Hey Elie, how many of the laid off staffers are black or female?

ELIE!!!! Welcome back. Regardless of all the miserable people on this site, there are many of us who enjoy your posts and style.

*nervously hopes that my firm will continue it's policy of no layoffs and 100% offers*

-nervous T-10 2L

This bears out what I've been hearing and seeing- that WilmerHale has been going through a protracted rough spot financially. There definitely won't be a Latham bloodbath but I would not be too surprised if a number of associates were quietly let go.

5 = troll

Mission Accomplished!

4 = tool

8 = :(

*hustles to become your friend*

-nervous T-10 2L

Was this a result of requests from clients?

9 = troll

(sorry 5, i meant 4 previously)

- 6

Mr. Mystal has done a great disservice to my administration by representing this as a layoff of 57 workers. My stimulus package actually saved 82 jobs at Wilmer and created an additional 41. The result is a net addition of 66 Wilmer jobs once you deduct the jobs referred to by the careless Mr. Mystal.

In summation, this posting should be titled Obama administration saves or creates jobs at Wilmer.

Barack x.

Generally speaking, severance for staffers is not the same as severance for associates. For me, that means that I do not bother to sharpen the blade when I am called in to give staffers their severance.

ATL, fyi, Cravath blocks Facebook.

'about the what'

Truly stunning that so many people read such an unprofessional blog

15 - about the "who" "what" "when" "where" and "how"

who = WH staff
when = now
where = boston, nyc, DC
how = ??
what = ??

Best of luck to all who felt the sting today.

I would assume 5 is correct; these things are usually a precursor to lawyer layoffs. Best of luck to everyone at WH.

Were these all black people who were laid off? What's going on? Is whitey up to his old tricks again?

Good Luck to the WH staffers. A real shame.

this would never happen at Ropes & Gray...oh wait, nevermind

Are associates, next?

This would never happen at Paul Hastings.

I guess these staffers made the mistake of just showing up and expecting to have work handed to them.

Wishful thinking, 17.

WILMER (ASSOCIATE) SECURE

6 is Bill Lee.

Look, I'm not saying the firm is any danger of imploding or anything like that. I think the firm has done well by refraining from firing large numbers of associates until they had no other choice, which cannot be said for other firm. But the fact (not Quinn) remains that the firm's core groups are still pretty sluggish and have been this way going back a couple of years.

Staff layoffs are usually the first resort because they're easy cuts to make, like 17 says, but usually associate layoffs are probably not far off if things don't pick up soon. And nobody is planning on a turnaround anytime soon.

25 - what ARE wilmer's core groups?

WilmerHale's way of doing business: Keep the slackers, personal phone call makers and general all-out idiots, and can the ones who earn their pay.

It's been the firm motto for years now. It's all about who you're nice to.

If you think that WH laid off this many staff members and are NOT about to lay off a bunch of attorneys (they have probably started already), then you are indeed naive.

Hasn't pretty much every large firm laid off staff over the past nine months? Do any of these commenters actually know anything about Wilmer?

To gues no. 29 who asked "Do any of these commenters actually know anything about Wilmer?"

Yes, sparky. I do. I am one those canned.

To gues no. 29 who asked "Do any of these commenters actually know anything about Wilmer?"

Yes, sparky. I do. I am one of those canned.

30 - give us the inside scoop! is the ATL story really accurate? Do you think associate layoffs are close behind?

30 here. Layoffs did occur today; I was told to get my things and leave. I didn't bother to hang around and give hugs; you know, that just didn't seem right somehow...

30 here again. Yes, associate layoffs are close behind.

Ok 30/34,

You are one of the "canned," great. We can't be sure whether you are a canned staff or a canned associate, but regardless of which you are, you couldn't possibly know shit. You know why? Because if you are an associate, you aren't involved in managerial decisions, and if you were staff you didn't know anything either.

I'm sorry you got laid off, and I'm sure you don't have any good will toward Wilmer as a result. Nonetheless, trolling on above the law doesn't accomplish any purpose.

I was let go from WH months ago in the first round of cuts. When I informed one of my partners of my departure (he didn't know, and hadn't been a part of he decision) - he got pissed and ranted about the firm a bit - entertaining - but not helpful to an associate that had just been laid off. Anyway - he said that the firm was going to do another round of associate cuts "in the fall," depending on how/if the economy improves.

So I guess here we go. Good luck to everyone.

Any news about the WH office manager in London caught with his pants down?

25: WH's core groups are doing better than they were a year or six months ago. Not saying it's time to party like it's 2006, but there is definitely more work than there has been, transactional included.

34: sorry to hear it. But you have absolutely no idea what, if anything, is next. Pretty sure they don't give laid off staff members briefings on future lay offs on the way out.

Sad day around here. Best wishes to everyone impacted.

- WH associate

The staff cuts today were indeed sad. But Wilmer hasn't been doing any stealth layoffs of associates.

