Hogan & Hartson, Layoffs

Hogan & Hartson Lets Go of 30 Senior Associates

By  
on

Firm management and rank-and-file associates at Hogan & Hartson continue to disagree about whether layoffs are taking place at the firm. Of course, as we’ve said countless times in these pages, what constitutes a “layoff” is a bit in the eye of the beholder. The overall point is that, with normal attrition down, firms sometimes have to create forced attrition, leading to involuntary departures.
Multiple sources report that Hogan just informed about 30 senior associates that they need to seek new employment. The firm’s chairman, J. Warren Gorrell, Jr., referencing the firm’s previously discussed performance evaluation system, confirmed this to ATL by email:

[W]hen senior associates are meeting our basic performance standards but are not progressing toward advancement to partnership, they are counseled to pursue other opportunities (with the firm’s help to the extent we can) if there isn’t a demonstrated need for them to continue. This conclusion was reached as to about 30 of our 140 sixth year and more senior US associates through this round of our evaluation process (this was the result of the process and not a “target” number), and they are being given four months to find new opportunities instead of our normal three month policy. None of this is a new policy, and all of it has been discussed fully with our associates.

It may be firm policy, it may be sensible, and it may not be new — but some sources aren’t happy about it. More after the jump.


One midlevel associate at Hogan thinks it’s not fair that senior associates get four months to find new employment:

[A]pparently the senior associates that are being pushed out are getting 4 months to look for a new job. Midlevels and juniors will only get 3 months to look for a new job. The rationale? The seniors are getting pushed out because they meet the firm’s performance criteria, but there is no room for advancement. The midlevels and juniors, however, are being asked to leave because of performance. It is firm policy that if you are being asked to leave because of performance, you get three months. Bull s**t.

Everyone is getting laid off, but no one is getting any severance. There have been stealth layoffs for the past 6 months, and they will not admit this fact…. This firm is letting go so many lawyers, and they don’t want to say they are layoffs.

From a second source, who also thinks that terminology — “layoff” vs. “performance-based” — matters:

Management insists this was not a layoff. Yeah, some associates probably need to go (the demand for their services just isn’t there), and yeah, I’m probably one of the next to go (no amount of begging can get you work when there’s just none to be had). I just wish management would be honest, call this for what it is: a layoff.

It’s not just semantics. The characterization matters — it matters to our reemployment prospects, and sadly, it probably even matters to our self-esteem. Most importantly, it matters because honesty matters.

Sponsored

From another irate tipster, who accepts the need for reductions in force but feels their intelligence has been insulted:

I’m not knocking Hogan for laying off people in these economic times. BigLaw is a business and they have to stay profitable. However, it is very irritating to be treated like we are too ignorant to see through what they are doing. And for those that have been let go, I am sure that psychologically hearing the firm tell them that they did not “perform well enough” as opposed to “you did okay but we just don’t have enough money” may well put additional psychological stress on the associate in addition to financial worries….

Partners have been pushed out as well, virtually all in litigation. People know that stealth layoffs are going on but no one dare mentions it because they don’t want to be fired and management keeps insisting it’s performance based.

ATL readers: Does the terminology matter? Let’s play devil’s advocate. At the end of the day, some associates are out of jobs, and no amount of spin will change that. Given the realities, what’s so wrong with a firm trying to preserve its reputation as it goes about the process of right-sizing itself?
Earlier: Hogan & Hartson’s Performance Evaluation System

Sponsored

Topics