Vinson & Elkins Doesn’t Mind if Columbia or NYU Law Students Have Been Laid Off
It looks like Vinson & Elkins caused a little bit of confusion and consternation with a job listing the firm posted at Columbia Law School and NYU Law School. Here’s the V&E listing:
Employer: Vinson & Elkins LLP (New York, NY) [view profile]Title: Litigation Associate
Description:
The NY Office of Vinson & Elkins LLP is looking for a junior-level (Class of ‘07-‘08) litigation associate with 1-2 years of NY Law Firm experience to work in their Complex Commercial Litigation group. Applicants should be currently employed and seeking opportunities on their own volition. Must have outstanding academic credentials and be admitted to the NY Bar.
A couple of Above the Law readers felt that this listing specifically excluded recent Columbia and NYU graduates who have been laid off over the course of the recession.
Above the Law reached out to recruiting people at Vinson & Elkins. It turns out that this listing was simply an “in-artful” posting from V&E. Check out what the firm really means after the jump.
Earlier this month, we told you that some firms were unwilling to hire associates who had been laid off. At the time, I wrote:
One recruiter we spoke with told us that as many as 80 percent of the employers they work with specifically requested résumés from attorneys who are still employed. Laid-off attorneys need not apply. “[T]hey don’t want any résumés from the Latham 190,” this recruiter said.
But when Above the Law spoke with recruiting partners at Vinson & Elkins, they made it clear that the firm was not trying to blacklist qualified candidates simply because of a recent layoff:
We will consider all applicants who have graduated from NYU or Columbia.
In April, Vinson & Elkins promised not to lay off its associates because of the economy. So far, the firm has held to that commitment. There’s every reason to believe that the firm won’t discriminate against associates displaced by the recession.
So, laid off graduates of Columbia and NYU, I think you have another resume to send out.
Earlier: Bad News for Laid Off Associates: Your Résumés Are Not Welcome
Vinson & Elkins: Another ‘No Layoff” Promise
(83) 
Comments
Comment removed by moderator.
Second!
First to say first.
First to say that you have herpes after our "encounter" last night in Bryant park.
Case dismissed for stupidity. Rule 11. Suck it.
Seriously? Comment 1 was removed! I thought he made a few good points...
Can someone paraphrase what The Judge said?
WTF - why remove that comment? Someone please re-post. I'm going to jerk off in the female restroom now, when I "come" back I expect to see the comment returned.
The thing is you can see deleted comments if you click on their profile.
This job posting only confirms my opinion that a terminated or deferred associate will be marked by a virtual and perpetual scarlet letter. After all, what kind of firm takes in the unwashed from other firms?
The judge said the following:
"Elie Mystal
In the matter People v. Elie Mystal, you have been summoned to appear before my court. The indictment against you alleges the following:
Count #1
Knowingly and intentionally aiding and abetting the massacre of countless legal careers through reckless journalism.
Count #2
Recklessly and negligently compromising ethical journalism.
Count #3
Knowingly and intentionally destroying the reputation and careers of numerous law students and professionals.
Count #4
Conspiracy to destroy the reputation and careers of numerous law students and professionals.
Count #5
Knowingly and intentionally engaging in acts contributing to the demise of the legal profession.
Count #6
Negligently butchering the English language.
The parties have presented their arguments. I will issue a full opinion on the matter Monday October 26, 2009.
It is so ordered. "
Again, do not listen to recruiter-speak. The reason firms are not using recruiters for laid off resumes is for liability purposes. Laid off attorneys are and should self submit/network. Firms do not need recruiters to find those people, never have/never will. Recruiters are themselves generally bigla castoffs (for a much more insidious reason than those of us caught up in this go around).
Take ANYTHING a recruiter tells you with a massive grain of salt.
Thanks #9!
Wow!! Comment 1 was removed?!! I know I dismissed the case (see comment 5), but I never ordered or thought that Comment 1 would be sensored. That's poor form Elie. Poor form and bad taste. There was nothing in comment 1 that was abusive, racist, or anything else that would call for removal. Stupid yes, but show me a comment that isn't . . . . Really was petty of you to remove it. For shame.
