shit son

Shit Stu.

This is Costco's in-house counsel we're talking about?

Man, this place is such a TTT. Who cares? Nobody worthwhile practices in THAT city. I've never even heard of this firm. Elie, write about something we care about. Elie is fat. Latham sucks.

There, I just completed the next 100 comments on every thread here. The rest of you morons can take the night off.

Is this is the first set of layoffs in the V10? I guess I should say at least open layoffs in the V10?

Dear 1st Year Corporate Associate:

We know you have only been here for eight months. Coincidently those have been some of the worst eight months this economy has seen in decades. You have not been given any real work because we don't have any to give you. However, despite all of this, it is clear that you are not on track to become an equity partner so we are shit canning you and ruining your career. Hey, that's how we roll!

Sincerely,

Kirkland Partner With No Work

Layoffs are happening in all offices. Kirkland is brutal, they're doing this to make room for the "new" first years in Nov and to keep PPP from falling

kirkland friends? you people have been cheering for layoffs for months now. Don't try to commiserate. you've publised every baseless rumor you could find.

Furthermore, when 20 people are laid off after performance reviews, even if some of those were "stealth layoffs" at least some of them must have been legitimate. So there were 5, 10 layoffs?

I know you wouldn't have interrupted your nightly routine of a gallon of ice cream in the bath tub if this didn't make you happy.

And here comes the kirland apologists……..

defensive dbags like 9 are the reason no one should ever work at Kirkland. that and layoffs and low summer offer rates. the firm is an exposed TTT.

The kirkland apologists come in because ATL has posted, what, about 7 stories on K&E that haven't turned up to be true? So they finally got one right (unfortunately for those laid off)

I am just throbbing....

Hugh G. Rection

Strange things are afoot at Kirkland & Ellis.

Less than 10% attrition, doesn’t really sound like much of a story. In a normal year, I would expect more than that.

What a shiTTTy excuse for a firm.

summers are gone, new lawyers not yet arrived, lots of folks are away on vacation, it's a slow news day, like when government makes an announcement late friday so it gets covered only in the Saturday papers that no one reads, coincidence?

Kirkland

Just keep the pretty blondes.

The Sheriff

agree with 9: Elie twisted the arms of KE partners to get this done so that he could have an excuse to finish an entire carton of ice cream.

How you like me now?

I pose the following question: is it better to publicly lay people off or to do it stealthily. Usually, stealth layoffs are better because associates can get new jobs without their new employers knowing about their poor performance. Has that changed?

Also, is it better to be laidoff with a group of 190 associates (Latham) or 20?

You know what?

Did the associates sign a non-disparagement that contained a reciprocal clause? Because they might have a real (non-consideration theory, fools with a meme that won't die) cause of action against these assholes. Kirkland shouldn't be commenting to the press absent a legal compulsion. Y'all might get paid for real.

Kirkland is brutal. There was massive "stealth layoffs" in all offices. Not just NY and DC. NSP layoffs haven't started yet either so there is more to come.

The firm paid three months not four. Also, if you accept a job in less than three months the "severance" is cancelled.

21 - In these economic times, stealth layoffs are worse than public layoffs. A good portion of associates cannot secure employment within the 2-4 months a firm will give. At least with a public layoff, an associate can go on interviews and say "As you may have seen in the news, my firm laid off X associates for economic reasons and I am one of them"

As for numbers, the more the firm lays off, the better for the laid-off associate. I was asked for exact numbers of terminations at my firm during one of my interviews. I was able to give a fairly large number, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to admit that the firm only laid off 5 associates and I was one of them.

This layoff witch hunt is getting ridiculous. A firm
with over 1,000 lawyers can't let 20 go after annual performance reviews without it bein called a layoff? Please. And don't give me the "they laid off first years" bit. There is no reliable evidence to substantiate that claim other than an anonymous tipster giving hearsay about other people that he probably knows nothing about. I call BS... and no I don't work for Kirkland or even particularly like the firm. I just think the layoff hysteria is getting out of control.

If it's not a lump sum severance, instead of saying "three months" or "four months" we should talk in terms of the date the payments end.

Payments ending December 31 could be considered three months or four months (depending on whether you count September, the current month)

Payments ending November 30 could be two or three months.

If severance can be cancelled then its probably not a lump sum.

So - when do payments end?

If you think Obamanomics is working, talk to someone who isn't.

This is not that hard to understand. When a firm gets into economic tough times, it makes sense to cut the underwhelming associates in a group (corporate) where you don't see the firm elevating many to partner for the next few years.

I feel for those affected, but Latham laid off over 30 first years and over 30 second years in the NY office alone. Latham is still King of the First Year Layoffs.

All those commenting that 20 layoffs (or 10% attrition) is NOT THAT MUCH must be partners who have totally bought into the law firm model that associates are supposed to only stay a few years and then move on, so that their model won't break. Most companies do not lay off (or otherwise lose) 10% of their executive ranks (which is what we are, despite partner's beliefs that we are day laborers) each year. These same people say that it's about time that law firms act like real businesses. Well, again, real businesses don't lay off 10% of their executives every year.

Tools.

IF there is a real story about layoffs--and not just normal attrition--Elie did not report it.

-25

30 Fail.

20/1,000 = 2%

When will Kirkland stop spreading these unfounded rumors about itself?

32 = Fail

Kirkland's NY office does NOT have 1000 associates. Try 200. Douche.

-- 30

30-

Executives? Let me guess, you're a straight through who didn't have a career before law school. Managers at many big box retailers, and even In-n-Out for that matter, make what we do. Would you call a store manager of Best Buy an executive?

Store managers don't leave at a 10% rate per year, 35. And I've worked in many more jobs than you could ever dream of, before and after law school. We are not akin to hamburger flippers. Or retail clerks.

PS Big box retailer managers make about $50,000 a year. Not over $100,000. I know -- I worked at one for 5 years during high school and college.

-- 30, 36

I don't have a dog in the fight, but good god the remaining K&E associates are annoying little reputation-obsessed cornholes. Now back to the game, go bravos!

All of you are supporting the idea that these people who were laid off might be over to recover if there's a non-disparagement clause requiring kirkland to not comment on their employment unless legally required. Keep saying they have it coming or they are dead weight or it's cutting of the fat. These kids will probably try to track you down to prove that their professional reputations were harmed by kirkland.

