Never Forget: Latham laid off hundreds in 2009 Forum

[270910]

I don't think layoffs are indicative of anything other than firm health. Latham's pulling the trigger doesn't mean they're more trigger happy than, say, S&C or Wachtell. Those firms would've taken drastic measures too if they suffered in a similar way.

It's all about being at the right place at the right time, and that is largely out of your control. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Latham at this point for that reason.

Outed as Bob Dell.

Your attempt to sound cool by using xo lingo has failed miserably, mostly because you attempted to sound cool by using xo lingo.

I wish I could quit you :-/

[iwantawhiteiphone4]

Here are some arguments against working at a lathamer.

1. These firms either don't give a shit about associates or are weak; there will be future layoffs. But firms that lathamed may be in a stronger position, and further reputation harm will prevent most firms from firing more people. For example, Latham took a serious hit to its Vault score (surely larger than expected). I doubt they have more massive layoffs.

2. These firms are shitty places to work. The partners are obviously self-serving assholes, and associates walk around like zombies who begin anxiously crying before any department meeting. I imagine the vibe at Latham isn't the same as it was two years ago.

3. Working at a firm that screwed over so many fellow lawyers simply isn't right.

Which argument is the strongest? Is there really a good argument against working at a lathamer (assuming you have a choice)?

[270910]

It will be very interesting to see how their fall Vault score / recruitment goes.

[steve_nash]

I don't think layoffs are indicative of anything other than firm health. Latham's pulling the trigger doesn't mean they're more trigger happy than, say, S&C or Wachtell. Those firms would've taken drastic measures too if they suffered in a similar way.

It's all about being at the right place at the right time, and that is largely out of your control. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Latham at this point for that reason.

credited. Additionally, most of you will not have the luxury of choosing a firm based on who it laid off. If you even have one offer -- from Latham! -- you should count yourself lucky.

[270910]

I don't think layoffs are indicative of anything other than firm health. Latham's pulling the trigger doesn't mean they're more trigger happy than, say, S&C or Wachtell. Those firms would've taken drastic measures too if they suffered in a similar way.

It's all about being at the right place at the right time, and that is largely out of your control. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Latham at this point for that reason.

credited. Additionally, most of you will not have the luxury of choosing a firm based on who it laid off. If you even have one offer -- from Latham! -- you should count yourself lucky.

THANKS, DAD.

*goes to room, eats vegetables*

Anyway, on a more serious note: The point of this thread really isn't to proselytize. i.e., I'm not suggesting nobody bid on Latham. The point of this thread is that I have had conversations in which Latham has come up, and I have said something to the effect of "oh, you mean that firm that laid off 400 people last February?" and people have given me a blank stare and gone "really?"

What any individual does or thinks in response to that information we can have a legitimate debate on, and to large extent I agree that a firm which has already done its layoffs might not be in a bad spot right now. Hell, full disclosure, I fuckin' bid on Latham myself. But it's jarring that some people don't even realize what's happened in the legal economy lately, and it's absolutely a relevant factor. There's no way it didn't affect moral on the ground, even if objectively it was certainly a business decision rather than Bob Dell stroking his mustache while tying a bunch of first-year associates to railroad tracks.

[miamiman]

I don't think layoffs are indicative of anything other than firm health. Latham's pulling the trigger doesn't mean they're more trigger happy than, say, S&C or Wachtell. Those firms would've taken drastic measures too if they suffered in a similar way.

It's all about being at the right place at the right time, and that is largely out of your control. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Latham at this point for that reason.

I actually disagree with this. There were several high-profile firms similarly leveraged that simply took a hit to their PPP rather than hang first-years out to dry. I seem to recall ATL running a story on the "good firms" throughout the recession -- the ones that favored loyalty to juniors over PPP -- and Debevoise DP and Cleary were always cited. Granted, the troubles those firms were experiencing in the downturn may not have run as deep or numerous but L&W never shied away from comparisons to those firms. Further, Latham stood alone in how it handled these mass layoffs: blatant misrepresentation of job security (even during the week of Feb. 26), characterization of many of the layoffs as "performance-related", and subsequent recruitment events in which Bob Dell congratulated himself on the measures he had taken.

It's obviously business-as-usual for firms to layoff people -- and often for little or no actual cause. But it's quite another to have done what Latham did. Obviously, if Latham is your only offer, you take it and you hope and pray that NYAssociate's characterization of their behavior is accurate. If you have two offers, and assuming the other isn't some similarly tragic firm like Proskauer, GP, or Cadwalader, you take a long, hard look at the alternative and -- in all likelihood -- run not walk away from Latham.

[NYAssociate]

.

[miamiman]

When will you guys learn that biglaw associateships are jobs? Partners aren't your friends, and neither are fellow associates. They are all there, first and foremost, for themselves. Do you really think they owe it to you to sacrifice their bottom line for you? I think some of you live in entitled fairy-tale land. Welcome to the real world.

