Last

these pretzels are making me FIRSTY!!!

Dorsey & WhiTTTney

Am I the only one reading PE's tweets? They have been awesome.

Jesus, I feel bad for the c/o 2011 (what's left of it). I do suspect that a lot of firms will be hurting for talented midlevels and desperate for laterals in 5-6 years because they overcut their homegrown talent.

Dear 1st through 5th years,

Who is going to do all the work normally reserved for first years when there are none? Do you really think all those deferred associates are going to wait around a full year to start so that there will be no void?

Those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that?

Pillsbury cancelled their west coast OCI and is now only having summers at the NY and DC offices.

5: Yes, it is kind of like that Larry King column in USA today. Just a bunch of his random thoughts. Quite disturbing, actually.

First they came for the Summer Associates . . .

5, What's the link?

The "Summer Associate" is perhaps the most idiotic business concept ever created. I genuinely hope it dies. Law firms with prestigious 100+ year histories are competing for... entry level employees with no experience? What?

Firms could be more flexible with a changing economy if they just held off hiring until the 3rd year of law school and do what any other company does and hire based on experience and references. There doesn't need to be a "test period" especially when 99% of summers get offers.

The problem is, the partners now were the Summer Associates back in the day. They are poor managers and certainly have no genuine knowledge of how a balance sheet works. Firms need to start holding a portion of their earnings as cash reserves, hiring entry-level associates based on demand, and performing independently instead of following each other's business moves.

Alas, it will never change.

-Former V100 Summer Associate

I'm Secretary of State! Not Bill!

"First, Dorsey & Whitney will not be hosting summer associates outside of its main office in Minneapolis."

Great use of a modifier Lat. Why would the firm host SAs outside of its offices? Go inside. It's hot out there.

Lol @ "commitment to 2009 entry level" and then no mention of 2009 summers. Guess they just got fucked.

no harm no foul. All of these firms will be able to find as many 3L's next fall as they need.

How you like me now?

This sort of thing would never happen at Clifford Chance.

Number 5 = PE

9 - Thank you. Seriously. Your comment is the diamond in the rough.

5 = the pathetic cud attempting to imitate the inimitable on twitter.

Seriously... just a TTT attempt.

Deferrals = no 2010 summer associate class. What a surprise.

13,

But you were once a summer associate. Did you think it was stupid back then? I swear, some of you people that rode the wave are starting to sound more entitled than law students and incoming associates.

Partner Emeritus is on Twitter?

Lat,

As you report about firms canceling their summer programs, more firms will cancel their summer programs.

There is no benefit to reporting this.

Bring Elie back from the stealth layoff. We can get our news from other places, but choose to get it here so we can dump on Elie as the affirmative action hire!

Lat,

Seems to me that we're not "approach[ing] fall recruiting season," we're right at the start of it now. Several schools held screening interviews last week (e.g., Emory), and many more have OCI running this week, including today (e.g., Northwestern). Since a huge number of schools will be into OCI by next week, it stands to reason that the bulk of the summer program cancellations may come out by then. Otherwise, why would a firm come to OCI (and pay for the privilege of doing so), only to then later cancel its summer program?

The fact that the firm can't even field a summer associate program in Milwaukee is a sad commentary on an abysmal business plan.

Quarles & Brady also conducted layoffs after reviews about a month ago. Laid off about 20 associates nationwide, all for "performance," when none had issues with past reviews, and most made hours. They also bumped back a lot of associates 1-3 years (effectively cutting payroll). No public comments about that thing called the economy having an impact on business. Oh, and they also are continuing to raise rates. Brilliant.

What used to be a lifestyle firm is no longer.

Listen people, this is serious.

Together, these 2 firms regularly hire between 5 to 7 summer associates, and pay is competitive with most major Topeka, KS firms.

Cancelling these programs is estimated to save these firms a combined $23.67.

Well, now, I'm just throwing this out there, but if a rising 2L had made plans to work at one of these firms next summer, and then the firm went and canceled its summer program, might the 2L have a Restatement 90 -- ie, promisorry estoppel -- claim against the firm? I thought I remember this sort of topic being covered in Restatement 90 but I'm not positive.

The fact that the firm can't even field a summer associate program in Milwaukee is a sad commentary on an abysmal business plan.

Quarles & Brady also conducted layoffs after reviews about a month ago. Laid off about 20 associates nationwide, all for "performance," when none had issues with past reviews, and most made hours. They also bumped back a lot of associates 1-3 years (effectively cutting payroll). No public comments about that thing called the economy having an impact on business. Oh, and they also are continuing to raise rates. Brilliant.

