Nationwide Layoff Watch: Haphazard (Mildly Educated) Guesses at the Winston & Strawn Cuts
In our last post about Winston & Strawn, we covered an “all associates” meeting at which the firm admitted conducting layoffs, but refused to divulge information about their scope. The firm said something along these lines: “Out of respect for the individuals involved, we won’t publicly disclose either future layoffs or past layoff numbers.”
Several commenters questioned that rationale. See, e.g., here:
WTF does that mean?! Are they dead [so] that W&S doesn’t want to speak (ill) of them?I think I’ll try injecting that into my daily life. “Out of respect for the individuals involved, I won’t publicly disclose either future sexual affairs or past mistress numbers.” I like that… think it’ll work?
Commenters also requested estimates of the size of Winston’s layoffs.
We don’t have hard data ourselves. But we estimate — conservatively, we think — that Winston & Strawn has laid off at least 15 percent of its lawyers in 2009 to date.
So, how did we reach this number?
There is, admittedly, quite a bit of guesswork here. But perhaps some of our readers, especially those who work at Winston, can help us out. Let’s explore the methodology.
Some commenters had the idea of comparing Winston’s headcount as reported to NALP, as of February 1, 2009, to the headcount currently reflected on its firm website. (This methodology was also used recently over at AutoAdmit, by a poster who applied it to the Vault 25.) While we recognize the limitations of relying on website data for calculating layoffs, it can be helpful when there’s not much else to go on.
We did an analysis for six of Winston’s seven domestic offices — we didn’t see NALP data for the Newark office, which has just three lawyers anyway — and got the following figures. We haven’t double-checked them; if you see errors, of either transcription or calculation, please email us (subject line: “Winston and Strawn”), so we can fix.
NALP DATA (as of February 1, 2009):
Charlotte: 10 partners; 18 non-partners (14 associates, 4 other)
Chicago: 194 partners; 298 non-partners (277 associates, 21 other)
Los Angeles: 30 partners; 52 non-partners (52 associates)
New York: 77 partners; 133 non-partners (120 associates, 13 other)
San Francisco: 40 partners; 60 non-partners (57 associates, 3 other)
Washington: 65 partners; 74 non-partners (63 associates, 11 other)
TOTAL: 416 partners; 635 non-partners (583 associates, 52 other); 1,051 total lawyers
WINSTON WEBSITE DATA (as of October 15, 2009):
Charlotte: 12 partners; 14 non-partners (11 associates, 3 of counsel)
Chicago: 180 partners; 209 non-partners (193 associates, 9 of counsel, 1 senior attorney, 6 staff attorneys)
Los Angeles: 25 partners, 30 non-partners(30 associates)
New York: 72 partners, 81 non-partners (76 associates, 4 senior attorneys, 1 staff attorney)
San Francisco: 40 partners, 41 non-partners (39 associates, 1 of counsel, 1 senior attorney)
Washington: 60 partners, 65 non-partners (57 associates, 7 of counsel, 1 staff attorney)
TOTAL: 389 partners; 440 non-partners (406 associates, 34 other); 829 lawyers
DECREASES IN WINSTON HEADCOUNT (between February 1 and October 15, 2009):
Partners: 7 percent
Associates: 30 percent
Other non-partner lawyers: 35 percent
Associates and other non-partner lawyers: 31 percent
ALL LAWYERS: 21 PERCENT
Of course, there are various caveats and qualifiers (which send the estimated number of layoffs in different directions):
1. This may not be a true “apples to apples” comparison. For example, some lawyers might be counted for NALP purposes but not appear on the Winston website (e.g., a junior associate not yet admitted / admission pending, or a lateral associate who switched jurisdictions).(It should be noted, however, that since Winston has deferred its incoming 2009 associates to January 2010, there can’t be that many people in this category.)
2. These are net numbers. Winston has also added a fair number of lawyers during this period, including some impressive lateral partners, as one can see from scanning their press releases. So if it has shed 27 partners on a net basis since February, but picked up a whole bunch of lateral partners over the same period, the number of partners who were laid off or asked to leave might be higher than 27 (although see caveat #3 below).
3. It can’t be assumed that all of these departures are involuntary. People continue to leave law firms voluntarily (although in reduced numbers, at least at the associate level). Partners might defect to other firms, or retire.
