Summers, just be glad you even had a summer job this summer. Would you rather have spent your time working for free at some pro bono outfit? I think not.

How you like me now?

the no offered summer at BBNY deserved the ding for the inability to handle simple math

i want baked cheetos

Summers, be thankful that you had a summer job in the first place. There is no assurance that you are going to get offers going into the summer. This was never the case, and this year evidently this could not have been expected. Would you have rather spent the summer working for free at the legal aid clinic? I think not.

rumors are going around about layoffs at O'Melveny's nyc office

How times have changed. I summered at BB Dallas years ago, got an offer but chose another firm. We didn't have to do much substantive work and drank and ate what seemed like 24/7. Everyone got offers. I thought the policy of the partying summer program was ridiculous even back then, and its even more so in today's environment, but a 50% or less offer rate is harsh. All those SAs will have to explain their no-offer in any upcoming interviews.

stay thirsty, my friends

I call bullshit on someone with 'a ton of offers' going to Baker Botts NY.

Dechert's offer rate seems to be abysmal.

guess those snide faggots that made fun of the summer who was let go for snooping now wish they had sneaked a peak at their performance review documents. XOXOHTH

Wow, another story about a firm that decided to weed out the bad apples.... Cry me a river.

25% of my summer class should have been no-offered, but instead we kept the chaff and they eventually washed out or were let go.

Better to do it now. Welcome to the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HjsZqOaQ0

The ship be sinking...

The ship be sunk...

"Wow, another story about a firm that decided to weed out the bad apples.... Cry me a river. "

Weed out the bad apples? What fucking ploanet are you living on?

Man am I glad I'm not in law school now. I summered in the early 90s, which was a rough economy but nothing compared to now. I'd be fucked if I was going through this today, as I was a pretty piss-poor, immature S.A.

This sucks for you guys. Good luck to all.

To the NYC Summer:

Baker Botts doesn't do oil and gas--at least, not these days. They may be involved in deals that may be tangentially related to the oil and gas sector.

But you fooling yourself if you believe that this means that Baker Botts does oil and gas, as the firm's experience in this area of law is laughingly weak.

bloodbath at cwt over the past two days

12 = summer who was let go for snooping?

the ship be on fire and lacking adequate life rafts...

Today is a glorious day. I am here at Rick's Cabaret having a drink in honor of Lucifer's latest guest, Ted Kennedy. As I am reading this story about low offer rates, the disc jockey has put on a song entitled "Cruel Summer" and Amber and Alexis have taken the stage. On a parting note, I want to tell all those no-offered to cheer up as they were not going to make the cut (partnership) anyway. Better to have (tough) loved that not loved at all. Cheerio.

Sent from Partner Emeritus' Touch Pro 2™ Smartphone.

I see no changes, all I see is racist faces.

PE, after Rick's, take a stroll 1/2 block west and visit the adult video shop/peep show and ask for Ahmed. Tell him Elie sent you.

1 of 8? Not even a few deferrals? bruTTTal.

Any news on Cadwalader? I'm hearing a rumor that their offer rate was really low in both New York, and even in DC.... Any truth to that?

Any news on McDermott?

i don't really see what the no-offerees were complaining about. would they REALLY have rather have not been asked to spend the summer at the firm? from the looks of it: (1) they would have had little or no chance of getting another summer position if the firm had rescinded offers in november or december when it became clear that the economy was going to stay depressed; (2) even if they had summered elsewhere, almost EVERYWHERE is giving decreased offers; (3) at least they ended up with about $30-40k for a summer of work, which can be put toward loans.

yeah, it sucks to be no-offered, but everyone knew (or should have known) that this summer was going to be unprecedented and that in order to get an offer at most firms, you would have to be a star and work your tail off for all 10 or 12 weeks.

First to say that one offer out of 8 is an 87.5% No offer rate -- 88.8% would be one offer AND 8 no offers.

30, it looks like 4 beat you in the Nerd Bowl.

31 - Wrong. While 4 pointed out the problem, I was the first to state it. I did that for your benefit as you were probably scratching your head after 4 posted. Now you know.

30 (and former Alpha Beta)

7 - any more info?

Best wishes to the BB no-offered summers. But hey at least you already know, several firms are holding off on so much as telling their summers that they are no-offered

Where is the story on the Milbank Massacre? This TTT no-offered 50% of summers....

33 - not really

What is wrong with the people who comment here? I graduated in the mid-2000s and feel bad for those graduating now. We all know large law firms had the Sen. Graham rule -- absent a complete meltdown, you will get [an offer] confirmed. And then you would get a stipend and bar prep/exam costs covered for the summer. And then start in the fall. And then work as long as you kept the firm happy. Then you were weeded out *years* later unless (again) you had a complete meltdown or did not bill the required hours. Often people just burnt out and left for another position.