What used to be a lifestyle firm is no longer.

29,

These are the kinds of firms that JD took a dump on last week. Now you know why.

-JD Secure

24 -

I am not 13, but to respond to your question: yes, I thought it was stupid when I was a summer. It makes little business sense to conduct summer programs as they are conducted. It makes even less business sense to hire people for long-temr positions based on nothing more than one year of law school grades.

Law firms should, as others have noted, hire people after they graduate. The interview process could occur throughout August and September, with the goal being an immediate start date AFTER the candidate has passed the bar.

Does it make it more annoying for graduates? Aboslutely. But, it gives the firm the opportunity to hire based on proven need rather than projections of what they might need 2 years out. Also, the firm gets the advantage of knowing it is hiring a lawyer rather than a law graduate that might or might not pass the bar.

@30,

"Cancelling these programs is estimated to save these firms a combined $23.67."

Nice.

29 and 32. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What's your source on those numbers?

24, it's possible for someone to be opposed to something that they once benefited from. Remember all those white people who once benefited from segregation but became opposed to it?

not sure if it's been reported on ATL yet, but Choate Hall & Stewart canceled their summer program also

24 -

I hear what you are saying, but once you actually see the SA program from the other side, you quickly realize how much time, money and effort is wasted on them. And 13 is right. A lot of these programs hang around, in part, because the partners who runs firms wax nostalgic about their SA days. But those days are long gone. The "but this is the way we've always done it" line of thinking is a terrible justification for a business practice.

The only time SA programs even remotely make business sense for the firm is when the economy is going full blast. When that happens, big firms can't get junior people in the door fast enough. And SA programs are the most efficient way to do it.

"meet our clients' needs" ???

No firm has ever "met their clients' needs" through summer associates.

Not a cost-cutting measure? Sure, we believe you.

New rule: If a firm was never @ 160K, they're not news.

Crap firms aren't hiring as many crap attorneys.....yawn. The sun also came up this morning, but no one needs to report it.

24,

I am 13. It was a wise move from the position of a law student with loans. Despite my issues with the law firm business model, I was not in a position to deny a summer associate position at the time. I did however, swiftly move out of big firm life. I didn't feel like I was making a significant contribution to the world or to my own sense of personal satisfaction while a corporate attorney.

My comment however didn't revolve around the law student making a smart career move. It revolved around the law firm and its management making a poor move in a business-sense. 34 is correct, it doesn't make sense to make a long-term hiring decision on 5 classes during your first year of school. Most students haven't been involved in extracurricular activities at that point, and many get hired without working a real job in their lives.

All I'm saying is that there are about 250 law schools, most of which are putting out graduates with similar credentials. You have law firms bending over backwards therefore, to impress a relatively uniform pool of applicants in terms of qualifications. Not only that, but this is all done over a year ahead of their anticipated start date. Clients then have to pay the billable hours for a bunch of students who have no idea what they're doing. Firms have to make hiring decisions farther in advance than most other industries. For what? If they all changed to 3L hiring they could pay interns less during the summer (benefitting both firm and client), not have to make a commitment far in advance, and still be drawing from the same talent pool.

I think the strategy is right. There is no need to layoff current and experienced staff. The best method is to reduce the cost of bringing new associates. I agree with this

I think the strategy is right. There is no need to layoff current and experienced staff. The best method is to reduce the cost of bringing new associates. I agree with this

I think the strategy is right. There is no need to layoff current and experienced staff. The best method is to reduce the cost of bringing in new associates. I agree with this

I think the strategy is right. There is no need to layoff current and experienced staff. The best method is to reduce the cost of bringing in new associates. I agree with this

From Georgetown Law:

RFR II Firm Cancelations
The following employers will not be participating in Request for Resumes II (RFR II):

Keker & Van Nest LLP

Burns & Levinson LLP

Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore LLP

Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC)

Shutts & Bowen LLP

Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP

Trenam Kemker

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

Miller, Starr & Regalia PC

Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP

Miller & Martin PLLC

Chapman and Cutler LLP

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Balch & Bingham LLP

Riddell Williams P.S.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Atlanta, GA)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Chicago, IL)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Los Angeles, CA)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Phoenix, AZ)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Silicon Valley, CA)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Washington, DC)


Requst for Resumes Announcements
RFR I Announcement:

If you are interested in submitting your resume to Fredrickson Byron P.A. (Minneapolis, MN) by the 13th of August. We will be sending off their resume packet on the 14th.

