Every hard working and adroit attorney I know is still gainfully employed. In fact, the only attorneys I know who have been fired are the ones who are dilatory or inane--and usually both!

Unemployed Person --> Dilatory & Inane --> Penurious

Kirkland make a public statement? LOL. Oh please. Stop. It's just too funny.

Never going to happen. Kirkland doesn't talk about anything.

That really sucks. But at least you weren't born disabled and in rural India. It's a pretty bad roll of the dice, but taking a bigger picture might make you feel a little luckier. You didn't really want that BigLaw job anyway. Fuck em.

So law remains an echo chamber of passive aggressive behavior.....

Recruiter Here. It is happening in the US

JaKe Emeritus = laid off associate

Also, I suspect that summer associates who didn't get offers are facing the same "discrimination" problems as laid off attorneys are facing.

Biglaw sucks, prestige whores suck, and you - yes you abovethelaw comment reader - you suck too.

I refuse to bang a chick who is not already in a relationship, for the same reason.

LATHAM SECURE

'Latham 190' used to be the code name for my program to help break up the underground railroad. Pity to hear it used in this context.

True story: I had a firm try and poach me from BigLaw in February, got laid off by BigLaw in March. By may the first firm was hiring again, but wouldn't even interview me since I had been laid off. I offered references from attorneys they knew personally to state that I was laid off for economic reasons, but it didn't matter.

This discrimination is rampant in Chicago. I can assure you. The end of this story is worth remembering though for firms in this practice. I ended up general counsel for a company with some litigation needs. The firm that blackballed me would've been perfect for this litigation. You think they were asked to bid on it? No.

"Above the Law hasn’t spoken with a firm that admits on the record to ignoring résumés from laid-off attorneys."

Since it was on the record name the firm please!

The unwelcomed dissemination of resumes is cutting into my overhead. The firm has to hire the Iron Mountain company to bring some trucks by the loading area to shred all of these resumes that do not merit a glance. I suppose on the bright side these resumes are keeping the mail clerks and paper shredding operators employed.

The moral of the story is, pay better attention to what's going on at your firm, so you don't turn down a job a month before you get laid off. And only hit "Post Comment" once.

Otherwise, cool story!

the laid-off associates are told they can say it was economic, but you were only laid off for one of two reasons:

1--Political--which means you didn't know how to play the game; or

2--You were lazy.

Either way, it means you are an unemployable loser.

If you were laid off, you'd be better off browsing Facebook for legal jobs instead of mailing out your resume to Biglaw firms who don't want you anyway.

12 wins the thread for knowing what "on the record" actually means.

Who wants to have phone sex with Kash and I?

Mystal Walrus

What's a bear gotta do to get a cab 'round here?

16 FTW

Who wants to have phone sex with Kash and ME?

Grammar Police

I WIN
I WIN

What what?
In the butt!

Being a mouthbreather is not a career enhancing move for associates. Neither is being completely apolitical. You need to find a rising star and hitch your wagons with him/her. All else is commentary.

I was laid off from my Biglaw job earlier this year. In less than five months I found myself as in-house counsel for a Fortune 50 company. The Company has hired several attorneys that had been let go by their previous employers. There still seems to be some cache to having worked in NY at a big law firm (laid of or not). They didn't ask me for a letter stating that my lay off was for purely economic reasons (even though I had one). In fact, I believe I got sympathy from my interviewers for having been chucked out the door during this economic market.

There are still jobs out there to be had . . . the company where I work is actually still hiring.

24 - YOU LIE!

25

Try the legal department of a major foreign oil company in New York City.

24

24 - That's really good to hear, because one of my worst experiences interviewing was with a large energy company that asked me repeatedly if I was about to be laid off/asked to leave the firm (I was technically still employed at the time). They apparently had a policy against hiring anyone in that situation, which made me want to laugh, because I know several people in their legal department that are only there because they were told to move on - but because it was in a better economy, the company wasn't as suspicious and had more openings, so it was easier for those people to get jobs.

For those poor unfortunate souls that are unemployed and are resorting to Facebook, this is an excellent site.

http://thesuperficial.com/

You can thank me later.

