent to Kirkland. On the fence about S&C's 'decline.' Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell.

Unknown and 'modest' Jackson Lewis (550+ attorneys) has added about 25 lawyers since the summer and several this week alone. There are other firms like that which ATL ignores.

to 57, are S&C lawyers worried? is the firm busy these days?

Yes, but this story does not answer a longstanding question: When S&C fired Aaron Charney, was it an economic layoff or was it performance based?

I mean, Charney was fired during the economic boom, so it couldn't be an economic layoff. On the other hand, S&C had to pay Charney that big settlement, so it couldn't have been performance based, right?

This is one paradox that will never be resolved.

Yes, but this story does not answer a longstanding question: When S&C fired Aaron Charney, was it an economic layoff or was it performance based?

I mean, Charney was fired during the economic boom, so it couldn't be an economic layoff. On the other hand, S&C had to pay Charney that big settlement, so it couldn't have been performance based, right?

This is one paradox that will never be resolved.

Yes, but this story does not answer a longstanding question: When S&C fired Aaron Charney, was it an economic layoff or was it performance based?

I mean, Charney was fired during the economic boom, so it couldn't be an economic layoff. On the other hand, S&C had to pay Charney that big settlement, so it couldn't have been performance based, right?

This is one paradox that will never be resolved.

76 is retarded.

Do you think they did layoffs because the firm is crazy busy? Do you think layoffs are reassuring?

Unless you think either of those moronic things, then your questions pretty well answer themselves.

74= Kirkland junior associate who foolishly thinks that Kirkland is a better firm than Milbank.

74, Kirkland and Milbank occupy the same spot on the pecking order. Don't delude yourself with illusions of granduer.

Agree with 74. That's not-so-subtle Milbank trolling right there. Kirkland's not in the same league as Wachtell and Cravath. Clearly. Just as clearly, Milbank is not in the same league as kKrkland.

to 80 - it may be reassuring if truley performance based, as it sounds that they are based on the majority of the comments and S&C's reputation. I was trying to get some insight as to the moral at S&C. I met 2 attorneys who work there while negotiating a deal and they were very upbeat.

I would guess the issue here is that:

(A) S&C made 2007 summer associate offers based on the expectation of a "normal" 25% attrition rate per year; and

(B) there is no attrition, because there is no place to which associates can lateral.

In that case, almost every firm is going to have to proactively cull the bottom 10% that would have left by now in a good economy.

SullCrom = Death camp.

83 = S&C partner/associate trying to limit fallout from this PR disaster.

83, S&C is on hard times, and they fired people because they couldn't afford them. S&C will never again be thought of in the same rank as the firms that have avoided layoffs.

2 months severance is pretty damn TTT for a supposedly top firm. That's below market, and definitely below their peer firms. Latham was 6 months, and Davis Polk was 3 months and after being featured on Above the Law for their stealth layoffs bumped it up to 4 I heard.

Why in the world would any law student considering a firm go to Sullivan & Cromwell instead of firms that are just as good in every sense that matters to associates, but also don't kick their lawyers to the curb the first chance they get? Cravath has been super slow on the corporate side, but they've been a class act and took the hit on their PPP instead of dropping it on the associates. Latham was in bad straits, but had the decency to admit what they were doing, and to give an industry leading severance. What does S&C have to offer over them?

76 - Just call your officemate from your summer and ask him or her. That it is, if he or she is still there. More importantly, study for your finals.

83, S&C on hard times? Cohen negotiated most of the big banking deals last year and Weisman the AIG bailout. Where do you get your information from? partners/associates "cover up"? really? any hard facts?

87,

Latham is no longer a "peer firm" to DPW, Cravath, or any of the other V10s.

Regards,
Decency

86 - S&C on hard times? Cohen negotiated most of the big banking deals last year and Weisman the AIG bailout. Where do you get your information from? partners/associates "cover up"? really? any hard facts?

87,

Latham is no longer a "peer firm" to DPW, Cravath, or any of the other V10s.

Regards,
Decency

73--

Nobody cares. Bask in the self-importance that you actually don't have and get back to us when you actually do something a real lawyer does.

Unsurprising. S&C is just the first. Many of the top NYC firms (DPW, STB, CSM, etc.) have yet to fire people, unlike Latham, Orrick, CWT, etc. But I don't see how they can firing at least a few associates. I don't think it'll be Latham's bloodbath but I don't see what else NY firms can do.

89 Those are sour grapes. S&C is a great firm, and will continue to do great, even in this economy.

why would anybody ever work at s&c?

63/64: disgusting cleary trolling

To 75:

That's because employment law is beneath mergers and document review, didn't you know that? You haven't lived until you've been a paralegal for nine years without developing your own book of business!

DUH!

86 - S&C on hard times? Cohen negotiated most of the big banking deals last year and Weisman the AIG bailout. Where do you get your information from? partners/associates "cover up"? really? any hard facts?

87,

Very excellent points. That is probably why we are seeing S&C being compared with a straight face to shitty Ohio firms like Thompson Hine.

Treat your associates like crap, and people will think of your firm as crap. Funny that these "brilliant" partners don't understand that.

Why's Latham not a peer firm to DPW, Cravath, and the other V10? Because they had the stones to say what they were doing as opposed to hiding it? Because they had the decency to pay a great severance as opposed to lying and saying it was bad performance? Maybe that'd be bad if I were a partner looking to lateral, but as a law student trying to decide, I'd take Latham over an S&C any day.

Kenny Powers, please answer 96's question appropriately. Think "dollah dollah..."

Baker Botts > Locke Lord > S&C

Its true.

89/91:

Here are the "hard facts" you have asked for:

1. S&C had to layoff people (unlike other top firms in NYC, Wachtel, Cleary, Cravath, etc.)

2. Some of those people were first years that S&C presumably had invested heavily in recruiting just a year or so before.