Now, we can all discuss whether any of the above made sense. But the fact is that was the model for the past 15 years or more. So I think it was safe of incoming law students to assume it continued. So I feel bad for the Classes of 2009, 2010, and 2011.

People entering 1L this month though -- you were warned and I don't feel bad for you if things don't work out. However, I do think things should be better by 2012 so it might work out. But it's a big risk now.

so did Nixon Peabody...

37 -

Thank you.

I agree with 37. I laugh heartily at people who never faced this situation derisively telling those who face it now to suck it up and quit whining. Every last one of you would be screaming bloody murder if you faced the predicament the classes of 2009 and 2010 face.

Classic Biglaw mentality...everything that doesn't affect me personally is no big deal and the people who don't like it are whiners. Everything that DOES affect me personally (like a small tax increase that will cause you to buy a yacht 3 feet shorter than the one you REALLY wanted to fund government programs that will feed, clothe, and educate thousands of people) is a crime against humanity.

What about V&E Houston?????????

VE HOUSTON had offer rate of 40%. thoughts?

Fulbright Houston has not told their 2Ls yet? Will they be 50% offer rate ALSO, following the "big 3 " BIGTEX trend?

Baker Botts Lathamed their NY summers.

"Every last one of you would be screaming bloody murder if you faced the predicament the classes of 2009 and 2010 face."

But it didn't happen to them. It's happening to someone else's self-entitled behind, which is what makes this delicious!

Hasn't Texas BigLaw always had lower offer rates because 2Ls summer at 2 firms? If all the firms no offer 50% but all the summers work at 2 firms, then that leaves 100% of students with exactly 1 offer.

Don't people split firms in Texas? If a person manages to strike out in two or more places in one summer, I think it means a no offer is pretty well deserved.

40,
That yacht tax will eliminate jobs for the working class and put them on the welfare rolls. I'm sure that's not what you want. It would be absurd to think that you support social welfare programs to feel good about yourself.

That evil free-market, private sector making people independent of the government. Far better for them to depend on your big government programs. Now I understand, comrade.

45 - It's people like you that give lawyers a bad reputation

impeccable logic, 46

40-

You have struck the nail directly on the head. Well put.

-The SBA President

what about Milbank

Rumor going around that Dorsey & Whitney's Minneapolis office no-offered all of its 1L summer associates, and gave offers to only 1/3 of the rest. Anyone heard anything about that officially yet?

I got an offer at CWT. But I don't know what the percent of offers was...anyone know?

40, actually, that yacht tax did happen and it pretty much destroyed the American yacht industry and caused thousands of jobs to be lost. When you tax something like yacht production, you get less of it, who knew? And when it has elastic demand, you get much less of it.

They tried the tax on luxury yachts in 1990 and it was quickly repealed two years later, and became an example of one of the worst taxes in history.

"In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats -- recreational craft costing more than $100,000 -- cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. ... In 1991, sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent from 1990's level, while overall boat sales fell 18 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html?fta=y

You seem to be a liberal, with apparently no knowledge of basic economics, but I'm repeating myself.

At least 9 layoffs at BB Houston this afternoon.

I've heard there were layoffs at the Houston BB today. Any truth to that rumor?

and more at BB Dallas

56: 9 people does not a layoff make.

As for the BB summers that got no-offered, sorry. Unless you were a tool that did crummy work; in that case, good luck next year.

If you think Obamanomics is "working", talk to someone who is not.

46 you are a fucking idiot.

55 - "Actually," he's not talking about a yacht tax. He's talking about an income tax. An income tax wouldn't have annything near the distorting effect of an excise tax (on a single good), and, especially when limited to the higher brackets, could reallocate resources away from luxury goods to necessities, thus increasing the overal utility of the country. If you aren't absolutely relativistic about utility.

You seem to be a conservative, with apparently one semester of basic economics. And your use of of the word "actually" is incredibly obnoxious and embarrassing. Thanks for sharing.

Wait a minute 38, I thought everyone was a winner at Nixon Peabody?

55:

Oh noes, the downfall of the american yacht industry!!!! IS NOTHING SACRED?????

56: what sections were affected by the layoffs? mostly transactional or across the board?

Hey--y'all who got no-offered from James Baker's firm: Consider yourself lucky you don't have to work for what frankly is a pretty crappy firm, representing Halliburton and Dick Cheney.

65: across the board. global projects (3), corporate (2), tax (2) and litigation (2).