And, yes, you are dilatory, inane, and penurious.

I contacted a recruiter while employed with a firm that had recently announced layoffs. When I mentioned the name of that firm, she didn't miss a beat in asking, "You weren't laid off, were you?"

Is Elie moonlighting?

"Last week’s report that a recruitment consultant wouldn’t consider redundant lawyers who for a job seems to be the tip of the iceberg."

Cool story bros and or not bros.

It takes about a day to mass-mail your resume to Biglaw firms that don't want to hire you. After that, it's important to put yourself on a schedule: Facebook in the morning, milfhunter in the afternoon, Jack Daniels and ESPN at night.

Unemployed '09

I'm a former biglaw associate and recently completed a COA clerkship. i began job hunting a few months into the clerkship, but no one bit. i'm waiting to hear back from an AUSA position I interviewed for as well as a couple of big firms, but I don't have much hope at this point. I feel the pain of all the laid-off associates out there - it's brutal and it sucks that they are basically seen as unemployable in an already hostile hiring climate. good luck everyone.

Over 5,000 lawyers have been lad off by BigLaw. in this recession. To cast all of them as unemployable losers or bad office politicians is ridiculous.

32

Mass mailing is so 1988.

Nowadays, it's about who you know. If you don't know personally know the chair of the law firm or are the grandson of a law firm partner, you have no future in Biglaw.

But do continue on your relentless march to mediocrity and ultimate failure.

This practice should help thin the herd a bit and it's no more arbitrary than the BigLaw hiring process.

Putting aside those employed people with portable business (and I assume unemployed people didn't have any portable business or they would still be employed), is anyone really hiring anyway?

To me, it is neither a surprise nor a particular concern that biglaw firms will not consider resumes from attorneys that have been laid off. We all know how these firms operate and that they are highly selective in the best of times.

What I AM concerned about is the view of other potential employers - federal government, corporations, judges, midlaw/small law firms, etc. Are these people hiring laid off attorneys? For the recruiters that are saying that 80 percent of the employers they are working with are requesting resumes from people still employed - is that 80% comprised entirely of large law firms?

24 provided a good story and it would be nice to hear more stories like this. While it's certainly newsworthy that large law firms are definitely not considering laid off attorneys, it would be even more helpful to discuss places where laid off attorneys do have a shot at getting a job.

37

Plenty of people are hiring.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_bi_ge/us_good_jobs_unfilled

If you can't get yourself hired, you're dilatory, inane, and penurious.

Hi Elie,
Check out Duane Morris attorney profiles-a whole slew of associates have vanished.... 15-20??- hmmm- esp. in corporate law- stealth layoffs continue I suppose with firms that were behind the game laying off over the last year....

"You're Never Gonna Get It"

--En Vogue (1992)

As a recruiter, I can tell you that the standard threshold question is whether the candidate is still "in good standing" with their current firm. In good standing means that the candidate still on partnership track. If for whatever reason the candidate is not in good standing, then there is no interest.

This is the biggest "duh" I have seen in years.

Go back and look at previous downturns, people. Once you are discarded by BigLaw, regardless of the reason, you are damaged goods. Period. End of story. You are not coming back because there is another generation of fungible billing units ("FBUs") taking your place when BigLaw is ready to hire. You have the additional problem of competition from cheaper FBUs abroad. I can delegate monkey tasks like those you once did to these folks at a fraction of what you were once paid.

Go, therefore, and stop whining. Go to SmallLaw and learn the practice, albeit with a corresponding 50% pay cut. Hang a shingle. Or, better yet, just get the hell out of the profession now. Cut your losses and let those of us who know how to land clients and make money do our thing. But face it: we're not hiring you.

Have a nice day!

wow... water is wet posting. I almost never see them here.

I'm an ex-biglaw associate (laid off), now a Tax LL.M. student. Big firms are most emphatically not hiring - at least not from my class. But government is hiring, smaller firms are hiring, firms in secondary markets are hiring, and - as go tax people - the Big Four are hiring.

We are not all permanently fucked - though we are fucked nice and hard temporarily.