4. Another caveat that should be considered with law firm website number crunching in general, noted over on AutoAdmit, is that some associates vanish from the associate of the ledger because they were promoted to partner. But that doesn’t really apply here because Winston names new partners in December (presumably effective in January, or at least before February 1, when the NALP figures were calculated).
The baseline number here is the 21 percent decrease in total Winston headcount (partners and non-partners). Let’s assume — somewhat arbitrarily, we admit (this ain’t a McKinsey case study) — that the caveats, net-net, explain away a quarter of the decrease. That still yields up a layoff percentage of 15 percent.
How does 15 percent stack up compared to other law firms? It would put Winston somewhere in the top five firms of the Am Law 200 in terms of the percentage of lawyers laid off (calculated as of October 15). This dubious distinction might explain Winston’s extreme aversion to disclosing numbers.
What if we construe the numbers even more charitably, and slash the baseline number of 21 percent in half? That produces a 10.5 percent haircut, still good enough to land Winston in seventh place on the Am Law Layoff List (#7 out of 200).
So what have we missed? Are these numbers too high, or too low? Are there other calculation caveats to consider? We’re just tossing these figures out as a starting point. Let the conversation begin.
The NALP directory lists law firm information as of February 1, 2009 [AutoAdmit]
The Layoff List: By the Numbers [American Lawyer]
(128) 
Comments
I shot down balloon boy.
FirsTTT
Don't make me come after you, 1.
Winston & Strawn may want to acquire the balloon featured in connection with the foul play of a 6 year old boy. Any terminated associate should be placed in the balloon, hopefully never to be seen again by the former employer.
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::Splat::
While I was there, before mass firings began, the firm was letting income partners go a few at a time. This occurred during the spring of 2008. It's like a ghost town in DC now.
I didn't realize they had so little leverage. No wonder they are letting go of so many associates.
FALCON'S ALIVE; THE DOW IS OVER 10K; I'M GETTING CALLS FROM HEADHUNTERS . . .
HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!!
Among other things, they one or more well-connected partners out of their DC gov't relations team who seemed to have busy books.
Don't many firms wait to put associates up on the website until bar exam results are out? Could that play a role in any discrepancy?
9 - Missing word?
10 - Look at the second paragraph of the blue blockquote. Winston doesn't have associates waiting for bar results (because it deferred them all).
I have a feeling the Heene family orchestrated the balloon stunt to generate publicity for them. This is yet another example of how Commissar Obama, a publicity hound himself, has rubbed off a negative influence on Americans. How much money did it cost to employ the helicopters, search and rescue personnel, etc.? And the kid was at home all the while? The Heene's should pick up the tab for wasting valuable resources.
Good catch 12, I hadn't put two and two together.
The ship be sinking...
But wait 12 - could deferred associates be included in the NALP counts (if they are getting money from Winston)?
How much can we even trust the NALP data? Isn't that all self-reported data? Perhaps even the NALP data was already skewed so there can't be much inference from the Winston website.
7 - But they want LESS leverage in a downturn (fewer associates being paid a lot of money to do nothing).
The cuts have REDUCED their leverage, because they cut more non-partners than partners.
17's right. All this assumes that the NALP numbers were accurate, which is anyone's guess.
Winston also leaves people on its website for up to the period of severance. So all of those people fired in the past three months are still there.
I also know a partner in Chicago who is on the website but is not longer there. Add 5 percent to the total to account for these zombie attorney profiles.
Whether or not the NALP data is right, it makes sense to me that Winston has laid off more than 10 percent of its lawyers.
If I were W&S, I, too, would want to keep my business illiteracy on the DL. When a conservative estimate yields over a 10% termination rate of ATTORNEYS--let alone the staff that the elitist posturers consider expendable--it is fair to conclude a complete and utter dearth of foresight. Res ipsa loquitur.
Definition of irony: Firms with fewer than 300 attorneys being called "TTT" by elitist FTT hacks, yet the "top" firms are the ones unloading double-digit percentages. Guess enabling criminals can only pay the bills for so long.
20 - "Zombie attorney profiles." I love it!
Deferred W&S incoming associate. Taking odds on whether I start on time or at all.