40 here. 55, I was going to waste a few seconds of my life explaining why you're stupid, but 62 already did an impeccable job. Thank you for that, 62.

As for you, 48, if you ever have the fortitude to go someplace that would lead to you actually MEETING someone who was born into poverty and received insufficient food, clothing, shelter, and education to so much as even survive (not as in remain employed, as in continue breathing) in the "free-market private sector," do yourself a favor. Ask them if they prefer starvation and death to government aid.

And if you're about to say they don't deserve those things because they didn't earn them, neither did you. They were handed to you. If you feel that those who don't earn basic necessities don't deserve them, no problem. We'll take them away from you and give them to the people who really need you. Then we'll find out how you really feel about "government dependence."

*People who really need them, obviously, not people who really need you. You don't seem particularly interested in the needs of others.

Did Locke Lord Texas offers/no-offers go out yet? Houston? Dallas? Austin?

Look into Nixon's offer rate.

twice b&m was bashed on this site today, for no deserved reason, why?

68,

Where did you come up with the idea that everyone with "those things" had "those things" handed to them? Liberal arts degree?

Seems like it might have been a better idea to go to a lower tier law school, have less debt, and look for a job in a small firm in a secondary market. But of course, it seems like all the people who want to be in BigLaw are just money grubbers who want the prestige and bucks working in BigLaw. Did any of you actually want to learn how to practice law?

68 - Beautiful Strawman

Any word on Dechert Philadelphia?

Any word regarding Jenner?

71, what have you heard about Nixon?

73, I looked around me and noticed that having life's basic necessities handed to you is the only way to get them. We don't have too many hunter/gatherers left in 2009.

They were handed to me, and I'm grateful for them. The difference between me and 48 is that I didn't develop a backwards, egomaniacal belief that I was born entitled to these necessities (and quite a few luxuries besides) but other people don't deserve them at all.

Everyone is born entitled to food, clothing, shelter, and education. There's no shame in having them handed to you. But they should be handed to everyone.

53: I heard things were even worse at Dorsey & Whitney Minneapolis. This is second hand information and could be wrong, but even what you've heard is an absolute bloodbath. There are a lot of people hurt and scrambling right now, since the firm apparently represented that the offer rate would ideally be around 80%, but at least 50%.

78: I heard he was a crook and had an enemies list.

79,

I still don't get it. Nobody, that I'm aware of, hands me food, clothing, or shelter. Are you saying that people's parents provide these items for them and therefore that precludes any criticism of the government stepping into that role?

Thanks
-73

77: What about him? He hasn't done anything since he won the decathlon 33 years ago.

75, congrats on having taken a single philosophy course and learned a neat little term, but 68 is not a strawman at all. 48's whole point was that dependence on government is necessarily bad. 68 plainly refutes the whole point. A strawman involves responding to some small piece of the opposition's argument as though it were the whole argument, and refuting absurdities and fallacies that you impute to the opposition's argument despite the fact that the opposition never said them. Such as calling someone a communist because they're ok with taxing millionaires a little bit to keep a few thousand people alive.

84,

Correct. 68 has ended the discussion on this simple issue. Now we can move on to solving climate change and reconciling the abortion issue.

68 does not put up a strawman argument, but he's not exactly breaking new ground or offering a panacea.

Hi, I'm a liberal. If you work hard in a job to pay for your own food, clothing and rent and to pay back your student loans, that is exactly the same as someone who is getting those stuff from the government for free. Both of you were "handed" those things. Therefore, we need to tax the worker to provide for free to other people the stuff that the worker has been paying for. That is change we can believe in.

70,

I heard that Locke Lord didn't give many offers. I know one of their summers who is at a T10 school who got no offered.

Re: 23 - PE neglected to mention his catamite escort at Rick's Cabaret, "Enrique." PE enjoyed Enrique's abuse and "tough love" in Rick's supply room.

OMG, why are people (like 86) so inane when talking on this board?!

THE ISSUE IS: Should the US government provide BASIC necessities to all citizens, and if so, what are those necessities and how lavishly should they be provided?

ANSWER: The US govt used to NOT provide for elderly people (social security), or health care for old people (Medicare), or care for mangled/retarded people (disability), or emergency room treatment (it's not a federal offense to not treat life, limb, and sight injuries, no matter how poor the indigent is), or housing (see gov't housing), etc.

All those things used to be NOT provided. Then, for various reasons (such as Depressions and moral enlightenment), we decided to provide those BASIC necessities. Moreover, those necessities are not THAT great, they're all kinda shitty. Even Medicare, the best of all those gov't programs, only pays 80%, so old people still need coinsurance.

