This Week in Layoffs: 11.01.09
Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.
Last week we wrote that jobless claims were higher than expected and that predicting anything with any degree of confidence seemed pointless. This week, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits was lower than expected, the lowest levels in seven months, and that was before announcement that benefits will be extended again. Still, the best that can be said is that the cuts are slowing:
Companies are cutting fewer jobs as they see more evidence of a recovery, helped by government stimulus efforts and less weakness in housing and manufacturing. While a separate report today showed the economy expanded for the first time in more than a year, a rebound in hiring may take longer to materialize
So while things bounced around unpredictably in the broader market, we had two notable announcements in law-firm innovations this week. We’ll cut right to them after the jump.
Kaye Scholer is the big newsmaker this week because the firm has gone so far off the reservation. The announcement that some members of the class will be starting on a normal career path and others will be in a captive pro bono program came out of left field and hasn’t been particularly well received, especially by those affected. It’s laudable that the firm is being creative and the attorneys involved at least won’t have to worry about finding a non-profit job to justify a stipend. It’s amazing how difficult it is to find someone to accept free labor these days. But as many have noted, there are pretty significant downsides, including the late notice, the petty clawback of the $10,000 salary advance (which goes from 6% of first-year comp when accepted to 16%), and the fact that people will be forced to work in New York City with its ultra-high cost of living, rather than finding work in a cheaper locale more suited to the $60,000 salary.
Reed Smith also broke new ground this week (when talking about major law firms, the bar for innovation is pretty low), with its CareeRS™ program. Associates will now be lumped together in bands, junior; mid-level, or senior, depending on career progression. The example is the third year who has progressed rapidly may be a mid-level while the fifth year who takes another path may still be classified as a junior. Why does neither of those examples seem appealing? Partners seem incentivized to puff the associates into the next band to get the billing bump, so any quasi-presentable second year will now get billed as a mid-level a year or two earlier. Clients will surely love that. Meanwhile, Reed Smith is keeping people around for five years who haven’t yet performed at a level achievable by a third year (or more junior) attorney? That seems equally unlikely.
Foley Hoag will start charging associates for attorney development — how else do you describe a paycut with that as a stated goal? The affected attorneys also get to subsidize the firm’s recruiting (of other lawyers) and retention efforts. We’re not sure exactly how a pay cut facilitates retention, though.
Don’t get us wrong, at Law Shucks we believe in pay-for-performance, but the baseline has to be fair and clear, and premier performance has to really be compensated. Too often the baseline gets reset to a low level but the bonuses never materialize.
That drifting away from lockstep is going international: major Australian firms are also considering merit-based compensation.
For those interested in the market, Texas Lawyer has done a roundup of that state’s firms’ activities — it’s just a microcosm of what we’ve been reporting for months. Headcounts down, no attrition, deferred start dates, and salary cuts. The piece does have one good example of lawyer logic, though:
In the Texas offices of New York-based Weil, Gotshal & Manges, the majority of the firm’s new Texas associates, nine of 15, have voluntarily decided to take the firm’s offer to delay their start dates until January 2011, says Glenn D. West, managing partner of the firm’s Dallas office. Of the remaining new associates two are starting this fall and four are starting on Jan. 19, 2010."It’s a way to address the disconnect that all law firms have experienced between the incoming classes and the lack of attrition that occurred over the last 12 to 18 months, compared to prior years," West says. Law firms hire based on certain assumptions of historical ratios of accepted offers and historical attrition, he says. With lower associate attrition rates due to the ailing economy, the firm has more lawyers than expected, he says.
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: deferring associates isn’t "addressing" anything; it’s procrastinating. There will be another logjam next year and every other year until the problem is actually addressed - by rescinded offers, drastically reduced incoming hiring, or an unlikely explosion in demand. The fact that so many people "voluntarily decided to take the firm’s offer" is more a commentary that they’d rather get paid more than most Americans to sit around and do nothing for a year than anything else (not to mention we question the voluntariness of the whole thing).