You guys have 20 as the number and its WAY low. Many more than 20 were let go- id say 20 alone in the NY office.

So SF took a 20% cut. I wouldn't call that normal attrition. Palo Alto only has 6 associates and just opened this time last year and already layoffs?

HAHAHAHHAHA. the 25 y/o who can spot issues in a tort exam = an EXECUTIVE now???? let's see: you can't lead, you can't manage, you probably can't speak in public, you can't devise or execute a business strategy, you can run the operations of a firm. yet you're an executive? the only thing you can "execute" is lexis and doc review.

It's too bad that people lost their jobs. But tough. That's the way the world works. If you don't stand out, if you don't provide value to your firm, and if you don't get the right partners on your side, and fast, you get canned. Fortunately for these folks, they will be able to find jobs in midlaw. It's the midlaw and small law layoffs that are really painful, because they will end up managing a Walmart for $50k.

Dear Firm,

I have two important messages I feel must be delivered during this crucial time:

1. To All Associates Not Billing Hours:

In the words of a wise partner emeritus, spoken many years ago;

BILL OR GTFO

2. To All Partners Not Getting New Business;

TITS OR GTFO

That is all.

Sincerely,

Managing Partner

44. It's difficult to get hours when your name is on a list that every assigning attorney has and explicitly bars you from being staffed on deals or cases.

@ 43 -

Bite me.

I can't wait until you get canned or de-equitized (and it will happen soon enough). Then you'll realize that you are spewing utter bullshit.

Believe it or not, I just a few months ago agreed with you - until I was fired for "performance reasons" without any warning, having received overwhelmingly positive feedback from powerful partners and clients. It will happen to you. And I can't wait until it does.

43, the news articles are full of unemployed midlevel and senior level people - not just in the legal industry, but in all industries - all talking about how they once believed that sentiment and that they met all of your stated qualifications, and they are now out on the street. You may be on top of the world know, but karma can be a b!tch. Watch out for it.

I have a very good friend who works at Kirkland. So I know that not every attorney there is an unbearable d-bag. But basically every K&E associate who comments on this blog (and there seem to be, always, more vocal K&E associates here than associates of just about any other law firm) bolsters the firm's reputation as a bunch of assholes. Here we have a confirmed story about a bunch of layoffs -- which I had independently confirmed already. And there's not a single K&E associate on here saying "hey, it's too bad the firm is completely money-obsessed and is unwilling to take any hit whatsoever to its (relatively very few) equity partners' 2.5M average profits" or "you know, it's the corporate partners' fault that they're not bringing in business so those partners should actually suffer, given that they're the owners." Instead, it's all "Kirkland is the greatest firm of all time and any firm that doesn't lay off at least as many associates is run by idiots and will go bankrupt tomorrow."

This bootlicking of management is incredible for a firm that games its leverage like Kirkland does (e.g., by making 7th year associates "partners" with no equity and pushing the real partnership track out to (often) 13 or 14 years).

46 - face it, you got fired because you suck. Period. Get over yourself.

Capitalism will never work you silly Americans.

*Le Sigh*

When you will join the rest of the world? Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go work my government-mandated 2-hours.

Suckers.

48 nails it. I love this whole K&E apologist BS. "What? You think the fact the firm had to conduct layoffs is *bad*??? You fool! These layoffs are actually further proof of K&E's preeminence."

6 FTW!

I interviewed at K&E and they were the biggest assholes!

I work at Simpson Thacher now and they are also laying off (associates AND partners!!!!!)

20 losers looking for a job--try Bally's--Oh, I forgot, 20 fat soft balding weaklings.

53, Simpson partners are not being laid off just forced to retire....

I would put it differently, but I agree with 43. If you are valuable your chances of survival are really good. My firm had layoffs in March, but basically it was simply trimming the fat. Those who were fired were mostly midlevel to senior associates who were not cutting it or did not have a senior partner watching their backs.

56,

What city and practice areas?

57 - all over the country and all practice areas

56

56 -- How does getting let go for "not hav[ing] a senior partner watching [your] back[]" constitute "trimming the fat"?

@every commenter besides #29 -

PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN. While what happened at Quarles, Sonnenschein, and Kirkland today was regrettable for a few associates, YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW THE FORMER FIRST YEARS AT LATHAM WILL BE REACTING TO THIS NEWS! It is they who will bear the burden of knowing that there were more lay-offs in their office. It is they who need the money more. It is they who had their careers interupted/destroyed. It is they who deserved partnership immediately. THEY AND THEY ALONE. No one else has had to deal with these immense burdens.

I hereby call for the Latham 190 post to be reposted at the beginning and end of every day in memory of these brave souls who for some reason - some heroic, selfless reason - still muster the strength to get out of bed in the morning and repost the same comments about the Latham lay-offs every day.

Nay, that is not enough and I, will not rest until a proper memorial is made to their sacrifice.

I suggest that perhaps, in the middle of central park, a gigantic middle finger, stretched outward towards the sky, with lo, a sign that says: "I lost my job in the beginning of the year too, dick, get over it."

To all the recently let go K&E associates: I know it seems hard sometimes but remember one thing. Through every dark night, theres a bright day after that. So no matter how hard it gets, stick your chest out, keep ya head up.... and handle it.

59 - I should have used "and" instead of "or". I shouldn't have had that last glass of wine.

56

Getting paid to do nothing for four months at a six figure rate sounds pretty good... if you can find new employment starting in January, you are better off than an associate that didn't get laid off. Compare: an associate that doesn't get laid off has to do actual work to get the same compensation through December... since we can expect no bonuses at the end of this year, both will be in the same position in January

No bonuses? WTF?

63 - especially good if you were already planning to exit the firm and got laid off

48 nails it. KE fuckers, this is not the time to brag about your firm.

63 says "if you can find new employment starting in January, you are better off than an associate that didn't get laid off..."

That's a pretty big IF nowadays.

To you retards who argue that the number is in line with historical attrition-bullshit. In all my years in biglaw (many) attrition has always been associates leaving for other firms (for a variety of reasons that do not include being told to leave). So yeah, every year maybe 10% of associates jump ship to go to a firm with more prestige, better pay, better QOL, etc. You can't compare that to layoffs.

