third!

Two sides to every story

2 can't count.

Hogan is a great firm. John Roberts used to be there (head of appellate practice).

The least management can do is be honest. I think that's what associates want. We realize that times are awful, so just be honest when you are firing ppl. Considering law firm management is comprised essentially of lawyers, it's a surprise that they have no balls.

Didn't Hogan make some statement a while ago that they haven't done layoffs for their entire 100 year history?

"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?"

Lat, you're such an apologist!

I think the correct terminology is that these folks have been "passed over." Like most firms, H&H is mostly an up-or-out system, so they are now expected to leave. I suspect the lack of attrition, rather than the lack of work, is the primary reason why more folks may be receiving these messages than they did in the past.

People being pushed out due to lack of attrition is regrettable, but I don't think it raises the same kind of red flags that mass layoffs of junior associates does. Are there firms that AREN'T doing this?

So the senior associates want more than the generous 4 months notice provided by the non-peer firm of H&H? I am sure they also want COBRA premiums to be covered for the next 2 years as well as a pro-rated bonus at the end of the year. Perhaps, a Patek Philippe watch under the Christmas tree or next to the menorah too? This is exactly the reason why I despise these ungrateful associates who have been given the privilege to work in a decent environment and obtain valueable work experience. If they want handouts, they should send their requests to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC as I am sure Obama has a special social plan exclusively for unemployed attorneys.

8 - Not sure about that. Some of these senior associates are at the end of track, but others may not be.

This shop has been a joke in DC for quite some time.

SkaddenDC / UVA alum

Lat, you stupid shit. There's a big wrong involved with a firm calling these layoffs performance based as opposed to calling a spade a spade and owning up to the fact it is simply too large given current economic conditions. The truth will not hurt these firms all that much. Everyone understands that the economy is in the shitter and demand for certain practice areas is down, some significantly. Therefore, this whole "preserving its reputation" thing is a load of shit when, in actuality, the firm will have to answer more questions in the long run with the way its handling these matters now. Just own up and be honest.

On the other end here, you have associates whom admitedly met or exceeded standards, albeit basic standards, that now have to look for jobs with "performance based layoff" on their resumes. If a firm truly cares about its associates it wouldn't pull this kind of crap. It's just another example of how we bust our asses for people that don't give a damn about us.

Who are all these Hogan trolls? Laying off 30 senior associates is suddenly acceptable because it's: 1) better than laying off junior associates; and 2) because they were going to be asked to leave anyway? This is HUGE! Senior associates are at least profitable to the firm, as opposed to 1st, 2nd and 3rd years who, at best, are allowing the firm to break even. While senior associates passed over are told to leave, it is on a case by case basis, and happens in the Fall, when partnership decisions are made and those people are not on the list. This crap isn't supposed to happen in July, and in such high numbers.

To quote a familiar post, "the ship be sinking." Don't buy the spin, people.

PE can suck it.

Calling them layoffs isn't hurting the firm's reputation in this climate. NOT calling them layoffs simply shows that the firm's leadership isn't acknowledging this little thing the rest of us call reality. It's demeaning, insulting, dishonest and downright stupid to try and color a layoff as anything else.

This is what happens when you don't hire day laborers.

$otomayor

"Tough titty," said the kitty, when the milk went dry.

13 - Lat is playing devil's advocate (as he states explicitly). He is not taking a position one way or the other.

That ship be sinkin'. Hogan, however, has issued a press release declaring, the water level be risin'.

HOW DOES "UP OR OUT" WORK? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO "ADVANCE TOWARD PARTNERSHIP?" IS IT RAIN MAKING? OR, SOMETHING ELSE?

13 - Roxana

13, I am self-employed and I feel unappreciated by my boss.

Although firms should call layoffs what they actually are and not dance around the topic, the fact is that everyone knows what is going on and I think most potential employers would assume these are layoffs. Given that most former employees will do nothing more than confirm or deny previous employment and the dates thereof, it should not be a worry in practice.

The characterization matters. I have a friend who was laid off 6 months ago for "performance reasons" (read: economic layoff) and is hanging a shingle for solo practice. Are potential clients (albeit small, likely unsophisticated clients) going to hire him if they know that his ex-firm characterizes his performance as underwhelming? It's likely they will never know but given the economy, it's hard to start with a strike already against you.

#20 - its not rainmaking. Very few (if any) lawyers 7 or 8 years out of lawschool have the contacts or reputation to attract legal work that can be billed at rates which BigFirms charge ($300-$400+ per hr.). If anything, its rainmaking "potential"; whatever that is...

serious question - does it matter, for unemployment benefits, if the firm calls it a layoff v. a firing for performance-based reasons? if so, then i'd say it's very important what firms call it...

Right. There's no difference between being let go because (1) you suck or (2) firm management made poor decisions that you had no control over and had to cut someone. I'm sure prospective employers will see these two situations as identical.

Getting laid off sucks, but I don't think I'll be shedding too many tears for these senior associates. They made a lot of money and got 5+ years of good experience at a great firm. They will land on their feet.

There is a typo in PE's post. For shame.

Terminology matters because if the layoffs are performance-based, the reviewers probably ginned up the reviews to substantiate the allegations. They did this at K&L Gates. I know, because some of the partners lied in my reviews and they were contradicted by those who were honest. Getting terminated for economic reasons in this recession is bad but understandable. Getting terminated for economic reasons but being told it was for reasons that were fabricated, well, it sucks.

"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?"

Okay, I'll bite. Let's deconstruct this.

1. "At the end of the day, some associates are out of jobs, and no amount of spin will change that." When the next prospective employer asks "why were you let go?", and the associate has to say that it was for performance, that associate will find him/herself out of a job much longer, and almost certainly quite past the "end of the day." So, the "spin" matters to whether the associate becomes employed or continues unemployed.

2. "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?" Not sure what troglodyte came up with the formulation that a firm's reputation is somehow preserved by not doing layoffs. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. There is no shame or stigma in laying people off (particularly now that every firm's peer firms have had layoffs.) Not doing layoffs in these times is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of either dumb luck or blindness. However, dishonesty about the reason for mass dismissals does have an impact on reputation, and I am sure will be weighed appropriately by the future candidates who may have a choice.