3. Even though S&C wanted to keep these layoffs quiet, S&C gave a stingy and below market severance package, a measly two months. That's really cheap, conspicuously so. One could therefore reasonably assume that S&C could not afford to pay market level severance packages, otherwise they would have paid a package that would have ensured silence for longer than two months.

Accordingly, S&C is on hard times. Q.E.D.

86

87,100 there is a reason why during the internet bubble when people were leaving s&c left and right, they hired a consulting firm and paid probably lots of money just to hear that "treat your associates better" would work...TTT

Am I the only one who is horrified by the image of some commenter pounding Rodgin Cohen in the ass on Sunday nights?

104 - maybe for performance based layoffs S&C thought it shouldn't pay market severance? maybe they invested in recruiting the first-years but decided to cut their losses early? these are not facts just speculations and deductions of the speculations.

Hahaha, ok, so S&C has hit tough times, but are there really several people on here that think they are now as bad as Ohio firms?

I honestly don't know a single thing about Thompson Hine, which is the main reason that I know S&C can't possibly be as shitty as some obscure Ohio firm. What is Thompson Hine, a Vault 999,999 firm? Seriously, Ohio whiners, give us one reason that the Ohio firms should even be considered BigLaw... what is an Ohio firm, like 90% selling divorces to people and their cousins?

-Works in a real city where they handle real legal issues

Is Rodgin Cohen a member of AIPAC?

That would explain a lot...

I am in house at a company.

A few years ago, S&C came in at the very bottom of an associate satisfaction survey. A fancy consultant told them that they could improve their image in recruiting by treating their associates better. Amazing! The partnership, demonstrating exactly the type of leadership that S&C is famous for, responded by (1) installing a lounge, and (2) having the worst screamer asshole partners in the firm teach a seminar to senior associates on the fact that junior associates must be treated with respect. The irony was apparently lost on them.

And here they are again, showing zero commitment to their associates. Any recruit that could get into S&C could get into somewhere else too.

Hahaha, ok, so S&C has hit tough times, but are there really several people on here that think they are now as bad as Ohio firms?

I honestly don't know a single thing about Thompson Hine, which is the main reason that I know S&C can't possibly be as shitty as some obscure Ohio firm. What is Thompson Hine, a Vault 999,999 firm? Seriously, Ohio whiners, give us one reason that the Ohio firms should even be considered BigLaw... what is an Ohio firm, like 90% selling divorces to people and their cousins?

-Works in a real city where they handle real legal issues

Those of you criticizing Elie for not providing more substantive confirmation of these layoffs are missing the point, just as S & C intended.

Stealth layoffs are intended to be small enough to make confirmation difficult. Furthermore, they are intended to be small enough to make their "performance" basis plausible. Those of you who have written this off as essentially not newsworthy are doing exactly what S & C hoped you would. This permits them to make economic layoffs without having to acknowledge they are laying anyone off.

Good job, Kool-Aid drinkers!

101, Latham's not a top firm because it is so poorly managed and made such bad decisions, that it needed to resort to mass (and I mean MASS layoffs). No other top firms have, and I don't think they will. There will and have been layoffs at other top firms, stealth and otherwise. There may be more. But nothing like that.

By the way, S&C is still a better firm than Kirkland despite this little 20 person cut. And Kirkland is still leagues above Milbank. In nearly every (though not every) department and measure. Who do you think you're kidding 63/81? The law students that make up the majority of the posters here?

Those of you criticizing Elie for not providing more substantive confirmation of these layoffs are missing the point, just as S & C intended.

Stealth layoffs are intended to be small enough to make confirmation difficult. Furthermore, they are intended to be small enough to make their "performance" basis plausible. Those of you who have written this off as essentially not newsworthy are doing exactly what S & C hoped you would. This permits them to make economic layoffs without having to acknowledge they are laying anyone off.

Good job, Kool-Aid drinkers!

Haha, 106, you rule.

S&C = TTT

What a shithole.

63 - funny Cleary troll.

Ok, I will take the bait. Cleary is not part of the discussion when it comes to the elite in corporate deal or financial advisory work. Sure, it is among top-tier players in cap-markets, anti-trust and PE work, but the partners at S&C, Cravath, Wachtell, and a few others are higher in the pecking order overall and are sought first on the most complex and complicated client problems.

People who choose S&C over other firms probably do not place as much emphasis on "work environment" factors as those who choose Cleary, DPW, Simpson, or Debevoise but don't confuse those lifestyle concerns with firm performance or the quality of advice for clients.

107 -- in this market, when nearly every firm is conducting economic based layoffs, S&C suddenly decides to do a housecleaning of under performing first years -- and because they are performance based, decides not to pay market severance? Why would S&C risk the tremendous hit to reputation (which it is taking right now) to get rid of a few underperforming first years at this point? S&C (and every other top firm) never assesed first years this early in thier career (or really at all, absent egregious shortcomings). Make no mistake, this was an economic based layoff.

For all the people who believe these are performance based, stop deluding yourselves and sucking the law firms' cocks, it won't get you a job or let you keep yours when they come for you.

Fact: S&C used to let shoddy associates hang around for a year or more at a time, just asking them to try and find other employment with no set time frame. There was not a huge contingent of these people hanging around the firm at any given time.
Fact: S&C is now requesting a group of associates simultaneously leave with only 2 months notice.

What do you suppose the likelihood of these two facts being a coincidence is?

Incidentally, I'm at S&C, and I think Ellie has undercounted the numbers. There were some people back at the end of February, but it started as early I've heard as December, and it's been continuing with them coming in the night and picking us off one by one. It hasn't been all at once precisely because they are trying to avoid it looking like a layoff.

