"I don't know why I'm not getting 80k to wait out the economy."

Maybe because you have savings, experience, training, and Cravath on your resume. Would you like to switch places?

Its funny how the koolaid runs so deep at top firms that most associates will stay loyal even after getting laid off.

Isn't it possible that people who get laid off sometimes get laid off because they aren't good enough at their job?

Hmmm it seems like it's no longer just law students that have a sense of "entitlement."

We need to end this notion of "stealth" layoffs. No one is leaving the firms and there is less work. Performance reasons and economic reasons to lay someone off are not mutually exclusive. If there is significantly less work and no one is leaving, layoffs are to be expected (that's economic). But the people who are the least productive, efficient, promising, likeable, etc...are the first to go (that's performance). Calling it a performance-based layoff may not be perfectly precise, but it's probably accurate.

These Craveth associates will find that they might have a claim arising under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Gender, race, religion, and Craveth associate-ness are all protected classes.

"I don't know why I'm not getting 80k to wait out the economy."

Maybe because Cravath already gave you a chance to show you were a valuable asset and you blew it. Folks getting let go now would have eventually been let go under normal circumstances. The economy's just accelerated the process.

The firm is hoping the deferred first years will grow up to be better attorneys than the dead wood they're letting go now.

There offices are still much nicer than Davis Polk's and STB's.

wow, in this recession, cravath is really the most affected firm.... (second is, of course Skadden, let's remember, they laid off 1/3 of their associates as a whole)....

How the mighty have fallen!

Biglaw is out of money, people. More firms will collapse soon.

"wow, in this recession, cravath is really the most affected firm.... (second is, of course Skadden, let's remember, they laid off 1/3 of their associates as a whole)...."

More affected than Heller or Thelen?

Here here 1, 4, 5, 7

All Cravath attorneys are overrated - not just the associates.

“Calling it a performance-based layoff may not be perfectly precise, but it's probably accurate.”

Not really. In most firms it seems the layoffs have more to do with the department youre in than individual performance. Like someone who is a top 10% associate in structured finance will lose their job while a bottom 3rd litigation associate will usually be safe.

"Isn't it possible that people who get laid off sometimes get laid off because they aren't good enough at their job?"

If that's the case, 90% of recruiting and HR should lose their jobs for being incompetent. If a major league baseball team cuts its prospects for not "being good enough at their job", dontcha think the scouts that brought them in would lose their jobs as well?

Or on the other hand, Cravath can just be honest and admit there is no work. Its only as obvious as the back of my hand.

Cravath has been forced to lay associates off.

This means one thing: Wachtell is now undisputed best firm in NYC. All law student who can chose between the two know which way to go now.

Cravath is now just another firm that laid people off, and gave them cheap severance (3 months notice, when other lesser firms gave more).

Remember that law students -- Cravath is nothing now like it once was. It is just another law firm, and taking a job there won't impress anyone that much.

Cravath has been forced to lay associates off.

This means one thing: Wachtell is now undisputed best firm in NYC. All law student who can chose between the two know which way to go now.

Cravath is now just another firm that laid people off, and gave them cheap severance (3 months notice, when other lesser firms gave more).

Remember that law students -- Cravath is nothing now like it once was. It is just another law firm, and taking a job there won't impress anyone that much.

How many more young attorneys can have their lives ruined by BigLaw? If only they had been smart enough to take a job in MidLaw, they likely would be happy campers this very day.

@ 8: Cravath does not have nicer offices than DPW or STB. What you said is kinda laughable.

I wonder what PE would say about this.

That's nothing. In 2008, Latham laid off 130 associates from its NY office alone.

@19 - You are lying.

"All law student who can chose between the two know which way to go now."

This was already the case.

Um, Wachtell has been the undisputed best firm in NYC for years now. This is made clear every year come bonus time.

"is there any firm that is immune from layoffs during this recession?

Yes, actually, my 100 attorney insurance defense firm is hiring. That is if you can afford to live on what they pay. 80k a year for 1st year salary and bonuses after 1950 hours.

Getting laid off sucks and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it's hard to muster a ton of sympathy for these Cravath guys. They got "training" at one of the top firms in the world. Can't they tap into the vaunted alumni network?

Holy cow 21. I hear Latham NY laid off more than half its first years after only several months.

26, what's the point of tapping if no one's gonna turn around and hire? tap tap tap tap away

I hope Cravath is providing counseling for its fired associates. Most Cravath associates never get over being passed over for partnership, to be fired in this manner must have inflicted the grossest pyschological trauma upon them imaginable.

How like Cravath to fire people in this way -- hauling them in to face a firing line -- that more than anything else tells you what type of firm that Cravath is.

And, Cravath associates, don't start talking about your supposed "exit opportunities" as the justification for working at such a place -- obviously there were no "exit opportunities" for these ex-associates, or they wouldn't have been fired like this.

I see your point, 14. I wasn't taking that into account. However, I still don't think layoffs like this warrant the knee-jerk reaction of "stealth" and as having nothing to do with performance.

5

ewww at 25's insurance defense dump

I'm not wearing my bra to work today

Hello all,

Apologies for the off-topic post, but I thought that you folks may be of some help. I am currently developing a feature film script for a major studio whose subject matter may be near and dear to some of you (or so my lawyer friends tell me). Without going into too much detail here, it is a comedy that centers on a group of young big city lawyers (likely NY) that launch a very unconventional business to make ends meet during the economic downturn. In any case, I would like to communicate with some real-life lawyers to help me fill in some of the details. Would anyone here be willing to devote a few minutes of their time (whether by e-mail, IM, etc.)? Let me know here, and I can figure out how to proceed. Thanks.

"That is if you can afford to live on what they pay. 80k a year for 1st year salary and bonuses after 1950 hours. "

The problem isn't living. It's paying back loans.

But at least these associates, who gave up their nights and weekends for the firm, get paid in PrestigePoints and GreatExitOpportunityPoints which they can cash in when they leave, right? Right?

While I'm willing to believe that those who were laid off were the lowest performing of a group of generally high- performing lawyers, I am NOT willing to believe that all of a sudden, 25 associates start sucking. Not willing to believe it.

33,

Ask Suicidal Laid-Off Latham first-year. He has the ingenuity and competitive spirit to (as well as the mental toughness) to provide you with some great insight.

33: Speak to Partner Emeritus.

Comment removed by moderator.

While I'm willing to believe that those who were laid off were the lowest performing of a group of generally high- performing lawyers, I am NOT willing to believe that all of a sudden, 25 associates start sucking. Not willing to believe it. I have no problem with layoffs for business reasons, but let's call a spade a spade.

Biglaw associates need to unionize, that's all their is to it. Obama needs to change the labor laws to protect salaried workers from being fired for union activity. Everyone's a white collar salaried worker these days, the distinction between salary/hourly workers no longer works.

What people don't understand is that Cravath has ALWAYS let go a certain percentage of its associates come review/rotation time. Back in the day, you would get hauled in front of Allen Parker (sp?, can't remember) and he'd be the stern grandpa that would say that the firm did not envision a future for you there. This is not unique, other than the fact that other partners are actually taking the time to show up for more of a firing squad reason.

People got cut off from more work at Cravath all the time. As Frat Stud would say, it was no big deal.

So, Partner Emeritus, in light of this news, is Cravath still a "peer firm"? And, if not, who is?

Have you ever actually seen Cravath's offices? They are gorgeous. Davis's offices are a joke.

QUINN REMAINS

People, Dave Gordon's (Latham NY OMP) brother works at Cravath. You should have expected layoffs.

The ship be sinking...

42: You are leaving out an important detail, aren't you? It always used to be that, when Cravath told people that they had no future at the firm, Cravath gave them all the time in the world to find a new job.

Now, Cravath is hurting, and forcing people out on 3 months notice (how cheap!). That's a big difference and shows what kind of shape the firm must be in to do that.

42,

Not speaking for anyone else, I understand it....but this is different than in the past. After all, Cravath was the type of firm that kept a pervert on the payroll:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1141380319547&rss=newswire

The work simply isn't there anymore. Cravath has a very good litigation department, but as a firm its transactional/corporate heavy, and that work is g-o-n-e gone for the time being.

Seriously - if this is happening at Cravath, aren't the Mayer Browns of the world teetering on the edge of collapse?

I don't like Cravath's offices because they have no natural light in the interior spaces. It's like they intentionally cut the staff off from windows by building piers of lateral files and offsetting them to the lawyers' doors so no light could come through. Weird choice.

This may be slightly off topic, but when Obama's hair has gone completely grey three years from now, will he just let it go a la Clarence Thomas, get a dye job, or go with the completely shaved Michael Jordan look?

15-

You are dumb. Major League Scouts miss way more than biglaw firms do. They draft 50 players every year...They are lucky if 7 or 8 of them ever see a day in the majors.

clearly, he'll dye it.

#51 - True. Cravath's office design is embarrassingly bad considering how much they pay for their lease.