The Question on the table now is: should health care be a basic human right that the gov't provides at a basic level?

I think yes, but it's fine if you think no. I think it's a life or death issue and the gov't should provide a basic level. It's part of living in a liberal* democracy (*historic liberal). If you disagree, fine. Just stop smearing the issue or acting like this is the first time the gov't has decided that there needs to be a FLOOR to catch the poorest of the poor and keep them from dying and that floor is paid for by working men and women because they're the only producers in society.

Now that we have the basic argument set up, fight amongst yourselves. Just please stop framing the health care issue as if it's the first time the gov't has provided a basic necessity on the backs of tax payers. that's all government is or ever was (aside form its war making powers).

89, reread 79 to understand how the liberals have been "framing" the issue, and then read 86 again.

89, there is already a system for providing poor people with health care. A "floor" for the "poorest of the poor." It's called Medicaid. But an expansion or reform of Medicaid is not what the health care debate is about, is it?

Who cares about offer rates when the real story is their laying-off of associates?

http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2009/08/more-layoffs-at-baker-botts.html

90

i really don't care to reread BS. 86 doesn't even make logical sense. Since when does the government tax workers to pay for poor people's student loans? Also, there's the fallacy that a worker has "the same" things that a non worker has. Not true. Sure you can get free gov't housing and welfare cheese, but that kind of "shelter and food" are not "the same" as the guy who is working as a lawyer, living in townhome and eating asian fusion cuisine.

Again, I repeat, if you want to have a somewhat intelligent conversation about the issues, then I'm game. We can talk theory/principle or application. I'm fine with either. But stop smearing issues, crying bloody murder, and otherwise being nonsensical.

I suppose I'll start: So does anyone think that a US citizen should not be entitled to basic health care, provided by a PRIVATE provider and paid for by the PUBLIC gov't program? i'm all for it.

Debate.

-89

p.s., Top Chef is going off, and I'm about to go out to dinner in a few minutes, so PLEASE respond quickly or else we won't be able to have any worthwhile back and forth.

91

Medicaid is not for everyone. It does not protect the working poor. Please respond as to how a McDonald's employee raising 2 children in an urban city is supposed to afford medical care for herself.

-89

93, my post at 86 is parodying the liberals who posted at 79/etc who are arguing that buying things is the same as being handed those things. I'm glad you agree their argument is nonsensical.

-86

91

Medicaid is not for everyone. It does not protect the working poor. Please respond as to how a McDonald's employee raising 2 children in an urban city is supposed to afford medical care for herself.

-89

91

Medicaid is not for everyone. It does not protect the working poor. Please respond as to how a McDonald's employee raising 2 children in an urban city is supposed to afford medical care for herself.

-89

First off, apologies, apparently my browser got over excited and posted 3 times. I know not to hit 'comment' more than once and honestly don't know what happened there.

Second, sorry 86. I was reading quickly and your satire was lost on me. I see it now.

Third, on a more flippant note, perhaps Elie and Lat should look into manufacturing a "glitch" into the comments, this would increase the number of comments, and accordingly, their bottom line from revenue. Enjoy the suggestion ATL :-)

-89

82, I disagree with the "precludes any criticism" part of what you said. I don't believe all government programs are automatically and endlessly good in all forms and at all sizes, but I do believe they're far more necessary than some others here seem to believe.

Otherwise yes, you've got the gist of what I'm saying right. Everyone is born an infant, and hopefully their parents can take care of them. If they can't, those infants shouldn't be forced to suffer through no fault of their own because of the unfortunate circumstances of their birth. That's where the government, in my opinion, is obligated to step in. Likewise people like you, me, and likely everyone on this site who benefited from having the basic opportunity to succeed are obligated to ensure that everyone has those opportunities.

When the children born without the very basic necessities of life, as 89 correctly explained is all we're talking about here, are given those necessities, they have the opportunity to work hard in a job and pay their rent and student loans. 86 doesn't seem to comprehend that the majority of these people aren't simply unwilling to do those things, they never get the chance in the first place. When they do, and work their way up and out of their circumstances, only then can they "contribute" as people like 86 constantly demand of them. Then they become one fewer person dependent on the government and eating your precious millionaire tax dollars.

Doing things the way people like 48 and 86 prefer them only ensures that the "leeches" feeding off of THEIR hard-earned resources will have to do so for the rest of their lives, and generations to come.

Be honest folks, you don't really believe these people are useless. The reality is you're afraid (correctly) that some of them might be better than you and your offspring, and if they're given the same opportunities, your children will someday be working for them.