With that said, business is business. When times are tough, people get cut. Tough.

either they're laying off upfront like this or they're laying them off stealth and offering less severance and transparency...

bottom line, every firm is hurting so STFU about this firm or that firm sucking

WORK IS SLOW
PEOPLE GET FIRED
QUINN STILL SUCKS

K&E, where will you draw the line?

67 - what if you are in a hot practice group?

K&E associates - you should have taken a job at Cravath.

Love,

Evan C.

It has been a very busy day. Had to work overtime to provide associates with their severance.

I have an idea. All the laid off Biglaw associates could probably get jobs shining shoes at the Gateway Center in Newark.

NOW GO HOME AND GET YOUR FUCKIN' SHINEBOX.

72 -- I think that if your practice group is that hot, chances are you didn't get laid off.

67

can we get a post on these Simpson rumors?

61 - I'm the real Pac.

The re-emergence of hybrid tough love this week has been outstanding. Although these are non-peer firms that are adopting my ideas, it won't be long before peer firms embrace my hybrid tough love package, which includes: 1) ending lockstep compensation or at least lower starting associate salaries at $100-115K per year; 2) reducing current associate rolls to make remaining associates appreciate their jobs and work harder; and, 3) replace 75% of associates with foreign based attorneys (i.e., overseas outsourcing) as allowed by the beloved ABA. This will be a great way to boost PPP during this worsening recession that will be prolonged by the ineffective policies of the current administration. There is hope that my retirement checks from the firm will not decrease. I see the silver wave and I think I will ride it into the sunset.

PE - Your "session" with Ramon finished quickly this evening. What gives?

LOL @ 79...pure comedy

LOL @ 79...pure comedy

"I see the silver wave and I think I will ride it into the sunset."

Former Thelen and current Orrick partner The Glass Cock here, in response to the quote above, asking that old fish eyed fool Partner Emeritus "hey bud, how's the prostate"?

I would like to begin a survey:

How many people who posters who include "TTT" in their post are attorneys vs. law students?

I am also interested in knowing from what firm anyone who posts about another "shittty law firm" works.

Please Respond

Does anyone else every have the overwhelming urge to track down PE and punch him in the face?

HERE'S THE SCOOP:

As someone who has practiced at top New York law firms for the past 15 years I can assure you that no law firm should be firing this many first and second year associates based just on "performance". There will always be a few bad seeds in each class that deserve to get fired in just the first few years but what Kirkland and Latham have done isn't even economic driven:

What Kirland and Latham have done firing so many people is a result of their shortsighted desire to create a huge New York presence overnight without a broad based practice. They created huge New York offices over a short period and this is the inevitable resutl. Morgan Lewis had the same problem in New York.

Why doesn't Above The Law put an IP ban on Professor Emeritus? He isn't funny and his remarks are off color. Its time for him to go.

@87 It's more entertaining to watch his tired shtick fail to impress than it would be if he were banned.

Obama! tough-love! hybrid socialism! (rinse and repeat)

"earlier this summer, we reported that the associate review process at Kirkland had been moved up this year. By the end of July, associates were already buzzing that the layoff list had been circulated around to Kirkland's partners."

What makes me think that every 3rd+ year transactional associate copied their partners' entire contact lists and every document the associate could get their hands on?

No job prospects and a mountain of debt means laying off any 3rd+ year associate is spawning your own competition. Even if the associate does not open their own shop, for them to walk into a small firm staffed by grubby big-law haters is bound to implode a partner's PPP. Ethics schmethics.

"Hi, I am xxxxx and I used to be biglaw, I'm now with smalllaw where I work with xxxxx, he will now speak with you" Cue grubby shyster.

So much info is public, finding that the info was misappropriated would be an interesting challenge.

Laying off associates is an invitation to destroy your practice.

At least one first-year associate was let go in Chicago today.

Any litigators get the axe?

The first year that I know who was let go in the Chicago office was in litigation.

Any IP attorneys?

What was the story on the first year? Low hours? Not currently billing?

This is fairly surprising given the amount of bankruptcy and litigation work that Kirkland pulls in.

What I don't understand is why these firms are not offering to keep the laid-off associates on the payroll for half the pay. Obviously the half-pay attorneys would start looking for other jobs (i.e. they would get the message to get out), this would be a cheaper alternative thank 4 months of full-pay severance, and the attorneys can save face while looking for work elsewhere.

Is it that difficult?

Kirkland never could hang with the big boys. This is hardly surprising.

The Simpson rumors are true....I sit on the same floor as a partner that was forced to retire and left to go to a lower ranked firm. Who retires from a V6 firm to Mayer Brown after over 30 years at Simpson...that sounds very suspicious

http://www.jdunderground.com/thread.php?threadId=38529

Latham and Kirkland. A match made in heaven.

95,

Half the pay? Really? Once clients find out there are associates on the payroll that make half the pay, all the clients will request half the billing rate.

Stop thinking like a 2L/3L/soon to be first year, and join the real world.

96 - who do you consider big boys? I think we all need to accept that every firm has let people go. Yes, even DPW, Cravath, Simpson, and Cleary. If you're elite enough to make such claims, you ought to know that's true.

People need to show some compassion. Don't be the jerk who kicks folks when they're down. Life has a way of evening the score when you least expect it.

101, PR for Kirkland. How is that English Lit degree working out for you? How much does it hurt to compromise your values being a hack at this hour?

85: I do! I do!

95 - "Is it that difficult?" To find a job right now? Yes, yes it is.

--Laid-off in March, not a prospect in sight

Mintz Levin appears to be close to announcing its disbandment.. if you work there, dust off the resume, and fast..

105, where did you work? and where did you go to law school?

I bet these K&E associates are having a bad day, but nothing tops the day I just had. I am stuck in a Podunk town in Louisiana for depositions and trial prep. Left our make-shift office late last night -- so late that the only place open for a bite was Wendy's. Two Baconators, a large fries, small chili, diet coke and medium chocolate frosty later, and I was comatose on the couch in my extended-stay hotel suite.

