Pillsbury Incoming Associates Still Waiting to Hear When They Can Start
Back in May, we reported that Pillsbury Winthrop wanted some of its incoming first year associates to defer until January 2010, some to defer until 2011, and others to take $60,000 to go away entirely.
The firm couched all of these options as “voluntary.” But notwithstanding the firm’s choice of language, we reported that Pillsbury needed at least 22 of its incoming class of 54 associates to take the go away money, or defer for a year.
Pillsbury said that it would announce which associates were starting in January 2010 on June 26th. That was Friday.
But according to my iPhone “date and time” application (how people did anything before the iPhone, I do not know) it is Monday, June 29th. And there is still no word from Pillsbury. Here’s one tipster’s report:
As of this AM, still no news from the firm. Yet again, evidence they can’t be trusted - or don’t care about incoming associates. Their written letters to us said we would know by by Friday. I hope this is not how the firm conducts business with clients.
Should Pillsbury associates expect the firm to actually tell them when they can start? Or should they just start hanging out on the Acela and hope to catch a clue on the wind?
More reactions after the jump.
Our tipsters started worrying that Pillsbury would miss its own deadline as early as Thursday:
Tomorrow is the date that Pillsbury said they will let 32 of 54 know who will be starting Jan 2010. (I highly doubt they will honor that promise though, since Pillsbury has not put the interest of its employees very high on its list of priorities…)I know of a few who have taken the $60,000 offer to kiss them goodbye. I am sure there are more. There seems to be a general feeling that Pillsbury can’t be trusted.
By late Friday, more people were angered by the firm:
It is 7pm West Coast time and still none of us have heard anything. As you well know, Pillsbury was one of the last firms to tell their associates anything in the first place. This is a whole new low, even for them. Please report this. I can only hope at this point we can shame a reply from them.
We haven’t spoken to anybody that has heard anything from the firm. We’ll keep you posted as we get more information.
Earlier: Pillsbury: Let’s Try This Whole ‘Voluntary Departure’ Thing One More Time
(190) Comments
Comments
The sooner you start, the sooner you end.
Ask Acela Bob to take the train!
Stop with the whining, bitches.
ATL has started to suck more than usual since the interns started.
tis a pity.
I'm with 3 - these incoming associates are annoying as hell - they need to understand that they aren't entitled to anything from Pillysbury.
Will Bob be announcing it on an Acela?
5 - yes we are entitled to something. An answer. Idiot.
5 -- but you were entitled to start when you graduated, right?
Pillsbury must be in financial trouble. Here is the proof:
1. The reason Pillsbury hasn't told its associates to be when they can start is because Pillsbury hasn't made a decision.
2. Pillsbury hasn't made a decision because the Pillsbury partners haven't decided on what to do about the new associates that the fim doesn't need.
3. The partners can't decide when the associates can start because no partner wants to take responsibility for proposing the additional expense of more associates salaries.
4. A firm that cannot pay its associates is in financial trouble.
5. Pillsbury is in financial trouble. Q.E.D.
9:
Wrong. Pillsbury has made a decision - none of the incoming class start in September 2009, January 2010, or ever, for that matter. They simply haven't figured out just how to spin that hideous news. Hence the silence.
8 - no i was not. I was smart (or lucky?) in choosing a firm that was stable and could start me as I wished. That's what graduating 3Ls don't get - you are right to be pissed off at the economy, Bush, or your bad luck, but NOT at your firm. They don't owe you shit.
And 7, you are not entitled to an answer. You could have taken the 60K and walked away, but you chose not to and hang around. So now you must wait, a CHOICE that you have made.
10:
You have submitted an robust alternative proof for my original proposition: Pillsbury is in financial trouble.
9
Or 9, Pillsbury's partners know they don't need to make a decision right now and therefore are not making one. Retard.
No, this is not reflective of how Pillsbury treats its clients. Just its employees.
13:
But, 13, why aren't they making a decision? Is it because the Pillbury partners have no work for their associates? Again, proof that Pillbury is in financial trouble.
9
The firm has been on decline for years. Sorry.
The Story of My Lathaming:
Get to Latham NY in October. There is no work. Also, for some reason, Latham NY hired 10 3Ls to join us in 2007. Why they did this, I will never know.
I wonder what the fuck I should do. Don't worry, all the senior people I talk to assure me, Latham would never lay off first years, do pro bono. I seek out pro bono and jump on every possible assignment I can get. I am told by every supervisor that I am doing good work. I also feel better because Bob Dell tells us at first year academy that Latham is going to survive this and that there's a place for us (the first years) at Latham.