I wish these no-offer fiascos could lead to a change in the big law hiring model. Why must hiring decisions be made so far in advance? If I hadn't had an offer from a big Texas law firm when the economy sank, and if they hadn't assured me that things were different in Texas - going swimmingly in fact - I would have accepted other offers. I know - it's my fault for falling for their lines - but a later hiring model would be more realistic for students and law firms. Why do we have to do all this a year in advance?!!!

86, I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time understanding my argument, but thank you for post 95, which provides 75 a perfect example of a real strawman argument.

82 clearly doesn't have your reading comprehension difficulties, because 82 understood my point that nobody starts out buying their own necessities with money they earned themselves. Everybody starts out an infant.

Characterizing my argument as "buying things is the same as having them handed to you" requires the assumption that infants whose parents buy them diapers have earned those diapers, while infants who need government assistance are freeloading diaper-mooches. They're all babies and none of them has earned anything yet.

You want to hold the baby's parents accountable for not providing for them? Go right ahead. But that doesn't mean the baby should be doomed to a life of poverty, ignorance, and starvation because he failed to "earn" a birth into a family with better/smarter/wealthier parents.

86, I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time understanding my argument, but thank you for post 95, which provides 75 a perfect example of a real strawman argument.

82 clearly doesn't have your reading comprehension difficulties, because 82 understood my point that nobody starts out buying their own necessities with money they earned themselves. Everybody starts out an infant.

Characterizing my argument as "buying things is the same as having them handed to you" requires the assumption that infants whose parents buy them diapers have earned those diapers, while infants who need government assistance are freeloading diaper-mooches. They're all babies and none of them has earned anything yet.

You want to hold the baby's parents accountable for not providing for him? Go right ahead. But that doesn't mean the baby should be doomed to a life of poverty, ignorance, and starvation because he failed to "earn" a birth into a family with better/smarter/wealthier parents.

^^Apologies for the accidental double post.

101/102, oh so you were talking only about governmental assistance for babies and children who would otherwise be supported by their parents? Why didn't you say so?
Something about straws comes up to mind...

Funny, I thought you were talking about welfare for everyone when you said "Everyone is born entitled to food, clothing, shelter, and education" and "they should be handed to everyone".

46, 47-- yes, Texas firms traditionally make fewer offers but not that much fewer. Last summer, BakerBotts gave 88% offers (http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202425519195&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1). It wasn't 95% or more, but still pretty high. And 80-90% is pretty standard in good times for Texas firms.

19 is also right. "Oil & Gas" at big firms is not what law students think it is. Its project finance or structured finance or general corporate work that just happens to be for big energy firms. It is still dependent on banks loaning money (usual project finance deal has 90% bank contribution) and that just ain't happening now, regardless of how good the numbers look for a new refinery, gas field, pipeline or M&A. Ironically, since most Texas firms don't have true full-service New York offices (mostly there to service the banks, some of whom are their clients), the tipster probably hurt his chances by going to BakerBotts.

Oh, and one more thing: this is all the sort of nuts & bolts of practicing and of the legal industry that a law school should be teaching its students but almost all fail to do (and to a certain extent the law firms themselves. Always amazes me the extent to which firms will avoid disabusing law students of the naive notions that float through their heads).

-105

104 you're missing the point. The point is that without providing the assistance to make sure everyone has the basics needed to survive, the babies and children suffer through no fault of their own and the suffering continues into adulthood. The programs aren't only for babies, they're for everyone who was born disadvantaged.

The other side is correct that when you do things the way I suggest, some adults will inevitably game the system and freeload off of everyone else. But the majority of adults who need these kinds of basic assistance don't need it because they're lazy and manipulative, they need it because they were born as the unfortunate babies and stayed that way because the programs WEREN'T in place that would enable them to rise up above the need for assistance.

If you do things my way, people get to live in a ghetto, eat canned soup, and get the medication they need to treat their illnesses despite not "earning" any of those opportunities in the marketplace. The other side, blissfully unaware of just how many people never get the chance to earn those opportunities because all the other side knows is how easy it was for THEM to go to school and get a job without succumbing to starvation or easily treatable illnesses for which no treatment is made available, seems to feel that this is an unspeakable atrocity. I happen to think that leaving these people and their children to starve and die so you can buy a bigger yacht is just a slightly bigger offense.

I'm less offended by a few lazy and manipulative people freeloading off the rest of our society than I am by a few thousand members of that society dying off because they had no chance to survive. Call me crazy (and I'm sure you will).

106 I agree. At the start of my 2L year I found myself applying for jobs at law firms without any clue whatsoever what law firms actually did.

I got an offer from cwt ny

10 laid off at BB houston today, more layoffs continue through the end of the week.