And 27: You're fucking retarded. No one is letting go people earning there money in exchange for those who kiss ass. Just deal with the fact that if you were actually laid off, others were better at being an attorney than you were.

Move on instead of feeding BS to abovethelaw.

The ship be sinking...

30: I find it hard to believe that you were canned, and the first thing you did is come calmly post about it.

Fish & Richardson is at it again. Yesterday they laid off more people.

39 - methinks you've been drinking the koolaid. No stealth layoffs? Then how can you explain these stories?

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/wilmerhale_update.php

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/nationwide_layoff_watch_gettin.php

They took our jobs!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5pqt1sM8w

39, are you sure there are no stealth attorney layoffs at WH? Do you think that all those missing associated were kidnapped by aliens, or ,more fancifully, they found comparable jobs elsewhere?

Today, there are only two kinds of BigLaw firms: those who admit to layoffs and those who don't.

My girlfriend was laid off in the D.C. office this morning. She walked in as usual and was given 10 minutes to clean up and get out! And so the D.C. office was also affected.

My girlfriend was laid off in the D.C. office this morning. She walked in as usual and was given 10 minutes to clean up and get out! And so the D.C. office was also affected.

43 and 45: depends on what you mean by a layoff. People are let go from WH (and all firms) every year, even in good times. Usually, those people get the hint and leave before it officially becomes a layoff or firing. But now there's nowhere else to go AND people who aren't going to make partner but would have been fine as earners for a couple more years still aren't going to make partner but also aren't earning the firm money.

So if you consider letting those people go a "layoff," then yes, WH has done layoffs. But they're people who would've left around the same time in a good economy, though under somewhat different circumstances.

That's the extent of it - so far.
- 38

Wait a minute,

what happened to the "below above the law" guy?
what about the copycat "underneath biglaw" guy?

39: Don't overstate it. Any associate's future at a big firm like WH depends on having a relationship with money-making partners and having the right practice area. Good lawyers tied to partners with a big book of business will stay on; other equally good lawyers who work for the wrong partners will get cut. That's the law business these days.

WH can't easily attract commercial litigation given its rates and staffing practices, so all those people have been going away. It lost its real estate and food and drug law practices, for different reasons. It lost a very big money-maker, the vaccine-related litigation, and of course Bear Stearns ... for rather obvious reasons.

Meanwhile, IP litigation has thrived and securities investigations brought in very large sums. Securities is the 800-pound gorilla at the firm now, a complete transformation from the firm of 5-10 years ago.

I don't say it's good or bad; it just is. Net, the firm's business fell off in the past year, the same as everyone else's. But which lawyers got the axe depended to a great extent on their practice area.

Sad day at WH today, however, I cannot help but reflect that this was preventable. Instead of adding management, WH should have had the management to understand that layoffs were inevitable when secretary to attorney ratios were drastically different between the firms when they merged. The writing was on the wall when the merge happened. The severance packages were definitely good and one of the top that have been reported.

It was a terrible day for WH and one that was recognized by management and just about every lawyer I've spoken with. WH lost some great people, today.

Everyone is busy, though.

30: My sincere sympathies - I was in the same boat back in February (different firm). As for some of the "people" who post here, well, jurisconsultus non carborundum.

35: You're an idiot. Do you really believe that a person who is (probably) privvy to a senior partner's email, calendar, internal memoranda, etc., "doesn't know shit"? You must be HR.

41: When I got laid off, the first thing I did when I got home was send an email to abovethelaw, knowing as I did that my firm would do everything in its power to keep the layoffs quiet. It can be a great way to vent and commiserate.

C'mon folks, let's show a little sympathy and support here. Enough of us have been through it already, and no doubt more will experience it soon enough.

Do WH staff cuts include staff attys? Or limited to secretaries, etc?

54- No, they do not.

Hey 39, you ever hear of spell check? You don't know the difference between "there" and their". Me thinks you are a lawyer. Moron.

I assume the reason any of you are reading this blog is because you are in the legal field, be you attorney, secretary, copy clerk. Therefore, who is the ignorant, uneducated loser in post number 39 that does not know simple third grade grammar? Number 56, I agree. He/she is a moron.

35 you really are an idiot. You don't know if he/she is an attorney or staff? The article says staffers let go. Pay attention to detail.

It was a sad day today I am sure. Good luck to those that were let go today. Many firms cut on all levels this year, I am sure WH will cut attorneys next if they feel the need so to those that think they are safe anywhere, wake up. Nobody issafe and nothing is really fair. You never know when it might be you.

Good luck to all those that were let go.

Partners who were losing secretaries were informed last night? Please! Who believes that BS? I would bet they knew all along. Maybe a few tried to save their secretary (if there was some sort of loyalty). Come on people, they are partners of the firm. Who would pull the rug out from under them in 24 hours and get away with it? Maybe they tried to save their secretary and couldn't and did not want to look like the bad guy in the end. To play it off as they were surprised is just awful and if it is really the case, just another lie. It just doesn't make sense, they are partners in the firm. They knew layoffs of staff were coming and they most likely knew who. It may be they just don't have enough business (how embarrassing is that) to have any sort of say/weight.

