Re: Staff Layoff at Jones Day
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:20 pm
edit: n/m
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=120866
What is made up? That firms maintain tight staffer/attorney ratios? Or that staffer layoffs and attorney layoffs occur in tandem? Which part of what I just said is fictional?thesealocust wrote:You're making shit up, 0L. I make shit up a lot too, but yeesh, I at least try to be right about it.miamiman wrote:I think you're looking at this too narrowly. Staffers are ultimately decent proxies for overall firm activity/workload. 1) Firms generally keep tight staff-to-attorney ratios. When a firm decides it needs fewer staff, they will, as a matter of basic math, layoff some attorneys to maintain that ratio. That's why you see staff layoffs/attorney layoffs at firms move together (again, consult LawShucks) 2) When large pieces of litigation or projects dry up, so, too, does the need for support staff. That's undeniably why these individuals were fired. These same projects, however, are generally the lifeblood of junior associates so that partners and senior attorneys can work on the more pressing/complicated aspects of the project.Staffer hiring and attorney hiring being correlated says absolutely nothing about staffer firing and attorney firing being correlated. If someone wants to assert that this laying off of this staff is a result of or precursor to laying off attorneys, the best evidence of that would be evidence that attorneys were laid off. There are numerous other explanations as to why support staff could be laid off without it having anything to do with attorney hiring.
To some small extent, this story (in conjunction with other stories from Jones Day) might actually be a decent proxy for how the firm and certain offices are performing ITE. It's just not a good proxy for how other firms, in different markets, and with different specialties are doing.
Platonic, I adore you.PLATONiC wrote:In light of the recent employment reports from the government, this isn't all that surprising... out of the 400,000+ or so jobs that were created, only about 10% of that dealt with private sector hiring growth...
True genius. 180Desert Fox wrote:Look out Fordham students.booyakasha wrote:it doesn't bode well for secretary OCI.KMaine wrote:Well, it doesn't bode well for OCI, but I do not think it indicates at all that this year's OCI will be worse than last year's.
You took the LSAT already, right? So you're done with it? So you can maybe not try to LSAT the shit out of something that's a little more real-world than a logic game?Bildungsroman wrote:So, you're justifying speculation that asserts correlation in one form of behavior by providing evidence that totally different behavior is correlated to a result not relevant to the first behavior? In other wordsmiamiman wrote: Staffer layoffs are probably decently-well correlated with attorney layoffs; much the same way as staffer hiring is correlated with attorney hiring.
A and B are correlated.
A is a behavior that shares the same class of actors as C.
B is a behavior that shares the same class of actors as D.
Therefore, C and D are correlated.
If you saw this assertion on the LSAT, you would recognize it as being illogical.
Staffer hiring and attorney hiring being correlated says absolutely nothing about staffer firing and attorney firing being correlated. If someone wants to assert that this laying off of this staff is a result of or precursor to laying off attorneys, the best evidence of that would be evidence that attorneys were laid off. There are numerous other explanations as to why support staff could be laid off without it having anything to do with attorney hiring.