February: layoff rumors start flying around the firm. Everyone panics. Word starts to spread that a significant number of first years may be laid off. I do my best to get work and bill.
February 25: It is announced on Above The Law that we're all getting laid off. Still no word from the partners.
February 26: Vault surveys are due.
February 27: Everyone gets an email from Bob Dell announcing that the firm is both "well diversified" and that Latham will be laying off a LOT of attorneys. I don't notice untill later, but most of the secretaries were escorted out early in the morning. Some of the survivors are crying.
My phone rings, I go into some flabby, middle aged, balding partner's office. I tell him my reviews have been good, and I have jumped on work when I could get it, so I don't understand why Latham is laying me off. He acknowledges this, and basically tells me tough shit, you should have taken an offer from another firm.
I am told that my building card will shut off at 6 that day, and I need to be all packed up by Sunday.
I learn a week later that everyone who failed the bar was laid off except for a partner's son. He was also out all month to study for the February bar, so he was not staffed on a single matter. Hmm, funny how that works.
17 - June 29, 2009 - Lost last shreds of dignity by re-telling sad, yet uninteresting tale about the viciousness of capitalism to a group of commentators on an online blog.
PWNED.
"But according to my iPhone "date and time" application (how people did anything before the iPhone, I do not know) it is Monday, June 29th."
This made me chuckle.
incoming Sidley NY associates also dont know yet if/when theyre starting.
17 - I was bald, not "balding", and its genetic. On another note, the beaches in Southhampton were less crowded this weekend - it was fabulous.
"Incoming" Pillsbury associate here.
While I may not be entitled to anything from the firm, its treatment of recruits is amazing. I'm actually hoping Pillsbury doesn't choose me for the Jan. 2010 start date so that I will have a second opportunity to take the severance package.
FYI: the associates and staff at Pillsbury are great.
The decision makers can eat shit.
18, bob dell, i see this as a sad tale of poor planning and gross mismanagement at Latham NY. doing this to hundreds of associates is going to be bad for them in the long run. first, it's going to hurt recruiting. secondly, it'll probably have a reverse drexel effect. latham management knows what that means. hth.
Anybody want to meet in the lobby for a good rectum rodgering?
17 - did you fail the bar?
Are people aware that the likes of Latham, White & Case, and Cadwalader were hiring corporate people like crazy all through 2007? You'd have to be a complete retard to have not known that was a bad idea.
Elie,
What's your take on the iPhone?
Treatment of incoming associates is not much different from treatment of existing associates. They told associates they were cutting salaries based on previous performance this year. Some associates had been told to take their vacations early, or do lots of nonbillable work when things were slow, and then they found out their salary would be cut.
25, no, i passed. 28 latham ny first years who passed the bar were laid off. 4 first years failed. 3 were laid off. the one who wasn't was a partner's son.
and it was obvious from my story that i didn't fail, because i said i was working my ass off in february. if i'd failed i would have been out studying like the bar failing latham partner's son who miraculously survived even though he failed the bar and wasn't staffed on a single matter come layoff day.
17 (ex-Latham associate),
Why don't you apply for work at another firm, or a smaller firm? To have been hired at Latham, you must be relatively well-qualified. So what is the big deal?
all you soon to be first years should realize that "deferral stipend" = severance payment. unless you have unbelievable credentials, you will never start at the firm.
The Pillsbury Dough Boy should be ashamed.
all you soon to be first years should realize that "deferral stipend" = severance payment. unless you have unbelievable credentials, you will never start at the firm.
31, or are someone's son
30, who says i'm not looking or that i haven't found work already? it still doesn't make what latham did okay.
The ex-Latham associate likes to complain about the firm having hired a partner's son, but the ex-associate prefers not to acknowledge that he himself has received a lot of help from his own parents along the way.
17 - How many first-years failed the bar?
- Guy studying for the bar
This is a sad demonstration of terrible management. Perhaps one could not have predicted the severity of this downturn but leaving future professionals in the dark while decisionmakers try to catch up on the news is borders gross negligence. Pillsbury is a biglaw firm that has strict hiring criteria. The people they screw now will not forget this when they go on to have successful careers elsewhere. Today's decisionmakers (and I assume it is only a handful of Pillsbury's partners) should not go unpunished dropping the ball as badly as they have.
