Aren't "stealth layoffs" just a code word made up by under-performing associates who got fired, but don't want to take responsibility?

"Aren't "stealth layoffs" just a code word made up by under-performing associates who got fired, but don't want to take responsibility?"

Aren't "war wounds" just a code word made up by under-performing soldiers who got shot, but don't want to take responsibility?

Ha, nice one, 3.

I agree with 2. The fired incompetent Latham first-years managed to portray their termination as a layoff, and every associate who has been fired from any firm since then has tried to do the same. I'm a mid-level associate on my firm's recruiting committee, and if an applicant was one of the terminated Latham first-years, we throw it away immediately. I notice that their submission materials tend to have numerous typos, not be on high quality paper, etc. The fact that so many of them are still spamming firms and can't find jobs demonstrates how worthless they are. I expect these other associates to find themselves in a similar situation.

5, I heard the fired Latham first years made several elementary mistakes that are expected to lead to malpractice suits against the firm, and that settlement discussions are underway. As the rumor goes, the real motivation of the overly generous six months severance was to secure the cooperation of the first years should the matters come to trial. Can you confirm or deny?

5 - you are obviously full of shit. I know the Latham posts get annoying, but you don't need to make up nonsense about how your committee throws away their resumes or how they have some tendency to make typos.

And no, 2 is not correct. These "under-performing" associates are only being laid off because these are extremely bad times. In many cases they are first years who haven't had a chance to over- or under-perform.

Wait, Latham laid people off? I hadn't heard. I would appreciate further posts on these layoffs you speak of.

any layoffs coming to Milbank?

Whoooooaaaa! 3 just totally owned 2. Bammmmm!!!!!!!!!!

6-- I haven't heard anything like that, just general grumblings about their incompetence.

7-- Are you involved in recruiting at all? The laid off Latham first years are toxic. That's why they're still here bitching instead of, you know, working.

My firm won't look at former Latham associates because we know that if it doesn't work out (and lets face it, one firm already decided they were in the bottom half of their class or worse), former Latham associates will spend the rest of their lives spamming ATL about what a raw deal they got no matter how generous a deal it turns out to be.

Hey number 5...I'm a hiring partner. I hope that you're content at your current firm, because we won't hire laterals who don't know when to use "was" and when to use "were."

13-- No you're not. More fundamentally, I used the word "was' once:

"and if an applicant was one of the terminated Latham first-years, we throw it away immediately. "

"An applicant' is singular, so was is correct. Thanks for playing, though.

-- 5.

5/14 -

Even if 13 isn't really a hiring parter, s/he actually does have a grasp of the finer points of English grammar. When using the subjunctive to express a hypothesis contrary to fact (which is what you were doing in your original post), "were" is correct and "was" is not. If you don't believe me, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood#To_express_a_hypothesis.

Regarding Latham:

You won't find a Vault 100 firm that has not conducted layoffs over the past year. Few if any of these other firms have matched the generosity of Latham's six-month severance package. No firm has topped it. Latham should be getting credit, not criticism.

This economy is a nightmare that just will not end.

I'm just happy Latham laid off all those brats a while back. If you come across one of their resumes, throw it in the trash.

15: you got me, I'm not a hiring partner.

14: Good grief. Did you attend some sort of online high school and college? If not, you were willfully ignoring both the speech of your teachers and professors (and better spoken classmates) and their criticisms of your work. In any event, to save you and your loved one's any further shame, try this simple trick: when you use the word "if," be on guard..."were" is almost always the right choice, not "was." Now then, "thanks for playing."

Wow. I hope 5/14 is not a licensed attorney.

5 = Elie, trolling.

Give Latham credit for a generous severance policy.

5/14 - I am more concerned about your use of "it" to refer to applicants. And to where exactly do you throw applicants away? I imagine a dumpster would fill up with the bodies pretty fast.

I have trouble believing K&E got rid of only 12 people in its Chicago office. That number sounds more like usual review-based departures (plus some extra hard grading on senior associates due to less natural attrition). Throw in the fact that some people were told that their termination was based on the economy, and the number seems strikingly low.

Clear out the deadweight.

everyone piling on 5/14 for a hyper-technical grammar error = super douchetastic loser who went out on a date with a jar of vaseline tonight

OK, piling on 5 is stupid, but although 5 seems to be a jackass, 5's grammar is actually correct. This is not a use of the subjunctive- 5 is stating that if an applicant affirmatively was one of the laid off (and hence not contrary to actual fact of the applicant not being one of the laid off) then the firm throws out the application.

Whether or not this is true, who knows? The typos part seems highly unlikely, though. But drink the haterade if you want.

26 - They probably all seem hyper-technical to you, right?

It so sad how the economy is pushing good attorneys into the breadline. I read something about it at this blog that was pretty interesting: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/

29- the economy is pushing under-performing recent grads with little or no experience into the breadlines- most of these people are attorneys in name only who have never been in a courtroom for their job's sake- you can't call them "good attorneys" at this stage- "good attorneys" to me are something like trial attorneys with 10-15 years of experience, and those types of people are not getting pushed out.

30 - Um, actually, yes, litigators with 10-15 years of experience are being pushed out of firms. Associates, counsel, partners, staff - all of these people are being pushed out.