3. Let me put this in economic terms, like a good Chicago grad. Let's assume that a dismissal has a negative reputational cost associated with it, and it will be borne either by the associate (if it is characterized as a performance dismissal) or the law firm (if it is an economic dismissal). The law firm is in the best position to avoid this cost, by planning correctly from the beginning. (While an individual associate may, in theory, avoid this cost by improving the quality of their work, associates as a whole cannot really do anything to prevent X of their number from falling below the line, wherever it happens to be set.) Because the law firm, and not the associate, is the "lowest cost avoider", it should be the one bearing the cost.

- Fast Little Egyptian Bugger

This should make room for at least 45 incoming first-years.

2009 SECURE

20: It's a business call. Is this person's potential for bringing in business worth cutting them into the pie at $XX. Or not.

I've heard it described as this: A firm will make you a partner when they think that if they don't someone else will. That might be overstating it a bit, but I think the idea is right: it's a business call; it's not based on how much they like you.

Someone asked: "does it matter, for unemployment benefits, if the firm calls it a layoff v. a firing for performance-based reasons?" Anyone know the answer?

13 - If you don't understand that firms are up or out, you're in the wrong business.

True, there's a reputational hit (an associate who is pushed out instead of made partner will almost never be given the opportunity to be a partner of a large law firm), but what's happening now is no different than at any time in history.

You had some firms making 1 out of 30 senior associates a couple years ago when the economy was humming. Now that we're in the Obama Depression, it shouldn't surprise you that fewer make it.

You are not being fired, you're being "let go". You won't ever be back to work here, whatever we call it. But doesn't it at least make it sound better?

13 - Even if the firm did call them "layoffs" instead of performance based terminations, future employers will assume that the employee was the best or most profitable employee (which the firm wanted to keep). There is a stigma either way.

It's pass time for much of this dead wood to be pushed out the door. Junior associates aren't worth much, but senior associates without a growing book of business are worth even less. The idea that BigLaw is a good place to be only applies if you have a great protector at the senior partner level. Without a solid political connection, your life twists in the wind.

Van Winkle ain't laying of shizzit!

37 here - meant to say *not* the best...

"Does it matter?"

1) It matters to the laid off when future employers screen people fired for performance reasons. Additionally, it matters when they get hired to have the 'performance based firing' baggage and overcoming that presumption at a new job.

2) It may matter to the laid off for unemployment comp.

3) If this skewed cover up does somehow benefit H&H's reputation, it matters to the peer firms that were honest and suffered at H&H's expense.

In what way does it not matter?

Max unemployment is $250/week. Penalties can be assess if an individual is fired for "cause" in that benefits may be delayed. however, it depends on how the employer responds to the investigation by the agency.

I'm bettin' they say "performance" to the public, but indicate "layoff" in the unemployment paperwork.

If so, take that on the next job interview to remediate the "performance" allegation.

34 Yes, it matters because if it is a layoff, the application for unemployment benefits can't be challenged, however; an application for unemployment benefits may be challenged if the termination of employment is characterized as a "for cause" firing.

I second 5.

"It's pass time for much of this dead wood to be pushed out the door."

Jesus, that's dumber than a bag of hammers.

37, I disagree completely. I think the few biglaw employers that are actually hiring understand that good associates have been let go, likely as a result of their practice group. Your analysis about the associates not being the most profitable assumes that associates are leaving billable hours on the table, which I highly doubt. Associate profitability is a function of partner origination.

- 13

At least they gave 4 months severance. Bracewell & Giuliani laid people off with 2 months notice. Take note 49 summer associates. Not only does your firm overhire in the worst legal economy since the Great Depression. At the drop of a hat, it screws over the people who helped them profit greatly just last year.

Does H&H as a matter of routine push out 6th years? that's a little junior for most firms' "up or out", which is more like when you should be making partner if you're going to, and if not then they don't need you. I'd be surprised to hear that they routinely kick out 25% of their 6th years. On the other hand, maybe the deal is actually that they were booting all of their 8th years, and no one junior, and they just included the 6th and 7th years in their numbers to make it sound better (30/140 is preferable to 30/45).

It’s over kids. The Big Law model is dead. More firms will fold, more layoffs will occur. There will be no recovery for Big Law. You’re only hope is too land a 60K GS-11 position in the federal government and hold onto it like grim death for the next 4-5 years. If you can’t get it, good luck to you and the world of insecurity, impoverishment and immaterial work.

Former laid off Big Law Associate now Fed Attorney

This would never happen at Locke Lord Houston.

People being laid off are not screwed because of how it's being labeled. They are screwed because there are 1/20th the lateral legal positions out there that there were a year ago. And 50x the people applying for that 1/20th.

Everyone knows that 95% of the people being laid off this year are victims of the economy. If anything that 5% that would've been laid off in 2007 are better off because people will think it was economic based instead of performance based.

If you interview somewhere and they call the former employer they will not say "we fired such and such for x, y, and z reasons." They will say "I can confirm that David Lat worked here from 9/19/03 to 9/19/06." And then avoid more details out of fear of a lawsuit.

In a robust economy they would have left on their own after being passed over for partner. Firms have to make slots for incoming and rising associates who have the abilities (not just in work product) to benefit the long term health of the firm.

Rather than call these layoffs or performance issues, the firm should state that the individuals had limited resources and skills needed to draw in business if that indeed was the issue. It is possible that those business aspects may have been suppressed due to firm culture and limited opportunities - something that can change radically from firm to firm. Associates would then feel more comfortable that the firm would back their work product, if not their rainmaking skills.

Eligibility for Unemployment

It probably won't matter whether the separation is characterized as a "layoff due to lack of work" or "for performance reasons." In the former scenario, you certainly are eligible, and except in an usual situation, where the firm really wants to stick it to you, you'd be eligible in the latter as well.

In most states, simply not meeting the employer's "expectations" is not enough to disqualify you; you'd have to have a documented record of acting in away that seriously injures the employer's interests. Absent something truly blameworthy, such as missing a filing deadline or getting into a fistight with a partner in the hall (as much as you might like to) it's extremely unlikely that you'd be disqualified from collecting.

