Bronte wrote:Seriouslyinformative, did you really just post ten times in a row?
I was responding to all the posts. I preferred not to make a super long one.
Someone ITT recently mentioned "stealth layoffs." What a strange concept. Why would a firm hide something that's a huge plus for their reputation?
You're completely distorting my point. I'm beginning to think it's either because you really are that dumb or that it's intentional. Either way, I never said layoffs are a "huge plus" to a firm's reputation. I'm just arguing, in this thread, that a firm's reputation depends on the perspective. From associates judging the caliber of the firm? Layoffs mean jack. From partners judging the firm? Layoffs may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the partner looks for in a firm (if they want $$$, willingness to lay off is good for them). From clients judging the firm? They don't care. Not one lick. From associated judging where they should work? Layoffs matter, though I doubt Latham ranks high on the "Best Places to Work For" rankings. From prospective associates? Layoffs matter, though memories are indeed short.
Different firms had different strategies for laying off the way they did. Stealth layoffs might be great from a firm's perspective, because it might reduce the morale hit of openly laying off people, disguise the number of people actually laid off, reduce the severance the firm has to give, etc. On the bad side, stealth layoffs are probably worse for the laid off associate, as being fired for "performance" reasons makes it harder to find a job than being fired for "economic" reasons. Now I'm not saying that Latham's strategy was objectively better one than the strategy employed by other firms. So far, though, it doesn't seem to have worked against them.
What makes me laugh here is that a bunch of people ITT are making fun of a firm and saying it's reputation is "done." It's funny because none of you is a client or a partner. You're all going to come back to me and say that I'm neither as well. That is true, of course. But I have a bunch of rankings on my side (Vault, Chambers, Legal500), and the League Tables. If Latham's reputation was hit that badly, they wouldn't be at the top of these rankings.
Now I'm not arguing that Latham's reputation couldn't be terrible in the future. Maybe as the talent chain works itself through, the firm's overall quality will decline because of their actions in the past. But right now? There's no partner exodus, they have a ton of rainmakers, and they're getting a ton of business. Heck, more partners are joining the firm. If you're looking for a firm whose reputation has been "hit," look elsewhere like O'Melveny [deleted]
: The partner departures have been significant. This is bad from both the perspective of partners
. Law students should be looking at this
stuff in addition to layoffs. The former indicates some problem specific to the firm, the latter was the result of a general economic crisis that hit almost everyone.