I think 43 is a FPBU. That would be a fungible partner billing unit. Partners are getting the axe too Mr. 43 heartless bigshot.

46 - Good one. If he really knew how to land clients and make money, presumably he would be doing that instead of posting on this board.

43 - I'd rather be a laid off associate any day, than a miserable cunt like you.

You are missing a HUGE piece of this story, Elie. A lot of this has to do with which candidates that a Biglaw firm will PAY a HEADHUNTER for. We are hiring (no, I'm not telling you where), but we aren't using headhunters because we do not need to - we're filling our ranks just fine without paying a year's salary to some bottomfeeder. Other firms are likely telling headhunters that they will not pay their fee for a candidate who is already out of a job, since it's a matter of time before they received (or have already received) that candidate's resume directly.

As much as it is Biglaw, it's also headhunters. They are worse than real estate agents. And they're protecting themselves.

Why doesn't ATL speak with Lateral Link, with whom ATL appears to have a business relationship? Lateral Link would not accept my resume due to my "employment status."

Actually, the RollonFriday article states that the Recruiter misspoke by saying that the firm wasn't looking at laid-off lawyers. The firm in question not only denied it discriminated in this way, but it specified that it is currently interviewing several laid off lawyers.

I don't doubt that lots of firms discriminate against laid off lawyers. Still, I wonder how much of this hype is from recruiters who just don't want to work with laid-off lawyers, perceiving them to be more difficult candidates to place.

Headhunters are opportunistic jackals. BigLaw is finally wise to the con.

49-51:

Excellent points. Salespeople = useless 90% of the time.

biglaw sucks anyway. once you leave, why would you ever want to go back?

Life is too short to be somebody's minion in Biglaw anyway.

Laid off in NYC, now in a tertiary market in a biglaw satellite office...still making 6 figures, with cost of living factored in, I am a goldend god

eat your hearts out pompous NYC-centric fuck-os

I graduated in '09. I have a state supreme court clerkship this year and a COA clerkship (on 2, 7, or 9) next year.

I question whether my my 2L summer firm is gonna want me back. Will there be a market by then, and will I be marketable? Cause I've got some loans to pay. Thx.

Why would someone pay a recruiter's fee to hire anyone these days?

56 - How did you get in? How senior are you? I would kill a homeless person for that gig. Fuck that, I would kill anyone, period - my kid's gotta eat.

These chicken little posts are growing tiresome. There's still plenty of opportunity out there for BigLaw types...If they want it. Problem is, many don't want it because there's a pervasive sense of entitlement in this profession. Suck it up and untrack your one-track minds. God forbid you "settle" for a job that's still better than what 99.9% of Americans can get right now.

59, why dont you feed your kid a homeless person. I think it will be easier than following 56 to State College or Waco or whatever "tertiary" backwood he went to for his alleged six-figure salary. And you will avoid having to home-school your kid if you want her to learn about evolution or universal suffrage.

11, you are truly one louder! Way to take it over the cliff!

49 is right. Most firms or companies will not look at resumes from laid-off/unemployed lawyers sent by a headhunter because they won't pay fees for those lawyers.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they won't look at resumes sent directly from laid-off/unemployed lawyers.

Biglaw hiring strategy:

1. Hire top 50% of tier 1, top 20% of tier 2, top 5% of tier 3
2. Bloat
3. Shocked to find Tier 1 are lazy, self-entitled assholes
4. mass layoffs
5. (partners)profit $$$

49 is right. Most firms or companies will not look at resumes from laid-off/unemployed lawyers sent by a headhunter because they won't pay fees for those lawyers.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they won't look at resumes sent directly from laid-off/unemployed lawyers.

64 - So it's people who went to top law schools who sink firms, while people who went to Bumbletucky State are the real revenue drivers? Come on.

re: #38

EEOC is hiring Now!

http://www.eeoc.gov/soars/index.html

This is happening big time.