Summer associate offer rates, and offer rescissions, don’t count as layoffs to us, although they probably feel that way to the affected individuals. McGuire Woods is taking advantage of the lousy market by trickling offers out based on its own needs, knowing that few people have options.
Ever the optimists, we close with the subject that fills associates’ minds this team of year: bonuses. DLA Piper has announced that it will be paying something, as has Slaughter & May, although it’s so low (five percent) that Law Shucks will no longer refer to the firm as the English Wachtell until that is corrected (that would probably be a fine result at most firms this year, but we expect more from Wachtell). Still, there’s certainly reason for those who have survived this brutal year to believe that they’ll get a little something extra for the effort this year. At Law Shucks, we’re counting on two factors outweighing (if not at least counterbalancing) the rough year for firms: bonuses would be a strong signal that the firms have kept the people they really want, and want them to stay; and the S&P 500 is up 14% year-to-date, even after this crappy week (S&P down 4%). While we’ve said all along that even though most of the profit this year has come from the expense side, those are still good results for clients (and even better counting from the March lows).
Who knows, if the bonus is big enough, maybe you can buy yourself an original tasting room from a real Scottish castle.
The post continues on Law Shucks with a list of all the firms that had reported layoffs this week plus the final numbers for the week and month.
Also, be sure to check Law Shucks during the week as the October recap (complete with charts) will go up around Monday or Tuesday.
(96) Comments
Comments
First biatches!!!
When is the point of no return for firms deferring to January? By that I mean when is the absolute latest they could re-defer?
what's going on at Milbank?
We need more layoffs and deferrals. We need more "end of the world" stuff to talk about. Yes, we could talk about Obama, but that would be talking about the real end of the world, as opposed to just some rich entitled law grads not getting their candy on time.
*nervously hopes that these deferred associates will never start, they are taking my spots!*
-nervous T-10 2L
2 -
Technically, the day before you're scheduled to start.
Realistically, for firms starting in January, if they re-defer at this point (2 months out - after people signed leases, booked travel, and possibly even moved in), they're going to feel like real douches if they later decide they must re-defer. Any decision could have (and should have) been made by now.
Of course . . . some firms don't care about being douchey. We'll probably see another firm or two engage in douchery with the incoming first years (by waiting until less than 2 months out to make up their minds about pushing back start dates).
Speaking of douchery . . . why, exactly, am I at work on the Sunday after halloween? I hate that this economy makes people (at least me and the other 7 or 8 associates in the office) feel like we need to be at work on sunday to ensure our continued survival. This, my friends, is a scarier than any ghost story - and it's far too real.
深深地 操所有擂奥夫人的所的大爷
6, you're paid to work 7 days a week, and Sunday is one of those days. Don't complain, suck it up, then bend over and take it like a man. If you want to make the big bucks, then working is the way to do it. If you are satisfied with less, then take a job with the government.
there are no f--govt jobs available at the moment.
9, sure there are. Just get off you ass and go look for them. You might need to move somewhere, but state, federal, and local governments are always hiring attorneys. It's a revolving door. You might not be good enough to cut it, so that might explain why you bitch and moan so much. Suck it up asshole, and get out and get a job.
"In the Texas offices of New York-based Weil, Gotshal & Manges, the majority of the firm’s new Texas associates, nine of 15, have voluntarily decided to take the firm’s offer to delay their start dates until January 2011, says Glenn D. West, managing partner of the firm’s Dallas office. Of the remaining new associates two are starting this fall and four are starting on Jan. 19, 2010."
Wait up? Two Weil incoming associates are starting this Fall? I thought they were all deferred until January? Can someone please tell me what's going on over there...
It doesnt really matter, Nervous T10 2L. You are such a pussy that you will be shit on so badly and then promptly laid off during your first year.
10, if you think that state and local governments are hiring right now, please let me know what state and locality you are in.
With mounting deficits, increasing pensions, more federal mandates, lower property taxes, high unemployment costs, our state and local governments are certainly not on hiring binges.
Maybe you should think before you write. Is that an idea you can grasp?