Where's the discussion of Cravath's insanely expensive lease that was all the rage back at bonus time? (If their office space is nicer than DPW or STB's, they're certainly paying for it...)

These "tips" are outrageous! Performance layoffs are part of the core in this business. No peer or non-peer firm is immune to performance based layoffs. The fact that these ungrateful cretins are crying about deferral benefits while failing to disclose the generous severance benefits and advance warning of their departure only confirms that today's generation of lawyers neither have a backbone or character to stand tall amongst real professionals. This story makes my blood boil and galvanizes me to mistreat associates.

"You are dumb. Major League Scouts miss way more than biglaw firms do. They draft 50 players every year...They are lucky if 7 or 8 of them ever see a day in the majors."

15 - you are dumber[est]

How many of 50 BIGLAW first year associates become partners at the same firm? 7 or 8 out of 50 is an incredibly high nuber.

Run away little boy, unless you want more spanking.

Cravath is so ghetto they should relocate their office to west Philly or the south Bronx.

Hey P.E.-

FUCK YOU!

@14--

Disagree. I'd bet cash money that the corporate associates who were let go for "performance reasons" were the easiest choices in their departments. I'd wager that the stellar performers/corporate associate rock stars were retained while the less productive, less efficient, less promising were let go when lay offs became an economic necessity. Why would a firm stealthily lay off its most promising associates, when it has the option of letting go their less promising peers? Whether that cuts into the bottom 10% or the bottom 50% depends on how much salary the department needs to shed.

This has nothing to do with associates in other departments. If a litigation department is booming, even the bottom dwellers in litigation are probably safe, regardless of whether the same firm is cutting deeply into a corporate department that can't feed all its mouths.

Cravath is so ghetto they should relocate their office to west Philly or the south Bronx.

@42, the hit to your prestige hurts doesn't it?

As has been mentioned before many times in this thread on on ATL in general, what we're learning here is fairly obvious. The top firms of BigLaw are NOT immune to the economic downturn. Indeed, many of them are hurting more than the less prestigious firms who couldn't land top M&A, hedge fund, and other Wall Street-dependent corporate work. That work stream is almost dry. Wachtell, as the best-of-the-best, can be expected to keep enough business to weather the storm. Meanwhile, the once mighty corporate groups of Cravath, Skadden, et al. will be left fighting for what little scraps remain.

I'm feeling quite lucky right now to be in IP.

That $900 million lease does look insanely expensive in retrospect.

62, i think there's space next to latham's new office

This post should resolve any lingering questions for incoming first years currently deciding whether or not to take the "voluntary" deferral.

You're wrong, 61. A great associate who does most of his work for a partner with little or no business is in danger, whereas a mediocre associate who does most of his work for a partner with business is usually safe, at Cravath or any other firm.

Associates, the most important decision that you will ever make in your career is not what firm to work for, it is what partner to work for. Use your time as summer associates and first years to find out which partners matter, and STICK WITH THAT PARTNER! Then, hope the guy manages to stay busy until you are up for partner. Good luck.

The ship be rising...

@ 65-dead on. CSM's clients are huge lenders, securities houses and M&A advisors. all dead in this market and the future and so Cravath. i'd start sending out vitas about yesterday

69, not to mention no advisory business in dc, no ip in cali, etc

Law firms are Ponzi pyramid schemes, DUH.

not to mention, corporate lawyers in general spend a lot more time talking about what they do than actually doing work

can't wait until tips start coming in on cravath's monitoring of PERSONAL emails accounts

"can't wait until tips start coming in on cravath's monitoring of PERSONAL emails accounts"

I can see them doing this. Details?

Why is this surprising? The same thing happened 3 years ago when the economy was red hot. Not everyone makes partner. The only attorneys that aren't let go are the scummy ones that report everything to the partners and the hoes (both male and female, yes many of the partners are gay).

Whoever starting mentioning insurance defense firms on this thread really grossed me out. Please refrain.

74 - verified by multiple sources. wait for tips.

To the naive people still living in koolaid land and believing that those "underperforming" have been let go: explain why only corporate attorneys apparently are the only ones underperforming at Cravath? One or two bad apples I would understand, but 25? Come on...

At Latham, all the bar failers were fired except for a partner's son. Latham at least is not the meritocracy it pretends to be. I suspect that a lot of big firms are as rancid as Latham.

Why is this such a mystery to people? When it deferred the new associates, Cravath specifically said that a big part of the problem was lower than normal associate attrition -- a problem that's exacerbated by lower business volume. Did people seriously think that deferring first years would solve the attrition problem?

csm laid off llms by not renewing 1year Ks

understandable

e-mail monitoring - confirmed

78, the bar is set higher in corporate than in litigation, due to the economy. That does not change the fact that those fired associates were underperforming compared to those in corporate who remained.

The economy might cause a firm to do X number of layoffs. The firm lets go of the bottom 10%. Those bottom 10% were fired, instead of the other 90%, based on their performance.

That seems like an excessively cruel way to layoff someone. At most you need one partner to comment.

Not buying the peformance terminations. "IF" several Cravath associates were terminated for performance, then doesn't their hiring model need revision?

Are grades, law review, and clerkships no longer strong indicators of future job performance and competency?

Its hard to believe that several associates could have graduated top schools, did law review, clerked on the federal circuit, summered at Cravath and then blew it all in one year as an associate.

66--

Meaning they should take the deferral to be assured of 80K, or meaning they shouldn't take it because this means they're less likely to have jobs to come back to?

And do you think it should even affect the decisions of incoming litigation associates?

85 - agreed

Because of reported email (and thus internet) monitoring, we have not heard any response from Cravath associates yet, who are all still presumably putting in their face time today.

It will be interesting to see what appears in the comments after 9 pm eastern. (Cravath associates overkill even face time).

67 - You are absolutely right. I would give this same advice to any incoming associate.

61 and 83 - This is not necessarily true. I'm sure some of the associates that have been cut may have been lower performers. But others may have not been working for the right partners with power or business. A partner without a book is not going to risk his own job to make sure an associate is getting enough work, even if the partner thought the associate's work was great.

One of the firms in my town recently "rescinded" the termination of one of its supposedly underperforming associates based on them learning that that associate was closely related to a federal judge. That should tell you something about how these "performance" decisions are made.

I soooooo wish someone would do some crack investigative work and out PE.

WHAT PERFORMANCE?

CSM

Look, if they let someone go for performance, then isn't that what is SUPPOSED to happen? Why is that a "stealth" layoff?

Stealth layoff would mean severing several people, with a package, and trying to keep it quiet. Termination for performance is simply that. Too bad the people tath got shown the door want to see it differently.

WHAT PERFORMANCE?

CSM corp associates haven't had any work to be judged; dozens and dozens of harvard grads leaving work at 6pm for months on end

why isn't anyone harping on this?

Why shouldn't the LLMs be the first to go?

Look, if they let someone go for performance, then isn't that what is SUPPOSED to happen? Why is that a "stealth" layoff?

Stealth layoff would mean severing several people, with a package, and trying to keep it quiet. Termination for performance is simply that. Too bad the people tath got shown the door want to see it differently.

67-

My assumption would have been that the great associates would be able to figure out where to hitch their wagon to begin with, and would make themselves indispensable to the busier partners.

By "great" associates, I don't mean the people who can only research/write/negotiate/blue book the best out of their class, but rather those who know how to navigate the political waters of BigLaw practice.

-61

WHAT PERFORMANCE?

CSM corp associates haven't had any work to be judged; dozens and dozens of harvard grads leaving work at 6pm for months on end

why isn't anyone harping on this?

93 has drunk the koolaid. are you the bar failing partner's son from latham? tell us again how you're glad you had good reviews.

That hissing is the sound of the biglaw bubble leaking air...

So if Cravath's offices are not the nicest in NYC, whose offices are?

I would completely believe the scoop about "performance-based" staff layoffs occurring over the summer. Staffers have been asked to up their game, with the implication that they will be evaluated over the next several months. There is a lot of dead weight , so this will be somewhat legit.

Also want to point out that if they're deferring classes, they don't need the support staffs they planned on either...

96, not playing politics makes your layoff performance based? god fucking damn you're dumb.

66--

Meaning they should take the deferral to be assured of 80K, or meaning they shouldn't take it because this means they're less likely to have jobs to come back to?

And do you think it should even affect the decisions of incoming litigation associates?

85--

You are close to the mark. Cravath historically has hired people nearly exclusively based on their resume. That is to say, if you have an impressive resume, regardless of your desire to work "cravath-type" (crazy overnight) hours, regardless of your people skills/ability to look someone in the eye, then you were hired.

shockingly, many people that cravath hires, over time, are not exactly what cravath was looking for. CSM, like every law firm, is a pyramid.

so yes, you can clerk, graduate summa, etc., and still not be what CSM wants. CSM wants hungry, non-complainer, workhorse associates. Some of those who have top grades consider themselves "better" than what the firm is asking of them. Is that so hard to understand?

CravaTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTh

Come on, 61! Did you think before you posted that response at 96?

You have defined the question out of existence. Under your definition, "great associate" means an associate who does good work and is politically astute enough not to get fired -- or, more simply, a "great associate" = "an associate who didn't get fired"!

Plus, anyone who has practiced at biglaw knows that good associates can get stuck working for partners with insufficient business. It sucks, but it happens. And sometime a good associate just can't escape that low business partner in time. That's life.

67

15 - That would be great IF, the HR and Recruiting folks made the hiring decisions but they don't.

The partners are the ones that make those decisions - and most of the time, they are the ones recommending who even gets interviewed.

So yes, those "scouts" should be held accountable. But the truth is that you have to fix the archaic notion of summer associates and the whole BS approach that law firms use to hire kids out of law schools.

Why must we have the "performance" vs. "economic" argument on every layoff announcement? No one is going to convince the other side of their view. It's getting ridiculous. Any one hired at Cravath is in an enviable position credential-wise so they'll be fine regardless of the reason for the lay-off. The majority of the people posting here (myself included) wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting hired by Cravath even in a roaring economy. Let's stop the bickering. No use. Really dumb. Go bill hours.

Agree with 86/103,

I am a deferred associate going into litigation. Arrange a year-long deferral or start in January? Advice??

15 - That would be great IF, the HR and Recruiting folks made the hiring decisions but they don't.

The partners are the ones that make those decisions - and most of the time, they are the ones recommending who even gets interviewed.

So yes, those "scouts" should be held accountable. But the truth is that you have to fix the archaic notion of summer associates and the whole BS approach that law firms use to hire kids out of law schools.

15 - That would be great IF, the HR and Recruiting folks made the hiring decisions but they don't.

The partners are the ones that make those decisions - and most of the time, they are the ones recommending who even gets interviewed.

So yes, those "scouts" should be held accountable. But the truth is that you have to fix the archaic notion of summer associates and the whole BS approach that law firms use to hire kids out of law schools.

102, part of being a good lawyer means recognizing the value of personal networks and knowing who's important. Impressing the right people is not the same as "playing politics." How do you think partners get business? Think of the partners as your (prospective) clients.

But keep on pretending that your legal research and Bluebooking skills are the only abilities you'll ever need to succeed as a lawyer.
-- not 96

I still don't trust Elie to have much in the way of real sources, real knowledge, or any common sense in reporting. He has been running these largely unsubstantiated rumors about every firm whenever he gets any hint of information whatsoever so as to spread fear and thereby increase page views.

I'm not saying firms aren't pushing people out, but he seems to have no explanation for how he distinguishes firms doing "layoffs" and firms getting rid of the people that would have ordinarily been more gently pushed along in a better market. Did he do any reporting or research into practice in past years? Of course not. That would require actual effort and reporting.

LOL at the cravatttth koolaid drinkers circling the wagons. “move along. nothing to see here. MUST PROTECT PRESTIGE!!!!”

Alas, all your law school gunning and all youll have to show for it is a firm that is now considered on par with shearman sterling and cadwalader.

Why do the bottom 10% deserve any severance at all?

112, stfu. that does not make a layoff performance based you fucking fool.

Hell, I'd take the 80K, plus medical coverage and loan payments and have a nice little vacation in the carribean.

@ commenters like 78 and 85 who continue to harp on whether something is "performance-based" or "stealth" or whatever else you want to call it:

It is hilarious that you continue to get hung up on what firms are calling these things. Given the stories on this website over the last 3 or 4 months, I think it is safe to assume that almost every Top 50 firm is trying to reduce their associate workforce in some form or fashion. Sure, some may characterize it differently than others....and some may even use the same words that *you* want them to use!

And, believe it or not, this practice did not start in 2008 or 2009. Many of these firms have been engaging in similar practices for, oh, the last 15 years or so.

And spare me the tired and grossly misguided rhetoric about "If the firm just came out and said I was being fired for economic reasons, then it would be easier for me to get another job!" Please.

Are we to believe that these affected Cravath corporate associates are going to have a harder time finding a new job than former Latham, Cadwalader, Kramer Levin, Paul Hastings, etc. associates just because of what the latter group of firms called it?

Please tell me you don't really believe that.

109 -- don't take the deferral if you ever hope to step foot inside the firm. Trust me, all deferrals are layoffs in slow motion.

109/103

Are you kidding...take the fucking money and (insert something to do here).

Depending on your specific package of course.

80k + health insurance + student loan payment = High in amsterdam

For you, your equation would be different.

61/96 - Again, not as easy to do as you think. I was a lateral into a branch office practice with few partners that assigned work. After about a year, I escaped the one that was not a rainmaker and started working almost exclusively with the rainmaker. Unfortunately for me, the rainmaker also had a senior associate (now a counsel that failed to make partner) that had worked with the rainmaker for years, was very protective of his position, and blocked some work from getting to me. When it came time for the rainmaker to decide which one of us to keep, guess which one of us got terminated? I'll give you a hint - the counsel that failed to make partner is happily billing away on midlevel/junior type work and I'm looking for a new job.

116, it means you failed to perform in the abilities required of a good lawyer. A good lawyer, partner or associate, knows who to impress and how to do it.
Maybe you should know that "performance" is not just the ability to conform agreements from singular to plural or to read basic English documents.
But your anger and immaturity issues may also have something to do with your firing.

108, we must have the discussion of performance vs economic layoff because many new lawyers are still naive enough to believe that the "system always works"

For those espousing the "these are clearly performance based lay offs" ask yourselves this: Does a criminal court ever convict an innocent man? Does a civil court ever award damages to an undeserving plaintiff?

If you answered "yes" to those questions, then you must also accept that occasionally firms lay off good associates who can do good work while keeping poor associates. After all, you get a lot more due process rights to present your side of the story and appeal an adverse decision when you are in court than when you are called into to face Barshay's Cravath Firing Line. So, if the court system can produce incorrect results, it is a certainty that Cravath can reach an incorrect assessment of a lawyer's performance.

108, we must have the discussion of performance vs economic layoff because many new lawyers are still naive enough to believe that the "system always works"

For those espousing the "these are clearly performance based lay offs" ask yourselves this: Does a criminal court ever convict an innocent man? Does a civil court ever award damages to an undeserving plaintiff?

If you answered "yes" to those questions, then you must also accept that occasionally firms lay off good associates who can do good work while keeping poor associates. After all, you get a lot more due process rights to present your side of the story and appeal an adverse decision when you are in court than when you are called into to face Barshay's Cravath Firing Line. So, if the court system can produce incorrect results, it is a certainty that Cravath can reach an incorrect assessment of a lawyer's performance.

97: non-performance can constitute performance. Didn't you ever take Contracts?

This board is full of over achieving asians that like to debate nonsense.

119--

Can that really be true, given that they mandatorily deferred the class of 2010 to 2011? That means those of us who voluntarily defer will BE the class of 2010. Seems safe to assume they'll need SOME incoming associates in fall of 2010 . . . right?

109, I'm in the same boat. And keep changing my mind about every two hours. :-/ Have you heard anything about how many people have deferred so far?

--103

Is the parole evidence rule applicable here?

All those who are telling future Cravathers not to take the deferral are not thinking logically. Cravath is looking to defer some people for a year (and pay them $80k). Cravath is telling incoming associates that they won't have much work if they come now.

Cravath is also telling them they will start in 2010, and is telling ALL 2009 summers they will start in 2011.

The upshot is that only those who defer will start in 2010. It will be a small class. No firm that hopes to keep operating can forgo an entire class year. Thus, those who defer for a year are in the BEST positions--smaller class, economy is probably better, and they get a year to do whatever they want (but I suggest trying to find something that is sustainable, in the event it really does come crashing down). Not only that, but it gives you an opportunity to show the firm that you understand the situation in which the firm finds itself, and that you're willing to be a team player. I have hired and fired before. These things count.

Now go ahead and tell me what an idiot I am, discuss my bad grammar and/or typing skills, etc.

123, nice third grade logic. No wonder you got canned.

YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS

Skadden Secure

ps: Our NYC offices make CSM's place look like an insurance defense shop's office from Long Island.

Cravath is run like a TACO BELL - if you can't bring clients hungry for mexican into the store - kick em out of the kitchen.

Is it sad that Taco Bell has higher profits than Cravath?

AND YOU ARENT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING DOUCHE BAG - you blew your load all over cravath and now they have to clean up your lackluster performance - another douche who sucked his way into a top law school

You guys are crazy and over thinking this. It is simple. These firms' accountants are running the numbers and doing projections with respect to associate utilization. Whereas in prior years, they are, for example, projecting associates will, at worse case, bill 1450 a year. Multiply that by appropriate billing rates, etc. the firm has to determine where to cut expenses in light of that.