I heard from a good source that Locke Lord Dallas had 10 summers and 4 offers.

108, of course, same here. Very few law students do, unless maybe you have a lawyer in the (nuclear) family, and even then, you mostly just pick based on location, Vault rankings and how you felt about the people who interviewed you.

Can anyone spare some Vaseline?

PE, you are the funniest motherfucker that I have ever read. Please, please, pleae keep posting. Today was 100% LOL.

Also, I'm a first year cog in the machine, and I can laugh at the hilarity. I'll take tough lough over no love anyday ;D

53- Who cares about Dorsey's offer rates to 1L summers? 1L SA's should be thankful they even had a job this summer that did not include a polyester hat and a grill.
A summer associate shouldn't be expecting/worrying about an offer until after their 2L summer (especially considering the current status of incoming classes).

DECHERT blows. Cravath rules.

Baker Botts NY is one of the worst places in biglaw to work. The bonuses are far below market and they have been laying off people throughout the year. Although ATL did not report those layoffs, they give only 2 months severance. Again, far below market.

And yes, people do turn ttdown other firms for Baker Botts as they are one of the few NYC firms with a large IP practice.

Orrick NY?

A lot of SA's across Baker Botts offices are not getting offers. In addition, four associates were let go today in BB Houston's office! I wonder how many more cuts there will be throught BB offices.... I think 1Ls and 2Ls get paid to much. They really do not know what they are doing...why should they get paid more than 100k-115K

Sorry to break it to you 119, but 1Ls and 2Ls don't make 100-115k.

119 - I know 1Ls and 2Ls don't make 100-115K...I was reading some other posts where someone "suggested" that's all they should make and I was really saying I think that's all they need to make too!

120 - 199 here - I know 1Ls and 2Ls don't make 100-115K. I was reading some other posts where someone "suggested" that's all they should make and I was really saying I think that's all they need to make too!

oops...meant to say 119 here....

What is V&E Houston's offer rate?

Another commenter said V&E Houston was somewhere around 70%

Wait...so V&E Houston offered 70% of about 80 2L's = 56 offers, while BB Houston offered 50% of 26 2L's for 13 people? How did V&E Houston offer more than four times the number of 2L's than BB ?

The point of this thread is that Baker Botts sucks. Not how much lawyers should get paid or how thankful summers should be to have jobs. Act accordingly.

I think VE Houston offered 48 of 72. A buddy of mine got no-offered there. Luckily, he's one of the smartest guys I know, so he'll land on his feet somewhere.

I've read claims that lower-tier law school students have been disproportionately affected by historically low offer rates. Has that been true for BB and V&E Texas offices?

VE Houston gave 51 of 73 offers. I do not know about specifics about BB Houston, but I assume that their awful NYC numbers contribute to their overall low offer rate, which means that Houston is probably slightly higher - maybe something like 20 offers out of the 27 or 28 2L's they had there.

Honestly, if I were a 2L I would avoid BB like the plague. The've lost nearly a hundred lawyers over the past year, and they still have disastrous offer rates - that should be very alarming to anyone interviewing there. The place is a miserable place to work, too. If you want to be in Houston for transactional work, you go to V&E. Or maybe Bracewell or AK. If you want to be in Dallas for transactional work, you go to Haynes and Boone or V&E.

fulbright dallas gave some no offers - not sure what the percentage was.

I think something is fishy with V&E. How can they make so many offers compared to their peer firms and still have enough work for everyone? Either big layoffs are coming to V&E or they offered way less than the 48 or 51 tossed around in this thread.

132-

You're right, it does seem fishy. I think there are several reasons:

1. They had two relatively small first year classes the past two years.
2. They are weathering the storm slightly better than others in Texas.
3. Judging from the amount of crap they've already gotten for having an offer rate as low as 70%, I think they were scared to make it too much lower. If I were one of those 50 people offered there, I'd think long and hard about where I ranked among that 50...
4. Some of the 48 or 50 that got offers in Houston are strongly being encouraged to go to other offices.

HTH.

133-

As to point 1, I think that is correct, but didn't V&E defer half of that "relatively small first year class" of last year into January of 2010? So I'm not sure they're weathering it any better (if so it really is slight) than other Texas firms.

I just think it's hard to believe they can have that large a number of offers for fall of 2010 when they are already taking in a significant number in January 2010.

Finally as to point 4...I can see how that might be the case...But that really means V&E is juicing up its offer rate by double counting--giving a particular SA and offer to go to two offices when they know that SA will choose only one.

BB Houston laid off at least 10 associates today, several of which were first years. Two months severance. Other offices across the firm will soon be doing similar housecleaning.

