Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

(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.

Which is the best choice of the three firms?

Ropes (NY)
6
29%
Milbank (NY)
7
33%
Latham (CA-not LA)
8
38%
 
Total votes: 21

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:19 am

Any suggestions?

sbalive
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby sbalive » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:35 am

Do you want to live in CA- not LA?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:36 am

Could be happy in any place. Prefer NYC slightly, but Latham is my favorite of the three places. Concerned about the layoffs though.

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

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby RVP11 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 am

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've heard that the Latham layoffs were concentrated in NYC, not in the much more well-established California offices.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:11 pm

pretty sure many tears were shed in latham LA

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:01 pm

Could people provide reasons why they would take Latham after all the layoffs over the others?

User avatar
bwv812
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby bwv812 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:32 pm

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:16 pm

bwv812 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:3) Latham only did one round of layoffs, and the process has presumably left them better equipped to deal with the present econcomy.

I'm not sure that layoffs alone tell us a lot. Doing multiple waves of layoffs is arguably worse, and those who did stealth layoffs or let associates bill a tiny number hours and get away with it have really just succeeded in masking any problems they have faced.


Isn't that a big presumption though? If they still aren't equipped to deal with the economy, wouldn't layoffs show they are willing to do the same if they need to? Other firms may be masking the problems, but they have shown they are committed to not letting go of junior attorneys and it feels safer at firms that haven't let people go.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:18 pm

how long after your callback did you receive the offer at Ropes?

User avatar
bwv812
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby bwv812 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:24 pm

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:41 pm

I think there's layoffs and then there's layoffs. When the bomb dropped, some associates became risk-averse and decided not to pursue those coveted "exit options" and firms needed to compensate for what, under normal economic times, would have been voluntary attrition. Places like DPW still had more deals than they could accept even during 2008-9.

Then there are firms where deal flow dried up and were leveraged "to the hilt like some piss-poor South American country," and so they rather mercilessly fired people because they didn't need the extra mouths to feed.

The first group is fine. The second group is sketchy (if anything, it reflects on poor managerial decisions as to aggressive expansion of offices and service groups that cannot always bring in their own clients. Maybe the partnership has learned from these mistakes, if they are even mistakes from their POV -- it could perhaps be more profitable model to expand and contract rather than remain conservative throughout -- but maybe it hasn't.)
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:45 pm

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:50 pm

NYAssociate wrote:
I think there's layoffs and then there's layoffs. When the bomb dropped, some associates became risk-averse and decided not to pursue those coveted "exit options" and firms needed to compensate for what, under normal economic times, would have been voluntary attrition. Places like DPW still had more deals than they could accept even during 2008-9.


1) Work dried up at DPW too for some time. They also stealthed a bunch of people.
2) Those associates didn't "decide not to" pursue those exit options. There were no exit options at the time.


according to two buddies who worked in corporate, they were able to keep busy then, but maybe they're both lying or maybe they both got lucky. And "stealthing" just refers to covert forced attrition done in order to conform to the model already in place, pre-ite. Lathaming, on the other hand, is an overt correction of the leverage (shift in the structural model altogether) because there was a substantial reduction in work flow.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:55 pm

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273270
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:48 pm

Of Ropes and Latham, which would you say is more diversified? Also, how much should a person consider the fact that the office in which he/she is interested was somewhat removed from the layoffs that took place firm-wide in other offices? The layoffs definitely didn't mirror Latham LA or NY.

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

Re: Ropes (NY) v. Milbank (NY) v. Latham (CA-not LA)

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:55 pm

,




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.