Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
lovelaw27
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:35 am

Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby lovelaw27 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:51 pm

--LinkRemoved--

May want to think twice before you bid on this firm.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby 12262010 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:54 pm

we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread

lovelaw27
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:35 am

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby lovelaw27 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:55 pm

booyakasha wrote:we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread


+1

User avatar
TheBigMediocre
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:53 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby TheBigMediocre » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:59 pm

Has L&W redeemed themselves yet or are people still colloquially using the phrase "getting lathamed"?

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby doyleoil » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:05 pm

booyakasha wrote:we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread


good idea

of course we'll have to define "sketchy" narrowly

otherwise we won't have anything left to bid on

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby 12262010 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:08 pm

doyleoil wrote:
booyakasha wrote:we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread


good idea

of course we'll have to define "sketchy" narrowly

otherwise we won't have anything left to bid on


:lol: .

I wish I had something more to contribute.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:13 pm

lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

CourierTwelve
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:44 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby CourierTwelve » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:21 pm

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.


Error. Enter valid parameters to continue.

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby motiontodismiss » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:00 am

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.


Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby Kohinoor » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:14 am

motiontodismiss wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.


Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.

Basically the really good firms and then (surprise!) many of the lower ranked firms that never overhired to begin with.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby NYAssociate » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:05 am

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby RVP11 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:32 am

NYAssociate wrote:
motiontodismiss wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.


Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.


Guess again.

At this point, the only firms that come to mind are WLRK, Williams, Munger, and some really selective lit boutiques.


You must be including "stealth layoffs" as "fucking people over."

Almost every firm in the country has done layoffs of some kind. But there are plenty of firms that have managed to get by without deferring or no-offering SAs.

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby motiontodismiss » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:36 am

RVP11 wrote:
NYAssociate wrote:
motiontodismiss wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.


Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.


Guess again.

At this point, the only firms that come to mind are WLRK, Williams, Munger, and some really selective lit boutiques.


You must be including "stealth layoffs" as "fucking people over."

Almost every firm in the country has done layoffs of some kind. But there are plenty of firms that have managed to get by without deferring or no-offering SAs.


Skadden's deferments were known well in advance, not "I know it's August 1st, but you can't start until next year. Sorry"

ScaredWorkedBored
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby ScaredWorkedBored » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:44 pm

Long deferral = go somewhere else. Rescinded = those people who didn't quite figure that out.

User avatar
animalcrkrs
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:24 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby animalcrkrs » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:46 pm

TheBigMediocre wrote:Has L&W redeemed themselves yet or are people still colloquially using the phrase "getting lathamed"?


Curious on this one too, debating whether to bid on them at all...might be a waste.

User avatar
edcrane
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby edcrane » Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:15 pm

TheBigMediocre wrote:Has L&W redeemed themselves yet or are people still colloquially using the phrase "getting lathamed"?


I don't think their method of management has changed in the last two years, and I don't recall any efforts (beyond an admittedly generous stipend that was provided to some victims) to help lathamed first years revive their careers. So no, they haven't redeemed themselves.

On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to use one of fifty bids (probably the last one) on latham.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby NYAssociate » Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:33 pm

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby miamiman » Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:39 pm

NYAssociate wrote:It's great that people in this thread accept layoffs as a firm "not fucking their associates over," as well as deferments. I guess beggars can't be choosers.


Wow thanks for this contribution

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby NYAssociate » Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:20 pm

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Baker & McKenzie Re-Deferrals Turn Into Rescinded Offers

Postby nealric » Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:51 pm

Long deferral = go somewhere else. Rescinded = those people who didn't quite figure that out.


I don't think it's quite that simple.

What other job is going to pay you 160k? None. Effectively no biglaw firms hired 3L types last year. Sure, you can keep looking, but then what to you do? Accept the 60k a year job when you have a 160k one sitting on the table? It's not like you can tell the 60k job to wait until you figure out what's going onto the deferral.

If Baker had wanted to rescind their offers, that's their prerogative, but it should have been done this time last year.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.