In the first 8 months of this year, the firm has cut approximately 100 attorneys -- is that something a healthy firm would do?

135 and etc., is either a jackass SA who got no-offered by BB or someone at a rival firm.

133-

While half of the class was deferred to January, the other half starts the first weekend of November, which I believe is the earliest start date of any large firm in Texas.

As for fall 2010, I think they've already indicated that they will be very likely to do the same November/January split in 2010/11. But you're right, 50 offers does seem abnormally high, but I think they're more likely to be able to absorb them than any other firm in Texas.

136- you don't think losing 100 lawyers is troublesome? especially for the self-proclaimed best firm in texas?

134, how does this statement make sense?

"But that really means V&E is juicing up its offer rate by double counting--giving a particular SA and offer to go to two offices when they know that SA will choose only one."

How is that juicing up their offer rate? They are letting the summer choose which office to go too. Obviously the summer can choose only one. I don't think it is juicing up their offer rate by giving the summer the choice instead of the firm.

All this hating on BB? Perhaps the truth is that BB is making good business decisions. For the summers who received offers, I would feel much better being 1 of 13 at BB than being 1 of 50 at V&E.

Concerning the 100 layoffs at BB (firmwide) over the past year: Its called trimming the fat! Its the best in Texas for a reason.

140,

Yes, perhaps that is the truth. Perhaps mass layoffs and a lack of clients are the result of these "good business decisions." BB has been on a downward trend for about 4 years now... go there if you want, but don't say you weren't warned.

136= modern Nostradamus.

142,
Whats this downward trend you speak of? Over the past 4 years BB has grown, gaining a greater market share in an array of practice areas. See Chambers. Its certainly not all gloom and doom, as this thread seems to suggest.

142,
Whats this downward trend you speak of? Over the past 4 years BB has grown, gaining a greater market share in an array of practice areas. See Chambers. Its certainly not all gloom and doom, as this thread seems to suggest.

Although BB is not going anywhere, I think there is cause for concern. In addition to the layoffs and the low offer rate, they just lost the premiere oil and gas attorney in the US of A to Morgan & Lewis. Ouch.

On the other hand, 141 has a point. Making cuts, avoiding excess payroll, etc. is probably just good business.

Kirkland & Ellis, at least out of the LA office, only offered 50% of its summer class.

53 - I've spoken to a number of the summers from Dorsey's Minneapolis office. 1/3 is a high estimate. They represented that the offer rate would be much, much higher than they actually achieved.

141,

Re: "Trimming the fat!"

If BB wanted to trim the fat, they would have bid farewell to at least of few of the transactional attorneys they promoted to partner in the past several years. There are a number of junior / non - equity partners there that have no book of business and are purely service (read: easily replaceable) partners. That combined with gross over-hiring in the past several years + the loss of several big clients = layoffs. BB is hurting.

Here's a macro perspective in Biglaw land. The sacred cow is profitability. A law firm can't be in a "loss" situation and survive due to convenants in their credit agreement and flight risk of highly productive partners. So they will do everything to preserve profitability. Now, folks posting on this site have derided firms for prioritizing profitability above all else but all it means is that a law firm wants to survive and fight another day. If profitability shrinks, good partners leave and then its a death spiral (eg Heller, Thelen, Coudert, etc...). So while it may seem tough to comprehend as a student and an associate, believe it or not, the more profitable the firm, the more stable and cushioned it is.

So in an era of fee discounts, no growth to contraction in the overall business, the margin is getting squeezed. What to do? Cut cost and sooner the better. Some have done this publicly and within a short frame of time. They got a lot of flack for it. Others have done it more gradually and surrepticiously. Whichever way a law firm chose to proceed with these "adjustments" to cost (yes, summers and associates are operating expenses on the financials and their value proposition is based on revenue potential currently and in the future), the harsh reality is that many firms took the "cross my fingers" approach in hopes that the economic climate would imporve by the end of the summer. Guess what, it really hasn't and not to the extent that could support giving all summers offers.

Those firms that reduced their summer class for the 2009 program are going to have high offer %. THose that didn't are going to have low offer % (eg B&B). All firms are going to have much smaller 2010 summer class, if they have one at all.

While this isn't comforting, that's the market reality. Law firms are going to need fewer associates for the next several years at least. Compensation will decrease (again some firms will be more up front about it than ohters) to align the value proposition in an increasingly fee constrained world where clients are refusing to pay for junior associates, lockstep will get eroded so that it remains in name only and summer programs are going to be much smaller for the foresseable future. The good news is that when the economy picks up, the lateral market could be very robust.