In my lipid-induced drowsiness, I forgot to set an alarm. I am awoken by the crack of sunlight that snuck through the black-out blinds. 8:14 a.m. In approximately 45 minutes I had to be showered, shaved, dressed and to deposition that was 35 minute drive from my hotel. I cut steps out of the normal morning routine. Shaving had to go. The tie would go on at a stop light. And the morning shit. There was no time for such luxuriating. This would become my undoing.

I am 15 minutes late to the deposition, but the videographer who was caught in the same traffic saved me on that one. We begin at 9:31 a.m.

It is now 10:20 a.m. The first cup of coffee is setting in. I can feel the remnants of the Baconators and fries vying for seats near the exit. This is not my deposition, and not my witness. I am just here to observe, so there is nothing to distract me from the hot irritation. The only thing I can think is "how long will the videographer's first tape last? Don't they usually change these things every hour or so?"

It's approaching 11:00 a.m. Not a peep from the videographer. The witness looks comfortable. His counsel seems rested and eager to plow through. Opposing counsel has a thick pad filled with questions. I am on my second cup of coffee. I don't know why I did this to myself. The second cup of coffee is habit. Pressure is building inside. I begin to release it ever so slightly. The room takes the aroma of rendered fat; Wendy's is the only food in the world that smells the same going in as it does coming out.

11:12. A break. Finally. But disaster strikes. There is only one bathroom and it is occupied. The location of the deposition is an auxiliary office for the deponent. They are some sort of trucking company. I ask the inbred Louisiana receptionist for the location of another restroom. The standing and moving about has the fetid refugees ready for evacuation. There is only one bathroom. I stand and wait.

11:21. They are about to go back on record. I ask if we can have a few minutes, but witness's counsel insists they resume. Client has to be somewhere by 2. Back in my seat, I can feel the brown dome apexing, pressing against the seat. I turn the release valve and let out a little more pressure. It's audible this time, but, luckily, the witness is in the middle of an answer. Nobody seems to notice, but I am sure my microphone picked it up. The record shall reflect...

12:02. Lunch is delivered in the next room. The delivery man peeks in to signal. The witness is looking weary. We have to break soon.

12:08. Opposing counsel suggests a break for lunch, but witness's counsel suggests that we keep going "if there is less than an hour left." My sphincter tightens; air passes over molten liquid inside me like the contents of an overheated lava lamp.

12:32. The fatal mistake. My insides are a maelstrom. I make the decision to be more aggressive in relieving the built-up pressure. I lean left slightly, and lift my right leg ever so much off the chair. It is silent, but quickly overwhelms the surrounding area with the smell of a Wendy’s dining area. A second wave comes immediately. I lean down as if to fish a pen out of my attache. This allows me to lift my left leg and send a salty-sweet missive the way of the videographer. No lasting relief. I decide to elevate. I place each hand under my backside, as if to warm them. Without the seat to create a trumpeting effect, I am free to let slow air flow. Consequences of the fact that it must be painfully, noxiously obvious to those around me be damned.

I am at this for some time, until it hits. I will not forget. It was 12:41. I looked up the clock for a split second to see if I could make it to the end. The thought of the restroom flashed before my eyes. I think I grunted and/or sighed. But it was too late. My hands could feel the indirect warmth of the moist pile in my pants. For those with dogs to walk, it's the feeling of their leavings through the bag. It was not silent. It sounded like ketchup escaping the squeeze-bottle in a belched rush. The videographer and reporter were gracious; neither looked up from their work. Opposing counsel genuinely seemed not to notice. Witness's counsel shot me a queer look, but looked away when our eyes met. And just as I thought I was in the clear, the witness turned to his counsel and said "that sounded like someone just shit his pants."

That, kids, is a bad day.

105, I've been looking since April. Still have a job (knock on wood), but I just have to get out this place (V20 NY). The market is brutal right now. Good luck, brother.

Did the Kirkland summer that punched that woman on a boat get laid off?

97 -- We had a guy in accounts who recently made a move like that.

95 must be with MWE.

108 for the win!

That story was fucking hilarious, even if every word of it was total bullshit.

Thanks for the good chuckle.

107 - PH; T10.

I love the law school students who talk about "sacrificing values." Look, D-BAGS, you will soon be paid to take any position on the law that your client pays you to take. This is regardless of if you work for biglaw, small law, government or clerkship --- you get a salary and your boss/client is always right. Get over yourself.

108 - I'm still laughing. Great post!

109 - Thanks. Good luck to you, too. I've been shut out of three different opportunities because I was laid-off (even though I have references and my lay-off was officially for economic reasons), so maybe having a job will work to your advantage.

--107

108 was the funniest thing I've ever read on this site. Nice work.

108: Hilarious. Thank you.

117, I hope so. I literally have no interest from anyone, anything, any entity, any sentient being since starting my search. I simply have no clue how to find a job in this environment. It's fugly out there.

85 and 108, bravo both! I lol'd.

Seriously you all. Usually you guys give props to awesome comments, but you guys are woefully undervaluing comment 60:

"I hereby call for the Latham 190 post to be reposted at the beginning and end of every day in memory of these brave souls who for some reason - some heroic, selfless reason - still muster the strength to get out of bed in the morning and repost the same comments about the Latham lay-offs every day.

Nay, that is not enough and I, will not rest until a proper memorial is made to their sacrifice. "

I honestly think that if you read read that aloud in the proper , Don Quixote-esque, voice you will see the brilliance of that comment.
--Elie

I'm not surprised to hear about a Kirkland SA fighting with someone on a boat. Kirkland SAs getting violent at summer events is a tradition dating at least back to 2001 or so when one of the Kirkland LA summers got into an altercation with a Disneyland staff member on the Matterhorn ride.

Bravo 108. Raymond Carver couldn't have done better.

"But we take Kirkland at its word." Elie, how can you take Kirkland at its word when the firm didn't actually say anything? Do you possess even rudimentary logic skills?

Elie, good post. Agreed. BTW, have you read this?

"August 31, 2009

Will the IG Report Cover the Role of White Shoe Law Firms?
Madoff and the SEC's Revolving Door
By PAM MARTENS

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens08312009.html

Elie,

You won't report first year layoff numbers, even though they've been sent to you, so it's necessary to spam them in the comments so people know.