Thank you. I just returned from "relieving" my stress on a female toilet seat. I am glad to have read the charges against Mystal. Here is a funny image:
can someone picture Mystal entering a "Smart" car? Even funnier - Mystal on a Vespa!
BwahahahHAHAHA!
The judge said the following:
"Elie Mystal
In the matter People v. Elie Mystal, you have been summoned to appear before my court. The indictment against you alleges the following:
Count #1
Knowingly and intentionally aiding and abetting the massacre of countless legal careers through reckless journalism.
Count #2
Recklessly and negligently compromising ethical journalism.
Count #3
Knowingly and intentionally destroying the reputation and careers of numerous law students and professionals.
Count #4
Conspiracy to destroy the reputation and careers of numerous law students and professionals.
Count #5
Knowingly and intentionally engaging in acts contributing to the demise of the legal profession.
Count #6
Negligently butchering the English language.
The parties have presented their arguments. I will issue a full opinion on the matter Monday October 26, 2009.
It is so ordered. "
OMG: Found a webpage dedicated to Elie!!!
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/walrus/reproduction.htm
Elie Mystal
In the matter People v. Elie Mystal, you have been summoned to appear before my court. The indictment against you alleges the following:
Count #1
Knowingly and intentionally aiding and abetting the massacre of countless legal careers through reckless journalism.
Count #2
Recklessly and negligently compromising ethical journalism.
Count #3
Knowingly and intentionally destroying the reputation and careers of numerous law students and professionals.
Count #4
Conspiracy to destroy the reputation and careers of numerous law students and professionals.
Count #5
Knowingly and intentionally engaging in acts contributing to the demise of the legal profession.
Count #6
Negligently butchering the English language.
The parties have presented their arguments. I will issue a full opinion on the matter Monday October 26, 2009.
It is so ordered.
Elie, why would you delete that comment? (Granted, should have started each count w/ "on information and belief", but other than that -- seems pretty accurate to me . . . .)
Gawd this place is turning into xoxo
I will entertain "the Judge's" charges.
Count 1: Not Guilty
County 2: Hung
Count 3: Not Guilty
Count 4: Not Guilty
Count 5: Not Guilty
Count 6: Guilty but understandable given this is a web blog.
I will entertain "the Judge's" charges.
Count 1: Not Guilty
Count 2: Hung
Count 3: Not Guilty
Count 4: Not Guilty
Count 5: Not Guilty
Count 6: Guilty but understandable given this is a web blog.
19 - I agree.
V&E getting spammed with thousands of resumes in 3....2....1.... GO!
I don't intend for this to be mean or anything - but is it true Elie didn't pass the NY bar? How was he an associate? Just wondering....
maybe i'm slow, but what does this have to do with nyu and columbia at all?
The real question is: what does Elie need to do to get fired? Can we please have ATL layoffs? Who is in charge of this place?
V&E not laying off associates is a total lie!
Wow. Comment 26 -- really? Yes, if that is a real question, you are indeed slow. I nominate commentor 26 to replace Elie. At least commentor 26 knows he/she is slow.
Elie - BIGlaw.
PE: What is a "web blog"? Are there blogs that are not on the web?
This posting sounds like the perfect opportunity for Roxana. Will someone inform her that V & E is hiring?
Elie Mystal,
I hold you in contempt. Your attempts to censor The Judge will not go unnoticed. The allegations merit appropriate consideration in this case. I assure you that The Judge will accord appropriate deliberation to the instant matter. However, I will contemplate the allegations in light of your current actions which I consider I appalling.
It is so ordered.
Informal Survey:
Is Kash worth banging?
26 -- the job was posted on those schools' job boards
28 - Is that true? If V&E has had layoffs, please post details!
33 -
Stop surfing the net during class and pay attention to the professors teaching at your TTT. You might actually learn something useful, like how to write a simple declarative sentence.
This post is addressed to commenter no. 31.