Also, going to go out on a limb here and ask whether I'm the only one here who thinks disco-barred is an insufferable tool. Anyone?

Law is slightly different though, right?; it's an "honorable" profession -- that's what we're told and what attorneys parrot, at least. this is a profession where state bars prevent you from paying a finder's fee like you can in any other business. in much the same vein, it was pretty much an understanding that you didn't layoff first years. And certainly not for performance-related reasons.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Encyclopedia Brown]

Also, going to go out on a limb here and ask whether I'm the only one here who thinks disco-barred is an insufferable tool. Anyone?

His posts are usually logical, insightful, or funny. Yours are often self-important and annoying. Chill out, dude--it's an internet forum.

[miamiman]

Law is slightly different though, right?; it's an "honorable" profession -- that's what we're told and what attorneys parrot, at least. this is a profession where state bars prevent you from paying a finder's fee like you can in any other business. in much the same vein, it was pretty much an understanding that you didn't layoff first years. And certainly not for performance-related reasons.

What? Being a lawyer doesn't make you a charity. Lawyers, especially partners, aren't here to look out for you. This is a profit-driven business, just like anything else.

I'm not trying to say that "firing first-years" is great. It definitely is terrible for those who got the wrong end of that move. I am trying to say that any firm would have done it, if push had come to shove, and sacrificing PPP is neither expected of partners nor is it something that is necessarily a good move for the career of an associate.

I'm actually not sold on the argument that Latham's mass-firings of its first years to protect its PPP will be a good move longterm. (1) The phrase "to latham" is practically part of the mainstream parlance; (2) clients surely know that Latham had issues which, even if they've been addressed (or alleged to have been addressed), reflect poorly upon the overall firm. (3) Law students have practically been beaten over the head with the anti-Latham line here, on ATL, and elsewhere.

Obviously, Latham needed to restructure its costs to some extent but the scope of the firings, the manner in which it was carried out, and the negative PR it has experienced in the aftermath may ultimately prove a greater cost to the firm than simply keeping an oversized junior associate class during 2009 and 2010.

[PKSebben]

.

[NYAssociate]

.

[miamiman]

Latham's layoffs will have no long-term effect on the firm, no matter how much the XOXO dudes think their Bob Dell meme has play in Peoria.

bob dell once clubbed 10 newborn babies to death with a ballpoint pen. true story.

[NYAssociate]

.

[PKSebben]

.

[miamiman]

Latham's layoffs will have no long-term effect on the firm, no matter how much the XOXO dudes think their Bob Dell meme has play in Peoria.

Frankly, it's just funny seeing people trying to act cool using xo memes on a different forum. The humor isn't even funny on here. It's funny there because of how ridiculous that place is. It's sad here because it pretty much shows you guys trying too hard.

Frankly, I think it's telling that you write away the fact that Latham was singular in its shittiness. And a lot of those XO people you refer to, ones I admit I don't particularly care for myself, were laid off within three to six months of their once promising, young law careers. Bigoted, sexist, homophobic comments aside, you have to at least see their point of view.

EDIT: and maybe, just maybe, sympathize.

[PKSebben]

.

[NYAssociate]

.

[12262010]

classy to adopt Holocaust lingo in referring to Lathaming.

[12262010]

Right. The only thing that could happen is that Latham fails to attract "top" talent, whatever that is. News flash: 90% OF T14 LAW STUDENTS WILL BEAT THEIR OWN PETS TO DEATH WITH A BLOODY LIMB THEY SEVERED FROM THEIR MOTHER IF IT MEANT GETTING A CHANCE TO WORK AT LATHAM. It's not like they're going to have to take a bunch of plebs from the People's College of Law. It's a buyer's market for associates right now and there is no sign this is going to change in the next few years, or ever. Partners will still go to Latham if the price is right.

no, 90% of people at CLS didn't apply to work at that shithole.

[PKSebben]

.

[12262010]

Right. The only thing that could happen is that Latham fails to attract "top" talent, whatever that is. News flash: 90% OF T14 LAW STUDENTS WILL BEAT THEIR OWN PETS TO DEATH WITH A BLOODY LIMB THEY SEVERED FROM THEIR MOTHER IF IT MEANT GETTING A CHANCE TO WORK AT LATHAM. It's not like they're going to have to take a bunch of plebs from the People's College of Law. It's a buyer's market for associates right now and there is no sign this is going to change in the next few years, or ever. Partners will still go to Latham if the price is right.

no, 90% of people at CLS didn't apply to work at that shithole.

a) [citation needed]
b) T14 =/= CLS
c) the 30% of CLS that doesn't get offers would cut off a finger to work there

HTH

a) I have friends with various grades.
b) that's your specificity fail
c) doubt it

[PKSebben]

.

[NYAssociate]

.