PE...
Just ridiculous.
This analysis gives some indication of layoffs, especially if we can compare it to the numbers for other firms, but there is some artificial lowering of numbers because the NALP data are for February and the current data are for October.
In a normal year, there will be some (natural) attrition throughout the year, counteracted by new hires who typically start in September-November. Today, October 15, some of these new hires may have arrived already, but some may not have started yet.
If we wait a bit, until later this Fall, the analysis will be more accurate.
Why are we obsessing over this?
Of course they laid people off. All firms have laid people off. But, all of the signs suggest that the worst is over. Hang in there, everyone.
Bush recession, Obama depression
Terrible, horrible firms:
Winstron Strawn
McDermott Will and Emery
Fish and Richardson
Latham and Watkins
White and Case
And apparently the whole firm isn't all that bad in the end, but I'll go out on a limb and say:
The VP of litigation in New York at WilmerHale.
There will be more to come, but I'm certain we can all agree on this list for now.
27 - This is a big deal, because a lot of firms have laid off associates over this last year. But, assuming ATL's analysis is somewhat accurate, Winston has been the worst offender of them all; more than White & Case, more than Latham, more than Cadwalader. Yet, Winston has been under the radar this whole time while there has been a lot of attention on the big firm offenders. To me, that's a really big deal. And if 2Ls are considering offers at W&S, this is really good data to have.
28,
Read the news much? Dow Jones is up. Recession has ended in 70+ metro areas.
You're living in a fantasy world.
26, no one is starting until Jan. But yes, the "zombie attorney profiles" are all over the place that make accounting for headcount difficult. There are, most definitely, fewer people working at W&S than its website states.
What happens when the ship stops sinking and is righted? Are all these firms going to find associates that will work 2500+ hrs year after year at the same firm in the hopes of making partner? Or will the new model be that experienced associates cycle from one firm to the next looking for signing bonuses, some perk, and an extra 10k to pay off the loans earlier?
I mean, it's already clear that the V100 firms just don't give a crap. Associates were jumping from one firm to the next when bonus didn't measure up. Some West Coast "legal rebels" (lol) started an organization to get more humane working conditions and prevent burnout.
But I am just wondering, none of the firms laying off people can operate without talent, associate talent. Law partners need associates as multipliers to bill.
Before anyone says (writes) it, there are more applicants than demand, true, but it's unproven, which is why firms recruit at T14 or T20 in the vague hope that grades and T14-ness translates into talent. So, try servicing institutional clients with associates that cycle through every few months.
Will there be a bidding war for the top talent?
Truestory #1: Layoffs in Chicago have over the course of a year amounted to about 20% of attorneys in the office (even some equity partners were forced out)
Truestory #2: Winston doesn't like to admit that the economy has caused the layoffs. Instead they choke the hours of associates they want to get rid of and then tell them that they weren't billing enough hours.
Truestory # 3: One summer associate who used the n--- word and made other inappropriate racial remarks in front of other attorneys was given an offer. Firmwide offer rate was about 60% with some offices going well below 50%.
Truestory #4: There is a prominent litigation partner who likes to come to work drunk and then berate his litigation associates.
Truestory #5: When getting rid of an old equity partner Winston will often make the partner send an upbeat retirement farewell email.
Truestory #6: Outside of Paris, the foreign offices are money sinks. Charlotte=where work comes to die.
Truestory #7: One senior associate went to check a do not staff list (lists used to choke hours of associates that Winston wants to get rid of) when she wanted to staff a project. To her horror she discovered her name on the list.
While preparing the 2009 budget last December, all departments were told to cut their budgets by 15%. Non-legal staff weren't included in your projections but all departments had lay offs.
Requested departures of less-producing partners have been ongoing since early 2008 -- real numbers can't really be determined the way they were done here due to the intake of both Heller and Thelen refugees in late 2008 - early 2009. Layoffs of associates and staff attorneys were heavier in 2009.
While preparing the 2009 budget last December, all departments were told to cut their budgets by 15%. Non-legal staff weren't included in your projections but all departments had lay offs.
Requested departures of less-producing partners have been ongoing since early 2008 -- real numbers can't really be determined the way they were done here due to the intake of both Heller and Thelen refugees in late 2008 - early 2009. Layoffs of associates and staff attorneys were heavier in 2009.