13, I didn't say they're on any hiring binges, only that many are still hiring. I'm not going to waste my time helping you losers find jobs, that's up to you. I've got a great job as a partner in a large regional firm, so fuck you.
"I'm not going to waste my time helping you losers find jobs, that's up to you. "
If you're spending 10 minutes posting on a comment thread on the internet and reading blogs, you can waste enough time to back up an argument instead of tossing third grader pot shots in the place of providing actual evidence for your deeply held position.
- not 13
6 - if you have enough work to do 7 days a week, I would look at that as a positive.
16, I'm in Virginia. The grown kids of two of my friends graduated last May from decent law schools, in the top 15%. They had their jobs pulled by large regional firms. Within the last month, one got a job as an assistant us attorney, the other as a public defender in the same town. They didn't have any particular strings pulled by their parents, although both fathers were practicing attorneys. One of my good friends from law school had his son just accepted for an SEC job. His son graduated last May from a mid-level law school. The SEC job isn't in DC, but out in the hinterland. His dad had some pull, but not enough to totally dictate the result. Three examples. Oh, yeah, we laid off a black female associate about 12 months ago for gross incompetence, and she now has a job at EEOC in a regional office. Four examples. Enough said. Oh, yeah, I know a young attorney who just got a new job with the Bar Association. I don't know anything about the job, other than he got it. Five examples.
why are african americans leaving mcermott? odd, especialy when some are high profile, like ex president of d.c. bar and a candidate for u.s. attorney in d.c. d.c. bar guy also gay. firm claims to be committed to diversity, but that was not my experience. this has a bad stench, if you ask me.
14 is right. there are jobs, especially if you are in the 3-5 year range with experience (e.g., litigation). look for securities, environmental and health.
18, maybe they wanted to move back to Africa, where peace and harmony pervade everyday life.
The next leg down is coming around the bend. The only reason the Q3 numbers looked hopeful was because of massive government stimuli (payoffs to the politically connected eg car dealers) and a refusal by the fawning media to point out that the numbers were awful.
Investors have their fingers poised over the SELL button just waiting for the last possible second to bail. The run up since March was engineered to allow the plutocracy to recoup some cash so they can pay off their houses and hunker down during the coming crash. One they sell this second crash, far deeper and more damaging than the first, will hit like a freight train. I hope you're ready.
21, conspiracy theories aside, you're probably correct about your future prediction. The shit is getting ready to hit the fan from Obama's move towards communism. Wall Street doesn't much care for having their profits taken, their business run by liberal politicians, and their income confiscated. The end is near.
20, Not really very funny.
17 - I'm really curious what town would have a US Attorney's office that would take on an attorney with zero experience. Those jobs are difficult to get with years of litigation experience, let alone with zero experience. It's hard for me to believe that that particular person didn't have a strong connection of some sort.
If Congress wants to impose salary caps on everyone that takes benefits like loans, tax breaks and other perks from goverment, that is fine. But they better be honest about who is covered and the review needs to take into account relative salaries. For example, labor union leaders sure make a lot and get a lot of perks subsidized by their tax exempt status.
24, maybe they live in bismark or wichita
It's hard for me to believe that that particular person didn't have a strong connection of some sort.
==========
Well, his dad knew one of the federal judges, so I'm sure that helped some, given that the us attorney was a former clerk of that particular judge. Bottom line, though, is that there are jobs out there, but you've got to look, work hard to use every connection and opportunity, and be willing to move to a new place. As for first year attorneys getting ausa jobs, that's not unusual in many states, particularly in smaller markets.
3 -
According to our dear Chairman, Milbank is "firing on all cylinders" right now. That being said, nobody knows how we will absorb so many new bodies in January...
I billed 250 hours in October, I am no longer concerned about layoffs.
29
So it is a safe assumption that you managed to go through another entire month without getting laid.
17, hard to believe. I know several top 10 law grads with 1-3 years experience with no luck. And SEC has about 1,000 applications for every position. So, unless you were Yale law review, clerked for DC Circuit, speak 4 languages, cure cancer and run marathons in your spare time, forget about top govt jobs. they're just not hiring right now.