If the corporate department can only sustain 75% of its current associate pool, then it has a hardline of cutting 25% or whatever number of heads that translates to. Then they will cut in light of incoming associates, class year, billable rate, performance, past and projected billing, and development (for example if you are more senior and focusing in a field that won't see economic growth in the next several years, despite being top, you are now less valauble to the firm). Thus, you can still be a top performer and be cut just because of timing and a mandate that someone in your group has to go.

The explanation is easy. The execution is not. Some lives will be ruined. Times are tough. Best to all affected.

129, by telling all 2009 summers that they're deferred, maybe Cravath is signaling that they _really_ don't want anyone starting in 2010. Otherwise, they would have kept a few not-deferred.
There is no reason why a firm can't have a gap in a class year, especially if the years above it are terribly bloated.

119,

I'm not going to Cravath. I'm going to another firm with pretty much the same deal. However, I may be in a bit of a different situation. My firm didn't really push the year long deferral. They just offered it to people who were interested. It seemed to be the option for people who cant wait until January to start working. So, the firm was pretty up front about it by saying, we'll help you if you help us...we'll get you a job now at lower salary, but you have to stay away for a full year.

Litigation is apparently booming at my firm. If everyone I know in that department has been working non-stop, does it make sense to hope that I'll actually start in January? Please advise.

109

semi-off topic: curious how much associates (1 yr-4th yr) are putting towards their loans. I started with about 170K, and pay about 3K/month - sometimes some towards savings, but otherwise blow a lot of it away. Survey?

pay more to loans now, b/c you won't be able to make a huge dent in them when you are fired. or put all money away to savings so when you are fired you can live for a bit?

Some people on here seem to think that big law firms are merit-based places. How cute.

24 - I would take that job at 80K, what firm might this be? and where?

136: or maybe Cravath wants a class of 75 (half the 2009 incoming class) in 2010? Firm economics make it very difficult to skip an entire class (you want to have (very profitable) fourth years four years from now). This is exacerbated at Cravath, where they do not make lateral hiring moves.

Biglaw really is not a meritocracy. If it were, would Dave Gordon have Lathamed every bar failer except for his partner buddy's little baby boy?

Biglaw really is not a meritocracy. If it were, would Dave Gordon have Lathamed every bar failer except for his partner buddy's little baby boy?

The "firing squad" layoffs show that the partners have no work to bill either.

85,

I recommend printing out 67's comment and taping it to your computer. Wish I'd figured it out for myself. Best comment I've seen on here --

131-

your office is above the "ESPN extreme fun zone" in times square.

131-

your office is above the "ESPN extreme fun zone" in times square.

People need to be honest with themselves. With incoming associates, you don't really know who the underperformers are, so it makes sense to give them severance/deferral allowances as if they were performers. Once an associate has more experience working at the firm (1-6 year associates), you are better able to determine who the underperformers are.

Those Cravath associates who remain have got to be feeling pretty good about themselves that they made the cut.

Can we start rioting already?

Associates who accept the the fake brickbats thrown their way deserve their fate. “Performance based” reviews are nothing but frauds that will set up a basis to deny the laid off associate unemployment when their severance runs out. It is important for associates to fight back & join the Toileteer revolution.

list of firms deferrals and rescissions (including package information)

http://theshark.typepad.com/weblog/2009/03/all-the-depressing-info-we-could-find-on-your-future-all-in-one-place.html

Fish & Richardson: aside from DA's offices and a few voluntary rescission payouts, you are 1 of 3 biglaw firms to rescind offers to incoming associates. Wear that honor proudly. You join the ranks of Luce Forward and Morris Manning. Congratulations!!

You had other options. Defer, cut salaries, public interest opportunities, voluntary rescissions.

Some people who are fired for performance may actually be incompetent - no one will argue with that, especially if they were receiving lukewarm reviews and having trouble getting work when others in their departments were busy.

BUT terminations are not performance-based when firms tell their associates that they are doing well and then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, tell them that their performance isn't on par. That is a stealth layoff.

The funny thing is that I know many former BigLaw associates who believed that stealth layoffs were really driven by poor associate performance. Then, a couple of months later, they were suddenly told that their performance sucked and were canned.

Kool-Aid drinkers: enjoy your paycheck while it lasts. You may be next.

A agree wholeheartedly with 67 as well. It is absolutely true. I was let go because the partners I worked for gave me no work (they kept it for themselves), whereas others who were frankly, half the attorney I am, where continually fed by their partners (including doing mundane tasks like billing mail). Ultimately I gave up on the bullshit and joined the federal government. For those that can, I recommend you do the same.

32 -- why today?

131-

your office is above the "ESPN extreme fun zone" in times square.

152 - Bullshit. Poor performers get fired. And average performers get let go when business is down.

Sounds like you should live by the 1 box rule - shouldn't take more then 1 box to get your personal crap home from the office. And make sure it isn't so big you struggle getting it on the train with you.

"I'd wager that the stellar performers/corporate associate rock stars were retained"

Corporate associate "rock stars". Ha ha ha ha ha!

109/134 -- I'm sorry to say this, but if your firm deferred until January, it is almost certain that they will defer again or revoke some offers after the bar exam. There is no chance that firms will be able to handle the class of 2009 in January. Make plans accordingly.

152 - Bullshit. Poor performers get fired. And average performers get let go when business is down.

Sounds like you should live by the 1 box rule - shouldn't take more then 1 box to get your personal crap home from the office. And make sure it isn't so big you struggle getting it on the train with you.

Has anyone actually been denied unemployment benefits because of poor performance reviews? I think unless the firm shows you were stealing a laptop or never showing up to work that you pass unemployment benefits muster.

If law firms could say "well, he showed up to work every day, did the work we asked him to do, but he had a bad attitude about working on Sundays [although he did do that work] and he gave us a B+ memo instead of an A+ memo, so clearly he was at fault."

I mean, I'm just speculating here, but I think the DC/NY/LA unemployment office is giong to reject that argument.

135, and all those similarly situated,

If you have to ask here, instead of knowing the right answer from a partner or partner elect senior associate, then you are too far out of the loop to be confident that your job will be there in January (or whenever.) In that circumstance, your best option is to take the deferral and use the time to find another job. (If you can). Then, if you find one, you can make a decision in light of the information available to you at that time. The second option should be OUT of BigLaw, fyi. Or at least out of NYC.

If you don't find another job, the deferral might be there yet. But at least you don't feel like a moron if the job isnt there. You can probably have a pretty fun life in whatever town you think you want to live in, so you are available for interviews, etc and showing some interest. Just no backingpacking in Europe.

Hope you're safe, but only time will tell.

Are grades, law review, and clerkships no longer strong indicators of future job performance and competency?

Except that they never where.....

It's a good indicator of legal analysis competency, in that I'm sure you can read a case and you can write a memo on a point of law. Unfortunately, as a young associate, that is no more than 20% of your role.

Are grades, law review, and clerkships no longer strong indicators of future job performance and competency?

Except that they never were.....

It's a good indicator of legal analysis competency, in that I'm sure you can read a case and you can write a memo on a point of law. Unfortunately, as a young associate, that is no more than 20% of your role.

Can anyone provide us some anecdotes about the competence of associates that Cravath has fired?

160 -- are you suggesting that firms that deferred entire classes are reaching out to specific individuals and making promises? I highly doubt they would do this, if not only because it would leak.

151 is the credited post.

163 - no because no one has been fired

Stealth layoffs have long term consequences. I'm not talking morale. I'm talking about where these random people land.

SEC. DOJ. AUSA. In house.

Each of these destinations are full of people who were screwed over by their firms and will not give a single, utter inch to their old colleagues. In fact, many have an ax to grind against all big firms.

The consequences won't be felt for a bit, but I'll be interested to see when certain 38-45 year olds realize the 27 year they shafted in 2009, is the 37 year old SEC or DOJ or AUSA section chief killing their deals and prosecuting their clients. It won't be pretty.

And I will bet a million bucks no law firm consultant like Hildebrant has counseled firms about this problem.

Bridges burn both ways. It just takes longer to get to the partner's side.

44: have you been there or have you just seen the worldwide plaza from the outside?

57: you sure sound like the tall backbone of the profession!

61 et al.: seems like you presuppose that those making decisions about associates can indeed tell the more able ones from less capable ones. can you substantiate your presupposition?

164,

I don't know if anyone has or not. Just saying that if the HAVEN'T had such an assurance then assume the worst, hope for the best. At least, that's how it worked when it was time to make partner.

Actually, thinking on your question, even if I had such an assurance in this market, I'd still employ the same tactic of sacrificing a backpack trip for a pressure free hunt for better options in a relaxed environment. This is not an area where anyone should take anything for granted.

Really, as what is happening this summer demonstrates, all bets are off in New York and London. To use a term, its all just so UNPRECEDENTED!! No one really knows what to do if this continues, and I think it unlikely work will shift from a failed firm to Cravath. If the work doesn't come in, then more and more partners will be going-- long before folks honor deferrals.