Hogan & Hartson's associate pool is not getting smaller; it's just getting more selective.

51 is absolutely correct in terms of most employers, except for the one everyone is trying to get hired by: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. When applying for the Feds, you must disclose whether you were fired, quit in lieu of being fired, or left as a result of an “agreement” (i.e. resigned). Assuming you are given the option to “resign”, how can you be sure your firm will follow through and not disclose further details of your departure if the FBI calls them as a part of a routine background check? These firms have screwed legions of attorneys. Let them burn.

51 is the credited response. H&H's smarmy little rationalization just makes them look laughable given the circumstances.

DSH = Worst ATL Character

43 - I believe although you may be analyzing this like a lawyer (your mom shld be proud), you're really miss the mark. They are not being fired for cause, they will have no problem collecting unemployed, although getting by on less than 450/ wk will be challenging

When will this end??

As a an equity partner at a BigLaw firm, I assure you that these layoffs were driven solely by the lack of work at H&H. Large firms are more than willing to permit senior associates to languish on for years as 9th, 10th or 11th associates if there is work because senior associates are huge profit centers. H&H is trying to hide the ball.

It doesnt, 59. Welcome to the suck...

Partner Emeritus,

You are absolutely hilarious. I love the pompous sarcasm! Keep the comments coming.

62 = Roxana?

- 62

PE, suck my cock. Come back when you actually graduate law school and pass the bar. Out yourself buddy, it's getting old!

Aren't there only about 30 6th years at Hogan anyways? So they're basically cutting out a whole class? How long is the partnership track?

I think there are two parts to this:

1. It is unfortunate if these are indeed stealth layoffs. If these folks are economic casualties, they should be labelled as such. I think that point has already been made many times over.

2. That said, if there are unperformers, they aren't owed anything. I'm particularly troubled by statements like this:

"It is firm policy that if you are being asked to leave because of performance, you get three months. Bull s**t."

You know what's really "bulls**t"? Getting three months at all when you've failed to perform your job to begin with. To those that suggest that performance-based dismissals are just people who had bad luck in not grabbing hours, I humbly suggest you are wrong. There are people--in truth, many people--who suck at being BigLaw lawyers. They "leave hours on the table" because they are self-loathing, lazy, overwhelmed, what have you. Those individuals deserve a swift dismissal, particuarly during times such as these when their burden seems even harder to carry for productive associates and partners.

In short, I suspect HH is not being completely honest about this whole thing, but the associates are not likely to be wholly innocent victims, either.

For those who bemoan whether they are covered by unemployment due to the langauge used for their farewell, I don't visualize these attorneys standing in line for the $250 a week anyway. These attorneys spend more that in their sleep. We won't be seeing them on street corners singing "Spare a little change, help the homeless" either! As to the firms decision on language. Well, would you rather black your own eye or someone elses?

Why is everyone ignoring reality. It does not matter if they are called economic layoffs or performance related. With few exceptions, it will be the same people who are asked to leave. A firm doesn't do an economic layoff by randomly selecting which associates are sent packing. No firm is dumping its superstars. Prospective employers know, or at least should know, that this is the case. Obviously many of those let go would not be terminated in a different economic environment. But that doesn't mean they aren't still the weakest associates.

57 = PE. Jealous much?

66 = windbag and buffoon.

DSH = Best ATL character.

Everyone acts as if there's never been an associate who was "let go for performance reasons" (i.e. just didn't do a good enough job for X employer, or didn't get along with the partner, or other myriad of assorted reasons, other than fucking up big time) and who didn't find another job.

It is possible to find another job even when one is "fired." Granted it may be very difficult in this economy, but it'll likely happen sooner or later. The only thing that helps in this economy is that you can spin that "firing" into "layoff" and no one questions it.

I got "fired" from my job almost 2 years ago because my boss was an absolute total fuckhead who I hated with a passion and he knew it (so of course he wanted to get rid of me for whatever made up reason he gave the management committee - I don't care what it was, they gave me severence and didn't screw around with my unemployment is all that matters), I guarantee that when I was job hunting, the prospective employers didn't care as much about why I was "let go" as how well I knew my stuff and whether I seemed to "fit in" with them (that along with my writing samples). I could tell from which ones I wasn't going to and wouldn't want to hear back.

It does have some relationship to Rainmaking, although as was pointed out, it may be more to potential for rainmaking. If one doesn't appear to have those skills (which some have naturally, but most need to be taught), firms easily make the decision to dump expensive senior associates so they can hire junior associates for half the cost. Yeah, you have to do some training, maybe (although many firms try to get around this by hiring 1-3 year laterals), but you can keep 1 senior associate to help train 5-6 junior ones, instead of 4 seniors and and 2-3 juniors.

70=Roxana

The ship be sinking...

Hogan Hartson is an up and out firm. These 30 attorneys were no longer making the cut. The action of the firm is not out of the ordinary and happens every year. It's getting major attention right now because of the major downsizing happening at firms across the country.

What is happening at Paul Hastings?

Call it culling the herd of the weakest links. Sure, in busier times some of these associates might have been allowed to hang on for an extra year. But Hogan & Hartson is clear from the beginning that you are either on partner track or your days are numbered. It's always been that way.

This is a non news story. Every year the same thing happens at countless other firms.

If you want to work in law then the career path to choose is staff lawyer or paralegal. THAT is where the profession is heading in a big, big, big way. The traditional role of "associate" shall be dramatically reduced in the evolving new model for major law firms. There are going to be a select few who are true partner material and gain the earning potential to make the big bucks. The rest will be fairly compensated employees.

So it begs the question...unless you really think you can become the greatest technical lawyer in the world AND be adept at generating a big book of business, then why bother attending an elite law school. Might as well go to a middling law school that is affordable then get on the staff lawyer tract. In good years you someday get to the point where you're bringing home $150 th and have a nice reliable work/life balance with good benefit package.