At least one KE fourth year was laid off in litigation in Chicago. Sorry, "outplaced" on performance, because KE doesn't have economic lay-offs. Bullshit. There's no real loyalty in biglaw, but forcing associates who have made the firm a shit-ton of money with their sleepless nights, no vacations and countless billed hours to be labeled by a massive firing rather than a layoff is total crap. KE could learn a thing or two about burning bridges.

Just returned from my late night of pounding the blondes at K&E (we made a side trip to Philly) and I saw something I could not believe (it has burned a searing image in my brain):

PE dressed in drag and painting the toes of Rick (of Rick's cabaret), then sucking on them. Now that is some tough loving.

Oh my God, 108 made me almost puke I was laughing so hard. I almost believe it actually happened, with all the details.

P.S. Did I mention Rick was black, and had an uncanny resemblance to Obama?

108 - Wow! I almost threw up my lunch laughing (I'm in Europe...). Forget law and write for a living.

117 - Were the opportunities that you were shut out of all at large law firms or in-house? I was definitely shut out of an in-house opportunity because of my layoff and I haven't even tried large firms because I figured they would never look at me now.

Wait a minute this doesn't make any sense- over the last 10 days I kept reading all these feel good articles on this site about summers getting offers and saying that the worst was probably over- Did ATL jump the gun on the good news?

Ugly news in the Windy City - It's an open secret in K&E Chicago that 15-20 associates ranging from 2-5th year have been given a heads up that the grim reaper is on the way and that they will have to be out by the end of the year. Formal termination meetings are only beginning to take place but the associate targets, in the main, know what is going on. So they're getting 4 months on site before it's lights out. I know and have spoken with 8 of these people - and there are more.

I'm not going to troll, but I'll try to put some perspective on this. It seems like there's irrational Kirkland hate in the comments, spawning irrational Kirkland adoration.

First, I don't know how much is going to be considered "stealth layoffs." Usually reviews knock out about 5% or so of associates, and oftentimes other reviews suggest to people that they should be looking around because they won't be around the next time reviews come around. So it bumped higher this year, perhaps beyond the standard deviation, to qualify as "stealth." But the only people let go were those with below-class ratings, or extremely low with-class ratings, as far as I know.

Second, I'm fairly confident most first- and second-years were spared, despite ATL reports. I'll know more in the next day or two, but I think if you at least made an effort (like, actually showing up, or billing more than 200 hours), you were generally okay.

Third, I don't understand why so many people around me "gave up." I'm an associate, but there were a lot of associates who just stopped caring. They stopped billing, even pro bono projects. They weren't interested in calling partners for work or seeking to rotate into bankruptcy. They didn't show up to work. I don't know if they were just resigned to it, or if they just figured they should milk it for all it's worth.

To get 3-4 months' severance on top of that is pretty impressive.

In any case, it really sucks. Numbers were flat for partners last year, and I think they'll be flat again. It's hard to think that so many people were cut just to help their bottom line of $2.4MM PPP instead of it dipping to a precarious $2.2MM.

But, at the same time, there really were a lot of people at the firm doing nothing, and a lot of them seemed like they weren't interested in finding work or even making the appearance of an effort. I'm sure some innocent people got screwed, which really sucks the most.

No, what sucks the most is that, as usual, we associates are left in the dark and forced to retreat to WSJ or XO to find scraps of rumors comparing notes across offices, rather than a simple, cut-and-dried memo informing us that X people were let go for performance-based reasons.

Oh well. My review went extremely well, and I'm still around. Guess I'll put up with it another year at least.

136- My Kirkland hate comes from watching these ball-busting bull-shitters in action. No matter what the case is, they take this attitude that they need to be the fastest, meanest SOBs out there and they will work 24 hours a day to get the deal done first etc etc. That's just not appropriate in many instances.

And so when it all comes down to it, a lot of K&E's huffing and puffing is just hype and hot air. There is a lot more to being a good lawyer than running around like an asshole sending threatening emails at 3:30am or having your initials pinstriped on your suit, or not allowing a visiting attorney to make a phone call from one of your conference rooms, and I think K&E is just learning this.

Although to the K&E partner or partners in the DC office who has their initials pinstirped on their suits- keep it up- that's class! that's style!

136 - ok, you got me. What is XO?

First year CCN grad in litigation in NYC was axed.

Any KE partner is better than F. Douglas Raymond of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Kirkland: #1 for EARTH SHATTERING layoffs

128, 135 -- Take the following for what it's worth (maybe nothing). The one person I know who was let go in Chicago recently was a worthless slacker who obviously had no interest in his job since day 1. This person had work but made a conscious decision not to do it well because it would have infringed on their social life. I'm not saying that every laid off associate fits that mold, but at least in this case it was no surprise.

PE,

How do you expect your clients to continue willing paying hundreds of dollars an hour for work when we realize that it's really being done by $6/hr "attorneys" in Malaysia.

- In House Commenter

Would someone please explain to me what PE means by "hybrid tough love"? Everytime I see that phrase I picture a greasy old man tying up, gagging, and having his way with, a Prius.

I

142 - I'm not surprised that you knew someone like that. I'm sure that in every group of layoffs/firings, there are a few bad seeds. The problem is that interviewers don't know whether the laid-off associate they're interviewing was a bad seed or someone that was in the wrong place, wrong time, not in a great political situation, etc. I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that a big law firm wasn't for me. It's not for 90% of the people that work in them that will eventually leave for somewhere else or get pushed out. What irks me is that all of those people had chances to go somewhere else and start over, and because of the economy and interviewer's worries that I might be one of the bad seeds, I might never get that chance.

97 is right, George K. Miller now works at Mayer Brown

http://www.mayerbrown.com/news/article.asp?id=7467&nid=5

"Johnny, put him in a body-bag..."

It's "Give him a body bag, yeahhhhhhhhh!"

Idiot.

142. You are a massive, massive asshole. Absent you actually going to that associate's therapy sessions or a personal story about how this associate specifically fucked up, you're making post-determinative justifications for Kirkland's shitty, shitty behavior.

And I can't fucking wait for the same damn thing to happen to you.

Whoooooaaaaa. 87 just owned PE. "Ban" his IP address --- Snap!!!!!

Do we have any information regarding firms that deferred associates to January 2010? Has anyone received word one way or another regarding whether that date will remain true?