I was laid off from Biglaw earlier this year. I have a good resume and strong references, but I have gotten only a handful of interviews. I've had a few recruiters tell me I was otherwise perfectly qualified for a particular job but was not chosen for an interview specifically because I was laid off. To make matters worse, I am in a smaller market where some employers are still ignorant to the fact that there were mass layoffs at Biglaw firms, so they are overly suspicious when they hear you were laid off. It's brutal...

After the initial sting wore off (and it took awhile), I was just too happy to be finished with BigLaw. It's such an inefficient industry. Why would you want to return?

For the money? I'm currently temping (for the first time) and making $40 / hour working roughly seventy hours a week. That works out to nearly $135K a year (assuming the work lasts, of course). That's roughly the same as a junior associate (before salary hikes) and you don't take the work (and stress) home with you.

To learn the law? I learned more about the practice of law from the managing clerks office helping with my pro bono cases than I did from watching senior associates or partners. Do like 43 says and go to SmallLaw. You'd get better experience.

I'm actually happy that this happened because one of the most dismal sights I saw was the 8th year Associate, twiddling away his time, collecting a paycheck and waiting to be pushed out.

I'm an HYS grad and I believe I AM entitled to a job and appropriate treatment at a big law firm.

The ship be sinking...

65 - I can assure you, sent directly to firms, they still ask the laid off attorney if you have an expectation of being let go (they only get back to you if you can still say you're employed thanks to the terms of your severance). Once they find out you do have a term date. It's goodbye. Whether you have a recruiter or not. And this is pervasive in small through big law, at least in Chicago. I've heard it's better in DC.

Those with strong resumes are still desirable to employers, especially if they were lucky to have gotten their names on published decisions. Some excellent people got paid off for a wide variety of reasons and smart businesses know to take advantage of that. A firm that ignores all of the accomplishments and cannot get over the fact that a person was paid off during the past 12 months is stupid and does not how to recognize talent and do what is good for their business. Why would anyone want to work for a place like that? Or any place that does not want you for that matter.

73 - I think the past year has established that a lot of law firms don't know how to run their businesses. So while in other industries, a lot of corporations make an effort to pick up talent from other corporations that have made cuts, unfortunately, in the legal world, the terrible stigma of being laid off remains.

28 - that link was totally useless and rife with skin C-list celebrity skin. and it was excellent. well done, amigo.

Please get on top of Duane Morris in Philadelphia!

They are trying to do substantial lay offs under the radar!

Sorry Duane, we don't allow that here. Nice try, really.

The lesson here is learn to reinvent and market yourself. Don't let the recruiters define you. You define you. You're not a laid off big law attorney. You're a highly skilled and experienced attorney looking for the right opportunity.

Also, it's not about resumes. A resume is nothing mroe than a useless piece of paper. It's about people. People hire two types: those that they know and those that they know of. Get out there and meet the people that can make your career dreams come true.

Marketing yourself is the real key to success.

This isn't discrimination. There are so many people looking for work that firms can afford to be picky. In most cases, people who get firedt are less likely to be a good employee than people who have not. Of course, it's hard to read too much into the fact that someone got fired from a firm in their first year, but, on the other hand, they don't have as much experience as attorneys who have been working for a few years. It sucks, but it's the way things are.

77 ...........TITCR

David,
This blog has no substance no more. These posts too gay, blog too gay, too stupid.
Maybe you sleep too many man lately. You should sleep nice Philipino girl, I introduce you to Feng Hee, my friend's daughter. She lawyer too, in Philipines. Then you do blog good, blog better.
-Mom

I like the Don Draper schtick. I wouldn't mind seeing some Michael Weston schtick as well:

"When you're a laid off biglaw attorney, you have to think OUTside the box. You need the firm, so you need to make the firm think that they need you. Impersonate a big fish. Say that you're the general counsel for a very big, very secretive company. Insinuate a quid pro quo - your company's business if they hire you. blah blah blah blackmail and soforth

Dearest Ellie,

Why so mean to Kirkland? Did they take back the bagels you stole?

WiTTTh love,

Yohan

17, I think 12 misread the post. The post meant "a firm" to mean "any firm." 12 probably read it to mean "a specific firm that we're not naming." 12 is retarded, but not in the way you think.