The exploits of former Latham associates on ATL have become firmly etched into the minds of lawyers everywhere. No one will want to risk hiring anyone formerly from Latham for fear of getting the loud mouths that took the money and then hid behind internet ‘anonymity’ to defame the firm. It may have been different if the attacks had been witty and entertaining, but they are not. In fact, there is nothing more oppressively dull than to hear from a fired Latham associate rant about how unjust it all was.

Here is a note to any responsible former Latham associate who is in contact with the rabble:

GET THE PIGS TO STOP SQUEALING. By writing so badly around a tired and worn out theme, they have just about destroyed any goodwill that you might have obtained from Latham’s name. It is your name and your career too, do something to protect it.

32 and 5 Yes , some fired Latham first years have been very vocal on ATL, and I think have effectively made it more difficult for Latham to attract anyone that has another option (obviously, withh NO other options, one would , in fact, chose Latham). However, to blame Latham first years who were laid off and never posted whould be punishing the innocent. I don't know where you work, 5 and 32, but I would keep that fact to yourselves.....no one would want to apply to a place that punished the innocent. By the way, you both sound like you have an ax to grind.... also not attractive

Anyone who imagines that Latham would have trouble attracting talented staff is delusional. The employment market for lawyers is going to be soft for a long time to come and at any rate it has always only been a question of compensation. The problem for the senior Latham associates who were let go is that no one can be certain that it is just the 24 year old pricks who are hollering. You know very well that no law firm can afford to have lawyers who cannot be trusted to keep their mouths shut as the liability would simply be catastrophic. The best thing to do is to avoid anyone who lists Latham as their last place of employment completely. It is not as if there are no other candidates to choose from.

9 - here at milbank the word is that we will be telling the incoming associates they will not be starting in January. I think the calls will start going out this week...

35 - sources?

any other firms?

If I were in the postion to make hiring decisions, I would not let some vocal person on ATL stop me from hiring from Latham. One could argue that someone laid off for economic reasons would be incredibly grateful to have a new job, less likely to complain, etc etc. As a lateral, however, I will not look at Latham.....

37 - you are/would be far and away in the minority.

Latham dropped like a stone in Vault: That will hurt them much more for hiring than random posts on ATL

37 thinks a laid off Latham first year is "less likely to complain"
LOL good one.

you nasty

To the Psychotic Latham Defender (Partner?)

Whoever you are you've sunk to a new low. Let's make a few things clear. During the second half of 2007, the credit crunch became well publicized. Not only that, but deal work started to dry up at Latham.

Did Latham scale back hiring? No. They hired even more aggressively during this, hiring a humongous 09 class and adding a number of people as 3Ls to the 08 class. They also continued to bring in laterals

When these 08ers all started, there was very little work, and no chance to over or underperform over the four months that everyone lasted. The fact of the matter is, the partners fucked up, big time, and much worse than other firms.

Who has paid the price for this? Not the Latham partners, but the most vulnerable people with the least responsibility for creating the mess.

And no one cares about the measley 45k after tax severance. Most of these kids went to very good schools and are in debt 150k-200k. The job market is shit right now, and very good people with more experience have been laid off. Firms simply don't need more first years, so while some of these kids have found new jobs, most haven't. Latham fucked up, and big time. They deserve the shit they've been getting on here.

And you should quit making up performance excuses like missed deadlines and typos. None of that actually happened. You're libeling a bunch of out of work lawyers, and unless you're hiding behind layers of proxies you'd better shutup if you don't want to be sued.

I don't think the current Latham employees who are bashing the first years that were laid off will be sued, but they sure are making Latham look even more pathetic.

43

I don't think it's even latham associates. Most are sympathetic and many hate the new Latham. It sounds like either a partner or some random psycho.

42 - You are the reason I won't hire former Latham associates. I risk hiring you if I hire a former Latham associate, and that is not a risk worth taking. So congrats. Your little pitty party fucked over all the other "vulnerable people" who got laid off with you.

45

You have spent so much time on here that there's a 0% chance you're in a position to hire anyone.

The facts speak for themselves. Well managed firms don't just spontaneously lay off hundreds of people, many of which were recently hired. People at other firms don't need some spammer tell them that Latham's having problems. They completely deserve the bad rep they're getting.

45

Why do you think a firm is entitled to loyalty from the people it fucked over?

45 no one is buying it...............

I was laid-off from Latham in February after working for several years as a legal secretary. It was hurtful at first but I am looking to the future, not at the past. Latham is a great firm. They didn't have to give us six months severance. No other firm did that. Stop the bitterness and move on.

49

So, you didn't acquire 150k of debt and turn down other biglaw offers just to get pushed out after four months, right?

You're not really in the same situation as the laid-off first years then and you're not in any position to speak about what they're going through. These are good people who turned down offers from V10s and V20s who are stuck with massive debt now and a very uncertain future.

49 Do you have 175,000 in law school loans? I don't either, but at least I can understand how that might make someone bitter Also, by your comment, you were not laid off after just a few months: You worked for several years. I am another reader who does not undertand the rage against the Latham first years who were laid off. Until jobs open, they will be bitter and scared and will have the time on their hands to write about it here. Leave them alone; they have a reason to be angry. And yes, you can actively look for work and still have time to post here!

Accurate negative comments about law firms are good for us. They fill in the details Elie doesn't report so we can make informed decisions about where to start or lateral, or where to send work if we're in such a position.