Number of WH D.C. associates on 2/1/2009 (per NALP): 256.

Number of WH D.C. associates today (per firm website, associates + "senior associates"): 169

I'm no expert, but I don't think a 34% associate attrition rate in 9 months is typical.

39 Here: I guess I'm living proof that being a successful attorney takes more than proper grammar. Enjoy your elitism, I'll enjoy my job.

60: Are you retarded? 87 attorney's gone from 1 office in 8 months and there wasn't a huge to-do about it?

Get real.

62: I might be retarded, but those are the numbers. Check for yourself, if you like. I don't know what accounts for the numbers. Perhaps some associates were promoted to partner, or left the firm on their own, or moved to another office.

Also, it's "attorneys," not "attorney's."

63: Fair enough. I also re-iterate my comment number 61 re:grammar and spelling.

64: No worries. I only made the grammar comment because you called me retarded.

Wow.

There are enough WH partners and WH-paid marketing posts under this byline to effectively confirm firm layoffs-that-aren't-layoffs and the current state of the firm. res ipsa loquitor.

Extra points for trying to divert attention (the work is more plentiful now that we've laid off dead weight), recontextualize (severance packages were at the "top" --?!!), and deflect blame onto someone else (no layoffs, it's just that everyone is better than you).

The halls are empty and work morale sucks. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been told there will be more cuts.

60: Perhaps the discrepancy has to do with the fact that WH elevates senior associates to "counsel" before they are made partner. So many who are considered counsel at WH would still be considered associates at other firms. Maybe those counsel at WH are included in the associate tally for NALP purposes. I wonder if you added up associates + senior associates + counsel, if it would bring you to the NALP number of associates.

WH has been culling the field for oh, about 2 years, now. The staff layoffs were a direct result of that. There may be more on the way, but the rumor mills aren't abuzz, but, due to ATL's sensationalization, I'm sure they will be now (that goes for ATL's posts, commenters, trolls, etc.).

67: I had not thought about that possibility. However, according to NALP, there were 98 "other attorneys" at WH D.C. as of 2/1/2009. It seems more likely that "counsel" at WH are counted in the "other attorney" category. If not, I don't know what the 98 "other attorneys" listed on NALP could be (if not partners, associates, senior associates, or counsel).

Wilmer has absolutely engaged in stealth layoffs, and specifically targeted women on maternity leave and those who are pregnant.

70 - I don't know about the pregnant women angle - but I do believe that more females were implicated than males when it comes to the earlier associate cuts this summer. Every associate cut that I know of was female. And I know of 9 specifically in my office, and four in another office. All females of varying seniority - ranging from second year to seventh.

60: WH DC lost a lot of people to the Obama Administration.

66 - Work morale among associates is low? What else is going on?

70 - that's true and because of VERY poor leadership on the HR side.....

70 and 74 (and even 71) - if that's true, the firm should be sued. I have a hard time believing that the firm would expose itself to such liability. If anything, it seems like the firm would have only laid off white males to be darn sure to avoid any trouble or allegations like that.

72 (and by default 60):

Lost a lot of partners. Not associates.

And some left because they were asked. Not because they were asked by the Administration.

72: That certainly sounds plausible. However, I don't think it can account for such a dramatic drop in the number of associates (34%), while the number of partners at WH D.C. has remained essentially the same: 123 (per NALP on 2/1/2009) -> 120 (per firm website today). If anything, I would think more partners than associates would have left for the new administration.

72: That certainly sounds plausible. However, I don't think it can account for such a dramatic drop in the number of associates (34%), while the number of partners at WH D.C. has remained essentially the same: 123 (per NALP on 2/1/2009) -> 120 (per firm website today). If anything, I would think more partners than associates would have left for the new administration.

I know of a WH associate who was called on maternity leave this past summer and told they were laying her off for economic reasons.

At least two of my friends were asked to leave while on maternity leave. Maybe not because they were on maternity leave, since economic reasons were cited. But the fact remains that there have been associate layoffs.

At least two of my friends were asked to leave while on maternity leave. Maybe not because they were on maternity leave, since economic reasons were cited. But the fact remains that there have been associate layoffs.

At least two of my friends were asked to leave while on maternity leave. Maybe not because they were on maternity leave, since economic reasons were cited. But the fact remains that there have been associate layoffs.

Why would ATL think that "at least secretaries of the partners would be safe." Secretaries of partners have scored worst in recent technical skill testing at other big law firms. A good porrtion of them completely flunked the test and had to be sent to take classes to get their skills up-to-speed. They have been getting by on their long-term personal relationships with partners who are so used to them that they don't want to let them go regardless of the fact that their secretaries never kept up their technical skills. This puts a great burden on the competent secretaries in the new teaming environment model. These partner secretaries should have been given the boot a long time ago!