Am I alone in saying that I love the new MrsLat shtick? Love it!

Seriously, the Mrs. Lat shtick is awesome.

- Not 84 or Mrs. Lat

as a no-offerred 3L, I kinda want to kill myself.

No matter how talented you might be or how much your layoffs were economically driven (facts that I do not doubt) employers use the layoff to weed applicants. If you are still at your firm and can say you have not been laid off, you will have a leg up because, in a perverse sort of way, someone at the firm made a decision to save you over the people that got cut. You were somehow worth saving to someone and employers find this fact validating for the candidate. So, when I am asked to give a reference, I am asked point blank whether you were laid off. If you were not, I can say unequivocally "no." If you were, then I have to quote what ever line the firm tells people to use. But if I know you well, I will do all I can to vouch for you based on my personal experiences notwithstanding the layoff.

Moral of the story, work your network of people that really know you. There are jobs if you can personally connect. It might not be the most prestigious jobs, but just get work for now and once the market turns, you will be on your way.

86, do not kill yourself. Your life is tough right now, but you will recover.

87 - I wish there more partners like you - you seem decent.

My firm has hired laid off attorneys from big firms in NYC. We looked for experience corporate associates that are willing to move to second tier markets like Houston. A friend at a big PA firm told me that they are mining for talent willing to move to Pittsburg. If you went to a top 25 school, look in secondary markets where you might have some appeal for firms wanting to move up the credential latter.

Newsflash: it is not "discrimination" to refuse to hire a white male straight non-veteran WASP non-disabled attorney who was recently laid off.

If firms are refusing to hire you because you were laid off, that may or may not be wrong. But it is not "discrimination." That word means something in a legal context; let's keep it that way.

stop with the blacklisting you law firms.

90, I think what you're referring to is a "non-diverse attorney" - at least in Kirkland's %&$#ed up terminology.

@ 77 (Don Draper) -- I think I saw Betty cavorting behind the horsebarn. Better get home fast.

WHAT IS THE QUALIFICATION TO BE A RECRUITING COORDINATOR AT A LAW FIRM?

MY RECRUITING COORDINATOR IS NICE ENOUGH, PRETTIER THAN SHE IS NICE, YOUNGER THAN SHE IS PRETTY, AND THATS ALL I KNOW ABOUT HER.

MAYBE I AM JUST BORED AND THINKING ABOUT THE RECRUITING COORDINATORY.

Is 43's perspective accurate?

95 - He sounds plausible enough, but the bitterness/raging complexes tend to discredit him - he is out to hurt feelings more than to provide a valid perspective.

Speaking broadly, I definitely think it's true that a substantial chunk of the recently laid off will not be back in biglaw. Whatever recovery we may get, 2007 is gone forever.

I think it might be more accurate to say that you are not going back to biglaw "right away." The people who were laid off in this downturn will probably not get jobs in other large law firms, barring a very deep, personal connection to a key partner. It doesn't mean that you are shut out from large law firms for the rest of your legal career. I do know attorneys that were laid off or terminated for performance reasons during the last recession that went to government or someplace similar, gained substantial experience in a key area, and returned to large law firms a few years later. I also know attorneys that spent many years in federal government, building up a knowledge base in a particular area, and then were actually courted by large law firms.

If you want it badly enough, you will find a way to get it. I can't promise that it will be Cravath or another V10, but there are V100 firms that will highly value certain types of experiences. Don't forget that a lot of us don't even want to go back to large law firms, and a lot of people may leave the law entirely. I can tell you this - you will get no competition from me to get back into a large law firm. I did my 4 years, determined that it wasn't for me, and was actively trying to get out before I got canned. In my particular area, government work is the way to get actual experience, and provided that I can get in, am planning on spending many years in that sector.

I like the Mrs. Lat shtick but please, "Mrs. Lat," learn how to spell Filipino. When you misspell it the joke is ruined because Mrs. Lat is not Elie Mystal and knows how to spell her own ethnicity.