All years are vulnerable. It's a little hard to imagine at a place like S&C where associates aren't required to bring in business to make partner how the termination of a 6th year could be performance-based. They provided 5 solid years of service, and suddenly in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression they decide to start mailing it in their 6th year?

Morale is in the shitter now, as everyone looks over their shoulder and wonders if they're next.

What did the holocaust survivor say to the SulCrom Associate?

121 - Probably "Are you a member of AIPAC?"

Remind me again why anyone would willingly work at Sullcrom?

107 Right now, " Performance" = hours, not work product. A firm in trouble (and there are many) can't afford to keep even good people who dont have enough work, so those with the lowest hours ( ? bad luck to be in a slow dept) are sacrificed. This action speaks volumes about the future of those firms who can't even 'hold on" until the economy turns around. The next 18 months will be telling; the landscape will not be the same.

120 finally someone from s&c giving some credible assessment of the status of things. s&c are smart enough not lay-off 60-70 people but 15-20 each 2 months. same took place in 2002 when they called associates to a "chat" around 6pm and let them know that they have been laid-off for performance.

Before Latham laid-off two hundred plus attorneys - didn't it conduct several rounds of what folks call "stealth layoffs.?" This blog was inundated with angry comments from Lathamites.

Is it fair to say those "stealth" victims were fired for performance related issues and the public rounds were for economic reasons? Or is the case that everyone fired from Latham can now claim they were laid off for economic reasons?

Call it what you will, but you have to figure those attorneys still at Latham were valued much more than those who were laid off for economic or non-economic reasons. Translation - any laid off attorney has to overcome a presumption that they were laid off for reasons other than performance and PR can only help so much.

120 = 100% correct.

The bootlickers here crack me up, singing the praises of the work of your firm (which most mid-level and junior wouldn't even understand) isn't going to help you when its your head on the chopping block.

We're in a different world than we were even a year ago (and it wasn't great then). Forget low billables, what you should understand is diminishing receivables. I don't care if a junior billed 200 on a lousy doc review, if the client won't pay for it there's no benefit to the firm. And clients today won't (and in many situations CAN'T because they are hurting worse than the firms) pay for it.

123: Because they're prestige whores who now got what they deserved.

And S&C will continue to hire prestige whores despite this, because in the end of the day, the prestige whores will still go to get the most prestigious kick in the nuts from the most prestigious firm who will give it to them. It's pretty much the basis of S&C's entire recruiting program.

I think if a separate Palestinian state had been created during the last six months, S&C would not be laying people off right now.

As it stands, however, AIPAC is in control of this country and this president, and we will never see that happen. Alas, S&C is laying off.

Subject: Congratulations!

Based on your reaction to getting the offer, this is probably the best thing that could have hever appened to you. I encourage you to enjoy the summer and take accept their offer as nothing in the world will cure you of your prestige obsession quicker than some time at S&C.

During orientation, they'll give you an S&C shoulderbag and you'll wear it with the S&C logo facing outward so any other commuters in the know can see it and you'll just know that they're either impressed or envious. And that will make you happy and proud. And then you'll try to figure out the best way to ensure that you're sworn in as soon as possible after receiving your bar results because then you'll get the box full of business cards that say "Sullivan & Cromwell LLP" with your actual name underneath. You'll be giddy at the thought of casually passing one (mid-conversation) to some acquaintance from undergrad you've lost touch with.

You'll start working and you'll notice that there are an awful lot of "Farewell" emails and someone will tell you that the farewell emails can only contain 4 names at a time per firm policy because the partners decided sometime in 2004 that emails indicating 6 or 7 people were leaving the firm in a two week period might cause some unhelpful whispering. You'll talk to a midlevel associate who is super-psyched to work at S&C and you'll find out that he (not a lot of shes) lateralled from some firm that frankly you would never have considered working for (too TTT for you). When you get back to your office, this will trouble you a bit, you'll wonder if your own escutcheon is being blemished by the presence of this type of person (i.e., non-elite) at your S&C. But that feeling will pass as you'll find plenty of other like-minded first years who equally relish the prestige as you you head for a drink at Ulysses (shoulderbag logo facing outward).

Then you'll get staffed on your first big deal and you'll work late night after late night and then on the weekend and on to the next weekend and then on to the weekend when you had planned to go to a friend's wedding. And you won't go because the work has to get done and you have dues to pay (or so you'll be told). You'll get a little bit upset about this turn of events, but the arrival of those business cards will soften the blow.

You'll meet more and more laterals from firms that you would never work for (some you've never even heard of). You'll note in the farewell emails that some of the junior and midlevel associates leaving S&C are going to those very same firms. Survival of the fittest you'll say. But late at night, when the air conditioning clicks down from a barely perceptible hissing sound to complete silence, these things will bother you. But you'll tell yourself you're just tired and frustrated and anyway you have work to do.

You'll have lunch with Rodge and he'll tell you that business is good and that he's listening to associates' concerns about quality of life issues. You'll notice that some of the senior associates visibly roll their eyes at each other when this comes up, but you won't mind that much because, really, what other firm's managing partner regulalry has lunch with associates to hear their concerns (and takes notes!)

A few months will pass, a few marathon deals will happen, you'll have to re-schedule a vacation but you'll tell yourself that that is to be expected.

About a year in, a couple of your classmates will crack and start talking about how much the job sucks. They'll very likely have gone to Yale Law School. You'll joke that they couldn't hack it when they leave the firm for a clerkship, or an academic position or to go to a firm in another city.

Things will go on in this pattern and you'll notice the fact that you're working a lot harder than your friends who went to "peer" firms. At first you'll be proud of this and brag about it, but after a while you'll find yourself downplaying it. At least when you have the time to get out and socialize with your law school friends.