Best of luck "former" incoming Pillsbury brethren
37. 4 first years failed in NY.
and bar failers were laid off throughout all the offices. still, this one partner's son survived. that's very interesting.
36
HAHAHA
no, i actually have received no help from my parents. i won't elaborate any more than that.
and regardless, the us is supposed to be a meritocracy. if we're going to have a feudalistic shithole instead, then i see no reason why anyone should respect property rights. imo, poors would be perfectly justified in robbing people who inherited rather than earned what they have.
Ex-Latham associate,
Isn't this thread about Pillsbury???
I bet Bob Dell has a really small one.
1 wins.
Odds are good that Pillsbury is trying to find more volunteers to take the voluntary and waiting to hear back from some. I would certainly urge the incomings (if they are still such) to call up the firm rather than complain here.
Even if you are given a start date, you will probably be laid off 8 weeks after starting. Take it from someone who was Pillsburied. And yes, each first year who was laid off from my office passed the bar on the first try.
40,
You have benefited from your parents and other family. You just don't want to admit it, to the community or to yourself. You didn't qualify for that job at Latham in a vacuum.
The iPhone has a date and time program? Wow! That right there is worth a few hundred bucks. Gonna get me one!!!
So, where's the love for Cadwalader? Their incoming associates are all starting ON TIME, in early October. C'mon ATL, at least fake some semblance of objectivity.
45, no, that's actually quite false. but i don't really care to argue with someone who has no basis for making claims about me.
and it just goes to show what complete bullshit this country is. the person who pulled himself up by the bootstraps to get to latham, worked hard, passed the bar, gets canned while bar failing daddy's boy keeps his job. BEAUTIFUL.
former thacher partners keep calling me and saying ... things. Angry, sexual things.
Can the ex-lathamer not speak unless spoken to, please?
im so sick of hearing 18's complaints about the partner's son who failed the bar. if i was managing partner or even just a partner, i would make damn sure my son/daughter didn't get laidoff--it's freaking MY firm. 18 you need to move on with your life. you post everyday about latham's layoffs and the partner's son--get over it.
50, i'm sure latham's clients want to pay $400 an hour for some guy's son who couldn't even pass the bar on the first try.
and just because YOU personally would do it doesn't make it right. nice irrelevant argument.
it sounds like latham was actually quite smart. although they didn't anticipate the recession (and who did besides paulson), they made the quick decision to dump overpaid associates and make immediate cuts elsewhere.
also, i doubt the timing had anything to do with the vault surveys, but if so, that was brilliant.
Actually, 47, I do have a basis. And any objective observer in this forum also has a basis just by the plain fact that you are benefiting from your parents genes.
Your post further supports my point that you are stubbornly failing to acknowledge that your achievements haven't come in a vacuum, but you have instead been helped along by many hands. Your last paragraph demonstrates that you completely miss the point, as you argue with circularity that you "pulled yourself up by your bootstraps." That is a conclusion, not evidence. It precisely ignores my point (which should be entirely non-controversial) that you have not done it alone.
44 - I think one person in NY who was fired failed the bar. I think the person was in litigation.
52, there's a reason their peers haven't done it. this isn't going to be good for them in the long run.
44 - I think one person in NY who was fired failed the bar. I think the person was in litigation.
40 -- Why don't you just out the partner and his son in the comments? Just put a URL to their Latham profiles so we can confirm your story.
Incoming Pillsbury Associates - don't take the voluntary kiss off. Let them make the hard decision. However, if you want to be captain of your own fate, choose the Jan 2011 start or take the $60,000. People starting Jan 2010 will probably be laid off March 2010, and your severance will be less than $60,000. And yes, I agree with someone who said it above - Pillsbury associates and staff are really fantastic. But the partners, from the most junior to the high up decision makers and Mr. Acela himself, can eat sh%$
57, here's the beautiful thing, the son isn't on the website yet because he's not admitted. he failed the july bar and getting admitted in NY takes a while.
I hope the Latham attorneys who were fired get together and form their own firm. The competition will be good for clients and for associates.
Everyone in Texas has AIDS>
Kash's adjusted gross income in 2008 exceeded $300k. And she is luscious.
19: Um, today is June 28 (not 29). Hey kids, think before you comment.
