Senior associates are FLEEING LATHAM NY.

Guess they didn't believe Dave Gordon when he said they wouldn't be laid off.

so then who is Big Chris?

Nice FAQs

No no no, flirting with hideous partners is how you get ahead at LATHAM. Why do you think they hire so many hot chicks?

They hire hot chicks at Latham because they didn't have any more brown paper bags.

Ghetto with a capital G, and no, I don't mean ghetto as in a concentrated ethnic community.

2 - I'll bite. Please explain.

Latham's management has shown no concern AT ALL for the first year associates the firm threw out into this economy. this is especially cruel considering that latham laid off half the first years in ny.

Beware Linklaters summers. Latham still uses the "one firm" motto even after slashing most of the junior associates.

"redundancies should be made"??? What the hell does that even mean?

A possible silver lining to biglaw layoffs and salary cuts is their effect on the income disparity in the United States. These actions arguably reduce the income of the rich at the same time that they make legal services more accessible to other Americans (by lowering rates and increasing supply of talented lawyers).

Suggested FAQs for McDermott Will & Emery's summer program:

- Does McDermott suck?

- Yes

- Does McDermott have lousy lawyers?

- Yes

Classy move sending out that Q&A. ARE YOU FUCKING LISTENING FIRMS? WE DEFERRED 3L'S ONLY EXPECT HONESTY! WE KNOW THE MARKET IS SHIT, SO JUST TELL US WHETHER WE HAVE A FUCKING JOB!!!

YOU FUCKING RETARD MANAGERS!

8. after the MASSIVE layoffs at Latham NY in february, dave gordon told the senior associate they wouldn't be laid off. however NO ONE believes him, and senior associates in groups that are busy ITE are getting the fuck out. soon latham will be stuck with a bunch of corp/fin people with no work.

would you stay at a firm that laid off 45% of associates in 2 months? keep in mind dave gordon told the first years when they started that they had a place at the firm. shows you how much dave's word means.

oh, and Latham NY has not shown the slightest bit of concern forthe first years it threw into this economy.

It's becoming increasingly apparant that Latham laid off the correct half of its first years.

12 too bad no one has done anything to reduce our student loan debt

Latham associates: start your own practices and undercut your former employer. You are a talented bunch. See #12.

11: I believe that "redundancies should be made" is Brit-speak for "we see who sucks and we get rid of them."

15 - name 1. initials and practice group are fine.

Latham NY is the biggest loser in this recession. Latham had a good rep once but it decided to fuck its associates worse than any other good firm, so now its rep is in the toilet. The CA offices may not be as rancid as Latham NY, but they'll suffer some harm to their rep since they share a name.

You should've treated your associates better Latham. Remember how much money you made from them during the good times?

What does it mean that you can't guarantee yourself a spot in the OFFICE you want? They might place these kids in an entirely different city? Truly terrible.

What does it mean that you can't guarantee yourself a spot in the OFFICE you want? They might place these kids in an entirely different city? Truly terrible.

Dave Gordon

It is difficult to sum up what makes Latham so unique in writing, but hopefully as you navigate through our web site and read about our participatory management style that associates and partners enjoy, our diverse, collegial and supportive work environment, and the programs and governing structure that have been in place from the firm's inception, it will become clear to you that Latham & Watkins stands apart from other large law firms.

14: links didn't defer their 3Ls so technically they are telling it how it is
22: it means that if people want to go to london or hong kong office they won't necessarily get it b/c there are not enough spots

9 - Latham was the ONLY firm to offer 6 months severance to the associates it fired. I am a first year and I was laid off from my v50 and was given 2 months severance. Something to think about while you are trolling on about Latham...

Incidentally, I'm in touch with many associates there and with more work to go around now given the exit of many associates, there are no senior associates fleeing Latham.

23, it means if you want London or Hong Kong you may get sent to NYC. It never really happens the other way around.

The partners at LATHAM were very collegial as they threw me out into the great depression as a first year.

My building card literally stopped working at 6:00 THAT FRIDAY, and I had to be out by Sunday.

That is fucking collegial as hell. I'm so glad I chose Latham.

Can anyone speak to how busy the Latham NY office is these days?

27, did your firm layoff the majority of first years in a single office? No? Then stfu. What Latham did was dirty as hell and they'll pay for years to come. 45% of Latham NY associates have been fired this year. Name ONE GOOD FIRM that has done that. Latham is the only v10 or even v20 who has pulled shit like this. If they want to be a v100 bottom halfer, fine, that's where they're headed.