I am a former CSM associate (who, as one commenter astutely noted above, felt that my excellent resume made me too good to work sweatshop/slave-labor type hours). When I submitted a complaint that one of the senior attorneys was intentionally harassing me (as opposed to general day to day horrors of being called back at midnight just to watch a midlevel person associate muddle through work because they didn't want to be at the office alone), I had a similar experience to the one described in the article. I found myself in front of two partners from my group (one of whom I did not work for) who told me that they had heard I wasn't sufficiently dedicated to the work and that I probably wouldn't be happy in the group. I asked point blank if I was being told to leave and was told I wasn't. As background, during my time at CSM, I was working, on average, from 9-midnight and had never received any complaints about the quality of my work. Without complaining, I did menial crap like make binders for tyrants in my department who looked for any reason to keep me from going home. I don't know whether I was "stealth-laid-off" or not. After I was denied the opportunity to change groups (my group is/was notoriously awful), I found a comparable job (that actually paid me more) at a firm in a different city-- where I currently work 10 hour days for people who understand people exist for purposes other than work (or at least, in addition to work).

Also, I'd like to echo the above commenters and note that Cravath blocks ATL postings from the office place, so most current CSM associates won't have anything to say for the next 6-8 hours or so.

Fair enough, 169. Thanks for the honest comment. I agree 100% that this is not the time for bar trips.

anyone who thinks all of these layoffs were performance-based has never worked for a large firm and is probably a 2L.

170: but are you glad you started at Cravath?

Face it. There is a difference between a Cravath associate who makes the cut and one who is fired.

Well if they are black, female, Latino they can sue for discrimination. If a white male.....um..well...er...too bad I guess....

PE: Kudos to you! Might I suggest that you FLOG an associate?I think that a flogging pole should be installed at every peer firm. Those with offices in Singapore should cane rather than flog, out of respect for cultural differences. And when it comes to firing associates, I much prefer the voice mail method used by our UK brethren. Not only is the given dead-weight parasite fired, but humiliated as well.

But in either case, they should be flogged prior to being fired.

even if there were a few bad apples that Cravath wouldn't mind dumping, why bother with the inquisition? just say it is because of the economy and let people leave with dignity and no blemishes on their record for future job searching. The "reputation" smoke and mirrors game is done - it's not like clients don't know about those $80k deferrals...

Performance v. Economic?

Anyone choosing performance is an idiot. It's not like they're back-filling any of these positions.

There's simply not enough work. If there were, they would be re-hiring for all the "poor performers" they're firing.

170 again, in response to 173, I am glad I started at Cravath and would go there out of law school again-- but I would sure as #(^_% not pick the group I was in again.

I think there are a lot of amazing people at Cravath and it's a good place to hang out for a year or two (if you can live on limited sleep and high stress)-- but the place has some serious quirks-- W(ho)TF thought putting Scott Barshay in charge of firing was a good idea?

32-

Tell us more about your sans-bra day....

179,

How many years experience did you get there? Second, are you glad you started there because of the training/education or because of the name?

Performance v. Economic?

Anyone choosing performance is an idiot. It's not like they're back-filling any of these positions.

There's simply not enough work. If there were, they would be re-hiring for all the "poor performers" they're firing.

177, it's not an inquisition, its intended to preempt appeals by presenting a united front. Time honored proven technique since prior to our births.

Performance v. Economic? The two are not mutually exclusive, but if the firm is laying off any fewer than all of its associates, then the layoffs are at least partly performance-based.

179 - you are a FLAME. Cravath doesn't have groups and instead rotates associates from group to group. Too bad you didn't make the cut. Booyah!

- excited 2L who's gonna start there

Please excuse P.E. He found out today that he got a "C" on his Torts exam.

Agree with 170 on senior attorneys -- often laterals from other firms equipped with monumental issues relating to unhappiness/insecurity who are given carte blanche to take out their misery on newbies... and an administration loathe/lazy to do anything about it. What a miserably place to work. And on the e-mail monitoring... agreed.

185 - They absolutely have groups dumbass.

170 again, in response to 173, I am glad I started at Cravath and would go there out of law school again-- but I would sure as #(^_% not pick the group I was in again.

I think there are a lot of amazing people at Cravath and it's a good place to hang out for a year or two (if you can live on limited sleep and high stress)-- but the place has some serious quirks-- W(ho)TF thought putting Scott Barshay in charge of firing was a good idea?

159 - Firms can absolutely deny you unemployment for work-related issues. Perhaps your billing was down? Maybe they had to cut your hours too much? Did you turn in work late? Sure you can fight it. But will you take the risk? Do you want to work for the Feds? Firms know lawyers are flocking there. New employees must have background checks. Do you really want a “termination for cause” on your file, just in case you lose on your unemployment appeal? Firms bank on your desperation. They expect that you will take their severance and walk away, and chances are you will.

The boomtimes probably caused Cravath to hire some associates that weren't Cravath material to begin with. We are witnessing the consequences.

#3:

I agree. but I also am a bit more cynical. I'm thinking that some associates are too scared to make a wave--they are well trained little monkeys. Also, some people don't know what else to do or where else to go that they hope that BigLaw will take them back so they continue kissing ass.

pathetic.

Lawyers need to start standing up and proving they are the outspoken assholes everyone thinks they are.

www.lawshucks.com/laidoffdiary

170 again, in response to 173, I am glad I started at Cravath and would go there out of law school again-- but I would sure as #(^_% not pick the group I was in again.

I think there are a lot of amazing people at Cravath and it's a good place to hang out for a year or two (if you can live on limited sleep and high stress)-- but the place has some serious quirks-- W(ho)TF thought putting Scott Barshay in charge of firing was a good idea?

csm is a difficult firm to decipher for those on the outside looking in or even those on the inside who remain naive. on the surface, partners and hr will say that you are a special and may even treat you like part of the family. in front of the firing squad, however, you are worthless, incompetent and they really can't stand the sight of you.

the reason for the dichotomy is that csm wants to retain the handful of associates in each class who are partner material. unfortunately, it takes about 3-4 years to identify those associates, so they need each associate to feel special so that they sacrifice everything for the firm. in the past, once they determined that you were not partner material, you were told to move out quietly. in this environment, once they determine you aren't partner material, you are as good as fired.

the only thing causing csm to treat associates with respect in the past was csm's own fear of bad publicity. if bad publicity becomes the norm, csm will become an even more miserable place to work for the vast majority of associates.

TTTake TTThe deferral.

184-

Firing someone b/c they wear croc instead of stingray loafers does not count as performance-based.

167,

"I'll be interested to see when certain 38-45 year olds realize the 27 year they shafted in 2009, is the 37 year old SEC or DOJ or AUSA section chief killing their deals and prosecuting their clients."

"Bridges burn both ways. It just takes longer to get to the partner's side."

/shrug/ The world of law is larger than most people think, and frankly, it is unlikely you will be in a position to exercise arbitrary power to punish the attorney via the client's interests. That is what the whole "nation of laws, not men" is supposed to prevent.

Your revenge fantasy is fine to help you heal, but put it away soon and move on.

Now, if you get a chance to screw the *lawyer* directly, via some non-state power means, feel free.

Me? I quietly and calmly tell business people whose repsect I earn that Mr. So-and-So at Firm X is a lying, incompetent, lazy lawyer. I also encourage the business people to tell Mr. So and So I said that. With a smile, I tell the business people that I would welcome the opportunity to prove my statements in a court of law, should Mr. So and So be foolish enough to sue me for defamation.

Assuming you have demonstrated good character and competence up to that point, the listener will thereafter likely view the other attorney with suspicion. Word will spread.

I just heard that Kaye Scholer is doing quiet layoffs up and down the ladder, but below the level of equity partner.

#3:

I agree. but I also am a bit more cynical. I'm thinking that some associates are too scared to make a wave--they are well trained little monkeys. Also, some people don't know what else to do or where else to go that they hope that BigLaw will take them back so they continue kissing ass.

pathetic.

Lawyers need to start standing up and proving they are the outspoken assholes everyone thinks they are.

www.lawshucks.com/laidoffdiary

196, I don't have any sort of revenge fantasy. Not in the least. In fact, I'm on great terms with my former firm. Some of my colleagues on the other...not so much. Just sayin'

milbank is probably hurting more than any other firm.

170, 179 (and a couple other accidental posts, for some reason ATL was giving me fake error messages) here.

I'm glad I started at CSM in part of the name but mostly because I really liked my class and junior level coworkers. While CSM does have an outstanding ongoing CLE program, actual hands on training is hit - or -miss by partner (I'd guess more misses than hits).