40 years ago we had sub logs. They were often referred to in short hand as blogs. To differentiate between sub logs and web logs, I label them as such.
Post # 38 - I wish to point out a misspelling in your profile. You list yourself as "Partner Emeirtus" as opposed to "Emeritus." Just wished to point that out. Good day to you Sir.
PE, Jake, now The Judge-
you fucking dorks have way too much time on your hands.
The Judge has made a name from himself. Welcome to the Big Show!
Come on Walrus, race bait!
It has been 3 whole posts since you invoked skin color or sex as justification for discrimination.
You're losing your edge, my mooby friend.
Seems to me the intent of the original posting was pretty clear - don't apply if you have been laid off or told that you had better find something. I'm not really following all the back and forth - did Columbia and NYU alums get mad because they felt like they were being excluded if they were laid off, even though they had attended such fine NYC law schools? And then V&E decided they had better avoid pissing off those schools, so they backed off and gave those schools a little "of course your grads are welcome" reacharound?
I don't understand why firms try to play this "we don't want to get resumes from people who have been laid off" thing. As per an earlier comment, sure, maybe it is just the recruiters driving it (usually, they are about as useless as real estate agents). It seems kind of silly for V&E to presume that someone good is going to want to leave a stable job at a good firm (and, really, any "NY law firm" experience is probably higher quality than V&E) for them. No one who has a good job right now is looking for something else - they are trying to keep what they have.
Post # 39 - Please tell me you are not an attorney. Your lack of attention to detail tells me that if you are indeed an attorney you will not be one for much longer.
Why are you so bitter, 42? Are you a pimply white male who didn't get in to UT Law School? I'm sorry. Maybe it has something to do with your intelligence. Or maybe you're just a dick.
The Judge
Where can I deliver an amicus brief?
#39 For the win!.
Parter Emeirtus [sic] - FTL.
Post # 27 - See post # 44
Post # 47 - See post # 44
Wow...
Another poorly drafted document from V&E.
And this is surprising to you all?
Everything that comes out of V&E is worthless. Everything.
I declare #39 the winner, as he crushed the weenies with his mental brawn.
45 -
Hi there IP-address-sniffing Elie! How's the self-loathing coming along?
Do you always slip into stealth-mode to attack your attackers? I distinctly remember you calling out people as "cowards" for commenting on here anonymously. Hmmm, perhaps I should add hypocrit to the list.
Love,
42
wow 51. wow.
If you believe that v&e has not laid off associates, please see my listing in the Miami Herold for the brand new south beach, 1000 sq ft condo i'm selling for $1.2mm.
what's v&e's bonus policy nowadays? i remember they had some byzantine system where a portion of your salary was deferred, but then you got a bonus if you reached 3500 hrs or something. anyone know?
i hadn't actually laughed at anything on this blog in six months. thanks truthbearer (#51)--priceless.
CHECK YOU EMAILS OFTEN
That is disgusting by V&E. I understand not wanting to pay a recruiter to find someone who, if you waited about a week, would send you a resume and save you 10k or so, but stating in an ad that you won't even look at their resumes? That's crazy. And misguided, given how clear it seems that a lot of good people have gotten caught up in all this yuckiness this year.
(also, wtf with the commentators on here today? is this b/c of the autoadmit thing?)
PE I feel so sorry for you. Not only are you an immense douche, but your wife is cheating on you, your son is too afraid to come out of the closet, and you must be walking funny today after our encounter last night. Next time bring lubrication and it won't hurt so bad.
Wow, way to call them out ATL! They cleared changed their tune after you contacted them. Booo, V&E, boooo!!!
Would you please fix the headline? "Vinson & Elkins Doesn’t Mind if Columbia or NYU Law Students Have Been Laid Off" is both inaccurate and nonsensical. The sloppiness is especially annoying in a piece about someone else's "inartfully" worded job posting.
34 - Absolutely. No doubt about it.
Would you please fix the headline? "Vinson & Elkins Doesn’t Mind if Columbia or NYU Law Students Have Been Laid Off" is both inaccurate and nonsensical. The sloppiness is especially annoying in a piece about someone else's "inartfully" worded job posting.