30 there is an abundance of pro bono to go around.

and yes, seniors are leaving. 27 admits he doesn't have any inside info on the firm.

31 - You act like you would prefer that older attorneys who have put in more time at Latham and paid their dues be laid off instead. How is that fair?

Thanks 32. It would be interesting to know if this firm and others have "bottomed out" and stabilized in terms of business following recent layoffs.

33, it's not an either or proposition. tell me, which v10 has laid-off 45% of its associates in a single office, considering all class years?

and laying off 1st years, especially in a shit economy like this, is just fucking cut throat. it's not like they just killed a few slackers, they laid off half a fucking class.

33- It's fair because the senior associates have had their chance to make money, get experience, pay off debts and - let's be honest - 99% of them will not make partner anyway and would not even stay at the firm at all if economic conditions were different. Senior associates have a much better shot at getting a job after being laid off than do first year associates.

Therefore, senior associates should be laid off over first year associates. The End.

What is the deal with the Latham bashing on this board? Firing anyone in this economic climate is awful, why the fuck do these fired latham first years think it was especially awful that they were fired? Dickheads, even if a sixth year latham associate was fired, he would have as much difficulty finding a job in this environment. In fact, as a sixth year, firms may think he was let go b/c he wasn't good enough which is clearly not the case for first years.

Instead of being grateful about the severance Latham provided, these little bitches keep whining.

And what about the end, Peter? Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

It’s not going to be over before the end of the year. I think you’re going to see dramatically reduced offers to summer associates at the end of this summer, and dramatically reduced offers for people to come in as summers in 2010. These cuts could be very dramatic, as much as slashed by 90 percent.

What? 90 percent?

It could be. The firms are still way over capacity. I think at a lot of firms, the work has stabilized, but it’s stabilized at a low level and managements still haven’t yet corrected to that level.

Not a good time to be coming out of law school, is it?

It’s not. But it’s really not a good time to be a 2L. They’re going to get hit the worst, I think.

The large percentage of Latham NY first years laid off means there is less stigma attached to the termination of the employment. "Killing" a few slackers, as 35 seems to advocate, is actually more cruel than laying off half the class from the standpoint of stigma.

31 - poor baby, sniffle, sniffle...yes, Latham really will pay the price one day for these great injustices, especially for transgressing against its NYC associates...I mean, don't they understand that associates run the show...how can they not know that associates are the backbone of America...do we not all believe in baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and the right of associates to pay their student loans? Latham is undoubtedly quaking at the prospect of associate backlash...

39, that's ludicrous. Who cares about a stigma standpoint? The important thing is whether good people were let go who now have few options. Because of a bloated, poorly managed firm that even at that point could've employed other cost-cutting measures and saved some jobs.

This would've been much better for everyone but those few slackers, who if truly slackers, deserved to be fired.

"I am on the executive committee of a major law firm and I can confirm that the big law firings are just beginning. We will see wholesale dissolutions of practice groups and firings of 1/3 of the firm become the norm in a few months. Just wait and see."

40, it should be. Senior associates who are good and have options are about to run like a bat out of hell. And it will absolutely have an impact on recruiting for years to come. Anyone who thinks it won't doesn't get it. And is unfamiliar with the downfall of Sherman & Sterling.

"Folks, it’s going to be worse than predicted, a lot worse. Fewer and fewer will survive, more and more will make less and less, and the best and brightest will find something else to do. Partners don’t like taking pay cuts, particularly the ones who generate the business, so you can expect a whole lot of other folks to give it up so the rainmakers and firm politicians can achieve their financial expectations."

36,

I agree that a laid off first year is more screwed then a laid off third year. By third year you have enough experience to hopefully find a new job and you've hopefully saved up enough to pay down your loans and pay your rent for a couple months while you look.

With that said, there's no way it's fair to fire a third year to keep a first year. The experienced attorneys have made the partners a lot of money. They've worked through weekends and holidays, canceled plans, pulled all-nighters, etc. Basically they've worked their asses off. And if you knocked the worst third year back to the level of a first year, they'd kick any first year's ass. Firing one of them to make room for a first year who has never had to stay past 9:00 is pretty shitty, even if the first year is more screwed.

11 is right on, 19. Brit proper English ain't THAT different from the good ol' 'merican we speak down in Texas. The phrase is that redundancies should be eliminated. First to say Linklattters must have a crap corporate department if they can't even get the summer memo right.