Where is Ellie

Two points to be made to young people. 1, GO INTO TAX. Sure, it's technically difficult, boring, and not sexy. But it is highly valued and well compensated. Your friends will have more interesting/hot cases... until they get laid off, while YOU are still employed.
And 2 think about how to demonstrate your rainmaking potential even when you are still young. You need to be making those contacts NOW not hanging out with buddies in your own age group / social status. Go to the VC (Grubstakes) events, etc.

I just don't think this is a layoff. A lot of these moves are not even being driven by a lack of work as much as by a lack of attrition. These firms rely on natural attrition to cull a whole class of 1st years down to a handful of partners every year. It is part and parcel of every single big firm's model. Unfortunately, right now no one, not one single person, is leaving. Usually, some people would leave on their own and some would take the hint that they were not wanted and leave, but no longer. Now the firm has to make them leave.

How can there be "layoffs" if the firm has more employees than it did before the recession, as a lot of them do? In that case, by definition there have not been layoffs, as in the elimination of a position within a company. How is it "poor management" if the universal, almost mandatory, model was being followed? It's not.

On the other hand, these people have not really been "fired" either. It was forced attrition, a concept somewhere between being fired and laid off, and I think we would all be better off if we started using that term instead of trying to pigeon hole these occurences into one group or the other.

When a firm attempts to preserve its reputation at the expense of its own people... well a lot more is lost than just its reputation.

If a firm begins to eat its own - in an attempt to save its own skin in the courtroom of public opinion, I believe that it has lost its own soul.

The first step down THAT path will surely lead to the loss of something vital; the culture that hundreds of good people have worked so hard to build.

Firing 20% of a group of associates and giving them just enough time to find the door before bonus season sounds like a layoff to me. The firm has a lot of DC style regulatory practices that can't sustain the lockstep associate salaries it pays to stay competitive. Corporate and real estate is slow. And they don't have that many rainmakers in their litigation practice. Put it together and that's not enough work to go around. Otherwise you would keep senior associates who meet performance requirements.

77- Nothing is happening at PH, other than people are diligently working on whatever they have to do. Don't believe everything you read in anonymous comments.

There have long been rumors at Proskauer that the partners want to trim the number of senior associates.

The numbers are higher because there has not been the normal attrition of associates at all levels at BigLaw firms. This is because there are dramatically fewer firm, in-house, public interest and government positions available now. So people who would have left on their own because they either decided that they weren't going to make partner, didn't want to make partner, or found a perfect job outside of a BigLaw are still in those jobs, drawing paychecks and waiting out the downturn.

Many BigLaw shops don't have the extra work to handle the extra associates. However, it is very telling that H&H went down the 6th year level. Even at an up-or-out firm, that's pretty early to be shown the door, unless their performance was lacking, their hours were abysmal and not expected to rebound, they were in a practice group that was not expected to rebound, or they lack a partner champion. If not, and these were good associates with good billing, H&H is saying, "we're going to be hurting for awhile, our view of partnership is changing, and you, 6th year, won't be the type of person we'd want in 3-4 years when it is your time." Because that partnership class is going to be a helluva lot smaller.

re: 80

wow, never thought i'd see the day when someone asked for elie on a day that lat is posting...

I wonder what its like to be a summer at H&H at the moment...

Please, poeple. I hope that not a single rational poster on this board would fall for the silly cover story that this is anything less than a full-on economic layoff (with more to come, I'm sure). Please tell me that no one trusts management's word.

Please, poeple. I hope that not a single rational poster on this board would fall for the silly cover story that this is anything less than a full-on economic layoff (with more to come, I'm sure). Please tell me that no one trusts management's word.

79 - I think you have failed to read this blog often. Paralegals and staff attorneys are being laid off in droves as well. If it's work that doesn't take much knowledge or skill, it's going to find it's way to India. Do not go to law school thinking of a staff attorney path. There is ZERO job security in that.

83 -- are you insane? Culture? A law firm is a business run for the interests of its owners, the partners, just like corporations are run for the interests of their owners, the shareholders. The goal of a corporation is to maximize shareholder return. The goal of a partnership is to maximize partner return. Culture doesn't mean squat -- it's all about the money -- indeed, the partners have a fiduciary duty to one another to make sure that it is all about the money.

I hear from a reliable source that Partner Emeritus likes to take big dumps once a day on each floor of his firm and not flush.

93, are you speaking normatively or descriptively? Descriptively, you're right on. Normatively, I think making law firms all about the dollars is one of the reasons why lawyers are so freaking miserable.

The "no attrition" cover story would be a good one if the number of attorneys were remaining constant at HH... but at least in the NY office, the firm has shed about 20% of its lawyers (including some of the more likeable partners).

47, do tell. Which office? Details, details...

Hogan's corporate practice is dead, as is a lot of its regulatory. No IPOs, etc., means less work, less money, less promotions.

It is not a sinking ship, It did not pursue the same lame growth strategy pursued by Dewey, DLA, MWE, greenburg.

90, anytime I see someone lead out with "people" I think what a tool. I rarely find someone who has that approach and is not completely ignorant and arrogant. A deadly combination.

77 - Paul Hastings is doing another round of layoffs at the end of the month (this has been confirmed by a reliable source in the LA office). De-equitized partners will also be leaving, but very quietly. Lastly, the PH records dept is being outsourced. This will eliminate dozens of staff positions. Over and out.

99, you are a massive douche. The only thing more annoying than leading a post with "people" is generalizing about a subset of posters based on their posting style. Also, proof your posts. It hurts my eyes to read.

100 Word in NY is that the little fucker Barry is stepping down from the NY chair position. If so, it would be the only smart thing PHJW has done in a while. They should also de-frock that cunt administrator who acts as his attack dog. What a fat, waddling bitch.

Speaking of Paul Hastings, MY SCREENPLAY/EXPOSE HAS BEEN PICKED UP!!!

Look for previews of uncensored dialogue from the screenplay in subsequent ATL posts.

95 -- I meant normatively. The purpose of a job is to maximize income. Fulfillment should come from elsewhere. Too many people don't understand this, which is why we now plan to raise taxes on the supposedly "rich" to fund people who lollygagged around life looking for meaning rather than seeking to support their families.