Finally, 185, if you were a rising 3L who secured a job at CSM as a summer, you'd be at the office and unable to post-- so I'm assuming you are a rising 2L, who just assumes s/he can get an offer-- have you noticed that the class of '11 is already booked?

former csm associate here.

i'll be real here.

and reality is csm can argue that any associate should be booted for performance reasons.

everyone makes mistakes. because csm keeps a list of everyone's mistakes (routine requests sent to partners/senior attorneys/trusted senior associates), once it's decided that an attorney must go, csm can piggy-back on performance.

this SHOULD BE FRIGHTENING FOR ANY CSM ASSOCIATE, because no one is immune to this. a few mistakes here or there, if the firm decides you need to go for WHATEVER REASON, you're out. from day one when attorneys are brought in for the associates weekend, they're being watched (by the HR staff), who keep dossiers on all of them.

think about requests associates make to IT, the library, night secretaries... each and everytime a job is finished, you fill out an evaluation. juniors, you're no different. and when you're surrounded by people with an overwhelming need to impress, YOU WILL GET BAD REVIEWS. even if you do a great job... something can always improve, and then it's the piggy-back again.

agreed with all former associates on here. plenty of other great, prestigious firms in the city.

#3:

I agree. but I also am a bit more cynical. I'm thinking that some associates are too scared to make a wave--they are well trained little monkeys. Also, some people don't know what else to do or where else to go that they hope that BigLaw will take them back so they continue kissing ass.

pathetic.

Lawyers need to start standing up and proving they are the outspoken assholes everyone thinks they are.

www.lawshucks.com/laidoffdiary

Wow, 136, I had never though about it like that, but it makes sense. When I read this blog I am always baffled as to what type of people would actually take the time and mental energy to write a lot of this crap. (unless they are writing primarily to amuse the rest of us, as many are, in which case, thank you!)

But when I imagine the obnoxious Chinese-American girl I sat next to in Con. Law writing this crap, the things I read here start to make a lot more sense...

It seems like those are legit reason for the layoffs. Still, I wonder if any of those guys could file a wrongful termination lawsuit against their old firms? I saw this posting on this blog that said those types of lawsuit are up: http://employment-law.legalmatch.com/2008/12/legalmatch-reports-startling-rise-in-employment-related-legal-disputes.html

Echoing a few other posters, internal networking and forming strategic alliances are absolutely essential to success in a law firm. Who you work for and know (and socialize with) is almost as important as what you do.

However, not all equity partners are created equal. Certain people are better to work for than others. And there can be some really good teachers in the junior partner ranks if your shop has them. A lot of high quality lawyers don't chase equity partnership for a lot of different reasons. But, at the end of the day, the equity guys are the ones signing your paycheck and making decisions on comp.

204,

136 had to leave the building

It seems like those are legit reason for the layoffs. Still, I wonder if any of those guys could file a wrongful termination lawsuit against their old firms? I saw this posting on this blog that said those types of lawsuit are up: http://employment-law.legalmatch.com/2008/12/legalmatch-reports-startling-rise-in-employment-related-legal-disputes.html

ALL YOUR OFFICE ARE BELONG TO US!

- Weil

where are all the formerly bright-eyed corp associates stuck document reviewing hours and hours in lit

oh yeah computers blocked

This board is full of over achieving asians that like to debate nonsense.

170 - 9 to midnight? What kind of loser works 15 hour days doing drone work? Wake up all you law students, Big Law is for losers. And don’t buy into the “Oh, I got to do Big Law to get the experience to do something else.” Bullshit.. I went to a tier 4, made 40-60K my first 5 years as a state AG. Went to a mid-size firm for the next three years, finished up making 120K an am now in-house pulling down nearly 200K. Except when I’ve beeen on trial (and I mean ON trial, not weeks before), I’ve rarely worked more then a 9 ½ day. You just don’t need the BS “sheen” of Big Law. Yeah, the loans suck, but live in a Queens dump for the first 5 years of your career or get out of NY. It’ll be nice to earn more money in your 30s, rather then taking a pay cut. I’ll be the best decision of your professional life.

hey 212 i pulled in 200K 2dn year out of law school thanks

I don't think there's a single biglaw firm out there that hasn't been laying people off over the past several months - the difference is whether they are going the stealth ("performance") route or the public ("economic circumstances") route. Some of the firms seem to be doing a much better job of being stealth than others - they don't seem to have been outed yet and may never be outed. Bottom line, I just think it's really sad that the stealth firms don't have the decency to do the right thing and shoulder the reputational risk themselves instead of burdening the associates with that risk. Really quite shameful.

213 - Yeah, that's the problem. You didn't deserve it. No attorney has a useful skill set that early on in their career that can command that kind of money. Which is why so many of your compadres are being axed and are on the street, barely qualified for doc review.

197--Where did you hear that one ?? Where at? I call make believe

215 - usefull skill set = credentials to get big $ from clients... maybe YOU should wake up

217- credentials =/= useful skill set and clients do not pay for credntials, but for skills. Ask a big rainmaker at your firm the last time a potential client asked him about his law school rank or journal membership. The answer is probably never.

185 - they don't have groups but instead move them from group tp group? Notice any logical inconsistency? Dolt.

Maybe if CravaTTTh sTTTopped hiring ASSociates merely based on bullshit credentials like Harvard and Yale, they'd get some REAL people in their who know their shiTTT.

215 - Pedigree, 1st tier credentials, privilege, and yes, entitlement > "useful" job skills

221- for job as waterboy associate, not as rainmaker, control your destiny partner.

Harvard = TTT

Former Cravath associate here:

Cravath has a mandatory rotation system. You rotate every 12-18 months the entire time you're an associate. Most corporate groups have 4-5 partners, all of whom you work for in any rotation. Unlike some other firms, there is no "attaching yourself to the right partner" like some people have suggested.

People let go were likely at or near the bottom of their class based on input from multiple partners (in the case of a 4th year, it could be 15 partners the person had worked with). This isn't crazy-what's crazy is how hard it was to get let go from cravath in boom times. Believe me, I was there...it was a joke. There were people frozen out of work (the "polite" way of telling someone they should think about leaving) who stayed at the firm for over a year after being frozen out and were never asked to leave.

It's high level corporate america. The notion that people in their 20's making over 200k a year should be immune to performance based review is ridiculous.

"Maybe if CravaTTTh sTTTopped hiring ASSociates merely based on bullshit credentials like Harvard and Yale, they'd get some REAL people in their who know their shiTTT."

The problem is that there isn't a good proxy for skills and talent. If there were, I think law firms would be all over it.

224 -- well fucking said. My thoughts exactly. The creme will rise to the top, even in the darkest of times.

212 -- You may be right about Big Law being for losers, but the way you talk about it makes you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder. Try to sound less angry and you'll convince more people (or not; people are already sold on the idea).

For those debating whether to take the 80k, I would just say it seems hard to believe a firm would invest that much money in avoiding the reputation damage of rescinding offers and then turn around and rescind a year from now. The problem they have is the bubble in supply of incoming associates due to the two-year lead time on hiring and lack of attrition. The clear solution is buying time. I don't think their motives are any more complicated than that. I assume this summer's class is small and next summers' will be even smaller. So, bottom line, I would be very surprised if there was no job waiting as promised next fall, and there is a good chance the economy will be back, so you will be part of a relatively small class with lots of work and less competition. I think the real risk is that you travel the world for a year (as you clearly should) and realize you'd really rather stay another year in Bali : - ).

228 -- I respectfully disagree. Deferrals are just a polite way of telling incoming associates that they are not wanted.

228 -

My question is whether there will be a permanent slippage of clients and work.

What if, even when the economy turns around, the deferred are not needed?

Also, should folks deferred be working to stay relevant, in case firms have to choose among their deferred (say they can only take 50% of their deferral class)?

The recently graduated class is about 160 large, and up to about 80 can defer to 2010, leaving at least 80 working in 2009. The rising 3L class is about 120 large, and all are deferred until 2011.

That means that the recently graduated people who choose to defer until 2010 will necessarily have the smallest class when they start. Even if times are tough now, it seems very unlikely that Cravath will elect to trim down (by refusing to hire some of) their smallest class.

The incoming associates may not all be wanted, but deferring seems safe.

Performance reviews would be believable if they were consistently applied to non-performing partners, especially at the top firms. There are some unbelievable jokers breathing the air up there and it makes it suffocating for the most talented of us below. They can be (effective) 25th year attorneys with all the help and experience and talented juniors they need and they are still shit. I am lucky and work for some fantastic guys and gals with their own top tier client relationships and they encourage development of my own relationships. But this is not uniform and it is a cancer on the profession. Partner Emeritus everywhere should take note. The longer the economy is down, the tighter the focus will be on their non-contribution and huge drawings. Come the revolution.

The consensus in the comments is that the Cravath associates who were fired were not partner material.

Fine - assuming good judgements were made.

But thinning the equity ruthlessly would 'save' more in the short term and the long run.

What you have to remember is that every time a Cravath associate underperforms, a client thinks, "gee, he'll probably be fired pretty soon at a place like Cravtath".

When a Cravath partner puts in even an average performance, a small part of the Cravath aura dies.

What you have to remember is that when a Cravath associate puts in a sub-par performance, somewhere a fairy dies.