Same story as that mentioned by a few previous posters. Laid off in NYC in October 2008 and found an great in-house counsel position with a financial institution in another city in about 3 months. If you are willing to relocate, companies are hiring. My current employer have picked up at least half a dozen attorneys both locally and from NYC since I have been on board.

Actually, I had an offer from a small law firm in NYC at about the same time, but why do law firm hours when I can do 9-5? Well, 9 to 6, but still, way better than 9 to 1 am. Could not be more happy! Jobs are out there, but be prepared to look further afield.

I worked for a firm where there were huge first year layoffs. I just have to say, this is really unfair. I assure you that the vast majority of those laid off in my class were very good attorneys for their experience level. If they had been at most other firms, they would still be employed. It's just unbelievable that this random thing could destroy our chances to have the kinds of careers we want, and that others will enjoy because they were lucky enough to be at firms that didn't conduct mass first year layoffs.

It'd be helpful to have some legislation to protect those laid off due to economic reasons. What good does it do us to allow firms to create an unemployed underclass. We're not going to have a recovery with a bunch of jobless people sitting around draining the safety net.

You firms need to sack up and start hiring these people. You'll find that most are very good attorneys; every bit as good as those who still have jobs, just less fortunate. If it doesn't work out you can always can them. One option would be to create a trial period. If they don't perform, you can can them.

87,

Sadly, that they were considered worth saving could be for a very arbitrary reason, especially if that person was laid off as a first year. You may have befriended a key partner, been lucky enough to get assigned to a project early on that fed you work, been a partner's son, or sadly, someone that one of the partner's was very sexually attracted to. We all know how these things work. Lots of times it is random, and those affected often do not deserve to be blacklisted.

102, Companies can hire who they want. There is competition for jobs. If you are laid off, you have to compete against those that weren't. Harsh but simple.

At my firm, we are making decisions about who offer. The attorney candidates are admittedly talented, but there are notable differences. My group will pick up two out of four. How did we decide: Quality of work across the board. The first two were clearly stronger even though the second two got good reviews. The first two had more practical experience in my practice area whereas the other two just had strong interest in learning. The first two did a lot with attorneys in the group. The third did too, but most people found him to be strange on an interpersonal level. Nice, nice looking, top school, but something just off. The fourth guy was around less. I am saying this because you can see that these are hairsplitting decisions, but the two top people were clear choices for everyone making the decision. The most you can do is show the best of yourself and hope.

Need I remind everybody that Latham laid off 45% of their New York office and when fell 10 spots in the rankings as a result. Don't worry law firm, you can still hire me. I don't bite and is better than most of your attorneys.

Some here mention that if you were laid off, you might not have been good in politiking. To me that means you are not a suckup who bullshits partners all day and pretends to work all night while producing no results and billing shit load of hours. If that is the associates firms are looking for, please hire the remaining Latham NY associates. Not sure why it is necessary to "play the game" in that matter to be a good attorney, considering law firms do not care if you are douche baggy enough to make partner since they are looking for an associate anyway - they have too many partners as is probably. Knocking of partners' doors and talking about baseball and their vacations is not a legal skill (outside of D.C.).

103,

Oh, the free market gem. You see how well that worked in the financial services industry.

There are laid-off people who have better resumes getting rejected just because they were laid-off.

Now, do we want these people to ever become productive citizens again, or do we want them to drain the unemployment and other public service systems forever? Do we want them to repay their loans so we don't have to or not?

Getting laid-off for economic reasons in a recession should not disable a person the way that it is currently. Either we need to protect them in some way when they're applying for work so that firms do not black list them, or, if we are going to allow a layoff to ruin careers, make sure that people aren't laid off unless they truly deserve this punishment.

104

Great. Sounds like all four are perfectly good. You know they're going to be blacklisted, yet you're perfectly fine ruining their lives

"Redundant?" "Discrimination?"

These limeys are a bunch of pussies. Those associates weren't redundant, they were under-performing. And it's not discrimination to not interivew someone who fucked up at their old jb, it is common sense.

107- and give me a break here and lighten up on the melodrama- they're lives aren't "ruined"- they just need to work hard to dig themselves out of the hole that they put themselves in

"And it's not discrimination to not interivew someone who fucked up at their old [job], it is common sense."