--93

Most of you apparently are analyzing this in the generic sense. Only 84 seems to understand the particulars of H&H.

These are stealth layoffs.

Maybe at another firm they wouldn't be, but H&H, like all the other firms with massive numbers of layoffs, grew at a torrid pace and built its PPP on leverage over the past decade.

104, that's too bad. You and your ilk are the reason why law is no longer a profession and is now simply an occupation in a for-profit industry like any other. It's too bad b/c it's that bottom-line attitude that has really made the lives of associates (myself included) a total bag of sh*t. Also, if you're really just in it for the $$, what the F are you doing in the legal profession? Get some b@lls. Become a banker or consultant.

106 -- I'm a lawyer because I'm good at it. Not so much at business analysis. I looked at my talents and skills and decided that law was the way to maximize my income, as a successful lawyer makes more than an unsuccessful banker. And I was an associate at a V10 law firm for 8 years. I put in my time, worked my hours, didn't see my wife -- because my job was to make a better living for my family. And I do my job well.

The whole "profession" thing makes no economic sense. It builds in ineffeciencies, which increase costs for clients and reduce income for law firm owners. The world is moving towards economically efficient for-profit industries. That's a good thing. It slashes the cost of end goods for consumers, increasing their buying power and standard of living. It drives competitiveness and innovation.

Re 20, 25, 33, 82, 87 on partnership criteria and associate attrition: The criteria vary across firms, but your chances are better if you've been able to build or inherit a book of business. Some people do make it on potential, or because they're good at servicing clients belonging to other partners, but in lean times having a book of your own is the surest path to partnership. 33's right about fear of another firm making you a partner can help, but only if your book is portable. If there is no real possibility of your client base going with you, it doesn't matter as much. 82 and 87 are spot-on re associate attrition being an inescapable part of the model. Most of us won't make partner, and will eventually leave; we're just passing through.

107, I actually agree with you in the strict economic sense if that's all you're after. But if the world is moving toward greater efficiencies--which I certainly hope it is--would you support the end of the billable hour, flat-rate fees, outsourcing legal work? If it's efficiency you're after, all of those steps make sense. And I can guarantee your V10 firm's suckling off the corporate teat did not produce an efficient outcome. The first step to breaking the billing model is to destroy the billable hour.

109 -- as I work in-house, the answer to all of your questions is yes I would support all of those things.

109, nice. I can respect that point of view. I do think if the law seeks to be purely a business, which, as you point out, it is, it should have to be efficient like any other business and not extort fees out of clients based on some arcane model of billing.

Oh awesome the Bullsh*t "I'm writing a PH movie" guy/girl is back. If it has been picked up then grow a spine and out yourself.

These are layoffs, and I don't understand what H&H thinks it is gaining by covering them up. Do they think this is building loyalty from the scared associates who are left behind (for now)?

Also, these layoffs are not just related to the "up and out" model for senior associates. Rumor is (but of course not confirmed by management) that the "performance based" layoffs will happen to junior associates next.

as we all know, the newest class in every law school is the smartest. well, the same applies to law firms. the new associates r the smartest, and the 6th, 7th, and 8th years r the dumbest. it is only logical to kick these idiots out.

24 pretends that it is his friend, how sad.

113, that's not a rumor. Midlevels are being "evaluated" (read, culled) now. The "performance-based evaluations" will happen over the next couple weeks. These ridiculous euphemisms remind of terms like "collateral damage" and "differently abled" Patently absurd. Management has really lost any credibility whatsoever.

After laying off nearly 13% of staff, how could these attorneys not realize what was coming next?

Hogan runs an extremely conservative and lean operation compared to many big law firms. But when you have associates (all levels) not billing enough hours to cover their own overhead, something has got to give.

These are layoffs, and like every other firm out there, Hogan is trying to use some spin to make it sound better. The attorneys who are losing their jobs are also going to use spin when looking for jobs. Pot, meet kettle..

53. Unemployment. "you'd have to have a documented record of acting in away that seriously injures the employer's interests ... it's extremely unlikely that you'd be disqualified from collecting."

My DC law firm had a documented case of an employee under the influence. We showed up at the unemployment hearing (admin. & attorney). We argued against the person's entitlement. The person was awarded 50% unemployment.

A company pays into federal & DC/state unemployment reserves based on the firm's annual employee wages and based on the $ value of unemployment claims from former employees. So, it pays to keep unemployment claims from happening.

I am a partner at a 400+ lawyer law firm. If you are at the senior level of a big firm you have already proven your competency as a lawyer, or you would not have lasted that long. The only thing you have not proven is whether you can bring in or retain business--people skills or connections, not legal skills, basically. Any cut of a senior associate is not a "performance" cut in the sense of performance of legal skills;rather, it is a "business" performance cut. The problem with labeling these performance cuts is that it implies, in error, that the associates "legal" skills are lacking.

112 The screenplay writer is a female ex-PHJW associate (I was in her class). She had an affair with the NY office chair (Barry B) which ended badly. When he broke it off, she had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for almost 2 wks (PHJW HR did their best to cover it up). The associate was then terminated for "performance" reasons, although she had always received excellent reviews in the past. Needless to say, the screenwriter is a loose cannon. I would not want to be in Barry's shoes.

119, thank you for telling the truth. Please continue to post on these threads regarding law firms conducting "performance-based" firings. Let management liars know that their bluffs will be called. Good show, sir or ma'am.

119, do u also fire people when profit per partner dips .000009%? and just out of curiosity, r partners so out of it that they actually think that THEY contributed to the increases in profit per partner over the last decade, instead of it being absolute dumb luck, incidental to the larger economy? hilarious.

120 - This does not surprise me. He has been bothering the young female associates for years. He better hope his wife doesn't read this blog.

120 - This does not surprise me. He has been bothering the young female associates for years. He better hope his wife doesn't read this blog.

120 - This does not surprise me. He has been bothering the young female associates for years. He better hope his wife doesn't read this blog.

120: As a PH HR person, I was shocked and outraged that my department participated in this cover-up. I thought of resigning, but I really need the money.

Get it right -- Hogan & Heartless

What employees now call it.