So one if five associates at Winston were fired in the past year? Holy shit that is a fuck ton of firings. How the hell did they keep it so quiet?
Strange, I would have thought they would be rolling around in dough from all the good karma they have coming to them for all their noble pro bono work.
34 - Wow wow wow wow wow. Please say more!!!
Dude. 30 percent of the associates "left" the firm (which assuming this economy means they were fired). Even worse.
38 -- Yah, right, I guess they missed the boat by not also representing pro bono the guy in Austria who kidnapped and raped his own daughter. Would have been right up their alley too. Maybe they don't have an Austria office.
I can vouch the story for #7 for comment 34. The do not staff list is an exercise in passive aggressive evil.
34 / 42 - That seems crazy. Where is this "do not staff" list kept? Is it just for the partners? Tell us more....
A number of associates left during the year to go clerk.
Last year's clerks started (as scheduled!) this week, and aren't on the website yet. So there are about a dozen coming in, and a dozen who left but plan to (and will, most likely) be back next year.
Also know of a few who left voluntarily ... truly voluntarily. Believe it or not there are other jobs available.
Also, 34/42 - the "do not staff" list is a myth. There is a list of associates who have already been told that they're laid off, but who remain on the system. That's it.
44 - So "do not staff" = zombie associates?
45 - Basically. And it makes sense. Associates who were laid off were given three months severance, but were also allowed to keep their offices, email address, phone lines and web bios. They were expected to wrap up any work they had, and it was understood that they wouldn't get new work.
What makes no sense is for management to "know" that they are going to lay off an associate, put them on some mysterious list, and then sit on it for two months. Once they know that an associate is going to be laid off, they are laid off. Simple as that.
24 -- I'll throw 2 deferment checks on yes, we will start.
46 - So the layoff numbers are higher than one would think based on the website bios?
48 - I would assume so, but not sure how much. The understanding is that layoffs are over, so it may not be very many
BREAKING NEWS: milbank just offered an optional deferral option.
I was told a few weeks ago by a W&S partner that the firm (firmwide) had laid off 140 attorneys (mostly associates and income partners) over the past year and its been done in small groups rather than in one fell swoop.. I have no idea why such a move in these economic times would be treated so hush-hush, not exactly a novelty.
Why don't the editors run this ridiculous "analysis" on all the firms in the AmLaw 100 and we can see who stacks up where. It seems unfair to single Winston out.
51 - The number 140 makes sense to me (because some of the attrition probably is voluntary).
That would come out to a layoff of about 14 percent of the original workforce.
Does anyone know if there is a Soul Calibur game for the PSP? I've been looking for something to play during my commute.
52 - Most of the other firms that have done layoffs of this magnitude have been open about it. Winston is being singled out because of their secrecy / bad PR decision.
34,
I'm assuming your comment, "Charlotte=where work comes to die" indicates your geographic location.
55 = Winston HR Manager.
57,
I think you mean 52.
54: Soul Calibur: Broken Destiny (PSP)
Winston survivor here--Winston has been doing stealth layoffs since summer 08.
57, that isn't Winston's HR manager. Magnitude is way too big of a word for that idiot bitch to use.
58 = Roxie
I interviewed with Winston a couple years back and turned them down for a much higher-ranked firm. I left with the impression that Winston was a pretender-- a crap firm for small-timers that wanted to puff its chest out and act important. Other small-timer loser firms include White & Case and King & Spalding.
34 - I think I know which summer you're talking about. The fact that W&S offered someone who's socially moronic at best and a racist at worst (while no-offering a sizeable chunk of the rest of the summer associate class) is indicative of what a farce of a firm W&S has become. Seriously, the folks at W&S need to get their act together.
Will it matter a year from now if a firm has laid off a crapload of associates? The way I see it, that's more opportunity for the lucky survivors once things turn around.
This makes sense to me. At my firm, we've had about a 30% drop in collectible business. So 21% drop in headcount with the rest showing up as a fall in PPP seems reasonable.
64, Will it matter a year from now if a firm has laid off a crapload of associates? Yes.
66, No
Winston is not a good firm, just ask former gov. thompson. You can also ask Blago, who was chared millions by winston, and look what that got him-a big indictment.