Explain to me how a bunch of new corporate first years could have fucked up badly enough to get fired, while their litigation counterparts all worked out nicely.

108 - I can't wait for the day that people like you find yourselves in the same situation. Think it will never happen to you? Think again. All it takes is for one key person not to like your work, or for you to fall out of political favor at work (more easily done than I bet you think it is), and all of the sudden, you could be labeled as the "underperformer who f'ed up their old job." I bet you anything that half of the older partners being kicked to the street as business slows down were once considered stars in their firm as well.

I should know. Last year, I was described as someone with "the talent and personality to take a leadership role in the firm." This year, after my entire practice group had practically no work for the entire year, I was suddenly "unmotivated." You could easily be next.

But 110, didn' t you read 108? You "just need to work hard to dig [yourself] out of the hole that [you] put [yourself] in."

IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT?!

At some firms (Latham, etc) large numbers of first years were chucked because there was no work. I'm talking more than half the class here.

THIS is going to end these peoples' legal careers? You want to pay for their unemployment and student loan bailout, fine don't hire them. What a waste of a bunch of lives.

I worked at a large law firm this summer. They recently laid off a number of associates. Interestingly, none of them were among the bunch of largely spineless sycophant goon associates on the hiring committee. Play the game, lick some boots, tear up some summer associates to ensure less competition, and you will hang on. No wonder these firms are suffering, when the least talented, most unscrupulous, incompetent associates hang around.

There hasn't been any discussion about practice areas in here, but I think it makes a difference. I work in litigation and my firm just hired a half a dozen litigation associates. In a practice area like litigation that is still generally busy (at worst, steady), it does mean something if you were laid off. It might not mean you are a bad lawyer or you f'ed something up but it probably means that, of the associates in the department, you are at the bottom of the list in terms of something (e.g., quality, productiveness, policital maneuvering).

114 - That was true in the last recession, where it was almost always corporate associates that got laid off, but I don't think it's true in this one. This is much, much worse and I know people in all practice areas across the board that were laid off. Quite frankly, just because the litigation group at your firm is still busy doesn't mean that litigation groups in all firms are busy. I know quite a few that weren't busy for the majority of this year. All it takes is for a couple of your big cases to settle and nothing coming in to replace them for your hours to drastically go down.

I wasn't in a corporate practice - I was in a speciality practice, and our hours last year were horrible (as in there were associates billing less than 20 hours a month). I make a point of telling people on interviews what the average billable hours were for people in my group - for partners and associates alike - just so they don't automatically jump to the conclusions you state in your post. Please remember that there were many other practice areas affected other than just corporate.

Please note that at Latham people aren't assigned to a practice group the first year. There was no corp work coming in so everyone was doing the bankruptcy and lit work.

107, are you employed?

117,

Yes, I am employed. Make room for the other two. They'll be blacklisted if you don't. How would you like to be blacklisted?

A blogger, who I suspect was a Latham victim, recently talked about this very issue.

Specifically he applied to a position at Akin Gump and he was told he would not be hired because he was no longer employed.

The blogger refers to big firms as "ELF's" Evil Large Firms.

The blog itself is worth a read as is this article.

http://joblesslawyer.com/musings-and-convos/needing-a-job-to-get-a-job-huh/

Have not visited this blog for a while (since left the BigLaw for reaons well known). I did have plenty of chance to have biglaw associates (and even partners) as "opposing counsel" since. I have to admit that this is just an ignorant nasty bunch with very few (if any) exceptions. They can spell well (mostly) but that's about it - cannot make good strategic decisions because they have to listen to someone at the top of the ladder or the client and have no serious substantive knowledge either. But what is really amazing and almost amuzing is complete lack of integrity. None. Everyone will sell his/her soul to the devil for an extra buck in a hard beat. I would never want to be back in biglaw, don't feel like going back to hell. And - you can make good money being solo if you are a good attorney, all without humiliation of biglaw environment Just imagine opposing a big law partner instead of kissing his ass - kind of nice for a change, ha?