Last month, the firm of WilmerHale denied that any layoffs have taken place at the firm. The accuracy of that statement depends on what the meaning of “layoff” is.
In an internal memo obtained by Above the Law, the firm acknowledges that “a very small number of individuals” have been asked to leave WH for economic reasons. The memo also notes that the performance review process “is affected by the reality of current economic conditions, as performance issues sometimes come to light more when business is slower.”
(This may constitute some welcome candor. Other firms try to claim, somewhat implausibly, that performance reviews are utterly unaffected by the economy, i.e., that associates are judged by the exact same standards as in boom times.)
Still, the knowledge that the economy contributed to one’s purportedly performance-based dismissal is cold comfort. From an affected associate at WilmerHale:

I was one of the ones that was cut for “performance” reasons. My evaluations were [several] pages long, single spaced — of accolades… with one half of one sentence that mentioned something I could improve on… from one partner out of [many] that evaluated me. I was let go based on that one phase, copied and pasted on the front of the eval…. Unlike the claim [in the memo] that the firm cannot give associates “three or four” chances to make improvements, I had never received a similar comment in the past.

Many partners were apparently left out of the process of deciding which associates to cut — and as a result have begun to “vent” to the associates that were cut about the process. We (as cut associates) actually had the incredibly uncomfortable task of informing partners that we worked with, who did not know we had been cut, that we were leaving. The resulting frustration of partners has led to a leak of a few tidbits of info on the numbers cut. The numbers floating around differ, but I’ve heard that between 10-15% of all associates firm wide were informed of their “transitions” over the past month. Apparently, another round may be coming in the fall.

Anxiety-inducing for current WilmerHale associates, but perhaps not a surprise. Expect a number of firms to trim their ranks after summer associates head back to school.
More discussion, plus the full memo, after the jump.

A second WH source picked up on a different aspect of the same memo:

[W]e regularly have upward evaluations every spring, when associates review their supervising counsel and partners. This year, only in response to direct questioning from associates, management finally revealed that upward evaluations have been cancelled, and will not be held until spring, 2010. The official party line is that the cancellation is due to budgetary concerns (which doesn’t even make sense!), but there is a widespread belief that the real reason is to prevent all those “transitioned” or with harsh reviews from being able to set the record straight.

Finally, a different internal memo contains this discussion about possible future changes to the firm’s compensation scheme:

6. Have there been any developments regarding WilmerHale’s recent restructuring plan, specifically with respect to merit-based pay?

WilmerHale’s decision to restructure its non-partner attorney positions contemplated a merit-based pay system at some point in the future. Currently, the firm is making progress on the issue, but no final decisions have been reached. One challenge in evaluating a merit-based pay structure is how to measure performance.