I was laid off by Pillsbury in March (Acela Bob got me) after starting right before Thanksgiving. To incoming associates I say it is a sinking ship and take what you can get now. They still continue to have very little work, and were the first to defer start dates (Class of 2007). They laid off half our first year class. One person in litigation failed the bar, retaken it, and was laid off the same week he rejoined the firm. They only care about their bottom line but are deluded in thinking they can be competitive with better firms, especially in NYC. So, it's a lose-lose for everyone.
How does Kash pull in that much income? Was she only working part-time in journalism in '08?
62 - I think very few people make that kind of money in journalism.
59 is trying to imply that the Latham associate who is the target of his ire has not passed the bar.
What he conveniently fails to mention is whether the Latham associate PASSED the February exam.
The Latham kids are right. Some of them probably have found jobs. I have two friends who were laid off and landed on their feet. They still trash Latham on ATL. I am not a Latham associate but won't hesitate to call it like it is either.
Latham deserves to be exposed as the festering, poorly managed shithole that it is. And have people work their damndest to vitiate it in the theater of public opinion and drive it into the ground. Everything being said is 100% true. Latham made its own bed. Time to lay in it. Latham to V200.
Elie!
Call Latham NY and ask them about bar failing partner's on gate. I bet you they won't comment because it's 100% true that they laid off all the bar failers except for this partner's son.
In the likely event that they don't comment, do an open thread. EVERYONE at Latham NY knows about this and is DISGUSTED by this obvious nepotism.
The ship be sinking...
63 - Its june 29 -- look at your own post which says so. moron.
-18
All Elie-haters can eat a dick; his commentary on this story has hilarious
Regarding the Latham partner's son:
The firm was apparently confident, given his qualifications and talents, that he would pass the February bar. It seems Latham made a good bet.
And by the way, it's the partners' business. Supporting a close family member who has good qualifications anyway is hardly any worse than taking profits out of the business. And everyone seems to think that partners are entitled to do that.
73, EVERYONE at Latham NY who failed the July bar passed in February. Do you see Latham NY rehiring them? Did Latham NY bother waiting to see if they'd pass?
Who gives a shit that they let a failing partners son stay on. That's not surprising and not even that bad. The moron that keeps harping on that was clearly born yesterady. And in good economic times, failing the bar once was embarassing but rarely a cause for termination.
Their terrible management and ensuing MASS, mass layoffs (including the majority of first years) is egregious and the real story. KEEP talking about that. Shut up about the Partner's son.
What's the difference really between (a) partners taking profits out of the firm and using them to support their children, and (b) partners leaving some resources in the firm and using them to support their families?
Same difference.
18/71: Why are you such a troll. You are so wrong I don't know where to begin.
-63
Most of the ex-Latham associates received significant help from their own families along the way.
What's the problem. Let them start, then fire them the same day before they even can occupy any office space. This way they at least get unemployment comp, just like the trash collector who gets laid off. There are way too many lawyers sitting around and trashing up society. Maybe it's time to hire more trash collectors to take out the trash.
The guy mad about the Latham partner's son is right. Latham should have canned the partner's son. Like Ballard Spahr did.
79, you have to work for a while before you can collect unemployment.
79: At least in CA, they won't qualify for unemployment. You need to have worked something like 3 months prior to layoffs. Most of Pillsbury's first years didn't qualify for unemployment when they were let go. Pillsbury knew this, of course.
Father-son businesses are evil!
73,
Your an idiot. No one likes nepotism. If the partner's son is so qualified, why didn't he get a job somewhere else? Certainly, a partner at Latham has friends at other firms that will hire his son. Plus, if the partner's son is so smart, why did he fail a minimum competency test? Let's get real. The bar exam is a JOKE.
84 - Confucius say "man who say 'your' an idiot the real idiot."
Incoming Associate here (not pillsbury): we know that our firms don't want us. That's fine. But they did promise us jobs. And spare me the 'at will' BS -- we are all well aware of this fact.
All we ask is that the firms let us know what the fuck is going on. If they don't have work for us, fine, just let us know so we can move on with our lives!
By waiting until the last possible second, all they are doing making our situation worse.
84 would have us abolish family businesses.
85,
Confucius wouldn't call himself an idiot, douchebag.
76 nailed it.
87,
uhh, Latham isn't a family business.
87 would have all of Latham's partners' family members be hired to siphon money from the firm's clients despite their credentials, ability to perform, or pass the bar on the first attempt.
LOL at everyone with no work experience who thinks that we live in a "meritocracy."
what did ballard spahr do???