31, not true. I was just a reference for a 2nd year and a 1st year at two different agencies. Hard to get, yes. Unavailable, not the case.
BTW, one was law review at a school ranked the 30's; the other was top half at Hofstra. Neither had clerkships, no languages TTBOMK, neither cured cancer, one runs marathons.
I'm with 29. I am billing more hours than ever before - even more than Fall 2007. I am actually hoping they take on the newbies in January so that I can take a bit of a breather....
Dont count on ATL to report the good news. Deal flow is pretty good right now and my friends in litigation are slammed.
We are starting to see deal work too. Nothing like huge M&A but steady flow of acqusition work as people are finally seeing undervalued assets and have the urge to spend in order to secure steals or capex projects that were put off a year and now are back on. I don't know if we are done with the bad, but people are busier.
People are definitely busier. And angrier. A lot of people are going to leave as soon as they can - tired of the layoffs, salary cuts/freezes, lower bonuses, and for the last few months, the work has been brutal. Morale at an all time low.
Our litigation work slowed some over the past 12 months, but it recently picked up quite a bit. I bet the firm is going to bring some new guys in soon to help. The firm is losing hours right now, what with all the layoffs, at least it looks that way to me.
"We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: deferring associates isn’t "addressing" anything; it’s procrastinating. There will be another logjam next year and every other year until the problem is actually addressed - by rescinded offers, drastically reduced incoming hiring, or an unlikely explosion in demand."
OR BY MORE LAYOFFS
I think a ton of people are ready to leave my firm as well. Myself included. As soon as I can get an opportunity in house or with a government agency, I am off for a better life.
More good news about an uptick in business please! We deferred grads need some hope...
I think 39 and others are on to a development that firms might not be anticipating. People are staying but not by choice. If you can get out, people are lateraling. At my firm, a lot of associates are leaving the energy group for in house jobs because companies are hiring. Everyone talks to those leaving with envy because they are getting out and conspiratorally ask for news of leads on other jobs. The current people leaving hurt the firm because they are 3-5 years out, the point when they are useful and productive. More will jump as soon as they can and then the firms will waste all kinds of money hiring headhunters to fill spots. I expect a massive reshuffling of the deck.
Have you peons not noticed that the only cogs who are fired are lethargic and dilatory?
If you work sufficiently hard in life, you will excel.
Incidentally, I am uncannily successful.
OBVIOUSLY we just need to give the Democrats more time. The party has run California for almost 40 years in a row, and they've done wonders for that state's economy.
This post is addressed to Commenter #43:
There have been four (4) Democratic governors of California in the past one hundred and ten (110) years.
With your dismal fact-finding ability and abhorrent reasoning, I will venture to guess that you attend(ed) a non-preeminent, non-peer law school.
What about the legislature?
Go in and take your civil servant examinations, it will do you a world of good, and you can apply for anything you are qualified for. The reality is you have to forget about them, and then they will surprise you with an interview months later.
Yeah, you get your feet wet and you have to do the messy work, but work comes with a salary and that helps your ends meet. Fends off the ugly student loans, you currently have nipping at your heels.
Hey, I just got a job as a janitor in a large law firm. They said that they had other openings for custodial work. While they aren't advertising for recent JDs, they are happy to take them. I was top quarter at a good law school, but I decided that cleaning shit beats practicing law with shits.
"I'm not going to waste my time helping you losers find jobs, that's up to you. "
If you're spending 10 minutes posting on a comment thread on the internet and reading blogs, you can waste enough time to back up an argument instead of tossing third grader pot shots in the place of providing actual evidence for your deeply held position.
- not 13
agreed; fuck you 14, you can take douche firm and stick it up your ass.
not 13; not 15.
I am not 14 but have posted posts that agree with him.
41, I agree. I think there will be a massive exodus once people have better options. I'm already tired of working for these assholes and I'm only a newly minted 2nd year.
