Ed. note: Law Shucks focuses on life in, and after, Biglaw, including by tracking layoffs, bonuses, and laterals. Above the Law is pleased to bring you this weekly column, which analyzes news at the world’s top law firms.
The road to BigLaw has always been difficult, whether you’re an undergrad posing for Playboy who ends up in the middle of a scandal 30 years later, or someone on the more traditional path, we’re coming out of one of the worst runs in the industry’s history. The side effects of some of the measures taken by firms to stop the bleeding are still being felt.
One of the stopgap measures adopted by firms was deferring associates. Most of the deferred will end up at their firms, albeit more than a year after their expected start dates. Some have lingered on, with perpetual deferrals and no updates on start dates. And some have had their offers rescinded.
That stringing-along was too much for one California woman, so she sued Howard Rice after it deferred her then rescinded her offer. Usually it’s the firms deciding who doesn’t come back, but sometimes it’s the would-be associates who change their minds. The New York Times and ABA Journal wonder whether deferred associates who don’t return to their firms will have to repay their stipends.
We called BS on that back in February. We can’t imagine any firm is going to be so penny-wise pound-foolish as to go after a lawyer they don’t have to hire (cheap severance!) and who found her calling in public service (good PR!).
After the jump, we catch up on the latest activity in BigLaw — including another week with layoff news — and try to sort through the mixed signals.