108 - great stuff. its not often that litagators literally blow it out their ass.

129: That's a historical reference I figured would be lost in the sands of time. I remember that event well: the SA in question refused to get on a log ride with another male SA and started yelling at the Disney ride guy who refused to let him ride alone. I'm pretty sure the SA didn't get an offer, but it wasn't solely based on this event.

151 - calls will be going out within the next few weeks extending the deferrals. There is no way they will be able to start us in January given there is still no work.

154,

curious how you would know this considering that you are a "scared 3L." Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I find it hard to believe that you have a pulse on the average workflow of biglaw right now.

155 - whether you believe me or not, the workflow just isn't there to support new blood coming in. Mark thus post -- deferrals will be extended by the end of the month.

If K&E wouls just show a little bit of decency to its associates and non-shares who are to be whacked by icing just one of their useless share partners, one could almost live with this. Here in D.C. there are many fine choices for the chopping block. I cannot believe some of these numbskulls make 2plus million a year.

151 -- Sidley D.C. made calls last week. The recession is over, everyone should report to work next Monday.

156,

Once again, how do you know this? I guess you didn't see this: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/09/mayer_brown_early_start.php

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go make it rain at "Sophie's" since I just cashed my ultra-secure paycheck.

The ship be sinking...

GLASS COCK IS BACK

156,

Um - over generalize, much? Make blanket statements, much? Make up facts to make yourself feel better about having no offers, much?

157, this seems to be a common problem among all law firms in DC, judging from the complaints on this board. I worked under a partner who got kicked off of two major matters for two significant clients. I and another partner actually got put on one of the matters the first partner got kicked off of, and was one of the people responsible for fixing that partner's mess. Guess which one of us still has a job?

108 needs to be hired by this blog to replace Roxanna

@ 138

xoxohth.com

Cravath Secure.

Associates - get used to it, at all big firms, for the next few years. In the "old days" (prior to last year), associate classes would leave Biglaw firms on a clip of about 20% per year. They would leave for lifestyle and other reasons. This allowed the firms to bring in large crops of newly minted lawyers, mostly to do their document review, etc. Only a very small percentage were ever expected to stay around, learn more than document review, and become equity partners. Since there is no where else to go these days, they are hanging on and the firms have already committed to bringing in a bunch of new lawyers to do that easy to bill document review, so they will resort to layoffs, until they can balance the incoming classes with the attrition. Face it, most of you are a an interchangable commodity to your firms.

Reading 108 gave me indigestion. Well done

89: "No job prospects and a mountain of debt means laying off any 3rd+ year associate is spawning your own competition. Even if the associate does not open their own shop, for them to walk into a small firm staffed by grubby big-law haters is bound to implode a partner's PPP. Ethics schmethics"

Yeah, good luck with that first round of sales calls, youngling. lol

I am sure that private venture groups, fortune 500 VPs in charge of M&A, in-house litigation groups, etc. currently employing K&E will leap at the chance to hire some 3rd year with document review, memo-writing, and low level drafting work.

Yeah, I remember when I was out of law school a few years and thought I was a real lawyer too. My fancy office, nice paycheck and secretary made me think I knew what I was doing just like that theoretical 3rd year you imagine could make K&E quake.

Again, good luck with those first sales calls. ha ha

There is a reason you never see that happen, mi amigo: that young lawyer could never pull that business, because he could not perform the real work done at the partner level. Anyone with enough $ and sophistication to hire K&E knows that. You don't, it seems.

-- No fan of K&E, but not deluded either

fuck i hope i pass the bar

I can see the scene:

Partner: Smedley, into my office.
First Year: Yes, sir.
Partner: Smedley, you're a good kid. You've done some good work these past two weeks, but listen, kid. You're just not Partner material.
First Year: Yes, sir.
Partner: Here's a coffee mug and some Mentos, and I'll be happy to give a reference. Now scram kid, you bother me.
First Year: Yes, sir.

Clearly the market for lawyers is far from bottoming out. The Kirkland layoffs point to an ever deepening crisis that has now widened its reach into the top law firms. The outlook for the firms at the bottom of the pile can only be direr. There will be many more such layoffs to come as other firms adjust their cost structures, but even at firms that have already sent people packing, there is probably more of such blood-letting to come. Many firms are hanging on to their large transactional teams in the hope that issuance volumes on Wall Street will roar back to life. If those billion dollar offerings do not start to materialize by Q1 2010, even more highly qualified lawyers will be pounding the pavement looking for work. It is unlikely that those presently unemployed will find ‘suitable’ work any time soon. The vast majority will in fact never practice law at a large law firm again. I am not even sure if mid law or small law is an available option.

108- totally genius! i hope it wasn't true! ;)

108 is FANTASTIC. If you haven't read it, please go up and do so now. Lat, please ask 108 to take over for Roxana St. Thomas.

Seriously, life is too depressing right now. We don't need to be stressed out by the majority of what is posted on this site.

108 made me laugh to tears. I need that, at least once a week.

For anyone who hasn't noticed yet, be aware that every time a negative Kirkland story is published, there are always at least a dozen or so comments which downplay or deny the truth of the story. This comments are posted by a Kirkland employee, a female partner on the 37th floor, by the way, part of whose job is to troll the internet for negative comments and try to downplay them. Don't be fooled. Kirkland has had many, many more stealth layoffs than anyone knows about, and it's despicable. If times are hard, people get laid off. No problem. But don't ruin their careers and reputation just to try to save yourself a little bad publicity.

108 is classic for sure.

Well done. This is the kind of thing that we need to read more often, not the meaningless ignorant drivel we get from most comments.

Knowing how blabber-mouthy SAs are, I think the big law firms took the summer off from their firing frenzy. Now the SAs are all gone, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 told to piss off forever anyway, and now they can start back up with the cutting. Conveniently, this comes just in time to establish bonus targets. And, suprise, firms want to get rid of bonus-sucking mid-levels. That could mean good bonuses for survirors of the cuts or just general firm stiginess if bonuses turn out to be crap anyway.

I think class year 2005 is going to feel the pain in the next 3-4 mos. Probably pretty bloated at most firms and starting to get expensive on the bonus/billable hour front.

108 - Talk about Skadden Farts!

@175: 37th floor of which office?