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
THE WORST PART ABOUT THIS IS WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED OUR SUMMER STIPEND YET
Just great. So Kash is wealthy and beautiful. That usually means a woman is aloof and unapproachable.
91 - If that were really the consequence (and you know it isn't) then the market would punish Latham. You needn't fear.
Comment removed by moderator.
92,
Just because we don't live in a meritocracy doesn't mean that we can't call bs when we see it.
As an incoming associate, we understand the economy is bad, we understand firms (at least Pillsbury) are not doing well, we understand that associates are getting laid off and that incoming associates at most firms are getting deferred but the manner in which Pillsbury has handled this entire process is just ridiculous.
We were told last August that we would receive a letter in January with our start date and other information. January came and went and when contacted the firm about when we would hear we were simply told they didn't know. Finally, in May, days before most of us graduated we received an email that basically stated they wanted us to go away. Which is fine, tell us to go away but don't tell us if we don't chose to go away by June 6th that we will be notified BY June 26th as to whether or not we have to go away.
When asked when we will hear we are told today, maybe tomorrow...maybe never. Who knows.
For those of you who took the buy-out you made the right choice.
Look--This law firm is obviously in severe financial trouble. Why would anyone want to work here anyway? The firm is basically a ticking time bomb. According to Vegas, over-under for firm's existence is 1 year, 1 month.
does anyone know what happened at ballard spahr?
Incoming first years: You will only find out news of your fate on ATL. Accept it. At least that is how it worked for those of us first years who were laid off. :) It was awesome, I mean, it was a total joke. The firm can crash and burn and everyone with it. In the meantime, my advice is try to get in as soon as possible. You will probably be laid off, yes, but then you can put it on your resume. (Although I'm not sure how good a Pillsbury credential is, really, when it comes right down to it). It is funny...most of us passed up offers from more prestigious firms, thinking we were going to a firm that actually cared about its associates at least a tiny little bit. Oops.
Gee, I'm sure none of the Latham complainers have ever benefited from their parents.
latham did 9/11
34 - What is this "reverse Drexel effect" of which you speak?
I took the Pillsbury bakeoff offer. Don't regret it for one second. Now - I wonder if they will pay up or be dissolved before that happens.
Like the poster above, I turned down offers from more prestigious firms because I thought Pillsbury was different. Boy what a mistake.
You'll notice that the Latham complainers suddenly get real quiet when people start asking about the ways in which they have benefited from their parents.
these pillsbury associates sound annoying. i'd also be reluctant to hire them.
This is why our profession is awful. Everyone needs to remember what they were like before they became lawyers. What Latham did was terrible. Laying people off and holding on to people based on nepotism is awful. Just because "that is the way it works" doesn't mean they don't have a right to be pissed off about.
Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and ask what you would think. Have some f**king empathy for the fellow members of your PROFESSION.
Amen 86.
In some respects, keeping the Latham partner's son at the firm was a more humanitarian thing to do.
This assumes that the Latham complainers are correct in their insinuation that the now former ex-associates were better qualified. If they are in fact better qualified, they are better positioned to find new employment than would be the supposedly underqualified associate who is still at the firm. it is a question of limiting everyone's downside.
It is also possible that an important client wants the associate employed, like the associate's grandfather. Doesn't need to be an internal thing. Only ones impacted are the client.
so no one knows about ballard spahr, huh?
Another good point, 114. Furthermore, if quality at Latham really suffers (and why would it? aren't we told that associates are fungible), then Latham will be punished by the client. The market will provide the punishment, to the extent any is merited.
Ex-Lathamite,
I'm on your side. I'll give you a tip. Stop bringing up the partner's son. Stick with your legitimate arguments. You don't realize this, but you are completely ruining your position by mixing a pathetic argument along with a legitimate one.
- someone in a similar position
Wow. Incoming associates are so fucked it's not even funny. Half of you won't start, and the other half will be fired within a few months of working.
2009 grads will be hit the hardest by the collapse of biglaw. They just missed the boat -- just bad timing really. But man, your best bet is to find another profession ASAP. Biglaw is full.
118:
Agreed. The Class of 2009 is the Lost Generation.
118:
Agreed. The Class of 2009 is the Lost Generation.
I think the class of 2010 is also in a bad position. Pillsbury will not hire any 2009 summers until 2011!!!!!
And - check out campus recruiting - half the firms are recruiting this year, so grads of 2011 will feel it too.
do you think 2009 or 2010 is in a worse position?