RFR II Announcement:

Please submit your bids for Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP (Rochester, NY) in the RFR II program by the 13th of August. We will be sending off their resume packet on the 14th.


Government Interview Program
GIP is now open for employer research, cover letter/resume upload and bidding.
The bidding deadline is Monday, August 10 at 6:00 pm.

GIP Instruction Booklet

Employer Cancellations:
US Dept. of Homeland Security, Office of Counsel, Office of Inspector General cancelled their 3L schedule. They will still interview 2L students.

US Securities and Exchange Commission cancelled their schedule. The SEC is no longer coming to campus to interview, but still plans on hiring law students for their summer and entry-level opportunities. Interested students may upload a cover letter and resume in the Symplicity Job Posting section (job #15078).

Employer Additions:
National Security Agency, Office of General Counsel - 2L only
Federal Reserve Board, Community Affairs - 2L only


Canceled EIW 2009 Schedules
The following firms have canceled their Early Interview Week schedules:

Thompson Hine

Baker & McKenzie (San Francisco)

Orrick

Davis Wright Tremaine

Dow Lohnes

Andrews Kurth

Morgan Lewis

Nossaman LLP

Squire Sanders & Dempsey

Faegre & Benson

Arent Fox

Sutherland (New York)

Choate Hall & Stewart

Proskauer Rose (LA)

Citi

Akerman Senterfitt

Quarles & Brady

Baker Botts (Austin)

Foster Pepper

Kaye Scholer (DC)

Sheppard Mullin (Del Mar Heights & Santa Barbara)

Arnold & Porter (McLean)

DLA Piper

Shook Hardy & Bacon

Dorsey & Whitney (Seattle, WA & Denver, CO)

Seigfreid, Bingham, Levy, Selzer & Gee

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (IP)

Hunton & Williams

Fulbright & Jaworski

Miles & Stockbridge

Rising 2L Ivy here.

I would never work for a firm that skips a year of recruiting. How short-sighted are students going to let firms be? If a firm that usually hires several summer associates decides that it is not going to hire anyone from a particular year, it indicates to me that they don't know what the hell it is doing generally. In this economy, your V10 are hiring fewer summers, which means that the V11-50 have a rare opportunity to fill their summer class with better talent than they normally would. etc. etc. Regional firms etc. have a better chance of recruiting top talent this year than ever before. Of course, if they don't have the work because they aren't growing or because they are bloated with mediocre talent, they won't hire. Why would I want to work for a firm that meets that description, whether in this economy or otherwise?

I recently interviewed at a firm that knows the exact docket they will give me if they hire me. Surprise, surprise, they have never had lay-offs or deferred anyone. Paying market is no longer enough.

Why do firms hire two years out? Because those firms who can hire rising 2Ls will always have the top talent. Firms must make a decision: hire 2Ls, only hire laterals, or increase your advertising budget for the back of the phone book and the sides of buses. ("Have you been hurt in an accident? If so, please call Bob Lob at Bob Lob Law.") If a firm tried to hire a 3L, they would be getting the dregs.

For the record, Moore and Van Allen in Charlotte cancelled their summer program for the current, 2009, summer. I would imagine they aren't having a summer program next summer either, but it would be difficult to cancel something that is already cancelled.

48: Just say Cornell next time.

48,

A firm that skips a year of recruiting is probably the only one paying more attention to its balance sheet than it is to its Vault ranking. Sure in this economy lesser ranked firms can hire more talented attorneys, but the problem with your theory is that they simply don't have work to give them. I mean, are you really arguing that it is worth it to pay $160,000 per year (which you don't have) to a class of entry-level attorneys who are going to sit on their ass all day (i.e. Ropes & Gray)?

There are very few firms who had the foresight to realize how the recession would impact the legal environment. If they were able to make their 2009 summer class smaller, give them work, and continue to have a 2010 program then kudos to them.

And yes it is inevitable that firms will continue to stick with hiring rising 2L's. However, this notion operates under the assumption that the attorneys they are recruiting based on one year of grades are the same attorneys who would comprise the "talent pool" after two years of grades, work experience, etc. It is a largely flawed assumption as rankings often change substantially during the second year, and you find that many of the people who were recruited to SA programs are actually not very bright or have no knowledge of the industry which they are getting into.

I will tell you this. After being at a big law firm, they would hire a 3.7 from NYU Law who is some shitstick on the law review, and whose prior work experience consists of stocking shelves at a supermarket and being a lifeguard for a summer. This is not my idea of talent quite frankly.