What's the deal with Mintz Levin? Why is it about to disband? I haven't heard anything.

Anyone let go in K&E NY IP?

A firm with over 1,200 lawyers can't let 50 go after annual performance reviews without it bein called a layoff? Please. The layoff hysteria is getting out of control.

A firm with over 1,200 lawyers can't let 50 go after annual performance reviews without it bein called a layoff? Please. The layoff hysteria is getting out of control.

This is from the WSJ blog (Ellliey likes to exclude this part):

Kirkland is one of a handful of firms that has weathered the downturn in the economy without making dramatic salary cuts or deferring start-dates. The firm hasn’t instituted layoffs since this time last year (which it does at this time every year consistent with its review process). The firm recently made several dozen associates non-equity partners, and gave offers to a significant majority of this year’s summer-associate class.

184, what floor are you on?

185 -

All he/she did was point out the Ellie slanting. It was a quote from the WSJ.

- Not a Kirkland dude (work at a better firm)

133 - the three denials specifically because i was laid-off were all big (but not V20) firms, and were public/recruiter postings. they have each had public economic lay-offs, so i thought there might be some understanding. just some more misplaced optimism.

--117

Was anyone in patent litigation in NY laid off?

184, plenty of other similarly "prestigious" firms have not cut salaries, deferred OR conducted layoffs. See, e.g., Covington, Williams & Connelly, Paul Weiss, etc., etc.

189 - Paul Weiss has been bleeding associates for quite some time. For realsies.

Kirkland associates, were any IP lit associates terminated?

93, 188, 191: Not that I've heard of. I'd be surprised, unless it were truly a performance issue. IP seems busy.

187- Honestly, I wouldn't take it too personally. I think large law firms (V20 or not) are the ones most likely to be jerks about people who were terminated, no matter the reason. Also, I'm not sure if you meant that they had done layoffs in the practice area you are in, but if they did, chances are that they don't have enough work for new blood anyway. I have heard several stories about firms conducting interviews just to see who is out there, partners trying to make it look like they are busy and expecting a flood of work, so are insisting that they need to interview, etc.

192, I heard 1-2 IP lit associates in SF are gone. Maybe they just happened to time lateral moves to occur at exactly the same time as layoffs but I doubt it. Can anyone confirm? (I know folks that work in that office but I do not.)

191 - yes, there were

192: IP was really dry in the summer. Lots of cases ended and if you'd read the new matter list you'd see that not much new came in to replace them.

I REMAIN!

195,

Were those patent litigation associates in the NY office?

@198 - why do you care so much? Do you have an axe to grind with some NY IP litigation associate?

193,

I had about 6 interviews with biglaw firms where layoff issue came up and I felt bad about not getting the job. But a few months later I looked up the firms and they have not hired anybody at all. Why to hell were they interviewing me? My feeling is that 1) they have never seen a person of my educational and law firm background and wanted to see if I can also bring them a multi-million dollar client and 2) they are faking that they have work and are interviewing to show the market or whomever they are doing well.

Frankly, I am sick of it cause I had to spend my own money to travel to their stinking offices for these fake interviews. Some of these even went two rounds and when I get no explanation why they did not take me.

Only interview if you have work. Now, this is my first questiion - What work do you have in the pipeline that I can help you with? If the answer is not specific enough, interview is bullshit. I can't believe senior partners have nothing to do but interview tens of associates for no reason.

200,

I'm not surprised - and it's not just biglaw firms that are doing this. Back in May, I interviewed with a midlevel firm where I thought everything went well and where they told me to my face in the interview that they really liked me and wanted to bring me back in for the second round. I heard last week that they are still interviewing. I can't say for sure, but it sounds like this firm has now interviewed over 15 potential associates over the past several months - including at least one "go to" associate from a partner's old firm - and have told recruiters that they just haven't found anyone that blows them away.

It's fine if they decided against me (although I wish that they had kept their mouths shut about bringing me back in then), but I find it hard to believe that in this economy, with at least that many interviews, and working with multiple recruiters, that the firm can't find one person they like. My guess is that you are probably right about a firm hoping you will bring them a new client, because I was asked repeatedly about that in my interview. They also wanted to gossip extensively about my former biglaw firm and what was going on there - not necessarily about me in particular, but about the firm. I got the sense that they were true biglaw haters.

And, quite frankly, I'm not surprised if partners have nothing better to do but sit around and interview potential associates. If they don't have work, they need to fill their days somehow. .

Elie, why don't you start a "fake interview watch" thread to out the firms/practice groups that are interviewing and not hiring?

200: The various attorney recruiters and HR staff are interviewing individuals so that they can say THEY are working. No interviewing - no work - recruiters and HR are dumped. It's a mean game.

It is true that associates let go were those who the firm said weren't partner material, just like the firm does every year. But there are key differences this year: 1) there were at last 3 to 4 times more people found "not partner material" this year; 2) every year prior those found "below class" were given 6 months to fix those things that hurt their review and get re-reviewed. Last year after 6 months (March) no one was found to have improved and all were let go. This year they didn't even give 6 months; 3) usually between your reviews being collected and the partnership meeting deciding your fate you are given an opportunity to discuss and explain any negative reviews to see if there might be an explanation. This year, at least for those I know of, not a peep. No indication that anything negative was going down until you're told that you're out; 4) before reviews partners were given specific direction to review people extra tough this year; 5) I know second hand of at least one practice group in which partners discussed lay offs and compiled a list of low-billing associates and then those associates were let go during performance reviews.

I am not saying that those let go were the top of the class, or that low hours isn't on its own part of a performance issue, but when the whole process is changed and designed to get rid of as many people as possible, with a preference for low billers, it seems to me that it can accurately be called a stealth layoff.

Then again, what do I know, I don't even have a job.

Firmwide between 95 and 100 associates were canned. This doesn't take into account the large number of associates placed on a 6-month "interim review" track, which is probably just a stay of execution. Yet, the remarkably swollen ranks of managers remain virtually untouched. It appears that the scores of people without an actual purpose except to collect a paycheck will continue to drain resources from the share partners. Go figure.

Does the 95-100 number for canned K&E associates just relate to this latest round or is it the cumulative number since the downturn?

206, the 95-100 refers to the associates canned this past week.