People talking about 2009 being the "lost generation" strike me as 3-4 year associates without enough work who realize incoming folks being paid quite a bit less to do essentially the same work pose a major threat to them....
28: "4 first years failed. 3 were laid off. the one who wasn't was a partner's son."
Hardly empirical evidence.
The extent to which Pillsbury has mungered this situation is quite amusing.
107, it used to be the case that Latham had only one real client in NY, Drexel. Drexel imploded, and their employees went to other firms. The other firms began to hire Latham because of the Drexel employees' experience with Latham.
Now think of the reverse situation. Latham laid off about 130 associates in NY this year. My guess is they'll layoff even more in the next few years. They treated these people as badly as a firm could treat its associates. some of them will land on their feet, go in house, and to work for potential or current Latham clients. How favorably do you think they're going to view a firm that treated them so badly? A firm that practiced an obvious act of nepotism? Add to that the negative word of mouth latham is going to get from these people, and you get a reverse Drexel effect. hth.
Latham is a GREAT place to work - they simply have high standards which many could not meet. Now, they whine incessantly in a transparent attempt to divert attention from the fact that they were among the worst performers. The truth hurts.
lol. 130 people were the WORST performers. somehow, a bar failing partner's son was not one of these poor performers.
126 has no idea what he's talking about. In reference to the terminated Latham associates, he states: "They treated these people as badly as a firm could treat its associates."
On the contrary, Latham paid top of the market severance--SIX MONTHS PAY--To the victims of its layoff. Every other law firm is terminating associates. Only a few have matched the generosity of Latham's severance package.
129, how many firms have laid off more than half of a first year class, and with no notice on top of that?
105 -
How are you using the word "benefit"?
Being given a job because you have no outstanding skills other than blood relation is an exceptional type of benefiting from one's parents.
Latham stepped up and paid big time severance. And I, for one, could not be happier that they kept the infamous "partner's son"...what a comically thin reed to cling to for all the losers they canned. And they keep playing that same pathetic tune: they kept the partner's son, sniffle, sniffle. It has become a genuine pleasure to watch these failures blame everyone but themselves.
i bet bob dell has a small one
Simply folks.
If things continue like they are, a significant number of firms will miss payroll and implode in the 4q2009 1q2010 time frame.
The partners at these firms really weren't in the end responsible for the upside economy of 2003-2006 and can do nothing about the 2007-201? economy either.
So they will sit and do nothing while praying for a turnaround that will save them.
Most of the big firms need to be half their current size to survive.
At the last minute, they will act, only out of desperation. There is no grand plan, only fear.
If you are offered severance, take it.
Has anyone heard whether Latham is planning more stealth layoffs this summer? No clue...just asking.
130, you think six months severance = "no notice"?!?! Doesn't that basically give you a year to figure out what you are going to do?
I'm not saying you weren't screwed, but there are many people in this economy - and many associates at big firms - who were screwed much worse than you.
Latham paid its associates a premium severance package. Give credit where it is due.
This thread depicts perfectly the thinking of both incoming and current associates. On the one hand, the current associates have earned their share of the pie. They have been slaving away for the bosses for a few years, and so feel entitled -- and legitimately so -- to more job security.
The problem, however, is that the current associates -- and partners probably -- don't see the incoming associates as their past selves. Rather, the incoming associates are perceived as a burden, i.e., a drain on resources.
In reality, we, the ultimately fucked-over by the economy class of 2009, are no different than they were 5 (or 10) years ago. We are eager to start our careers. We just want to be given the chance to shine. Should I feel guilty about that?
And I take full responsibility for allowing myself to get caught up in the biglaw recruiting madness at the PEAK of the market in the Fall of 2007. The truth is, I knew the economy was going to tank (I watch a lot of Peter Schiff), but I honestly thought that biglaw was, in general, better managed and more diverse in terms of the workload. Bad call on my part.
137, the "premium severance package" went only to the half of associates who got fired as part of the "official" layoff.
Latham isn't perfect...gosh, a flawed BigLaw firm...my, that is news. Whatever you do, by all means, never get over it.
why does this thread have so much latham bashing?
troll a thread every once in a while but too much of a pussy to go stand outside the lipstick building with an inflatable rat aren't we?
140 = hilarious
No word from Pillsbury still...
No word from Pillsbury still...
rumor on the street is that we're supposed to find out tomorrow. the sad part is that despite a memo telling us we'd hear "no later than 6/26/09," you have to ask to find out.
how hard would it have been to send out a f#@king email saying, "we blew it, again. we'll, hopefully, let you know early next week. again, entirely our fault."