-13

If I wanted to say Cornell, I would have said Cornell. But some of us have learned how to undersell, rather than oversell.

48: "If a firm tried to hire a 3L, they would be getting the dregs."

Disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a qualified 3L might apply to a firm, especially in this economy. Please don't assume that going to a top school and having success interviewing as a 2L puts you above job-seeking 3Ls, some of whom are also at top schools and had success interviewing as 2Ls.

48 - Thank you for that wonderful post. It made my day. Your analysis of the legal job market is nothing short of brilliant. It's difficult to pick a favorite nugget of insight from your post, but if I had to, it would be: "If a firm tried to hire a 3L, they would be getting the dregs." Awesome. Best of luck, dude.

48 - Will be delivering food for Domino's soon after this fall's epic OCI fail.

I have good information that 48 is a disgruntled pseudo-Rastafarian who hates toilets.....

Obama lied, jobs died.

48 = Douchebag who considers himself "top talent" because he made it through 1L at an Ivy. Your douchebaggetry is surprisingly well developed for such a novice law student. I bet you go to Columbia.

56-

Reliable intelligence indicates that 48 has already shit himself twice today.

48,

What luck! The exact docket you will receive is the perfect gift for the douche who has everything.

51,

The problem with your reading of my theory is that you failed to account for the fact that I did include not having enough work into my theory. A firm that skips a year skips because it does not have enough work for their mediocre associates. If it had been more selective in the past, it would be less bloated, and could take advantage of the fact that many Harvard 2Ls are going to be available to it than in years past.

You are right that many firms aren't in this position. But that makes my point; it does not negate my point. The point is that those who are in a position to choose which top firm we will work at are not just looking at money and we will not work for (nor will those of us who are paying attention lateral into) a firm so short-sighted as to only have three settings: full steam ahead, stop, and full reverse.

As for your comment about stocking shelves and guarding lives, you just outed yourself as a privileged preppy kid who got prestigious internships, but who did not get a 3.7 at NYU law, nor made law review.

Hahahahah... 50 through 60 = the price you pay for making an uniformed and obnoxious comment on ATL

Enough already.

Have we all lost sight of the fact that no one on earth has heard of the firms in this article? ATL is now reporting on the Milwaukee market? WTF?

Dear 48/61,

How exactly do you account for firms not having enough work? How could firms have been more selective in the past when they only focus on grades and law review? There is a plateau of selectivity when everyone has essentially the same credentials and lack of interpersonal skills (despite the Morrison Foersters of the world who say they look for the "it" factor, whatever that means).

The bottom line is that hiring classes in the past were huge because the economy is booming, and now with the economy in the dump it simply isn't sustainable. It has nothing to do with selectivity in hiring. Additionally, you are a 1L, I hardly think you are on an expert on the staffing needs and work environment of a large law firm.

And I am far from privileged. I started two companies, went to a T2, and had quality legal internships. I had a big firm job, and then left after I realized how much it sucks (you will too in time) as many people do. I did not write onto law review. The quality of legal scholarship in law journals has seriously deteriorated. The experience of being on a law review is nowhere as beneficial as it was in the past, and it is simply done for the purpose of prestige on your resume.

Good luck being a cookie-cutter law student, and enjoy OCI (or the lack thereof).

-51

64,

You showed quite a bit of restraint there. You didn't throw any feces like you did back on 51, 58, 59. Good job! You deserve a banana.

62, I love a comment in uniform.

These summer programs aren't really "cancelled" unless offers were made for that summer and then rescinded.

Two more firms that have chosen the weak 2010 class over the (weaker, in their eyes) 2011 class. It's a tough battle between those two weak classes.

66 hilarious

48 -

Nobody cares what you think. You are a law student, not a lawyer. You have no experience in a biglaw firm. You have no experience managing a biglaw practice, office, or firm. You have no experience with client contact or relations.

In short, you are completely unqualified to provide any input whatsover relating to anything that extends beyond 1L torts, contracts, conlaw, property, or crim.

69 nailed it, among others.

However, 48 stumbled across one point by accident: "If a firm tried to hire a 3L, they would be getting the dregs."

This definitely used to be the case. Years ago, when I was in law school and there were jobs available, the 3Ls (at least at the elite law schools) were really the scrap heap. Most of them were people who either: (1) couldn't get a job through 2L OCI - not a good sign; (2) summered somewhere but got a no offer or a cold offer - terrible sign; or (3) thought they wanted to do "public interest" - the worst sign of all.