Something will happen: a partner will scream at you, a senior associate gunning for partner will blame you for her mistake, the partner will tell you that the trip to Europe your spouse meticulously planned just won't be able to happen (he'll be really sorry and will tell you a funny story about the exotic vacation he missed or cut short). Doesn't matter what, but you'll get really pissed and you'll start to take some of the 4 or 5 calls from headhunters that you'll receive every day at that point (vultures spell blood). They'll give you the names of firms that you laughed on in the days when you posted on the XOXO board, but you'll find yourself looking into them. The headhunter will encourage to just listen to their offer and you'll consider doing so. But you won't leave because then you'd have to give up your business cards. And stop wearing the shoulder bag. And the bonus is only x months away so you'll start thinking about it then.

Until one day you won't be able to take it any more and you'll find yourself arranging to meet with people from a lightly regarded firm for a position in their New York office. And you'll worry that the XOXO crowd will see you.

And you don't believe any of this will happen, but I suggest you print this out and keep it in the top desk of your drawer so late at night when you're feeling sorry for yourself, you can add to the list of reasons to be miserable this fact: someone told you this was going to happen and you thought that person was crazy.

I'm also at Thompson Hine. I don't understand all the hate against Ohio (it's a decent place to live), but the partners at Thompson Hine are generally bigger assholes than other firms I've seen, and there have been lots of stealth layoffs.

112 - there is no way that these layoffs have hurt S&C enough to make it as bad as TH. I'd lateral over to S&C in a heartbeat if that were an option.

Like so many of us, I'm stuck. Stuck waiting for the partners to quit playing gossip and stealth assassin, and instead get their lazy asses busy bringing in some business.

Every time a partner comes to scrutinize how busy I am, I want to scream "why aren't you out finding work?!"

I have to laugh at this concept of "market severance" in an at will employment situation. A market kind of assumes two willing participants free to choose other alternatives if the price isn't right (which may be true where the employee can negotiate an employment contract up front). But with at will employees, severance doesn't work like that at all. It's a number that is dictated to the departed. Firms are free to do whatever they want with absolutely no consequence. What is the poor associate going to do?

Also, no law student or lawyer I know picks a firm based upon how much severance they might get if they get fired.

"All of the sources we spoke," eh? Granted, this is better than "sources we spoke two" or "sources we spoke 2," but still an annoying typo.

130: HAHAHA!!.

They still won't believe you, of course, like you're well aware. S&C has not been successful this long because law students are smart enough to listen to advice from people in the industry who've been there.

This would never happen at Allison Margolin, Esq.

Detroit votes for a new mayor tomorrow. The leading candidate misrepresented his undergraduate degree and assumed an honorary degree was an MBA. He claimed he made a mistake whereby he mistook his honroary degree for an MBA. LOng LIvE DeTROiT.

132, you said, "Also, no law student or lawyer I know picks a firm based upon how much severance they might get if they get fired."

I'm a rising 2L at a T14 law school. Obviously I'll take what I can get in this economy, but when it comes time for me to choose between options, I'm definitely going to be paying close attention to how firms are treating their associates when times got rough.

130 I'm willing to bet you went to a land grant university. What does your father do? Is he a dentist or maybe an accountant? Where do you summer? Myrtle Beach? Did you get that Brooks Brothers 346 suit at the outlet mall?

130 - long, but worth it

134 -- they will listen to 130 this time, and that's what S&C is afraid of. Going to S&C as a first year from Harvard, Yale, etc. does not supply the prestige that the insecure law student craves if the firm is known for having (god forbid) economic layoffs! Thus, if S&C is a mere common law firm, then what is the point of all those late nights and weekends -- there is no prestige to impress others working at a firm that has fallen on hard times.

These layoffs will do more to hurt S&C than the Charney mess, the screamers or the long hours ever could. These layoffs will deprive S&C of the "prestige" in the eyes of top law students, and that will kill them, slowly. S&C will be forced to hire lower quality students who won't work as hard for mere "prestige" that S&C no longer has.

OK, so what's AIPAC? Take pity on a newby and explain the in-joke?

121--Is it "Didn't you wonder why the partners keep saying 'arbeit macht frei'?"

12 - I am really sorry for the laid off first years but I am not sure it is just "luck." S&C is known as a bad place for associates, especially young associates. If I had to guess which V5 firm will be the first the fire first years (even if PPP are still quite high) - I would guess S&C. If I had to guess which firm will deny the economic layoff ...

121--Is it "Didn't you wonder why the partners keep saying 'arbeit macht frei'?"

120: it doesn't make sense. how come nobody heard of related layoffs in december? its impossible to hide these days....

140 - already happening!

-T5

146 what do you mean?

This is just normal forced attrition. Someone has to give. It's either the incoming first years or the current associates. The firm cannot afford to carry too many attorneys at one point. S&C has already delayed its starting date by two months so they could conduct another round of forced attrition right after the summer but before the arrival of the 2009 class.

145 -- 120 here. They're hiding it right now -- even now, people are doubting the truth of the layoff. Back in December, with less people to go on, I'm guessing nobody tipped ATL or they chose not to run it. I know two specific people personally who were let go then, of course both ostensibly on performance based reasons. And I also heard from sources I trust about people that I don't know personally being told they're being let go as late as last week. It's been a rolling process, which is terrible for morale, but good for plausible deniability on whether it's a layoff.

Another note for everyone who doesn't believe that S&C is hurting. There is a per associate (including the summers they take out) non-transferable $500 cap for the entire summer for all meals. That's what we spent at one meal in past years. Good thing the summers probably aren't going to be too interested in going out this summer, especially with the message they're sending loud and clear with the layoffs and the budget cap.

141,

See www.aipac.org

Good points, 149.

And the summer meal cap is more concrete proof that S&C has fallen on hard times.

121 here....

To 140...man that made my day

151, "And the summer meal cap is more concrete proof that S&C has fallen on hard times."

From the stable PPP numbers, apparently hard times for everyone except the partners.