I interviewed with K&E. Pair of douches who were really just obsessed with themselves. Trying to exude prestige when they were really just letting out bad B&O. Ugh, and the whole time they had these smug cheshire grins on their face, like they were so satisfied with themselves. How do you like it now!! I am not a big law hater or a K&E hater, but they got what they deserved.

207, any office breakdown more than the ATL post?

Kirkland has kept on staff a lot of of "old bags" who are still working in our 60s as secretaries. I think Kirkland is and has always been a pretty good place to work for those of us who have always put in the "elbow grease." Thank God Kirkland is not kicking us out into the street.

At least they got four months. Schulte Roth and Zabel associates only got two months. Pathetic firm.

At least they got four months. Schulte Roth and Zabel associates only got two months. Pathetic firm.

At least they got four months. Schulte Roth and Zabel associates only got two months. Pathetic firm.

I don't know about others, but for me they didn't even try to spin it as performance-related. They started right in with the economy and stayed on that course during the whole meeting.

In some cases, there was no humanly way they could spin it as performance related. In one case I know of, and this was a few months back, an associate was fired for calling out his partner-shepard for blatantly lying to him about his reviews. Everyone knows who the principals were - most think the wrong guy got let go. Totally sucked.

For several months, the Associate Review Committee has had a pretty good idea of who it wanted to cut. Members of the committee were phoning partners in advance of associate reviews to pressure those partners into giving reviews consistent with the desires of the committee. In many cases, the reviews given out were not a reflection of the true ability of the targeted associates. The word came down from "on high" that heads had to roll, and it was up to the review committee to roll those heads. If an associate did not have a strong protector on the committee, he or she stood a much higher chance of being dismissed for "performance" reasons.

Despite what K&E claims, this place is not and never has been a meritocracy. Politics and asskissing reign supreme.

What does this latest round bring K&E cumulative layoffs to since the downturn?

216 is right. Two of the partners I work with told me that some of the more odious members of the (D.C.) Associates Cmte pressed them to reduce their enthusiasm for me. To my partners' credit, they refused, but who knows about the other people I work with. The biggest insult is that the Cmte people thought my guys would be more loyal to them -- a bunch of douchbags -- than to me.

218-Why do you think they wanted the partners to trash you? One guess: they needed to meet layoff numbers and didn't want to layoff any of the people that THEY liked working with so they pressured a partner to get rid of someone else. Close? What do you think? Just trying to get some idea how it works.

216, 218 & 219,

Yes, you are all correct. This is how it works. Politics, largely in the form of protection from a partner, plays a large role in layoff decisions (but for a few exceptions in the case of very unintelligent and/or lazy associates).

I know Ivy League educated attorneys (HYS) with other advanced degrees (also HYS), prestigious federal appellate clerkships, strong prior reviews, excellent work product, and departmental reputations as whip smart, hard working, excellent attorneys who have been laid off simply because they were expensive midlevel and senior associates and did not have as much partner protection as less talented associates who remain employed.

Commenters on this board who suggest otherwise and castigate laid off attorneys have much to learn -- about law and life. Karma is a bitch.

220 -- i can only speak for my office (KE NY), but everyone i know who was laid off or heard was laid off, with the exception of 2 people, were not surprises at all. of the 2, one was political (switched groups so had no aliies) and the other was hard working but simply had a departmental reputation of not being very smart. there was definitely nobody who had a strong department reputation of being both hardworking and smart who got laid off. there was also a strong correlation between those laid off and extremely low billables. work is slower, but nothing to justify people in either corporate or lit billing under 1000 hours (in some cases, under 600-700), esp. when the average billable this year will probably be in the 1700-1800 range. i'm not saying there aren't talented associates who do get laid off, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

221- That is inaccurate. While I did not get laid off, I know many associates who were (I am in the NY office) on pace in terms of hours and had excellent reviews for the first few years and were let go. This is a simple case of not enough work for the number of attorneys that K&E had. While on an institutional level the firm has taken the position that the layoffs were "performance" based, individually, many partners are disappointed with the route the firm took.

108, thank you. That was absolutely hilarious. Superb attention to detail. Funniest shit I've read in years.

221 - I find it very surprising that KE would let associates even stick around until review time if they were only billing less than 600 hours, while other people in their department were billing between 1700-1800. That suggests that not only were they not seeking work, but were probably actively turning it down. KE never struck me as the kind of firm that would attract a lot of slackers that would do that, especially in this market. Are you sure those numbers are accurate?

Also, the one thing I noticed about layoffs in my firm and in multiple posts on this board, is that there is a huge rush to justify the layoff of an associate, despite the fact that two months prior to the layoff, no one would have thought that that particular associate was worse than his/her colleagues or even thought anything bad of that associate at all. In my firm, I constantly heard comments like "Oh, well so-and-so must have gotten laid off because they complained about having to do too much doc review 2 years ago" or "so and so took off too much time for his honeymoon," meanwhile ignoring the fact that other associates in that department also complained, took just as much time off, made mistakes on assignments, etc. It's really easy to find one or two faults in each associate that was laid off, and act like all of the other associates left behind are perfect, when what's really the case is that the associates left behind are more protected politically, in a busier practice group, etc.

I'm not saying that in each associate class, there aren't a couple of associates who deserved to be let go. I think that all of us in large firms can agree that there are a few people that shouldn't be there. But if KE had that many associates with performance problems, then there is something either seriously wrong with the firm's recruiting efforts or training/mentoring/work culture. I don't think that's the case though. I think KE is just one more firm with too many associates, too little work, too much pressure to keep PPP up, and hence, laying off associates.

210, you're probably up next. Expect further secretarial reductions after the secretarial review committee finishes its work later this month. Since Kirkland has already told its staffers that they will not receive raises or bonuses this year, why do you suppose the reviews are continuing anyway? Look for performance-based dismissals in the near future. The "old bag" secretaries aren't necessarily safe unless they work for partners who can and will protect them from the axe man.

The review process is continuing as a means to justify performance evaluation-based layoffs. They got rid of a bunch of legal assistants at the end of July, right after the legal assistant review period. Less than stellar performance last year? You could be on the chopping block!

Morale at Kirkland has never been as low as it is now. And to think I used to feel lucky and proud to work here.