50, the only question I have is: What constitutes a better option? Almost every firm has been trashed on this site, albiet a few (Latham, Paul Hastings, Quinn, McDermott) worse than others. So, in your view, is "better" anything other than a firm?
Pretty much. Though I only know what it's like in one firm, I can imagine most biglaw firms are the same. "Better" to me would be a smalllaw/boutique where I can take a paycut but get better experience and more job security. Also in-house or government would be better. But alas, I will probably have to survive here for at least another year.
"JaKe" is an idiot liberal law student who's bad at his shtick: No wealthy elite is going to defend the Dems, sorry. If your dad had cash, he would have lost half of your inheritance over the past year.
Furthermore, 43 referred to the past 40 years -- not the past century. The fact is that although California has had a couple of Republicans serving as glorified PR chiefs (governors), the purse strings have almost EXCLUSIVELY been controlled by a Democrat legislature.... for the past 4 decades.
And the state has almost been entirely destroyed. And now that same management style is being experienced on a national scale. Obama is HOPING that the Republicans take back Congress. It's the only thing that can save his presidency.
51,
The big firms trashed themselves. They held themselves out as bastions of stability and conservative management. The reality is that they are no different than the banks and hedge funds that routinely undergo massive layoffs. At least those in finance are better compensated for their career instability.
I can tell you from personal experience that smaller mid-sized firms that weren't trying to grow as fast as their biglaw peers are much more stable. The partners at such firms are much more invested in the firm itself and are thus more likely to take a PPP hit and keep everyone on board rather than fire tons of associates or jump ship to another firm.
That's right, 54. Especially about the partners at smaller firms - less greedy/prestige obsessed.
Regarding the finance industry - I would also add that in finance, a layoff isn't nearly as crippling to one's career. Someone laid off from one big bank can get a job at another bank after a few months.
Well, if you read through this post, according to 14 state and local government jobs are available aplenty-- if you are well connected and/or are 3-5 year litigator. But not all of the 9.8% of us who are unemployed in this country fit that very special category that 14 assumes we are all in.
I am delighted that 14 is secure and happy as a partner in his regional firm. I was one as well, until the recession hit and several of my larger clients folded as they were unable to obtain financing. Even the rednecks who are partners at regional law firms are smart enough to know that jobs are uncertain.
Nice to know that despite a state-wide hiring freeze, I can waltz into a government job.
56, I am not trying to diminish your frustration, but like first years, hiring is bad at more senior levels. This does not mean it is bad for all. I helped place a 4th year at a client. The client advertised for a less experienced person because they wanted to train. The client shared that they got a ton of resumes from more senior people with 10-plus years of experience. They did not want that, referencing the perceived old dog/big ego problem. I make this point because for some niches are thawing. That niche is people not laid off who have 2-7 years of experience and not just in litigation.
Not 14, but 19 and 32
Fair comment, 57.
-56
Senior associate at a mid-size firm (200 or so attorneys) here. We have never been busier in corp, IP, or litigation. Our rates are somewhat lower, but at $475/hr for seniors and $325 for a third year, they are not that cheap.
I think the reason we are busy is that the equity partners really work on the matters and not just delegate the work and look for more work to keep the PPP up.
31 - SEC is often hiring so those interested should keep checking USAJOBS. However, you are correct ==> each vacancy yields a tidal wave of applications. I am in the Chicago office and, while the money is nowhere near BigLaw dollars, the work is fascinating and the working conditions are superb: autonomy, responsibility, support, etc. Plus, excellent benefits, flex work, telework, etc. Like I said though, even the SEC cannot come close to competing on salary. I'm over five years out of school and am just now pushing $150k. Good luck to all.
59,
I am confused by the last sentence...You are more busy because they ARE working on the matters or because they AREN"T (looking for new work to keep PPP up)?
Another mid size firm associate here. Very busy - lots of work from large firms being transferred,
Layoffs outrages the nail. Layoffs cheeks the fake below this intended reject. Will his flip evil struggle? The adventure pales with this week. An abroad doubt pulses outside our attempted purge. Beside a weary sponsor escapes this week. Will the economic desktop pulp this week? This week tries. Can the servant spit throughout an orienting composite? Layoffs waves!