130, that is the single greatest post I've ever seen on ATL.

Take those PPP numbers with a grain of salt, 153. A 3.7 percent drop is not "stable" in the law firm business. For a firm of S&C size, a 3.7 percent drop results in a substantial drop in profits in absolute terms. If a firm does not expect to make that up shortly with new deals or cases, the firm must trim expenses quickly to avoid an even larger drop in PPP in the next quarter (with underemployed associates being the largest drag on profit). S&C must not be bringing in a lot of new work, hence the layoffs at S&C.

87 - Cravath has been busy (or busier) this year. I'm not at Cravath, but in a position to know.

Not sure if I believe this S&C thing was really about layoffs or if it was about cutting some performance fat before the supplemental bonuses. We're talking about 2-3% of associates at most. Not really a magic number...

130 - it is like reading a history of my experience with BigLaw. Hopefully, it will inspire associates to do what I did and leave the BS of BigLaw for a happier life either in-house or with the Government. You'll make less on an annual basis, but more in terms of pay per hour spent at the office.

@141 - Ever heard of google?

It's funny how in the real world, when a corporation isn't doing well, no one really expects a dividend, and in fact the media gets outraged at dividends if they are paid.

In the insular world of big law, not only do the partners expect a huge payout (which is not akin to a salary, because it's mainly based on the equity of the firm) even in bad years, but if the amount of the payout goes down, it's a huge cause for alarm and they immediately start throwing good employees overboard. This is especially funny given that recent years have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the amount of payouts the partners get, but still the partners feel like somehow it'd be unfair for them to be the ones making any sacrifices.

The message at 130 is the text of an old AutoAdmit post (not mine), but it was too brilliant not to be reproduced here.

- 130

Remember, you can't spell analysis without anal . . .

http://syracuse.craigslist.org/lgl/1141217470.html

The layoffs have absolutely nothing to do with performance. I just got off the phone with two S&C partners who lamented the layoffs as a reaction to the economic downturn. As one explained, "They invested a great deal of money in some good associates and flushed."

How could a first-year perform that badly in the first few months of their tenure that a firm would be willing to lose their substantial investment in them? (I know I'll get a lot of horror stories here, but the reality is that in my experience many bad first years are the result of bad partners and associates.

Only a matter of time.....this ship be sinking.

Thank god we're getting this done before the summer associates get here. Couldn't have them seeing that.

112,

Stop deluding yourself. You don't "deal with real legal issues." Reading through 100,000 pages of corporate documents doesn't make you a lawyer.

It makes you fodder for the next round of layoffs.

DPW is a lot busier now. I assume the same is true for S&C and CSM. I still won't feel safe until I start getting multiple "leaving the firm to join [some financial institution]" emails ever day.

So the AIPAC references are just a way of calling people stiny jews? I thought there might actually be some in-joke, or a reference to something clever. But I guess not. That's pretty sad.

- 141

a-roid is guilty

you can take my job, but you leave me my monkey!

Well its official Wilkie Farr Gallagher has started the rounds of FIRINGS. It is utterly despicable that these firms can turn around and fire people under the guise of "poor performance". After treating their associates as two bit whores for years they sending them out when the fleet is in. As soon as the ships leave the harbor the partners at these firms toss their associates out like the used prophylactic used to service their clients. Its understandable that in a bad economy that belts have to be tightened but to have the outright GALL to place the blame on the associates who have worked 80 hour weeks and worked through weekends for you, just to stamp them with "sub-par" is outrageous. The truly troubling point is that the Mayor of New York Mr. Bloomberg seems to be ok with such behavior. Since he has no in house council he attorneys are Wilkie attorneys, so in a sense his own employees. I for one am not sure I can vote for or abide by a man that allows his own employees to flat out degrade associates like that. Since there is a growing number of individuals who seem to come across a similar situation maybe a statement needs to be made. Bloomberg wants to be mayor again, maybe he should side those of us that need his help and damn the disreputable firms, otherwise we'll have to find someone who will.

I used to work at S&C. After my fourth year I was told in no uncertain terms that it was time for me to explore other opportunities. It didn't really feel like a lay-off. I assume that's all that's happening here. Only, going in-house or to another firm is probably not as easy as it was in 2006.

But those who did draw the short straw shouldn't take it too hard. Looking back at it, leaving S&C was the best career move I ever made.

2 first years could very easily be fired for performance reasons. If it were 10 first years (or even 5), you could draw the conclusion that they are just randomly cutting bodies. All firms have tightened performance standards and are going to be letting people go that they would have let stay around when things were busier and they needed bodies. Not living up to performance standards in this environment doesn't mean you are a bad lawyer any more than getting passed over for partner after 8 years at a place like S&C means you are a bad lawyer.

"It's hard to make a performance argument against an attorney that has been around for less than a year."

Fool, we've been making performance arguments against you since day one. It was easy. You revealed your incompetence and general lack of ability quickly. Though we hoped you'd get better, deep down we knew you'd always suck. If I could have fired you in, say, week 5 or 6, I probably would have. If I could fire you now, I certainly would. Either way- less than a year.

Wow, judging by the comments a lot of people got dinged by S&C; sorry to hear about that.

I know a few of the people that were laid off and they were incompetent. Absolutely incompetent. And I would argue that less than a year is still plenty of time to weed out some people.

That being said these are probably people that S&C would normally not have let go. They would have just told them to find work elsewhere, and coming from S&C this wouldn't have been a problem. In this economy, however, it is and so it ends up looking like "stealth layoffs." Were a few more people asked to find work elsewhere this year than normal? Probably. Is it the end of S&C? I don't think so.

"People who choose S&C over other firms probably do not place as much emphasis on "work environment" factors as those who choose Cleary, DPW, Simpson, or Debevoise" (#118) -- what a joke! I don't know about Debevoise, DPW and Simpson, but Cleary at least is exactly like the others (i.e., it's all about being a productive, disciplined billing unit). No, sorry after all, they are different: they are much bigger hypocrites.