I got a "peformance-based" layoff from another NYC firm. Like everyone else, my performance seemed to drop as soon as Lehman Brothers collapsed and the work dried up. Here's why these f-king firms are completely screwing over their junior attorneys: I'm in the final stage of applying for three different government jobs. On EVERY SINGLE SECURITY CLEARANCE FORM I FILL OUT, it asks if you've been fired or if you left a job after being told you were going to be fired. If you answer yes, you have to explain why you were fired. I have no choice but to tell them that I was fired for "performance based" reasons - even though I know and the firm knows that I and thirty other folks were fired because they didn't have enough work. Then some dweeb from the FBI or OPM has to go to your former firm and snoop around to verify what you said. To say this is disgusting is an understatement. Fuck these firms, all of them.

237 - if you sleep with snakes, then prepare to get bitten. I'll bet you enjoyed that paycheck while it lasted, didn't you? Whiner.

where are all the cravath associates' comments?

Cravath associate here. What's there to say? The place is mismanaged. They decided they wanted to grow the firm, so they hired two huge summer classes. Now they're fucked.

Will quality decline if Cravath grows?

61:

"I'd wager that the stellar performers/corporate associate rock stars were retained while the less productive, less efficient, less promising were let go ..."

Your total naivete and use of pathetically cheesy phrases like "stellar performer" prove that you are either a law student or hopelessly clueless.

Biglaw is desperate, and the ship really is sinking for many firms.

Whole practice groups are being gutted when work falls off, independent of the "quality" of the associates. When nobody is billing any time at all, and there's no new work on the horizon, the 7th year guy at 240k has a target on his head, "stellar" or not.

Partners are hoarding work and forcing out precisely the "stellar" associates that threaten them most.

The economy has given all manner of asshole partners cover to get rid of whoever they just don't like or are jealous of, independent of whether they are "stellar" or not.

Good grief, 192 is such a tiresome loser - as one of the worst performers, he got canned and has been navel-gazing ever since...

241 -- either you are a partner afraid for your career, or an associate attempting to justify your own fear or ineptitude.

if you show up to work, add value, be nice to everyone, be proactive, care about what you do and knock every assignment out of the park, you will keep your job.

end of story.

244,

How did Cravath choose who to fire and who to keep?

Cravath associate here. I'm just throwing this out there, but if I were let go (which I haven't been), might I be able to bring a promissory estoppel -- ie reliance -- claim against CSM? I'm just wondering because I spent a lot of money moving here, signed a lease, etc -- and if I'm remembering Restatement 90 correctly, I might have a cause of action. Thoughts?

245 -- i have no idea how firms choose who to fire or retain. the idea that partners are pushing out promising associates because the partners feel "threatened" is just silly. partners always retain the right to decide who to make partner; this does not change based on the economy.

I'm sick of all these people that have been let go complaining about how unfair the situation is and that "perfomance based" layoffs are crap. Granted the layoffs are often political but more often than not the bottom of the pile is let go. I have seen it happen at my firm. Quit fuckin' complaining. You were let go because you were at the bottom of the pile. There may have been enough work in boom times to justify keeping you around but things have changed.

On a lighter note Paul Weiss, Cleary and Gibson Dunn are all doing great. Just putting that out there rising 2L's.

i don't understand the comment about skadden being the most affected by the recession after cravath. from what i can tell, skadden is holding up the best out of all the law firms and has made all of the right moves. rather than laying off associates, they've offered sidebar to allow them the opportunity to do whatever they want for a year while saving the firm a boatload of money. am i missing something here?

236 for the win

CSM associate here. No first years or second years have been let go (except one second year who failed the bar at least 3 times). One person who was asked to leave had refused to accept doc review assignments and was difficult to work with. Almost every other person I know who has left has been a foreign associate whose contract had run or who had some kind of visa problem.

There are no stealth layoffs going on: merely a group of people who are panicking whenever they get a whiff of bad news. Admittedly, there has been much to smell.

Regardless of the reasoning behind the firings, this is a decidedly unprestigious thing to do. Cravath just isn't what is once was.

249 - Gibson Dunn? a.k.a. The Stealth Layoff King???

Oh hi, I work at Cravath where we lead the market with low bonuses, defer summers for a year, stealthily can people on the sly, and work the remaining drones (er, associates) more than any other firm and all for the same salary.

254 - Any relation to Abe Froman?

Oh hi, I'm poster 255, I wanted to clarify that I meant I used to work at Latham where we followed Cravath's lead for bonuses, had a mandatory deferral for our associates rather than an optional one, would have had the exact same salary like every other place in New York if we were lucky enough to keep our jobs, and that I am a huge waste of space.

Toodles!

244, 248 -- again, as others have mentioned this is a really naive view. Of course, you are right in some cases, but there are many reasons that people get let go. Sometimes it is political. Sometimes you are unlucky to be in a particular group (tied to certain partners or practice areas). And there are plenty of other reasons. For firms that are in their first round of layoffs / performance-based firings, they may be focused on the underperformers. As the recession continues, however, firms may have to cut deeper -- losing people that they really would prefer to keep. Partners at my firm (which has gone through a few rounds now) have said as much. At some point, the people who are getting let go are competent associates who perform well. Perhaps their skill set isn't the best match for anticipated projects, but, in any case, they aren't always being let go because they were unwanted, low-performing, or bottom-of-the-pile associates.

Not a surprise that a firm that hires that many law review gunners would have to weed batch of kids who turn out to be non-functioning in the real world. You get the best of the best, but mixed in are some of the craziest.

As for knocking CSM on the summer deferral stuff: wait until you see the no offer train at the end of the summer. Most firms aren't going to pay millions of dollars to defer kids they can find again law schools again for next year. I'm stunned they even offered the deal to those kids.

Imagine busting your ass to make top 5% and Law Review at a T10 school only to get deferred for a year while your median friends are at Willkie and will be getting straight paid in the shade on time in 2010. And on top of that, you are probably ugly and have no redeeming social qualities. That's pretty funkdafied if you ask me.

- Da Brat

238 - Fuck you. Damn right I enjoyed that paycheck. I enjoyed paying off my loans and rebuilding my savings. - 237

224, are you sure that associates rotate through ALL groups? That would mean that also rotate through the ENVIRONMENTAL and TAX groups.

If I was a client, I would be seriously concerned. You want people who are specialists handling environmental and tax. A few months is not enough to get a handle on environmental or tax issues.

254,

I hadn't heard that. I apologize for including them if that's true. I guess replace Gibson with Debevoise or Covington and Burling.

--249

224, are you sure that associates rotate through ALL groups? That would mean that also rotate through the ENVIRONMENTAL and TAX groups.

If I was a client, I would be seriously concerned. You want people who are specialists handling environmental and tax. A few months is not enough to get a handle on environmental or tax issues.

247 - way off. Partners have to show profitability. Practice groups have to show profitability. And partners pocket a portion of their own billables.

When there isn't enough work to go around, partners will hog as much of it as they can. An associate with no work is worthless to them. It doesn't matter if you're "partner material" or a "performer" - when there's no work and it comes down to paying you or paying the partner, you will lose.

262 / 264 --

Corporate associates rotate through the *corporate* groups (e.g., M&A, Securities, Banking). The environmental, tax, and litigation groups are not part of the corporate department. Those associates rotate to a new partner within their own department.

i got laid off from Jones Day for "performance" which was always great until my november eval, when they told me to find a new job by july (in april they then told me to be out by may 1).

i was told in private that it was purely economics, but when i apply for a new job i still have to write down laid off for performance because that's what JD will say.

i never had a problem about them firing me, but i do wish they would have called it what it was.

pushing my exit date up by 2 months on 3 weeks notice was pretty cheap though.

242-do you think the partners got drunk one night, blindfolded themselves, reached into a hat, and drew random names from slow groups so they could fire those people for "performance" reasons?

Performance based layoffs are what they say they are. They aren't random. You're confusing two different issues. The fact that your performance was good enough during boom times to keep you does not mean that you can't be fired for performance in a slow time. Economy bad=performance bar up. Obviously, your performance wasn't good enough for them to keep you under more stringent review, which they were forced to do given the economy. The fact that review standards went up sucks, but that doesn't mean that you weren't fired for performance reasons. I guarantee you they didn't fire the best 10% of your group.

Your situation sucks. And I'm sorry to hear it. But call it what it is.

167--

You have no idea how right you are. I have heard of firms, including mine, burning bridges with young lawyers who end up fucking their old firms over. Most of the stories I have heard arise in the context of beauty contests in which the firms decide to participate. The firm then realizes that the person making the call on which firm will get the business is somebody they shitcanned about 10 years ago.

For those who adhere to the notion that these are just performance-based dismissals:

For the most part, you're wrong. Firms, not just Cravath, are terminating a lot of good people right now under the guise of a performance-based dismissal. They don't want to admit to the market that, after deferring incoming lawyers, firing staff (some firms have cut pay), that they are still hurting for work.

My main problem with this is that everybody knows that the economy hasn't recovered; so, why lie about what's really driving the terminations?