SCHTICK!
To 52 and others:
It's Sunday night and I'm on a conference call with several of my in-house brethren. I worked all weekend again, although I did do so at home and wearing a costume cape yesterday so my young kids were happy.
I love my work, but the grass isn't always as green on this side as some might think.
In-House Counsel
17,
It's called nepotism.
60 -- You're 5 years out and pushing $150K at the SEC and say that the SEC "cannot come close to competing on salary."
You do realize that a class of 2005 grad is making $185K at biglaw, thanks to frozen salaries? And who knows if that will even incease next year. Sounds like you have an awesome gig.
This post is addressed to Commenter #53:
Governors must sign budgets bill in order for them to become law. Even if the legislature had been controlled by Democrats for the past 300 years, it would have required the compliance of Republican governors to pass some of those year's budgets. To pin the blame solely on Democrats flies in the face of fact.
Do not assume that my Father is a imbecile like those with whom you associate; his portfolio has gained roughly 1.5% in the past year. Stop watching "Mad Money" and start doing research.
JaKe has never heard of a legislative veto.
Juvenile.
This post is addressed to Commenter #69:
In Chadha (1983), SCOTUS held a one-House congressional veto to be unconstitutional. The practice was barely used during its short 50-year life.
You clearly never have nor never will attend a preeminent peer law school.
"Stop watching "Mad Money" and start doing research."
Jim Cramer's a big-time lefty. He was practically crying when commenting on Spitzer getting canned and the one time he criticized Obama, he had his ass handed to him and did an immediate about-face.
Don't blame us for the "Mad Money" watchers--those are your guys.
"In Chadha (1983), SCOTUS held a one-House congressional veto to be unconstitutional."
Apparently Jake is not aware of the difference between the state and federal government.
- not 69
Oh look, work for law firms! Sorry to burden this blog with such nonsense.
CIT has retained Evercore Partners and FTI Consulting as its financial advisers and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as legal counsel in connection with the restructuring plan and Chapter 11 cases.
Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Capital Inc. serves as financial adviser, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP serves as legal counsel to the bondholders' committee.
California Uber Alles!
This post is addressed to Commenter #72:
While Chada is not binding on state legislatures, it represents the culmination of disdain that the public had for the legislative veto and indicates the decline of the use of legislative veto.
The fact that you felt the need to point out such an elementary distinction suggests to me that you are familiar with dealing with nescients, and likely attend a non-peer, non-preeminent law school.
Chada wasn't decided by the public, JaKeOff.
Does anyone else think that Jake is a tool. I really don't find his comments funny or insightful and his picture should that we cannot even rely on some eye candy to help us forget about his droning.
Jake, that's such a pathetic response it's not even worth taking seriously.
It's been pointed out to you you're an idiot when it comes to politics and government. You can either accept this fact and work towards not becoming an idiot or continue being defensive about it.
Getting back to the schtick--while I attended a better law school than you pretend to, bragging about school (as all true men of class know) is for those who never actually accomplish anything afterward.
Focusing on school pedigree is a telltale trait of the nouveau riche or wannabe "strivers."
That is all.
-72
Commenter #76:
"Disdain" and "decided" are markedly different words.
Commenter #78:
I am not a nouveau riche; I have never been part of a lower socioeconomic order than "obscenely wealthy." Do not use words when you are not entirely cognizant of their meaning.
Cogs: every time you post, I am reminded why I attend a preeminent peer law school, and you do not/never have/never will.
Jake, being defensive about being a member of the nouveau riche is a another common trait of the nouveau riche.
You also clearly exhibit all the traits, insecurities, and obsessions of a member of the nouveau riche. (you wear an open pink dress shirt and sun glasses -- honestly, who do you think you're kidding?)
Since you're not a striver, you're clearly a member of the nouveau riche.
-72
This post is addressed to Commenter #80:
"Cogs: every time you post, I am reminded why I attend a preeminent peer law school, and why you do not/never have/never will."