Stealth layoffs are the pinnacle of shitty treatment. Firms should take reputation hits for that kind of behavior, but they won't. I haev a lot more respect for a place that owns up to layoffs than one that pulls this sort of career-killing crap on people. What bastards.

149, the $500 cap could also be a result of DB's crazy excesses last summer. You know how the partnership likes to close the barn door after the horse has left.

175: you are just being an asshole, you've got no idea except that you really wanted to post something....

130 - the most fantastic comment I've read on ATL ... ever! And so true it makes my ears ring with the echoes of my own S&C experiences. I'm thankful every day that they are behind me.

I walked away in my own time, on my own terms. I walked away promising myself I will NEVER go back to BigLaw misery. I walked away smiling towards the bright future. I keep smiling every day now!

- Happy In-House Counsel

130 - THE MOST FANTASTIC COMMENT I'VE READ ON ATL... EVER!
And so true it makes my ears ring with the echoes of my own S&C experiences. I'm thankful every day that they are behind me.

I walked away in my own time, on my own terms. I walked away promising myself I will NEVER go back to BigLaw misery. I walked away smiling towards the bright future. I keep smiling every day now!

- Happy In-House Counsel

178, even a $5000 cap would have been a significant restraint on DB. A $500 cap is a restraint on all the ordinary associates. Maybe the idea of a cap was because of DB, but the amount was because of the economy.

But yeah, you're totally right on the fact that S&C partners love to close the barn door after the horse has left.

Stealth staff layoffs have been going on at S&C for quite some time now, at least since Jan/Feb. Don't forget that S&C has a staff to lawyer ratio maybe 3:1 or greater in the NY office, so there has been plenty of room for the firm to cut a number of employees silently without making waves and affecting lawyer headcount. I suspect that the layoffs reported here were just the firm's way of helping along what has been the normal rate of attrition over the last few years.

The truth is - the firm is clearly suffering a bit. While there is still a good amount of work to go around, a lot of the work that kept people insanely busy the last few years is now gone. M&A is down sharply. There also isn't much going on in the litigation/regulatory area. The firm's huge once-buzzing litigation e-discovery/doc review space is now a ghost town. Very few associates are leaving. Many who remain are working their asses off because they know they have to - just reading ATL is incentive enough to spend a few extra hours in the office, or to keep for yourself a few tasks that you might have previously delegated. There are very few contract attorneys when there used to be hundreds, and the firm has all but stopped hiring legal assistants. And not to mention a full size class of summers arriving next week and fall associates arriving (in November?).

I doubt that we will see any more associate layoffs while the summers are here but we could be in for some major carnage among staff if conditions do not improve.

S&C is paying out the spring bonuses to associates on Friday. Of course, ATL has no idea what it is talking about, as usual.

-S&C

DON'T HASSLE THE HOFSTAR!!! HOFSTAR GOTS TO GO!

171 -- the fact that you misspelled "Willkie" makes your comment a lot less credible.

I think the DPW and SullCrom "stealth layoffs" are clearly just performance-related layoffs. They are small in number and, from all information available, targeting under-performers. In a good economy these same poor-performers would have gotten hints that they should move along and would take in-house positions as legal counsel of clients. Now, however, they are being pushed out. This makes sense. The natural attrition rate of law firms is much higher in good times and in this economy these "stealth layoffs" are really, truly, performance-related.

I don't think there is nearly enough discussion and analysis of all claims here. Most notably of which is apparently § 90 of the Restatement Contracts.

S&C has been cutting costs across the board, including increasing the number of lawyers per secretary, laying off a large portion of the support staff or getting rid of departments all together. I know a number of associates/support staff who have been laid off.

130/160 - this was already reproduceed here sometime last year.

it was refreshing to read again and yes the top tier students (whatever the hell that means) will crawl on all fours to 125 broad street anyway.

DO NOT WORK AT SULLIVAN & CROMWELL.

The slogan of this place should be "Work more, get less."

Here's the real deal on S&C:

(1) You will work significantly more hours than you will at peer firms. You will be frequently asked to cancel plans with family and friends. You will eat dinner alone at your desk several nights per week. When partners leave, or don't need something until Thurs. you will be the last to know about it-- so you'll work all night, stressing out for no reason. This will happen a lot, until you get home at 10:30 one night and actually feel good about it, because it's usually much worse.

(2) You be treated terribly by senior lawyers. It doesn't matter if you're a first year or a special counsel-- the people above you will treat you like shit. There is a reason S&C is known as a "hardcore" firm. If you want to get the rea S&C experience you need to join the litigation group and work with a certain partner (let's call him "D"). The level of abuse you can count on far surpasses any of the stories you've heard about the firm.

(3) You will be nickel-and-dimed like a Cadwalader associate. From cutting the summer associate budget to $500 to associate, to taking all the snacks out of the snack rooms, to giving out shameful "special bonuses" of $500 for first year associates-- S&C is the Wal-Mart of biglaw firms. Before you say "but most firms don't have special bonuses!", just remember this-- S&C is far, far more profitable than nearly every other firm out there. It screwed its associates out of bonuses in 2008 not because it had to, but because it could. Unlike Cravath, S&C did great last year.

(4) Stealth layoffs. If S&C can't keep its PPP up even in a downturn, don't expect to get the word that you're getting canned. They even have the nice touch to tell you it's performance-based, so that you can't even tell future employers that you were laid off for economic reasons.

(5) There are two reasons to ever work at S&C, and both are on the decline. Money and perks are drying up-- first years at Skadden make significantly more in bonus than the best senior lawyers at S&C. Prestige is dying, too. Do you think the big clients that still exist are going to pay S&C rates when nearly every other big firm will do the same work for less? And S&C's best clients are banks, which are going under or badly wounded.