102 - The staff here in NY refers to Mary Jane as the PH Queen of Mean. Her main function is to aid and abet Barry in his nefarious ways. Someone should sue her fat, waddling ass.

128- Well she really threw the NY DPS dept under the bus. Fuck her and the SUV she rode in on (she would need an SUV to accomodate her huge ass).

113: These are layoffs, and I don't understand what H&H thinks it is gaining by covering them up. Do they think this is building loyalty from the scared associates who are left behind (for now)?

Also, these layoffs are not just related to the "up and out" model for senior associates. Rumor is (but of course not confirmed by management) that the "performance based" layoffs will happen to junior associates next.

----------------------------
113 is completely right. As a midlevel at Hogan I am scared out of my mind. Management has already admitted that midlevels and juniors are next on the chopping block. Expect around 100-120 more attorneys to be let go. Also, regarding the senior associates, the body count is higher than 30. IT IS 30 IN DC. It is a DOZEN in NY, a half dozen in LA and who knows how many in VA, Baltimore, etc. Midlevels are next and the junior associates are going to be let go in September.

Hogan should just stop the charade and come clean, but I'm not holding my breath. Management is spineless and all of the firm's problems lies with Warren Gorrell. He has single handedly screw Hogan. It used to be a great law firm until he got his mits on it. The partners should kick him out and try to turn it around.

130, WG is not the only problem. The problem is that management as a whole is perpetrating a terrible lie and associates are paying the price for it. The complicity of the "leadership" makes me sick.

130 - Any ideas what practice groups (besides the usual corporate suspects) are being hit the most?

131, you're right. WG is not the only problem. WG is a huge part of the problem though... ever since he became chairman, the Firm has been spiraling downward. WG is a terrible manager. He reminds me of a used car salesman.

Nothing is happening at Paul Hastings. We are on pase to have a record year, particularly due the the strength of our bankruptcy and real estate practices. These rumors are without merit. We have never terminated anyone who would not sign a release and non-disclosure agreement.

Sincerely,

Seth

at king and spalding, i hear that they are converting associates to staff attys

looks like king and spalding has lots of issues:

C:\Mattingly\Work\Law_com - Law Firms' Discovery Dispute Could Prove Costly.htm

why would any client hire them ?

boring ....

What is a Hogan and Hartson ?

Did John Roberts really work at Hogan Hartson ?

I hear Michael Jackson worked there - is this true ?

113: These are layoffs, and I don't understand what H&H thinks it is gaining by covering them up. Do they think this is building loyalty from the scared associates who are left behind (for now)?

Also, these layoffs are not just related to the "up and out" model for senior associates. Rumor is (but of course not confirmed by management) that the "performance based" layoffs will happen to junior associates next.

----------------------------
113 is completely right. As a midlevel at Hogan I am scared out of my mind. Management has already admitted that midlevels and juniors are next on the chopping block. Expect around 100-120 more attorneys to be let go. Also, regarding the senior associates, the body count is higher than 30. IT IS 30 IN DC. It is a DOZEN in NY, a half dozen in LA and who knows how many in VA, Baltimore, etc. Midlevels are next and the junior associates are going to be let go in September.

Hogan should just stop the charade and come clean, but I'm not holding my breath. Management is spineless and all of the firm's problems lies with Warren Gorrell. He has single handedly screw Hogan. It used to be a great law firm until he got his mits on it. The partners should kick him out and try to turn it around.

Who are all these Hogan trolls? Laying off 30 senior associates is suddenly acceptable because it's: 1) better than laying off junior associates; and 2) because they were going to be asked to leave anyway? This is HUGE! Senior associates are at least profitable to the firm, as opposed to 1st, 2nd and 3rd years who, at best, are allowing the firm to break even. While senior associates passed over are told to leave, it is on a case by case basis, and happens in the Fall, when partnership decisions are made and those people are not on the list. This crap isn't supposed to happen in July, and in such high numbers.

To quote a familiar post, "the ship be sinking." Don't buy the spin, people.

"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?"

Okay, I'll bite. Let's deconstruct this.

1. "At the end of the day, some associates are out of jobs, and no amount of spin will change that." When the next prospective employer asks "why were you let go?", and the associate has to say that it was for performance, that associate will find him/herself out of a job much longer, and almost certainly quite past the "end of the day." So, the "spin" matters to whether the associate becomes employed or continues unemployed.

2. "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?" Not sure what troglodyte came up with the formulation that a firm's reputation is somehow preserved by not doing layoffs. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. There is no shame or stigma in laying people off (particularly now that every firm's peer firms have had layoffs.) Not doing layoffs in these times is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of either dumb luck or blindness. However, dishonesty about the reason for mass dismissals does have an impact on reputation, and I am sure will be weighed appropriately by the future candidates who may have a choice.

3. Let me put this in economic terms, like a good Chicago grad. Let's assume that a dismissal has a negative reputational cost associated with it, and it will be borne either by the associate (if it is characterized as a performance dismissal) or the law firm (if it is an economic dismissal). The law firm is in the best position to avoid this cost, by planning correctly from the beginning. (While an individual associate may, in theory, avoid this cost by improving the quality of their work, associates as a whole cannot really do anything to prevent X of their number from falling below the line, wherever it happens to be set.) Because the law firm, and not the associate, is the "lowest cost avoider", it should be the one bearing the cost.

- Fast Little Egyptian Bugger

112 The screenplay writer is a female ex-PHJW associate (I was in her class). She had an affair with the NY office chair (Barry B) which ended badly. When he broke it off, she had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for almost 2 wks (PHJW HR did their best to cover it up). The associate was then terminated for "performance" reasons, although she had always received excellent reviews in the past. Needless to say, the screenwriter is a loose cannon. I would not want to be in Barry's shoes.

2: You're right. The Hoover/Bush plan is the way to go. Because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that unfettered, unregulated markets are a path to perpetual, sustained growth.

@7 So if the article was a fluff piece (and I agree it was), then what was the motion? The article did nothing more than report on something frivolous that the plaintiff's attorney wilfully did on the record. That attorney has no one but himself to blame.