It was the "pink shit and sunglasses" that really hurt wasn't it?
Oh well, I attended a better law school than you pretend to. When you go to sleep tonight, just keep that in mind.
-72
This post is addressed to Commenter #82:
Keeping adding prepositions onto the end of sentences.
And remember: every time you post, I am reminded why I attend a preeminent peer law school, and why you do not/never have/never will."
Dear whoever does the JaKe comment shtick,
You jumped the shark a while ago. Please stop posting.
Hugs and Kisses,
Everyone who reads this blog
OK. The results are in. JaKe is a douchebag, albeit an amusing one. I suspect he really attends Brooklyn Law School, or possibly one of those unaccredited schools in my home state of California. The weather is very nice in San Diego.
JaKe, in 83, I thought you were going to jump on 82 for changing his "pink shirt" comment to "pink shit". This was, possibly, inadvertent on his part. Or, perhaps it was merely a clarification.
In 75: I was unaware that SCOTUS renders its decisions based on a reading of "public disdain". I was also unaware that SCOTUS members have any special training in the measurement of "public disdain". But, assuming that it, and they, do, how do you (JaKe) measure "public disdain"? I hope, not by the fact of the decision in Chadha, for that would be circular reasoning, no?
Public disdain for legislative vetoes began to grow from when they first were used. While SCOTUS clearly did not base its decision in response to public opinion, the Chadha decision was the crowning achievement of multiple smaller efforts to remove legislative veto power at the state and federal level.
Having worked in the law review office at my preeminent peer law school for over 11 hours today, I honestly do not know why I spend the time explaining to you simpletons these elementary facts.
Remember this, hoi polloi: even in the unlikely event that you prove me wrong on a website comments section, it will not make up for two facts--I am both better educated and wealthier than you. And that makes me superior to you.
JaKe: 85 here again.
I take that back. You look much too tanned, casual and pleased with yourself to be attending BLS. C'mon: fess up. You're at California Western Law School, right? Spend a lot of time in Coronado? How 'bout them Padres?
I see you as a future earnest striver in the PI game. Maybe insurance defense. The world opens up for men like you.
JaKe: I shouldn't do this, but making fun of you is really too tempting.
I would advise you to get a grip on yourself, but inasmuch as you are really not very skillful in badinage, I fear that you would take me literally. That is, you would retreat to the men's room at that law review office at which you've already spent 11 hours today. And, yet again, you would get embarrassed by the janitor.
85/87
Nighty night.
Wow, what a bunch of complainers. This site is turning into JD Underground.
I farted and blood came out
Re: "According to our dear Chairman, Milbank is "firing on all cylinders" right now. That being said, nobody knows how we will absorb so many new bodies in January... "
In this environment, Chairman needs a better metaphor!
There are state and local government jobs out here in the Southwest though it does take some looking. But I don't see how the average new J.D. can take one of them. Not because of the Bar exam or lack of experience but because the pay tends to be awfully low, on the order of $40-50K or possibly even less for no experience. Anyway, IF anyone were interested in moving halfway across the country for a public sector job, I'd recommend looking at Arizona and New Mexico. Forget Colorado. I don't know about Nevada; it WAS a very hot market as late as 2007 and I don't think they are too badly overlawyered even now.
There is such a thing as LRAP. Maybe you could make it work. Maybe.
Haha, Jake doesn't know what a preposition is. Failed 4th grade English, eh?
Haha, Jake doesn't know what a preposition is. Failed 4th grade English, eh?
Haha, Jake doesn't know what a preposition is. Failed 4th grade English, eh?
@53: The articles on this site contain many multisyllabic words. They clearly make your pea brain hurt. Please revert to reading redstate.com and watching Beck and Hannity. The GOP is too busy purging the remaining moderates and rational thinkers from it's midst. Sarah Palin aand Mike Huckabee re not going to institute a Christian theocracy in 2012 and I consider the odds of the Repubs taking back the Congress in 2010 remote. But pray continue posting your Teabagger fantasies for our amusement.