Ya, let's see what they say tomorrow. Should be very interesting. One thing is for certain, though -- nobody will be starting in January.
i wish someone would put up an inflatable rat outside the lipstick building. that'd be hilarious. you could still be a pussy if you wanted and set it up early in the morning wearing a mask. or better yet, hire some illegals to set it up and protest for you.
Just got an email confirming my start date of Jan 2010. No indication of practice group. For what it's worth, it looks like a mass email.
BS 148. There is no email.
Wow... what a disorganized mess. I know the firm does not technically owe incoming associates anything, but think about for a moment from the perspective of the incoming associate. You have an offer from a firm and in the worst of economy of our lifetimes, the firm goes incommunicado. Meanwhile, your law school friends are at least hearing some news from their firms and going on with their life plans (re-adjusting as needed), lining up non-profit positions if they are being deferred, moving to the cities where they will start their firm jobs if not, etc. You, meanwhile, graduate, still unclear what is happening with the position you accepted almost a year ago and begin delving into bar exam preparation mode. Finally some news arrives from your future employer that basically indicates the wait will continue another month. The month passes and you eagerly run to your mailbox (these days,probably your email in-box) like a college senior awaiting the fateful letter from your first choice school. You hear nothing. Your anxiety, already on high due to the looming bar exam, grows. Another day passes, and again, you hear nothing. At this point, you almost don't care what the answer is, you just want closure one way or another so you can start planning your life.
Yes, the firm does not "owe" anyone anything, and all the at-will employment, yadda, yadda, yadda, but it does seem really inconsiderate to leave people you actively recruited hanging on indefinitely and not communicating with them in the timeframe you set (even if only to say we still need more time to make a decision).
Other big law firms have managed to communicate with their incoming class in this economy. Is Pillsbury even more mismanaged than its competitors such that it can't even do that?
I have been practicing for seven years and I worked in another industry before law school and in my experience, how you are treated in the recruiting process is an optimistic forecast of how you will be treated when you get there. Not entirely unlike dating vs. marriage.
Personally, I would take the $60 K and run. There is nothing to stop from the firms from pushing start dates back further or rescinding offers entirely closer to the date. Given Pillsbury's record, you might just hear about it as you are driving in on your supposed first day.
Am I in bizarro world? Of course Pillsbury owes its incoming associates something -- the written decision it promised it would give them no later than 6/26/09.
At-will employment doesn't mean that your employer can make various promises to you related to your job security and then arbitrarily bail on them at any time. If the firm wanted to reserve the right to bone its associates, then it shouldn't have said anything to them.
Pillsbury is chickenshit.
148 is wrong about receiving any email from Pillsbury tonight. All assignments are for specific sections.
151-
150 here. What I meant was the firm doesn't owe anyone a job. They do "owe" their supposed incoming class some consideration and communication.
I'd hate to see the employment law advice they give their clients.
148-- Did the email say how many are scheduled to start in Jan 2010? Word among the associates here is that it is likely only 10 - 15.
134 is right -- take the package if it's offered to you.
The economy is much more screwed up than the "mainstream" media would lead you to believe. Any recovery will be extremely slow. Japan propped up its insolvent banks in the late 1980's/90's and it took over a decade before their made any significant progress.
I'm not in a position to judge whether the reductions will be half as 134 predicts but it would not surprise me if many of the firms that were dependent upon securitizations, CDS's, etc. hit 134's estimate (i.e., 50% reduction in headcount.)
If the economy is in the toilet, then I'm not sure what good a severance will do you, since there won't be any other jobs to get.
I'd do everything to try to defer, but still remain formally hired by the firm. You can try to do something else for the short term that maybe isn't so useful. But it's better to spend 6 months working at Cracker Barrel with an exit strategy than to be starting your career there. In the meantime, if things turn around the firm may still take you on next year. If you take the severance, you are dead to them and probably will never work in biglaw again. If you defer, you've still got your foot in the door.
156 - if the firm tanks between now and your start date, you will have NOTHING. If you take the severance, you've at least got $60K to tide you over in living expenses and you can still temp or whatever (you've got a law degree regardless so you are still likely to find a position other than waitressing at Cracker Barrel). If the economy picks up such that firms are actually starting their first years, you'll find something. If the economy tanks (and many experts are predicting this), those that deferred will likely see their offers rescinded (and possibly without severance at that point).