43, i would like to add that what sherman did wasn't NEARLY as shitty as what latham did

"I am in the corporate group of major law firm. I have had maybe 100 billable hours in 2009 - mostly to tie up loose ends from mid-2008 deals. This is typical for the group. The partners I used to be friendly with avoid eye contact with the associates. This does not bode well. I’ve got my resume out there - at every law firm and government agencyand alternative career position out there, and there are no takers. I went to a top 10 school and did journal work. Not good people, not good."

48 just described the exact experience of everyone in my group that got laid off at the end of March. Not a good sign.

What about Sullivan & Worcester in Boston?

Vault needs to start calling it the Vault 30 prestige rankings. Calling the remaining 70 firms prestigious is an oxymore.

Vault needs to start calling it the Vault 30 prestige rankings. Calling the remaining 70 firms prestigious is an oxymoron.

48 - why is your post in quotes?

Agreed that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Aside from the ridiculous overhead and staff increases these idiots got themselves into over the past 10 years, partners who are still profitable are going to get very tired of paying the salaries of those that aren't, and eventually they'll start breaking off en masse - when that happens, look for major dissolutions.

What 40 said.

Heard through a grapewine that Latham corp finally got some work, but have nobody to do it because they sent everybody on secundment. Now they are getting litigation and finance associates to work on bond deals. Latham clients, you are getting shit work. Go to a decent firm like Cravath, S&C, Simpson, Cleary or even Cahil for your corp fin needs.

Q: The firm's party balcony already appears pretty overcrowded, are you sure there is room for another hundred associates?

A: As of right now, the structure is sound.

First to call all you bitches faggots!!!

And with that....It's PUSSY FART TIME, BITCHES!!

46 - "redundancy" is a layoff in UK legal terminology.

Guys at my high school used to create redundancies all the time. It was no big deal.

Any Linklaters summers out there? How did you guys respond to this?

Q: Are there redundancies built into your firm's support structures?

A: We believe in lean staffing, and cannot afford extravagances, like adequate support.

some of the summers at my firm are retards...spent 40 hours on a project that should have taken only 6 hours for a first-year attorney.

Seriously, summers should not bitch about what kind of treatment they should get or not get. Even if firms are not paying high, at least they are picking up invaluable experience.

So latham is screwed for the future because it laid off first years, and now no decent law school grad will go there. Of course, all the laid off first years do is whine ok these boards about how screwed they are. They've all but acknowledged their careers are fucked because of something that happened when they were 25. In essence, they're saying they'll never amount to anything absent that latham line on the resume. In light of that, has latham really cost itself anything?

Hey, at least Linklaters has 14 attorney openings in Germany. How do you say law school debt in German?

If Dave Gordon and Bob Dell were ripped to shreds by that chompers guerilla I would just watch and laugh. They're both absolutely worthless pieces of shit who casually destroy first year associates without remorse.

*feeds chompers xanax, releases him into dave gordon's office, closes door*

speaking of the magic circle, ATL should really be doing a story on the crumbling New York office of Clifford Chance. literally 4 or 5 litigation partners left when there was 17 or so id last year. i hear 2 of the remaining 4 or 5 are about to leave in a month to 6 weeks. partners have either been let go through the global "reshaping" managed from London, left the firm because firm mnagement is SHITE, or forced into retirement. it is a so-called international firm, but it now no longer has an international arbitration group (which is what all the summers and first years want to do because they think it is cool). Then there is corporate - partners have also been let go, and everyone else left is rushing the exit door because they think it is a sinking ship. meantime you have the 20 to 30 summers starting with no work, and the incoming frst years who have been deffered (from being laid off) till January 2010 ...

It is not fairer to fire a third year than a first year. In general a third year is three years older than a first year. Youth is an asset. Who wouldn't gladly give up their job in order to be three years younger?

Latham and other laid off associates should take their many talents, their assets (including their youth), and their generous severance and get out there and practice! This will eventually be good for the profession and society in spreading legal talent away from a few powerful firms and their powerful clients.

LOL. all LATHAM's corp people who didn't have a lick of bankruptcy experience are suddenly bankruptcy lawyers. enjoying paying latham rates for a "bankruptcy" associate who knows jack shit. i hope clients aren't falling for this nonsense.

hey clients, use the way back machine to view these associates' profiles from a year or two earlier. you'll see nothing about bankruptcy on there.

69, are you retarded? I can only assume you're very old and have lapsed into senility and dementia.

Is it the recession or protecting payouts to partners or shareholders. Because if the recession has hit the BIG firms, then why aren't we seeing mergers of BIG firms and creating economies of scale. And laying off of lawyers during the combination of the firms. .