There was always talk in Chi-Town that the George Ryan case would hurt W&S in the long run. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that this is an ugly recession and most law firms have had some type of cutbacks (salary freezes at the very least). However, the defense of George Ryan all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court put an ugly pox on W&S.
Re: Winston and Rod Blagojevich:
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/12/webbless-in-chi.html
43. Senior associates and income partners get to see it when staffing cases. It was created as a result of senior partners being pissed when associates that were laid off on the eve of trial or before a big discovery deadline decided to push up the big middle finger and stop working the 200 plus billable hours a month.
Also, the do not staff list includes people WHO HAVE NO CLUE THEY ARE BEING FIRED. I can't believe this needs to be said, but yes. You will get starved out before being laid off. That's how it works there.
-Signed a clerk who left and doubts there is any way in hell they're going to hire her back.
71 - 72: Thanks for the info. Good to know.
46. You must have no idea how the free market system works. You need to cut staff. You cut hours and make it impossible for someone to get work; you fire them for cause; you affirm there are no layoffs.
Do this regularly sporadically across offices and over time and boom, stealth layoffs.
Also? There are people who feed into this idea that this whole lay off mess is due to merit. It's hilarious to see the change in opinion. One day superstar. The next: unemployed.
I went on a callback at Winston this year. I swear to god, at least 1/3 offices I passed while being walked around, and 2/3 secretary desks, were empty. A lot of them still had nameplates on the doors.
It was seriously scary. I didn't see anything else like this all recruiting season, and I went on callbacks at firms where there were significant layoffs.
BREAKING NEWS IN RACISM
Opossum is "the other dark meat." Apparently, Obama is the origional dark meat.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/15/kansas-lawmakers-redneck-rap-taken/?test=latestnews
75 - which office was that?
Mayer Brown is at least in the same range as Winston in terms of layoffs. Some of the layoffs at MB have been public, but there have also been a lot of stealth. I haven't done the comparison of NALP numbers versus the website, but it should confirm this fact.
MysTTTal, can I titty fuck your moobs?
-David Lat
Is the sky falling?
I will never understand why firms like Winston choose to be so sly about layoffs. What have they gained? The news gets out anyway. Cutting an associate's hours so you can claim it's not an economic layoff only creates an army of angry and bitter (understandably so) former associates. These associates will later become GC's, DA's, Government Attorneys, and even partners at other firms. These are the people you want to be friendly with if you hope to generate future business for your firm.
If you have to conduct layoffs, announce them publicly, give references and recommendations, and allow the attorneys to depart in a dignified manner. Even if you don't care about your associates, it makes good business sense for the firm.
77 - 75 here. I interviewed in NYC.
EVERYONE I interviewed with made a negative reference to the shitty economy. They also couldn't tell me how many SAs they were planning on having.
It was a bummer, because I liked my interviewers.
Folks who were there summer 2008 but gone by summer 2009 are off the website, so at least a portion of the layoffs are reflect in website numbers.
Folks who were there summer 2008 but gone by summer 2009 are off the website, so at least a portion of the layoffs are reflect in website numbers.
I don't want to start putting up partner profiles, but yes. I will call out some people who no longer work at W&S.
See: partner with the initials PB.
I don't want to start putting up partner profiles, but yes. I will call out some people who no longer work at W&S but are still on the website.
See: partner with the initials PB.
Duane Morris is doing stealth layoffs, constantly.
Time for W&S to do another criminal defense for an Illinois politician - its doesn't have to be a former governor, as virtually all in Chicago are corrupt - and burn through another $5 million in time for which they will not be paid.
And now that the Olympics are going to Rio, they can't count on that slush fund for fees.
As Bart Simpson would say - ha, ha.
@88 - Nelson Muntz says "ha, ha."
Come on.
31 - Ever seen what a "W" looks like on a graph? Put yourself on the middle point, support Obama, then look forward. . .
First of all, the do not staff list is a myth. It does not exist. One commenter continues to post this lie on every post related to W&S, but it's not true.
Second, this layoff estimate is so far off it's ridiculous. I work in one of the largest offices outside of Chicago and can tell you that only 3 associates have been laid off in my office. That's nowhere near the 15%, 21% or whatever bullshit percentage claimed in this post....and its far better than most big firms these days.