Things might be different now since nobody can get a job though.

69,

Except that the peanut gallery was trying to suggest how firms run their practice, not me. You were the ones saying that firms should stop interviewing 2Ls. It doesn't take a managing partner (nor an Ivy Leaguer) to tell you why the top firms hire 2Ls.

You are what is wrong with biglaw. You are sitting in your office reading ATL insead of working because there isn't work, because you are at a firm with too many attorneys. I am in the fortunate position of being able to choose between different offers at market pay. As such, I will not work for your firm, not because they employ paranoid, lazy, uncivil lawyers like you, but rather because they employ too many of them. Your firm has to either fire more associates or hire no new associates for a while, or both, and that if they fire any more associates, they will start with attorneys who have time to post on ATL all day. Don't come shouting at me behind the anonymity that a guest user on a discussion board has. It's not my fault that the most prudent business decision is to fire the likes of you in order to make room for someone with the credentials, ability, and capacity of the person the firm wished it could have been in the position to hire back when they hired you.

71, you are simply a spoiled schmuck. Good luck when you get laid off.

72,

Almost all alliterators are obfuscators. But not all Ivy Leaguers are simply spoiled schmucks. Some of us have much greater working-class street credentials than "I'm not privileged, I started two businesses."

73--just a number of them but then what do I know, I have been practicing law for many years so I don't have quite your experience and in depth knowledge of the legal market and the nuances of getting the best lawyers that you do. Perhaps you should consult for our firm.

"Almost all alliterators are obfuscators." Gee, deep analysis.

If your firm could afford to pay, maybe I would. But I certainly wouldn't ever be employed by your firm.

71 = PE's kid?

Seriously, hope you are a flame. Because you have almost no clue about how law firm hiring decisions are really made. You have even less of a clue about why law firms retain some associates are not others.

With the possible exception of a handful of students who have held a professional job for more than two years, most law students labor under the mistaken impression that firms are meritocracies. They are not. Despite all the partners who blow sunshine up each other's asses about "collegiality" and "team approach", firms are little fiefdoms. It's get in where you fit in kid. Because if you don't get enough work, all the "credentials, ability, and capacity" in the world won't save your ass. And you will quickly discover that getting enough work bears little relation to one's pedigree.

Stop thinking that you know everything. You don't. Accept that and your transition into a large law firm will be a lot easier.

How is starting two businesses privileged? Having two businesses started for you would be privileged. Inheriting two businesses would be privileged. What else are working class street-credentials? That sounds like something you put on your resume instead of "slinging crack."

77,

I'd rather not take advice from a kid, kid. You have absolutely zero value to me.

-one of the handful that, because s/he is one of the handful, s/he has more knowledge about how large law firms work.

48, 73, etc. You are joking, right? I mean, seriously, you are just trolling for responses, right? If you are a 1L (sorry, rising Ivy League 2L), do you actually believe that you have some type of insight into the practice/business of biglaw such that you can evaluate whether a firm knows "what the hell it is doing generally?"

80,

No. Yes. Yes.

-48

You might be named law student of the day if you fix the flaws in the Biglaw hiring model (or punch a police officer).

As much as you try, it's right there in black and white. The bandwidth-stealing associates who had been working "many" years in big law were trying to fix the flaws in the Biglaw hiring model. I (aka the "kid") was pointing out why elite firms hire 2Ls and cannot afford to change that policy. That, and I was also saying why I would never work at a firm that cancels an entire year of interviews. It's indicative of a poorly-run firm. At that point several work-less (worthless?) associates at these firms started throwing feces and feminine hygiene products around like a pack of monkey nurse's aids.

Still the two points remain (and chest pounding does not change them): top firms have a reason to hire the way they do, and applicants fortunate enough to be in a position to choose between firms would do well to consider the financial strength of the firms they apply to. Hiring 20 summers in one year, 0 the next, and 20 the year after is not the sign of a financially sound firm.

83 on that we can agree.

I had no idea Quarles and Brady still existed. Huh.a

Who cares about Quarles? When you're considered second-tier in a place like Milwaukee, you should probably have put your head in the oven long ago.

No one from Quarles & Brady would ever have a shot with Wendy Peffercorn. She doesn't give blowies to losers.

87 - You are correct. Wendy has fabulous bewbs and those are reserved for only the best...usually Columbia grads so suck it 58.

Dorsey decided this a long time ago but apparently has just gotten around to announcing it. All is not well with this bloated Midwestern behemoth with a narcissist at the helm.

58 rakes.

89: You know that of which you speak.