69, i'd prefer to feed chompers xanax and release him into dave gordon's office.

Any client who is paying more than $300/hour for an associate or Junior partner is being fleeced.

I love how a article about linklaters got hijacked by latham haters. Is it the fact that both firms start with an L?

75, much like the recession has uncovered the various ponzi schemes, the collapse of big law is uncovering the demented mental status of big law lawyers. Expect more of that kind of stuff.

71,

That's not much of an argument. What about the proposition that it is better to be young than old do you not understand? Although it appears you may not be suited for sophisticated law practice, I will attempt to restate what was written.

The issue posed was whether it is better to cut first years before terminating more experienced associates. Latham first years have advocated cutting their more senior colleagues first on the basis of what is essentially an appeal to fairness.

They argue that the older associates possess greater experience and financial werewithal that makes it easire for them to absorb the loss of a job. It has been pointed out to these younger associates that the experience of these older attorneys also means they have paid their dues, given more to the firm, and perhaps therefore earned the right to a more secure employment position. At the least, they shouldn't be discriminated AGAINST in favor of first years. Let us say that these arguments for and against (older associates already have an asset; younger associates haven't paid their dues) cancel each other out. The tie breaker is that it is better to be young than old, and that the first years in general have this asset that the older attorneys lack. That I think means that from a fairness perspective the older attorneys should receive a preference, or at least should not be disadvantaged just because the first years lack their experience.

Lots of hard truths on this blog tonite, especially the fellow in quotes. Two things -- the kind of work that allows for the huge bills, eg project finance, stuff that uses bank money, other people's money, where guarantors want the big firms no matter what the cost -- is gone.

Some of it will never be back, but the remainder is coming back much more slowly than folks had figured. One commentator today predicted that once we bottom it will last until 2013. I honestly think most firms had plans that looked to a late 2009 recovery. its May and we still have not finished bottoming.

Good time to develop long term options.

78 - what are the hard truths you have come across that deserve note?

To all of those who think that fairness, youth, or most anything else other than sweet moola will dictate who stays and who goes, listen up:

Your firm doesn't give a shit about fairness. Senior associates in hot practice areas will stay on because they don't have to be trained (here, think $ out of the firm's pocket), and they do not put partners in the fucked up position of having to explain to clients why a first year associate who can't find his dick with a map and flashlight is working on their matter and billing at a healthy hourly rate.

The shit has changed, yo. Senior associates with experience are what firms are looking for because those are the kinds of skills that partners can sell to clients. Clients are generally willing to pay a higher rate for somebody who actually knows what the fuck they are doing.

Back in the days of leveraging to the hilt, being senior meant that your expiration date was looming because the firms were always on the lookout for the fresh meat to staff their cases, 10-12 associates deep. Now, partners need to convince clients that they're actually getting value for the $ they're spending. Now, how the hell is a partner supposed to pull that off with a first year associate?

Partner: Gee, he/she really reviews documents well.
Client: So does our man in India, Bratislava, Mexico, or whereever the fuck else the work is being sent to these days.

Is this fair to first years who never had a chance to develop any experience? Probably not. But, that's just the way it is.

For those who say: senior associates have had more time to gain experience and earn $, can fend for themselves, etc., please check yourselves before you wreck yourselves: associates, junior AND senior, are being fired left and right with the quickness for no reason other than partner greed. Period. Greed among partners is dictating these decisions. Saying what you think is fair or right is going to fall on deaf ears. Wake up and join the rest of us back here in real world.

Comments like 77, 78, and 80 are why I come to this site.

I don't understand all the hating on Latham. There are at least a few V50 firms that fired more than half of their first years, and sooner than Latham, and got a LOT less severance. Most partners there didn't want anything to do with the effected associates, and the word was that any severance at all to the laid off associates was "throwing good money after bad"; and, of course, that was after several rounds of stealth layoffs... From what I heard and read, compared to my old firm - who consider themselves a peer to Latham, Latham's partners treated their associates with dignity by at least trying to ease the pain.

81--

80 here. If anything I wrote is news to you or anybody else who reads this blog, then you need to be a quick study and get up to speed. I doubt that's the case, but I thought I should mention it. I wrote all that shit because I get frustrated when people start talking all that bullshit about fairness, first years have no experience, etc.

Like all of those fucking complaining on this site ever gave a rat's ass about those less fortunate. Many--certainly not all--who've been laid off probably looked at somebody who pushed a broom for a living and laughed or took a piss at a public lav and pissed all over the place and then smirked at the man or woman who had to come in and clean it up. Was that fair? No. Well, I hope the irony isn't lost on all of you who fit the foregoing description.