What to do? Getting no offered will not be that big of a deal in that it won't have the same taint as when 99% get offers and you're the only one that didn't. Many, many smart and capable students will have gotten no-offers and the key then is to be creative about getting great experience that can be monetized later. The market will turn and you will want to be well positioned when it does. Valuable experience will always command a premium. For example, if you work at the Dept of Energy for few years working on all the requests flooding in for grants and guarantees, you will be a very valuable commodity in the near future.

This is very much a grind it out period. Folks have tons of loans, maybe a family to support and suddenly facing the prospect of going into the real world with little to no safety net. Somewhat depressing and scary for sure. But those that hang in there, build their skills and contacts will be richly rewarded.

150, are you Mormon? If not, you sound like one.

--Mormon Lawyer

151,

I'll have what your smoking!

150 & 151,

I'll have what your smoking!

150 sounds like a Karl.

150, all your points seem valid, but I don't know that anyone was operating under the delusion that hiring and firing decisions aren't about the bottom line. I don't hear a lot of SA's whining that this is horribly unfair and that they didn't see it coming...the theme seems to be just plain "this sucks." And it does. I don't begrudge anyone that.

150--a dose of reality.

150-

Those firms that reduced their summer class for the 2009 program are going to have high offer %. THose that didn't are going to have low offer % (eg B&B). All firms are going to have much smaller 2010 summer class, if they have one at all.

Except for V&E Houston. They doubled their summer class and still had a high offer rate.

Lexis in Texis!

Baker Botts Dallas offered 12 of 26, VE Dallas = 50%, Fulbright Dallas = 6/14, Akin Gump 4/16 (as usual with terrible numbers), Fish 2/6, Andrews Kurth and Haynes and Boone = who cares they are irrelevant, BUT Gibson Dunn is king of Dallas with 100%. Gibson is taking over the city. You have been warned.

Baker & McKenzie SA's *still* have not received offers despite being told they'd be coming in a couple weeks - twice.

GDC taking over Dallas? That's rich. Not until they lower rates.

158 - Your numbers are not correct.

For the record: Baker Botts cut its Houston summer class in half this year (30 this year down from 70 last year) and extended offers to half of the class (15 offers this year compared to 54 last year). The firm laid of ten people yesterday(?). A small summer class and a small number of lay-offs seem to reflect conservative, smart business decisions, not worthy of comment on ATL. Why not devote a post to Vinson and Elkins instead? Now that is a total shit show.

And besides that, why the complete, unwavering focus on New York firms and New York offices of non-New York firms? Your posts really suck. Good bye, ATL.

107,
I am very familiar with the welfare set. I am a big city prosecutor. And I struggle to support a wife and two kids on a fraction of what biglaw associates make.

If you think the programs for "providing the basic necessities" work, then you are crazy. The welfare class games the system and becomes more and more entitled each generation. They are worse than any trustfunders I know. The KKK could not have dreamed of a more effective way to destroy the black community than your fellow travelers FDR and LBJ.

I see the parallels between those on welfare and the trust funders. Gifted resources produce laziness and entitlement in Beverly Hills and in Compton. But at least those trust funders are spending their parents money, not mine.

I appreciate that you overpay taxes each year to help the poor. It is generous of you to refuse to take lawful deductions on your return.

you're all moralfags. HTH

No one's said much about B&G. Any info out there?

"This really sucks. I had a ton of offers coming into last summer and figured oil & gas as well as IP (BB biggest areas) were relatively recession-proof."

Did this person practice in either area? If not, then I'm guessing the 1 of 8 offers was in oil and gas and ip.

Any more news on Baker Botts layoffs? Have they laid off anyone in the Dallas office?

163, I never claimed that the welfare system works perfectly. My work experience has led me to many of the same conclusions you have with respect to some individuals, although I have declined to generalize it across an entire group of people. The broken entitlement and incentive structure is the result of poor execution and a lack of oversight, not of an inherently untenable concept.

That our welfare system is run poorly and needs to be improved is apparent. But I'd rather improve it with a first aid kit than a shotgun.

lots of no offers at CWT

How many no offers at Cwt? We had 39 summers, but I only know outcomes for 12. Of those 12, it seems like 50-50 or 55-45. Is this a fair picture of the whole class?

I know of at least 9 no offers

Not all the strip club kids got no-offered

Not all the strip club kids got no-offered

Can we get a post listing the firms that have yet to inform their summer associates whether they do/do not have an offer? My summer program ended on July 31, and we haven't head anything yet.

I agree with 174. Can we get a summary of which firms have handed out offers (perhaps with percentages) and which ones have yet to contact their summers?

148 - 53 is correct that Dorsey's offer rate was 1/3.

176--incorrect.