The numbers posted above do not reflect stealth layoffs. There were cuts starting as early as June 2008. September 2008 was the start of systematic rounds of layoffs - small groups from various departments, in different cities, so they weren't too obvious. Mostly staffers at that point with a few associates here and there. In 2009, bigger groups were let go, but again, there were many alternating weeks where about ten or so were let go at one time.

Wow, the comments here sure get good on the weekends (when people can post from their home computers without fear of being monitored in any way).

I agree there have been stealth layoffs- various senior and not so senior associates leaving to "pursue other opportunities."

Management told the associates that if layoffs were necessary they would do them the "right way" and not do stealth layoffs. The chairman actually said this live, in person, to associates at a meeting three months ago. Shame on him.

Hogan has been conducting stealth layoffs since September 2008, about 10-20 attorneys across it's US offices every month. A layoff of 30 senior associates in DC is huge news and it is bound to get noticed. Someone on the DC Associates Committee leaked the information (someone who got canned?) and that's why the world finally knows what Hogan is doing now. With the layoffs of over another 75 associates to go, something like this is hard to keep under wraps.

Warren is a liar. You can't believe a word he says. The only thing he cares about is the bottom line, and that's why he's chairman of a law firm. He would sell his own mother for a quick buck if he could find someone to buy her.

That said, a law firm is a business and we have to make money. Except, he should admit to what is going on. Associates would understand. He "promised" that if layoffs were necessary, the firm would do them the right way and admit that they were layoffs. Instead, the firm "counsels" 30 senior associates in the DC office to look for other opportunities, and is ready to fire another group of of midlevels and junior associates for performance reasons in the worst economic climate in many years and without any severance.

Warren, be honest for a change. You had no credibility with staff before this and now you have no credibility with the associates. Hope the message is loud and clear. We know you read this site as you admitted to it at the last Associates Meeting in DC. Your tantrum about leaking the firm's dirty laundry on ATL was pretty funny. Did you think people would let you get away with what you're doing without speaking up?

Thanks, 152. Agree completely. Associates now know that the most trustworthy news source about the firm is here, not the politiburo in charge.

How cheap is Hogan. No severance and accrued vacation must be used in the 3/4 month notice period. Gorrell has lost all credibility. Used car salesman is an apt description. D. Tracey is no better.

There are an ton of deadweight partners and counsel that need to go before some of these associates. Junior partners/counsel doing basic research to inflate their still pathetic hours.

145 -- The problem was not and is not unfetterred markets. The problem is lazy people. No one should have taken out an adjustable rate mortgage if they couldn't afford the payments. Too many did. The signs that Madoff was a Ponzi scheme were there for all to see (consistent returns irrespective of the market). Too many did not investigate. We shouldn't be regulating markets. We should instead be forcing people to act in a rational economic manner and do their homework and make smart decisions. Too many people expect the government to protect them from themselves. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Let's please not lose sight of the fact that cutting associate salaries does not save associate jobs, except possibly in the very short term. The problem isn't simply that firms are paying associates too much, it's that the firms don't have enough work to give those associates. After the salary cuts have gone through, you're still going to have associates billing 1400 hours a year unless the firms adjust billing rates downward to stimulate demand for discretionary legal spending among clients. So in six months, the same firms that are cutting salaries now will still cut jobs.

154, I take it you heard about the JUNIOR PARTNERS AND COUNSELS at the firm doing due diligence and basic research memos that JUNIOR ASSOCIATES should be doing. Pathethic. The junior associates are surfing the web all day and wracking up pro bono hours as if it matters to the firm. The firm doesn't care about pro bono... get a clue and look for a new job whether you are on the chopping block or not.

I am a 10th-year associate at another firm. I haven't heard anything but rumors but we all know what world we're living in.

My wife and I are getting ready for the hammer to drop. It's been a good 10 years, I will have no regrets when I'm gone.

If you don't have a book of business you have to assume you could be fired at any time; it's that simple. It doesn't matter if you are new, or old like me.

114: This is not the first time "Barry B" has pulled this stunt on a female associate (or summer associate for that matter). As a pathological Napoleonic type, he thinks he's entitled to stick his tiny little dick into anything or anyone he wants. This motherfucker truly should get what's coming to him.

Sorry, the previous post was addressed to 120 (and I'm referring to Barry Brooks).

159: I'm guessing that the PH screenplay writer will deliver justice to the little devil.

Hopefully, you mean justice of the "postal" variety.

There are a few items about this whole situation that are missing:

1. Warren had done this as a direct response to the associate committee leaking the new review process to ATL. His meeting with associates was downright hostile and you could see him smirk when he told us he is cutting 30 of the seniors. He is going to show us who is boss and what at-will employment really means.

2. This 30 does not include the 30-40 from all classes already cut through stealth layoffs.

3. Warren took great pleasure in telling us that we have to use our vacation balance before we are fired because he isn't going to pay us any. So, 4 months, is really only 2 1/2 months. Way to screw the associates again Warren and pay them under market. If you are not a senior, your effective severance is only a month and a half.

4. Hogan posts are generally quiet because the firm has blocked the associates' ability to post from the office - and they are too terrified to do it from there because it would most certainly lead to termination. Warren hates ATL like nothing else.

5. Warren was asked if the policy of the firm was up or out. He said that no, it is not. Clearly, this is not the case. Nearly all associates who did not make partner/counsel last year were told to find the door.

6. Warren's definition of a layoff is when a firm lets go of associates from all classes at the same time solely for economic reasons. I don't know any firm that has conducted layoffs of that type. Firms don't randomly choose whom they lay off. But if it makes Warren feel better, like he has led the firm with such great wisdom to never have ever had a layoff, then I guess he wins.

7. In the end, Hogan will find a way to pay you as little as possible when things are good and screw you as hard as possible when things are bad. Do not ever consider joining this firm. Warren is also very short sighted because none of these soon to be hundred associates screwed out of the firm will ever refer business back to the firm, and many will eventually land in positions that can refer work to the firm.