It kind of sucks when life deals you a shitty hand for reasons beyond your control, doesn't it? If you ever make enough money to eat out again, I hope you don't stiff your server, and the next time you walk by a homeless guy, I hope you'll feel sorry for them and realize that life could have put you in that position--much like the position you're in now.

For those of you who actually gave shit about those less fortunate than you, actually showed it and got laid off, know that I'll be tipping my 40 in your honor...not that means very much.

Latham should get credit for providing six-months severance.

Latham should get a LOT of credit for convincing the world it was a V10 firm for years despite its bloated mismanagement.

77, you are a mental midget. Of course its so much better to be laid off at 25 with ZERO experience than to have reached the staggeringly old age of 28 and have had a change to learn and grow and get practical experience. As well as demonstrate whether you are a good or bad associate.

If Latham had both (a) excised extraneous and subpar midlevels and (b) was really in such dire straits that there weren't superior cost-cutting measuring than termining more than 50% of the first years, then maybe MAYBE it would've been justified. Maybe even the right business decision. But that is far from the case for both those things.

And I, myself, am a 6 year and not a 1st year.

I don't know that Latham's actions were really that despicable considering the state it got itself in. Latham is a uniquely mismanged firm. The firm way overhired. Many did, but Latham took it to new levels. It had a lot of associates for very little work.It also made umpeteen other poor management decisions.

I think other firms of the same rank likely would've done the same if in the same situation. The real story is a that a firm of its supposed caliber could bungle things so badly in the first place. Not what it did to correct things and try to stay in the game.

87. Latham NY is managed a syracuse law grad. nuff said.

i still don't think anyone would have responded the way latham did. cravath has ginormous classes and not a single first year has been laid off.

HAHAHAHA 87 - good one! I"m assuming that you're joking because you certainly cannot be that naive.

82.

if Latham wants to be peers with the TTTs of the world then fine. but there is not a single v10 or v20 that has pulled the kind of shit latham pulled.

LATHAM praises itself for its GREAT management to boot.

86 - you're a fucking retard. It is far better to be laid off as a 25 year old first year with no obligations (except for loan payments) rather than as a 28 year old who probably has a spouse and a kid, not to mention those law repayments.

I'm so fucking tired of these goddamn first years you think they should be untouchable and that everyone else should be fired before their whinny asses are. There is a reason why Latham pared its first year class so substantially and not its other classes.

92.

it's called gross mismanagement of latham ny by a syracuse law grad.

and i'm sorry, but this is not a question about whether first years are untouchable. we are discussing latham's decision to cut the MAJORITY of first years in the ny office. killing all those good first years in a brutal economy like this was just cruel.

what happened to that latham truths guy? i would like to learn more about latham.

80 completely nailed it. The firms care about THEIR PROFITS AND CAPABILITIES. They don't give a rat's ass about what might be 'fair' to first-year know-nothing peons who are basically not much more than a write-off for their first 2-3 years while they learn a few things about practicing law. So it makes total sense for them to cut the useless junior associates and retain more of the mid-to-senior associates who can actually justify their salaries and billing rates in these tougher times.

We need a complete expose on whoever the lawyer "Stephen" guy is from the Bachelorette last night who got kicked off after the first Rose ceremony ... seems like a dick.

92, you're a moron. I'm a fucking 6th year, idiot. I don't care wha'ts 'better.' There are 3rd and 4th years I would fire before first years (who hadn't proven themselves), simply because they are underqualified. But they remain. By your 3rd or 4th year, you have proven you're good. You're good, you stay: IF you are in a practice group that can support you. If not, sorry. You're not needed any more than the first year is. And, yes, you do have some marketable skills and are more likely to land on your feet (though admittedly tough in these times when few are buying what you're selling).

And no matter what anyone says, it's not good for the firm in the longrun to fire first years in those NUMBERS. It truly will bite the firm in the ass. And it was not necessary.

-86

97 is the credited post.

Latham fired the majority of first years in New York, and a third of the first years in Los Angeles. There were first year firings throughout the other offices too, though not as substantial.

FUCK THAT, FUCK LATHAM, AND FUCK DAVE GORDON and his syracuse law degree.

Think about this. There are many firms where business is down and there have been no layoffs. That means partners are scrambling to reduce other expenses and are taking a hit themselves to save jobs. Law students should seek out those firms. Those of you who chose Latham should have paid more attention to the culture. I am surprised you are surprised.