Lat should put Elie on the "do not staff" list.
"First of all, the do not staff list is a myth. It does not exist.""
You sure about that, 91? Really?
let me see, here, um, er, 91, yeah, you're right, there's no list....
Winston uses a Feb 1-Jan 31 fiscal year, so any partners who were "retiring" (voluntarily, legitimately, etc.) did so on/before January 31, 2009. Plus, partners generally get more time to leave than do associates.
So, with 9 new laterals (who got press releases), that means a 9% reduction in partner headcount -- so far...
It's 5:57 am and Roxana sold me the crack. Mystal was her pimp.
91 - Ok, then explain how the ATL analysis is wrong. If you work there, what are they missing? ATL encouraged us to point out flaws in their logic.
Marshall Dennehey, Allentown to $39 k !
Hey Lat,
I was very impressed that you were able to create a story about a firm intimidating associates, and twist the firm's response to confirm your suspicion without the actual memo. Love your ethics. It is actually a shame the memo was eventually posted to reveal the sham. I can help you with your technique. I was able to fabricate quiotes, sources and events for years, rather than hours, without being detected. Give me a ring, we can hook up.
Stephen Glass
Formerly of the New Republic
How is the LA office of W&S doing re layoffs?
100 here -- to clarify, does anyone have inside information that goes beyond ATL's data?
Note to parents:
If you are going to stage an international hoax, do not rely on the complicity of an autistic child. They are honest to a fault and incapable of lying. They get things wrong but not intentionally.
- father of an autistic child
Odds White & Case deferrals start work...ever?
But what about W&S in London?
PE, you are so pathetic. For what are you going to blame Obama next? JFK's assassination? Pearl Harbor? 1987 stock market crash? STFU
Question: If you are an associate that is not on the list, aren't you happy to have the ranks thinned out so that you have enough hours to stay employed and learn what you need to learn? I know it sounds selfish and it is sad to see the layoffs, but I feel less stressed because I have gotten busier as there are fewer people to do the work.
106,
It is a good feeling at first but you may get burned out. I did.
It's a great feeling until you find out your own name is on the list.
-signed T-10 grad, clerk, honors, and with excellent reviews, who was slowly chocked out of work and laid off last summer.
34 - Nearly all of 34's truestories apply at other firm's. So I believe it.
Charlotte numbers are off. They added a litigation group post-NALP per your story:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/too_much_free_time_at_winston.php
Count corporate only. It tells a very different story: 10 partners and 18 associates to 10 partners and 9 associates.
DOWN 50 PERCENT AT THE ASSOCIATE/OTHER LEVEL?
@105: I'm with you, buddy. But PE doesn't seem to hang around near the bottom of a thread. I guess he had to get back to the mail room; the FedEx computer was acting up. His schtick has grown so old and tired, it's an effort to call him out for his BS. Maybe he needs to go to Louisiana and become a JP? Heard there's gonna be an opening soon....
110 -- gee, maybe the lateral partners had guaranteed deals or something, and their time hasn't come yet? W&S opened in CLT in Jan 2008 -- don't you think that those people got at least 2 years...
Plebe-
Note that gold has just reached record highs and every economist worth their salt acknowledges that the recovery in equities has far outpaced the non-existent recovery in jobs, price indexes and home values. I like Obama, but I wouldn't drink the "we're out of the woods(!!!!!) kool-aid just yet."
I know one associate who was laid of 10 months ago, and is still on the website - using the site for a headcount is a waste of time.
In addition to lots and lots of lawyers, Winston has laid off large numbers of staff, including supervisors in some offices (nearly 1/3 in one mid-size office). In at least one office, the attorney:secretary ratio is no less than 6:1, and most secretaries have 8-9 attorneys each, with no floaters, no "back-up". Assuming you can get staffed, try billing 8 hours a day without any useful support because your overworked secretary is trying to satisfy three screaming equity partners who all think they should have their own personal indentured servant.
My friends at Winston tell me that life there is even closer to hell than it was before the layoffs began, and the future looks bleaker still.