87, don't talk about shit you don't know. Latham didn't have the decency to do anything. They fired people based on politics and not performance. latham is the worst firm of all.

101 - you should shut the fuck up as well. Latham had the decency to steathly lay off 120 people before they openly laid off 190, plus kicking out bunch of 8th years and about to do more layoffs. These included great lawyers including pregnant women, H1B people who can no longer stay in the country and etc. They left bunch of overbillers, suckups and general douche bags.

DONT TALK ABOUT SHIT YOU DON'T KNOW, DAVE GORDON.

This was a decidedly unprestigious move on S&C's part.

130 - You are the man. And I am still laughing my Black ass off at the cornbreads turning on each other.

The Sheriff

P.S> Where is PE?

S&C is in BAD, BAD SHAPE. We don't even know how bad it is yet, but S&C wouldn't throw away over a century of prestige like this unless things were really bad. Expect more layoffs, no bonus this year and possibly salary cuts.

191 -- who is litigation partner "D"??

***** McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY *****

incoming summer associate, here. i haven't read much about mcdermott on this board lately, which i view as a good thing. nowadays, no news seems to be better than bad news. a few questions:

- has mcdermott had attorney layoffs, stealth or otherwise?
- has the firm cut pay for summers (or associates)?
- i know firms are cutting back on summer programs, but can incoming summers still expect to have at least some fun (a few lunches, baseball games, happy hrs, etc.), or will it be "work work work"?
- any thoughts from mwe-insiders on whether the firm has ability to give all summers offers?
- i don't really give a $hit what kind of work i do post-graduation, as long as i get paid well for it. that said, will i increase my chances of a permanent offer by indicating an "interest" in a certain area of law

***** McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY *****

V-14, 2L

Didn't S&C literally represent the Nazis?

Just saying.

191 - I am not S&C HR or some kind of cheerleader but you are clearly deluded/have an axe to grind:

1. Do you have any friends at peer firms? The biz is the same at every big shop as you should know. S&C maybe works more than some big firm in the midwest but compared to NYC competitors it is the same - ask anyone at CSM, DPW, STB, etc.

2. There are bad apples at S&C, as there are everywhere. I know many people who have had uniformly positive experiences with senior lawyers, of course accepting that the seniors are going to be demanding, as the clients and business require. You knew what kind of game this was getting in.

3. It's a severe economic downturn that has disproportionately affected the financial sector and you are ignorant if you think any large firm is not hurting.

4. Agree that if it's for economic reasons the firm should be honest about it. The difficulty is that the two are always inseparable to some extent (i.e. you don't cut your best performers) and so far there have not been layoffs like what has been reported at Latham etc. I don't know what "If S&C can't keep its PPP up even in a downturn, don't expect to get the word that you're getting canned." is supposed to mean - no one is claiming no notice was given.

5. No one goes to S&C for the "money" as compared to peer firms -- this has always been the same across the board. This year is an anomaly with Skadden (though admittedly a disappointing one) but no one sees any kind of sea change in the future. As for the prestige somehow disappearing, S&C's sales pitch to clients has never been blue light special legal services. S&C gives the best in exchange for high fees (like its peers). The big ticket M&A and significant litigation aren't going anywhere. Are banks hurting? Yes. Will it hurt S&C disproportionately compared to other NYC firms? Clearly not -- in fact S&C is much better positioned due to its bank regulatory practice which will become much more important as the next few years progress.

Point being - if you want to argue that it's much better to be at a 20 person plaintiffs' shop these days, there's maybe a discussion worth having. To argue that S&C is somehow any different or worse than the other biglaw monsters when it is in fact in a better position is just false.

Word on the street is that work for the staff attorneys at S&C is nil right about now and the whole lot of them are about to be canned a la Skadden, along with some legal assistants. Anyone know anything?

ATL, since you've obviously pissed of so many sullcrom associates with your annoying bias about anything bad at sullcrom, I'll help you out here. $500 for 1st years (who are now 2nd years almost third years; full first years, who were previously stubs and are now almost 2nd years, will get nothing), up to $8500 for the most senior associates. The progression is supposedly very much weighted towards the sr classes--but it's a shitty deal in any event.

Fuck you and your "focus on PPP as the prime indicator of the health of the firm", Rodge and Joe. You make over $2.3 million a head because we bust our balls doing pointless work that you can bill to clients at rates around ten times more than what we get per hour worked. Don't you dare talk about us all being affected you stupid fucks. You're like the NY governmenTTT, which seems to think it's entitled to the massive tax reciepts it got back during the boom times--and, just like the NY gov., to make sure you don't fall significantly short of that target all the little folks will have to give up a lot to help you out.

Joe's comment this morning about "well, 2008 profits were pretty stagnant" was so funny. THEY WERE STAGNANT FROM 200MOTHERFUCKING7 YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCH! You had worse performance in 2006, when bonuses were at $35,000 base levels. THIS justifies you asswipes giving a measly $500 and change dollars to the jr classes after paying HALF what the kids at 2000+ associate Skadden got?? Just wait till those questions, and they always come up, get asked by recruits about "well, why sullcrom?" They're getting a straight answer this year, guys.

Sullcrom's reputation depends upon motivated people who are willing to give up most of their life to handle, to obsess over as much or more than the partners do, the pointless details that its partners love to obsess over. Guess how fucking motivated we are to say "thank you sir may I have another!" after this insult, smartasses? You think you're preserving "the firm's culture"? Just wait until we start giving summers an earful about how we're looking for exit opportunities and why they should be, too.