For instance, take Cravath: The fact that multiple partners can take the time to show up to a meeting and spend 1/2 hour to an hour degrading an outgoing associate tells you that those partners (i) have way too much time on their hands, (ii) decided that the 1/2 hour to 1 hour they spent making up phony shortcomings on the part of the outgoing associate was a better use of their time than trying to drum up some business and (iii) by combining (i) & (ii) you realize that these partners have nothing going on and, more importantly, don't expect work to pick up for quite some time. In other words, their very presence at such meetings belies the claim that they have enough work to feed their associates.

I wonder what these firms will say when they have to go through another round of "performance-based" dismissals in the next couple of months. Terrible.

A previous, longer comment that I wrote has not appeared (I assume I hit the wrong button) so I'll just say that people who think that performance-based reviews are always on the merits are naive. If there's a bad economy or if they just don't like you they will get rid of you and of course they will make it about your work.

There are enough stories out there for you to understand that the people saying this are not just a bunch of lazy, untalented whiners.

Furthermore, although most people go to Cravath in part to get great training, not everyone leaves well trained.. Your partner might have lousy cases, or he might dislike you, and no one there cares about wasting your time and possibly ruining your legal career. If you leave during a downturn in the economy, all those promised other options at other firms and in government may not materialize.

I suppose the envy is understandable, but it's clear the really critical here know little about Big Law and less about Cravath, which is sui generis.

Of course all terminations are based on some criteria, and the very top performers, those who have specialized in the busiest areas, and/or those who have made or were born into the right connections will likely be safe even from deep cuts.

In most companies other than law firms, however, a performance-based termination is distinguished from a layoff by the fact that if you're terminated for performance, you leave an open position that needs to be filled. If you're laid off, it's because your position was eliminated, usually as a cost-saving measure. Yes, the elimination is made based on criteria - who has the least seniority, who is working on the most important projects at the moment, what work can be shouldered by others without too much pain, etc. - but no one is being hired to fill the opening after your gone.

Applying that to the law firm context, these "performance based" layoffs aren't leaving openings for others to fill. They are shrinking departments because there is not enough work to keep everyone busy. The fact that the weaker-but-still-talented or poorly connected are the ones going doesn't change that fact. A firm that's committed to treating its employees decently will be open about that, and take the PR hit while letting associates go with dignity.

Just makes sense; what 167 says is completely true. It's a very small legal community when all is said and done.

ha, 268, what guarantees do you have to give? you know the people? you know yourself? what do your clients think about you? and what do they think about your associates?

i commend 242 and 265 for their insight.

The partners were just being systematic.

In my 15 years experience, Cravath lawyers have been the most arrogant pricks and terrible lawyers because they're more interested in their egos than their clients' interests.

249: You haven't heard it because it's not true. Don't believe everything you hear.

with so many great firms in the city, why anyone would go to cravath escapes me

273, excellent reference, well done. Question is, who will be the associates' John Connor?

271 - In most companies, they'll terminate for performance, and then determine whether or not they need to back fill the position. So just because the positions aren't being filled doesn't mean that these performance-based terminations should be considered stealth layoffs.

Cravath isn't laying off associates. They may, however, be harsher critics right now. Staff layoffs, or at least a unfairly harsh mid-year evaluations, are more likely. But Cravath is busy and fairly small, so who knows.

268, nobody is saying that the choices were random. People who are seen as superstars (which frankly seems to have more to do with politics than pure talent) or who are in very busy practices are probably pretty safe. Your argument makes sense -- in theory. But once you have survived several of these and you see who is left standing at the end, it isn't always so clear that the decisions were just (based on merit). There are a lot of factors that go into this -- timing is huge -- you may be very competent, but you may be slow at the moment or somebody else is a better fit for some anticipated deal because of some unique experience. Associates in Biglaw tend to be hard workers and want to believe they will be rewarded for their work -- that there is some logical and just explanation for bad things happening -- but there really isn't -- sorry.

268, nobody is saying that the choices were random. People who are seen as superstars (which frankly seems to have more to do with politics than pure talent) or who are in very busy practices are probably pretty safe. Your argument makes sense -- in theory. But once you have survived several of these and you see who is left standing at the end, it isn't always so clear that the decisions were just (based on merit). There are a lot of factors that go into this -- timing is huge -- you may be very competent, but you may be slow at the moment or somebody else is a better fit for some anticipated deal because of some unique experience. Associates in Biglaw tend to be hard workers and want to believe they will be rewarded for their work -- that there is some logical and just explanation for bad things happening -- but there really isn't -- sorry.

"We need to end this notion of "stealth" layoffs . . . If there is significantly less work and no one is leaving, layoffs are to be expected (that's economic). But the people who are the least productive, efficient, promising, likeable, etc...are the first to go (that's performance). . . ."

Let us remember that law firms are some of the most poorly run businesses. The billable hour model proves that. Contrary to your analysis, the middle of the road associates are the ones to keep. They will likely bill more than the best associates and not be terrible enough to cause client's to look elsewhere next time. It's happening quite often given the quality of work coming from many firms nowadays. Getting billed $400 to teach an associate at a firm a few things is not exactly a pleasant feeling.

Seriously, would anyone expect the truth from a single lawyer, much less a whole firm of them!

170 - You are not alone, associate. Others have experienced the same thing.

This seems to be the response to every complaint, no matter how legitimate. Punish, dismiss or threaten to dismiss the messenger with a bogus performance review even if the employee is excellent and the issues raised are valid. If that doesn't work and if they have a good case, pay them off to leave. Anything but fix the situation.

Having said that, I'm sure some of the layoffs are genuinely performance based but I'm guessing many are not. This is a bad economy, particularly for firms that placed their eggs in the banking industry basket and did not diversify.

It's one thing for a company to shed bad workers or to not have any work. It's another thing to trash the reputations and destroy the careers of good workers to cover up the sins and failures of the company.

So they give people who've done nothing for them tons of money to sit on their asses while the put it hard in the asses of those who have? Great firm.

278--

I am sure you mean well; but, you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. You wrote that most companies will terminate for performance reasons and THEN decide if they still need the position? Really? What companies function like that? With all of the employment discrimination claims that get brought in the business world? With the dockets for federal courts across the country swelling with such claims? Really? Why would a company run the risk of inviting an employment discrimination lawsuit by targeting an individual and terminating them for alleged performance reasons when the position could have otherwise been subject to elimination as a cost-cutting measure?

Your statement has it exactly backwards. What the company would do is figure out first if they need the position. If not, then the company would terminate that person and eliminate the position in the next round of company layoffs. Less risk of inviting a lawsuit that way. That's just common everyday business sense. Arguing to the contrary makes you sound like an apologist for law firms that are behaving in a shameful manner.

What 271 says is right on the $. If a firm's decision is really about performance, that firm should be looking for somebody to fill the position left vacant as a result of the termination. The only thing being left vacant now in a lot of law firms is office space. Since the firms that are terminating associates for alleged performance-based reasons are not hiring, it shows you, me and the rest of the world that the firm is, by and large, lying through its teeth. It's an economic layoff, pure and simple.

If a firm that engages in this type of behavior tries to sell a GC on its business sense and savvy, what the hell is a GC supposed to think about conduct like this?

Shame on firms that do not admit people are being let go because of the economy and lie about alleged performance-based dismissals.

285 - Agree. Disguising economic layoffs as performance based layoffs is dishonest and downright sleazy. Shame.

285 has never been in management or worked outside a law firm.

In the boom times a law firm could still make a decent amount of money off of an underperforming associate, and so it still paid to keep the associate on despite some perhaps medicore memos and other inefficiency. Just because that was the case over the last ten years doesn't mean that it's unfair for those less-than-great attorneys to lose their jobs in the face of a new reality.

Nowadays there isn't that plethora of work and so some attorneys must be let go. That doesn't mean that just because the firing was economically based the attorney still didn't deserve to lose his/her job.

A great obviously partner-bound associate will not lose their job regardless of what practice group they're in. A good, hard-working, socially capable, intelligent associate will only lose their job because of the economics of firms if they're unlucky, if they're in among a glut of associates in a practice group that needs very few.

There is no unfairness here. You're unneeded, and you are generally the worst of the bunch.

In the boom times a law firm could still make a decent amount of money off of an underperforming associate, and so it still paid to keep the associate on despite some perhaps medicore memos and other inefficiency. Just because that was the case over the last ten years doesn't mean that it's unfair for those less-than-great attorneys to lose their jobs in the face of a new reality.

Nowadays there isn't that plethora of work and so some attorneys must be let go. That doesn't mean that just because the firing was economically based the attorney still didn't deserve to lose his/her job.

A great obviously partner-bound associate will not lose their job regardless of what practice group they're in. A good, hard-working, socially capable, intelligent associate will only lose their job because of the economics of firms if they're unlucky, if they're in among a glut of associates in a practice group that needs very few.

There is no unfairness here. You're unneeded, and you are generally the worst of the bunch.