After a day among Winston weasels I used to look forward to cutting myself. They are that bad. For some unknown reason W&S just seems to attract the falsest, slimiest , scuzziest, beady-eyed little strivers in the industry.
The do not staff list exists in most big firms that have had more than one round of layoffs.
It isn't intended to provide an excuse to lay off the people on the list. The decision has already been made to lay them off. No further excuse is needed.
The real reason for the list is that the people on the list have too much current work to lay off right away. So they aren't told they are being laid off (because that would be de-motivational), but the higher ups are told not to assign that person any more work because as soon as it's not disruptive to current matters, they will be laid off.
"It's settled then. These 12 associates will be laid off. What matters are they currently working on. . Ok then, 8 will be laid off this week, and the other 4 will be laid off in 90 days or when their current matters wrap up. Add those 4 to the do not staff list....."
Thank you 116. To the stupid commenter who suggested a do not staff list did not make sense, you have been pwned.
117,
The long-term effects of such a method of termination are far worse than just open and honest layoffs, especially when you are getting rid of a large number of people. There are a lot of angry current and former Winston associates. Some are practically sabotaging their work because they see no future with the firm. Those who are laid off in this manner will carry a perpetual grudge against the firm.
Winston massively oversubscribed its summer class last year. It seems likely that some of these layoffs were done to make way for the new class.
177, I completely agree that it is extremely stupid and that there is a cadre of former Winston attorneys who have nothing good to say about working there (or working with them) and there are a good number of midlevels I know who are pretty much prepared to be fired after reviews start in Jan-Feb. and have given up the ghost about working hard. But to say there's no way a do not staff list exists because it makes no sense, is to not understand the horrible way Winston runs itself.
-118
That may be, but the management of these firms is dealing with the real possibility that the firms have no future. So the fact that they have unhappy alumnae is something they are willing to tolerate.
The "immediate layoff" alternative will disrupt and piss off the few clients who are still sending work. When the choice is pissing off a real client, or misleading an associate for a few weeks, the choice is easy.
So is Winston on dissolution watch then?
People, ya'll are just freaking out over nothing. Sure, you're all entitled to have personal opinions about the character of a firm. But the fact remains that the business model of the firm is no different from other firms. For whatever reason, ATL has chosen to single out Winston. What I'd like to see, as an objective non-Winston related law student, is a similar analysis of all Chicago firms to see if this is market-specific or not. If, after doing this, it seems Winston is out of line, then there may be merit to singling them out. Otherwise, everything said about Winston could and probably does apply to the other Chicago offices (Kirkland, Jenner, Jones Day, Katten, Latham, Sonnenschein, Mayer, etc...) So, come on Lat. Let's see all of Chicago and compare apples to apples instead of speculating about one firm.
This place is so frickin toxic it burns your eyes to even look at the building. For real- if you come to Chicago, shield your eyes.
116/117 - It still makes no sense. There's no matter in the world that is worth keeping an associate stringing along for longer than the week it takes to get someone else up to speed, tops. There would be no need for a "do not staff" list for that one week, maximum lag. Fail.
But, hey, Charlotte is actually hiring a litigation associate, canall be dire at W&S in Charlotte "where work goes to die"
At Latham, if we want to get rid of people quickly, we make a "do not use the bathroom in building list." We were able to force a number of people out without severance. Coming soon, "do not seat on your chair list" and nailing "kick me" signs to the back of redundant attorneys.
FYI - Winston, although pretty shitty, does not raise to the golden Latham level. 45% of Associates in NY and around 25% across all US offices just as of March 09. Think of all the other people they got rid of in the last 8 months. Winston is a baby in this game of screw your associates.
They fired between 60 and 75 associates in February 2009, and they were allowed to stay on the premises until May 1, 2009. They fired between 30 to 40 partners in August 2009. They have been firing staff since before July 2008.
The last commentary from the heinous business decision persons, was if the new staffing mode does not work out W&S will fold. Guess what, they are telling the staff it will be their fault.
By the way, they reinstated the ugly secretarial testing zone at W&S. If you are looking for secretaries, this would be an opportune time to snatch up a few.
Anyone with half a brain, would not have opened an office in Moscow the same year they opened one in Bejing. They are both money pits, and they will drain you dry! Think of trying to walk out of the Sahara Desert, and you get the idea.