8. The firm has a departure column on its intranet home page to announce associate/partner departures. Some months ago, when the firm started its stealth layoffs, it restricted the posting of those departures that were stealth layoffs. Now, you can only see the departure of a stealth layoff if you are in the same office as that laid off person. But if the person is a legitimate departure (of their own free will), the departure still shows up in all offices. Hogan is trying to prevent the associates from realizing how many it is actually firing. If this isn't the definition of a stealth layoff, then I don't know what is.

163, that's the definition of layoffs? If so, when would layoffs ever occur? I've never heard of a firm engaging in anything approaching that sort of action. What a joke. If this doesn't prove that lawyers can't be trusted, what does?

164: that makes total sense. I was wondering why I wasn't seeing any departures from other offices. Hogan is restricting information like we're living in George Orwell's 1984.

Warren- just be honest about what is going on. Associates get upset about layoffs, surely, but will respect the firm's decision if it treats the associates with respect.

163, thanks. You have it right. Warren had the biggest smirk on his face last Thursday. You could tell he was getting off on firing people. Yeah, Warren, we know you are the boss and we mean sh*t to you. I’m a midlevel at this crap firm and I expect to be fired. I have asked for work for months, but there is no work to be had. The associates are surfing the web all day and I fill my days with pro bono (which the firm does not care about) and inane training sessions. To my fellow midlevels and junior associates, we have to watch our back. Warren is out for blood and we are next. To the remaining senior associates, don’t think you are safe. He will fire you after he’s squeezed the last billable hour out of you. Don’t think he is ever going to advance you. You’ll be counseled out next.

You are giving seniors 4 months to look for new opportunities, and midlevels and juniors 3 months? And no one is getting any accrued vacation time? How cheap can you be? We realize that you don’t care that you are disliked, but despised. Your partners don’t like you, staff doesn’t like you and we don’t like you. Just be honest for a change and treat people with respect because you will at least be respected. Call this a layoff, pay a fair market severance and accrued vacation and we won’t like it, but we’ll understand. Stop lying to us. You are embarrassing yourself and the firm.

I'm getting more information about H&H from a blog than from management.

Here's Gorrell talking about what makes Hogan different from other firms in an interview by Washington Law Firm Weekly:

"The second really is people, the culture is unique, people here like each other, we treat each other with mutual respect. I don't really think from talking to partners who join our firm from other firms that others do that as well as we do. We don't have a lot of prima donnas, we don't have a lot of jerks. It's been self-selection over the years."

http://www.bisnow.com/washington_dc_legal_news_story.php?p=199

does Warren have sex with clients ?

Warren sounds alot like that cocksucker "Barry B" in the PHJW NY office.

171 - I think Warren may be a little nicer.

159 - A good case of herpes, right in his flabby ass, would serve him right.

173 - A bad case in his ass and bullshitting mouth would be better.

I think it is great that the 30 senior associates got canned. Hope and change. What is their problem? They can go be community organizers?

175 I agree. I hope those fired suffer greatly. Perhaps, in the future, they will be less willing to vote for someone so anti-business as the ONE. I wonder how many of the fired dopes voted for the ONE? I bet most. Again, my they and their families suffer greatly.

"[W]hat's so wrong with a firm trying to preserve its reputation as it goes about the process of right-sizing itself?"

Um, mebbe' it's "wrong" because, when you lie to preserve your reputation at the expense of someone else's -- someone who has probably not intentionally harmed YOU -- it is (1) still a lie (duh) and, therefore (read slowly) d-i-s-h-o-n-e-s-t, (2) an abuse of your already vast discretion (sure, you can fire anyone you want, but you took the extra step to smear), and (3) an ultimately poor reflection on your institution, since gossipmongers will not only spread the news of your firings but, also, of your lies.

But, hey, that's the real world -- not the fuzzy one Executive Committee Members live in, eh?

Oh oh wait, 169. Notice he never mentioned liars. See, the statement is still technically accurate.

This story is repeated on a smaller scale at firms across the country. The issue is not the fact of the business decision to let people go, but rather the scandalous intellectual dishonesty and total absence of character, integrity, and professionalism when senior management is either too stupid or too cowardly to admit that the ship is taking on water and listing.

Try this one: As a "senior associate" at another metro-area firm, I was recently told by the man whose name is on the front door that my billable hours are not a true reflection of the workload available. When I pointed out that, across the board in all 4 of our offices, that associate hours are down over 19%, and NO ONE is on target to meet their billable hours totals (indeed several partners won't even meet 1/2 of the expectation if they worked 24 hours a day through the rest of the year), I was told that the numbers on the published spreadsheet were "inaccurate." I then asked why the partners would knowingly allow "inaccurate" information to be disseminated on a firm-wide basis. The answer: of course there was no answer. I was told that it was "pointless to quibble" and that I should "focus on what I need to do."

Guess I'll be seeing some HH folks on the streets in a few months. In the meantime.....it's time to perform to bare minimum standards....at best....and collect/bank the check until they cut off the money train.

Prove to us that you PHJW trashing asshats are anything but bitter people who got canned.

We're all impressed with the size of your internet c*cks. You're pathetic.

180 can suck those internet cocks if he doesn't like it.

May those internet cocks bukakke all over 180's face.

180- PHJW has trashed itself by engaging in stealth layoffs (they are second to none in this category) and sleazy labor practices. It is your sanctimonious indignation that is pathetic.

As a former Heller lawyer, I can recall Matt Larrabee, the firm chair, whining about leaks to blogs and ATL last spring and summer. A few months later, we were toast. Too little, too late.

Were any of the senior associates cut at Hogan, former Heller people? Hogan took a bunch of securities litigators from Heller (too bad they did not run a pyschological profile on some of them!)

12's penis must be a joke.

his insecurity screams across the internet.

180- What the fuck is an "asshat"??? You add nothing to these boards. Go away retard!!!

This post seems to have degenerated, but if anyone reasonable is still following...the saddest thing about the Hogan non-layoffs is that they signify the end of what once was a terrific firm culture. Even if they have not technically disproportionately affected women (which no one knows because an accounting of those affected has not been made public), several pregnant women and women just returning from maternity leave part-time appeared to have been let go. The powers that be that tout the "people" and culture at Hogan should own up to this and explain