What's wrong with the headline? Clearly they DO mind in general if applicants have been laid off, but then when ATL contacting changed their tune and said "oh fine, columbia and NYU people can apply even if they've been laid off."
Looks like a v&e recruiter is gonna be joining some of these people in the unemployment line very soon. Granted, a partner probably approved of the write up, but someone has to pay, and it's not gonna be the partner.
hey 42 / 52,
do you know the first fucking thing about sniffing out someone's IP address? you're a fucking retard.
but if you're in california, as i am, then you should drop me a line.
-not elie/45
43 nailed it.
"There’s every reason to believe that the firm won’t discriminate against associates displaced by the recession. "
I hope you were being sarcastic there.
er...
V&E NY laid off a junior transactional associate in june
I'm no managing partner but I do believe June comes after April....when Joe Dilg promised not to lay anyone off
I wonder what type of calendar Dilg is using. Must be one of those fancy Managing Partner Bull Shit calendars.
ATL: you guys are clueless. it makes me laugh but then I shed a tear for you for being so pathetic.
Sure, V&E has not admitted to "official layoffs" but the firm has gotten rid of a lot of associates and they are continuing to do so. ATL, every time that you claim that the firm has remained true to its "commitment," you make it that much harder for those associates to get new jobs. You've called out every single other firm for doing layoffs - whether stealth or public. I don't know what V&E is paying you to post wonderful things about the firm on this site, but please get a clue. This firm has behaved just as badly as every other firm in this recession.
68, that is a lie and you know it.
name names, 69, or it didn't happen. Also, 68 - one associate? That doesn't sound like a concerted stealth reduction plan to me at all.
70 and 71 = V&E partners with no work.
54 -
Several of the Texas firms did that (ugh) and it was 2000 hours. Of course that structure has since been terminated.
I can't stop laughing hysterically at "The Judge," and I have no idea why.
43-
V&E is much more stable right now than many NYC firms.
So disgusting. I'd rather take a 1st year laid off clearly because of the unprecedented disaster of this last year than some guy who's avoided it by laying low but knows he's next in line to get kick out more so for performance reasons.
Theres nothing that can be done here but the blacklist mentality is terrible.
I myself was "not laid off" by V&E - a week after Joe Dilg sweetly promised us there would be no layoffs.
V&E = NYC FAIL. That office has never been doing well. They had to sublease some of their space to Baker Hostetler in 2006 (not exactly the worst of times) because they couldn't make use of it. Now they're lying about layoffs apparently.
Are these "stealth layoff" victims really associates who got fired? And they want to portray their firing as having to do with economic downturn layoffs?
I can't think of a better explanation for the very occasional but loudly proclaimed whine with no substance to back it up. But I'm happy to revise my opinion if/when more info comes out (I'm looking at you, whiners).
78-
Why are they growing the office then?
79 = another V&E partner without any work. Perhaps if you people spent more time getting business, and less time on this board, there would be no need to get rid of associates. You can keep yelling for more information all you want, but no one on here is going to be dumb enough to post things that could "out" them and then get in trouble.
The very least people like you could do is let these affected associates quietly find other opportunities without telling the world that they were bad attorneys who got "fired." I know that the firm has done this in years past, so I'm not sure why this year is any different - unless, of course, the economic downturn has forced the firm to get rid of many more associates than it would normally have to do. The fact that the firm is doing everything possible to wreck the careers of the affected attorneys shows what a low class place this firm has become.
Yes, there have been layoffs in Houston after Dilg's no layoff comment.
Genuinely confused as to why they'd disfavor laid off associates. If anything they are getting a bargain, associate-resume-wise, if they dip into the Latham 190. Those people wouldn't have deigned to interview at V&E before getting davegordonpwned. Are they afraid these associates are too opportunistic/desperate and will jump ship when times improve? That would be a concern for me if I was a smallaw or public interest employer, maybe, but from V&E (don't they pay market?) it doesn't make sense.