Very true. If firms do shift to more merit-based structures, many of them will have to beef up their performance evaluation systems.
Below is the memo summarizing last month’s Associates Communication Task Force meeting.
WILMERHALE — MEMORANDUM – ACTF FULL MEETING MINUTES
Date: July 2, 2009
To: WilmerHale Boston Associates
From: ACTF
Re: June 18, 2009 ACTF Full Meeting Minutes
This month’s full Associates Communication Task Force meeting took place at 12:00 p.m. on June 18, 2009. The following associates were present: [redacted]
Lisa Pirozzolo, Lia Der Marderosian, Evie Scoville, and Barbara Belmarsh were also present.
Questions posed by ACTF members before the meeting are noted in bold italics.
II. Spring Transitions
Associates would like information on the firm’s current process of transitioning people out of the firm in connection with the review process. Based on recent posts on Above the Law (“ATL”), many associates are concerned and anxious about this process and would like to understand how the firm is proceeding. Understanding the need to respect the privacy of those who are transitioning out, we have a few specific questions that we hope the committee can answer:
· Have all transitionees been notified?
· How many people from the Boston office were transitioned last year, and how many people from the Boston office are being transitioned this year?
· How many people are being transitioned across specific departments?
· How many people were transitioned firm-wide last year, and how many people are being transitioned firm-wide this year?
· What factors does the firm consider when making a performance-based transition?
· Does the firm have a general transition plan that includes the date of final termination and compensation?
· Is the firm helping transitioned attorneys find new jobs?
Finally, some associates were surprised to learn about the transitions on abovethelaw.com (“ATL”). While we understand the need for the firm to respond quickly to press inquiries, associates would appreciate receiving information that is shared with the public concurrently so they are made aware of firm news from internal sources. We think this would lessen the anxiety created by learning of firm events on ATL.
Lisa began by addressing associate questions regarding the transitions that have occurred at the Firm this Spring. She explained that transitions are personnel decisions that have been made on an individual basis, and as such, she could not address some of our specific questions. The Firm has already informed the vast majority of those affected by the transitions. The recent transitions have fallen into three primary categories: a) those based on the creation of the “Special Counsel” role during the Firm’s restructuring; b) those based the semi-annual performance evaluation process; and (c) those that were motivated by economic considerations.
A. Special Counsel Transitions
The Firm’s partnership approved a restructuring plan last summer that created the position of “Special Counsel.” This role is reserved for senior lawyers who have specialized skills (e.g., expertise in a particular regulatory scheme). The individuals considered for this position were previously termed “Non-Lockstep Counsel.” The restructuring plan created a formal election process for Special Counsel, which will occur for the first time during the upcoming Fall. Lisa said the Firm has been meeting with individuals who are potentially eligible for this position to give them advance notice as to whether they are likely to be elected. The Firm is using its resources to assist those individuals who are likely not going to be elected to Special Counsel to transition to new opportunities.
B. Performance-Based Transitions
Lisa said that a normal outcome of the Firm’s semi-annual evaluation process is that some associates transition out of the Firm. She acknowledged that this process is affected by the reality of current economic conditions, as performance issues sometimes come to light more when business is slower. In addition, due to the economic climate, the Firm is not in a position to give individuals third and fourth opportunities to turn things around. She added that the Firm is trying to provide affected individuals adequate notice and assist them with finding other opportunities.
Lisa said the Firm has used the same criteria it uses during evaluations to selected affected individuals, including: legal knowledge, level-appropriate substantive expertise, energy, entrepreneurial spirit, loyalty to staff and colleagues, ethical standards, contributions to the life of the firm, and willingness to take on additional work.
C. Economically-Motivated Transitions
Lisa said that a very small number of individuals have been asked to transition out of the Firm due to practice-driven economic reasons and that individuals who fall in this category have been told specifically that the reasons behind their termination are economic and not performance-based.
D. Firm Assistance for Affected Individuals
Lisa and Evie explained that the Firm has made efforts to assist affected individuals identify other opportunities. For example, the Firm provides internal and external resources (including career counseling, help with resume preparation, recommendations, etc.). The Firm has also leveraged its network, and has helped some individuals find positions with Firm clients.
III. Brad Scott
Many associates have questions regarding the role of the firm’s new Chief Legal Talent Officer, Brad Scott. What drove the need to create this position? Whom does Mr. Scott report to; and who reports to him?
Evie said the Firm created the position of Chief Talent Officer because it believes it is important to invest in the lifecycle of its lawyers. Before this position was created, several related initiatives were splintered between different areas of the Firm, such as diversity initiatives, Professional Development, Recruiting, Legal Personnel, and compensation. The Firm felt it was important to hire someone who has a different background to bring these areas together in one organization. Mr. Scott spent 25 years in the Army and wrote about talent development at West Point. He then went to IBM, and spent time at Weil Gotschal and Heller Ehrman as the Executive Director. Mr. Scott reports to Scott Green.
IV. Summer Associates
We realize that many summer associates are anxious about receiving permanent offers at the end of the summer. Has the firm communicated to the summer class how many offers it plans to extend at the end of the summer? If not, does the firm plan to speak to the summers directly about this issue?
Evie said the Firm recognizes that summer associates are anxious about receiving permanent offers at the end of the summer, and it has tried to ease this anxiety to the extent possible. The Firm plans to make its offer decisions based on the same criteria used in past summers. Several of the goals of this year’s program are to more significantly involve partners in the summer program and ensure that summer associates have interesting work.
V. Upward Evaluations
We noticed that the firm did not conduct Upward Evaluations this Spring. Is there a reason that Upward Evaluations were not solicited?
The Firm has decided not to conduct upward evaluations this year, partially due to budget reductions, and partially because it has learned that, after several years, conducting upward evaluations on an annual basis does not elicit more meaningful feedback than doing so every other year.
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Getting the Message Across to WilmerHale Associates