June 29, 2009. 11:39PM.
Still no word from Pillsbury.
130 -
What other firm laid off half their first year associates, with no notice on top of that? No, not even no notice, NOTICE FOUND OUT ON ATL??? Aftter being told, repeatedly, by some of the highest levels of firm management that our jobs were safe?
PILLSBURY
I love coming on here, as a first year at Pillsbury who was laid off in NY, I enjoy trying to see if I can figure out who else is posting comments.
Wow, I think it can be safely said that Pillsbury is a disgrace to the profession
Very poor management... zero empathy.... no consideration for the firm's reputation... seems like the senior partners have already decided to jump ship, so instead of taking care of new employees they probably worry about carving as much $$$ for themselves as they can asap... Go Pillsbury!
There is no email...at least not for east coasters.
General piece of advice for Class of 2009 that might be faced with choosing between deferral, buy-out, etc. Set up a Google Alert for your future firm. If you notice that partners are leaving, it is a sure sign the firm is tanking -- there is a good possibility it won't exist by the time you are scheduled to start -- and which case your best bet is the buyout.
I second 163. And what of pillsbury - are partners leaving? I haven't heard anything, but with behavior like this, seems like something is up.
leave latham alone. i mean peer firms like skadden and pw and dpw have laid off just as many people, including first years.
oh wait, no, they didn't. latham was the only supposed good firm to fuck over so many associates, especially first year. that's why they need to be bashed.
and i bet bob dell has a small one.
I have a small one.
any news yet?? this is unbelievable.
164 - Per Pillsbury's website, Partner count pre-layoff, 365. Current partner count, 365. So nothing in those tea leaves.
126 - I see, thank you.
126 - I see, thank you.
- 107
64=Dawn Crowell
64=Dawn Crowell
64=Dawn Crowell
I just called CA, letters are supposed to go out today.
Letters are out. For real.
As of approximately 2PM EST.
As of approximately 2PM EST.
Yes....and WHAT DO THE LETTERS SAY?
I got January 2010. I have not heard from anyone so not sure how many are deferred or will start asap.
they thank us for our patience, give us our Jan. 2010 start date, and tell us our assigned practice area.
Deferred until January 2011.
I'm interested to know if they stuck with the 32 (2010) / 22 (2011) ratio. If so, what was the delay all about?
I got Jan 2010 as well. I know one person who got 2011. No idea about the others in my office.
They sent out the letters to those who got 2010 over an hour and half before those who got 2011. I think that is BS.
I'm just happy to finally have a letter, even though it says 2011.
What did the emails say? Come on guys, shed some light on what they told you. Do you get the impression that you will actually start in January 2010?
Does it matter if the letters say they will actually start in January 2010, or what impression they get? I received a letter last summer that said I was to start in January 2009, and that stated that they looked forward to a long and productive relationship with me. My long and productive relationship with Pillsbury lasted 8 weeks. No matter what your letter says. No matter what the partners you thought you had a decent relationship with say to you. It doesn't matter. Some of you will have a job. Some of you will not. And there is no way to predict which way it will go and when the axe might fall, whether it will happen before you ever step onto the 21st floor or 8 weeks thereafter. (Actually, I'm not sure about that, I have my theories, but I don't think I can post them without revealing who I am). :)
Does it matter if the letters say they will actually start in January 2010, or what impression they get? I received a letter last summer that said I was to start in January 2009, and that stated that they looked forward to a long and productive relationship with me. My long and productive relationship with Pillsbury lasted 8 weeks. No matter what your letter says. No matter what the partners you thought you had a decent relationship with say to you. It doesn't matter. Some of you will have a job. Some of you will not. And there is no way to predict which way it will go and when the axe might fall, whether it will happen before you ever step onto the 21st floor or 8 weeks thereafter. (Actually, I'm not sure about that, I have my theories, but I don't think I can post them without revealing who I am). :)
168, dig a little deeper...
Yeah, Pillsbury's website does not appear to promptly reflect changes in attorney employment.
(client) i am being charged $350/hr to have an associate do work. does this seem accurate? i was previously told (in an email i cant find at the the moment) that this associate's rates were $225/hr. But now that I am reviewing my past bills - they are at the higher rate. I am not looking for individual advice, but what are the overall rights that a consumer has to see what the actual billing rates are for the lawyers at a particular firm? and what stops the firm from telling different rates to different clients? thanks