Pls Hndle Thx: OCI Strategery

Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

ATL –
As a rising 2L at a good school with semi-good grades preparing for OCI, I’m struggling to choose between firms. One of my many, many questions is this: Would you think it better to look to firms which are (thus far) lay-off free, or perhaps those which have already laid off a few attorneys (i.e. cut the fat)?
Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around

Dear Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around,
You know what they say about wife beaters, don’t you? They are exceedingly comfortable undergarments. Also, if they did it once, they’ll do it again.
Firms are bulimic when it comes to layoffs. Paul Hastings, Baker & McKenzie and Guns N’ Roses White N’ Case have “trimmed the fat” in so many successive rounds that now they’re practically skeletal. Their wind up, er, slenderized workforces certainly will not guard against future layoffs and arguably do not even better position them to weather the downturn. Eating disorders, in both humans and firms, are symptoms of larger problems.
Working at a firm that has shed blood on Bloody Thursday, Unspeakable Monday and Odious Friday probably feels a little like being a Huguenot in France the day after St. Bartholomew’s Day. If you do not want to sleep with one eye open for the next few years, you would do well to apply to those conscientious objector firms who refuse to give in and downsize just because it’s trendy. You want a firm for all seasons, not a fair weather firm, and if you’re lucky enough to score a job at all, the best places to be are the ones that have not yet broken glass in case of emergency.
Your friend,
Marin
Elie invites us to watch “O,” after the jump.

You really think you are living in a world where there is anything you can do to protect yourself from future layoffs? You think that’s air you’re breathing?
You shouldn’t be looking at the firms that have laid people off versus the firms that have almost certainly laid people off in a such a way as to keep it quiet. You should be looking at how the firm laid people off. Go to the Career Center to get an overview of what people are saying about the firms you are interested in. Go there now, I’ll wait …
Then go to the ATL archives and click a firm you are thinking about. I don’t believe everything I read in the comments (if I did I’d be getting constantly lipo-sucked), but it should give you a sense of whether the firm made associates feel sympathetic to the firm’s position, or apoplectic.
You are a rising 2L, you’re in the class of 2011. You have the power! If you blithely sign up to interview with firms that have laid people off while sending out messages that would baffle a troupe of cirque du soleil performers, you are part of the problem. But if you prudently limit yourself to firms that have conducted only minimal layoffs (so far) and have been open and honest with their employees at every step during the process, then you’ll be doing your part to reward good behavior.
We can only show you the door, you’ll have to be the one to walk through it.
Tank, load the jump program.
Morpheus

Elie appears to be suggesting that you should apply to firms that have laid off attorneys “openly and honestly” as opposed to those that have apparently done it under cover of darkness. What does that even mean? Firms that conduct “open and honest” layoffs can and often do simultaneously conduct stealth layoffs. Sorry to get all Emperor’s New Clothes here, but those pleasant sounding “sidebar” “deferral” or “sabbatical” “programs” that you’ve read so much about? Layoffs in disguise. If you hold up the scented program brochures to the light, you’ll see that they feature a watermark of Donald Trump and the words “you’re fired.”
The point is, separating the good layer-offer firms from the bad ones is about as pointless as I Survived a Japanese Game Show. And if you’ve ever had the misfortune to see that piece of garbage, you know what I’m talking about.

Sponsored