Prior commenters were right: sullcrom will result in you working harder than anywhere but wachtell and maybe, maybe cravath. This notion that "well, all big law is equally bad and sullcrom is better positioned to weather the storm" is a lie. Sullcrom is significantly, maybe even much worse as far as what they expect you to give to the firm than are "peer" firms. And as of today, we're all on notice that while they think we should all still be spending thousands and thousands of hours on some sort of billed work, they have no intention of paying us any better than the market average. Treatment is spotty, but mostly very good. But nice people matter a lot less when you don't have time for any life outside the office.

If you can go to sullcrom, you can get something better. Save a few years of your life and a LOT of frustration: get off your lazy ass and work to make your impressive resume get you more than this supposedly great opportunity. Yes, this is where your road naturally lead you. But after 4 years in this place, I can tell you it's just not worth it. And those of you who come anyway, keep 130 firmly in your head: it's truth.

Wow, these comments provide great insight into S&C. Who knew.

And there's more - Do you know what is going on on the 24th floor? The firm is building brand new offices for RETIRED partners - you know, the guys who don't even come into the office half the time. The same type of new offices as on 27 and 36 that they made associates feel were a privilege to get. Make no mistake guys, everything they say is utter bullshit - the partners will always put themselves first no matter what, and will only give peanuts to the rest to stop the costly exodus of associates. We're in the middle of a severe downturn, bonuses are being slashed, but the retired partners get new offices??!!!

Nice set of priorities there S&C.

What I find most striking about these comments is how much morale at S&C seems to have declined. In the past in threads on S&C, you'd get quite a lot of S&C associates coming out to defend the firm, saying it's not as bad as its reputation, etc. This time, the message coming out from people on the inside is overwhelmingly negative, with a bunch of S&C associates coming out and warning prospective hires to stay away.

But it makes sense really. They probably all thought that going to S&C was a good, safe, conservative choice. Now that it's not, which is better "prestigious" S&C or another firm that's almost as good that's also standing behind its associates in this downturn.

This clearly astonishing. I still find it hard to believe that S&C associates would be so demoralized. Are the partners at S&C doing anything to assure associates about the strength of the firm? any one of the partners discussing, maybe, this ATL bit?

191,

They took the snacks out of the snack room? There is a snack room? How old are you that you need to have snacks provided by your employer?

138 is likely the biggest D-bag on the planet.

208 comments proving the obvious -- S&C has fallen on hard times.

S&C has really gone down hill. I don't think associates are safe anywhere but you are really getting a sense of the true character of this firm now that hard times have hit. Our sense is that it has a good deal to do with the passing of the guard from Rodge to Joe. Classy guy to cheapskate... I think you'll see alot of people move on, once there is a chance. S&C's major clients are mostly dying now anyway. I haven't seen a good plan to replace them yet

Agreed, the Rodge to Joe transition is being discussed in the halls by a lot of people as the root cause of all of this. It's hard to evaluate the truth behind it, but whether deserved or not, Rodge managed to project an image to everyone at S&C as both compassionate and a leader with vision. Joe projects no such image (everyone remember that horrible speech Joe gave at last winter's ball?), and so it's natural to pin the blame for unpopular (or even unwise and short-sighted maybe) decisions on Joe.

Sad that the firm owns its space and still had to do this. It's a shame those attorneys were laid off. Thoughts and prayers for their job search.

211 -- what was Joe's speech last yr? Thanks

I banged 4 temps in the basement of 125 Broad.

I was just told the number since January of 09' is not 15-20 stealth layoffs but 45. ATL, you might want to check your source here, you got the story right and the numbers wrong.

45 lawyers let go from S&C? THIS IS NEWS!!!!!

45? wow. wow.

Remember when Joe went to the Superbowl (his first footbal game ever), and equated a Giants' win to higher ticket prices at the new stadium (read: outrageous PSL's)? That was awesome.

hi everyone. Sullivan layed off about 10 (!) lawyers 1-4 post-qualif level at heir london office only. i know as i have lots of friends there, and they almost halves their finance and corporate practice. it's easy to check - just go to website and see how many names disappeared in teh last 4 months. As you can imagine there was nothing 'wrong' with those lawyers, and those who are 2-4 years had very good reviews in 2006, 2007 and even december 2008 when they were busy. Then apparently they did not have much work in january and then were laid off - they were told that their work in the 'last few months' was not good - although there was no work.. The sneaky thing is that Sullivan made everyone sign in December last year a new confidentiality agreement, as they called it, with a clause that lawyers cannot discuss the terms of their employement OR of its termination with any website, etc.. i think what is the most unplesant of all of this - that a firm like Sullivan could have afforded paying 6m compensation as part of redundancy package (london standard) and be open with those lawyers, instead of breaking them up and making each of them feel miserable by telling them that they were sh*t...

hi everyone. Sullivan layed off about 10 (!) lawyers 1-4 post-qualif level at heir london office only. i know as i have lots of friends there, and they almost halves their finance and corporate practice. it's easy to check - just go to website and see how many names disappeared in teh last 4 months. As you can imagine there was nothing 'wrong' with those lawyers, and those who are 2-4 years had very good reviews in 2006, 2007 and even december 2008 when they were busy. Then apparently they did not have much work in january and then were laid off - they were told that their work in the 'last few months' was not good - although there was no work.. The sneaky thing is that Sullivan made everyone sign in December last year a new confidentiality agreement, as they called it, with a clause that lawyers cannot discuss the terms of their employement OR of its termination with any website, etc.. i think what is the most unplesant of all of this - that a firm like Sullivan could have afforded paying 6m compensation as part of redundancy package (london standard) and be open with those lawyers, instead of breaking them up and making each of them feel miserable by telling them that they were sh*t...

According to the below, Sullivan plans to lay off up to 10% of its NY associates, which means 50 firings by the time this is over. ATL, why are you getting scooped?

http://www.jdjournal.com/2009/05/13/stealth-attorney-layoffs-at-sullivan-cromwell/