This is not profound, but obviously there are negatives to being laid off at any level as an associate. More junior associates tend to have a lot of debt, little experience, and if they don't find a new job quickly will be lost in the yearly waves of equally new associates marching out of the nation's law schools like toy soldiers. Older associates have done their time in the trenches, are more likely to have kids and mortgages, and may have a hard time finding work at other firms or the government particularly if they specialized in an area that was once red hot but is now a merciless, barren wasteland. There are no winners. That said, as an older associate I do sympathize with laid off first years because of the student loan debt. My experience is that most first years who were serious about being lawyers have a lot of debt, because they didn't have trust funds or go to law school on daddy's dime just for something to keep them occupied for 3 years. They put themselves through law school and now are in deep, deep trouble. Worse, they have no way to distinguish themselves from next year's class, and had a vanishingly small window of time to build a resume or find another job. It's a brutal state of affairs, and firing big chunks of them like Latham did rather than see a <5% drop in PPP is ice cold. Yes, despite all the high-minded ethics talk at heart it's an industry -- but if you are laying off half your first years you planned exceptionally poorly and perhaps should look into firing your recruiting staff and HR managers instead.

re: LATHAM

OK -- the firm laid off a few attorneys. So what? I take it that most of the anti-Latham chatter is from a few former associates or some disgruntled mid-levels. No top-notch firms with profitability approaching that of Latham haven't conducted mass layoffs, stealth or otherwise.

And don't knock Dave Gordon. He is a good attorney, a good man, and a good manager. Dave is doing as well as anyone can with a bad situation. I'm bias in any event, good market or not, he has always made sure I got a sizable bonus!

re: LATHAM

OK -- the firm laid off a few attorneys. So what? I take it that most of the anti-Latham chatter is from a few former associates or some disgruntled mid-levels. No top-notch firms with profitability approaching that of Latham haven't conducted mass layoffs, stealth or otherwise.

And don't knock Dave Gordon. He is a good attorney, a good man, and a good manager. Dave is doing as well as anyone can with a bad situation. I'm bias in any event, good market or not, he has always made sure I got a sizable bonus!

Please don't think that latham only laid off first years. Latham laid off 50% of their first 3 class years, and many 4th and 5th and 8th years.

Here's a recreation tip for the LLL (Laid-off Latham Loser): Try some inland cliff-diving. Take your whiny LLL buddies with you.

Welcome to Linklaters SA's!!! Enjoy the beautiful kitchen overlooking the hotel across the street where they shot the wonderful ending to Michael Clayton!!! Also, you never know what the hotel visitors are doing, but believe me, you may get an eyeful.

Just don't get randy and try to hit on the several hot associate's (and dropping fat, I mean fast). They're all taken, and besides, they're already hooking up w/ higher level people than you.

Oh, and if you spot any of our temporary attorneys in the kitchen, feel free to swat them w/ a newspaper. They know they're not allowed in there.

Finally, so sorry, that cafeteria that looks so fun is for AllianceBernstein employees, BUT the man selling the street meat outside HAS been recognized as one of the best street meat vendors in NYC.

Enjoy yourself, I know I did, for about 6 weeks before I've started pondering slashing my wrists!!!

Linklaters, well, you could have done worse.

how COULD they guarantee offers for all summers? that's essentially handing out a $160k job for 1L grades. how has this system ever been logistically reasonable?

Aren't these people English? Don't they speak the language? "Redundancies" is NOT a synonym for "cuts" or "firings", it is a REASON for cuts or firings. You do not "redundance" someone, you "fire" them because they are redundant (i.e. both they and someone else do the same job). For chrissakes! No wonder this firm is not prestigious in the US.

107 - don't be a tool. I lived in London for several years and that particular turn of phrase is quite common in UK HR-speak. The FAQ was clearly written by Linklater's recruiting staff.

108 - Truly, the English do not always understand the English language.

"Redundancy" = "Layoff" the same way "Lift" = "Elevator" and "Mobile" = "Cell phone". UK English is just different than US English at times and, having just been made redundant by Linklaters myself, the differences in what 'redundant' means in the UK and what it means in the US was something discussed by many confused US and UK associates.

Did Linklaters give six months of severance like Latham?

Correct me if I am being too picky here.. but shouldn't FAQ#2 read "number of offers" instead of "amount of offers?"

105 = has failed to progress past basic needs and is obsessed with food and sex.

Also, 105, hitting the hot associates is first a partner privilege, associates get the scraps. Ius primae noctis.