Los Angeles--Now or Later?

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?


Check out the V-10 rumor thread on this board. Have absolutely no clue if there is any factual basis behind the rumor, but if it is true then I would not want to be working for Latham this summer. If they are even thinking about layoffs now, I have to imagine getting an offer this summer will be difficult.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?


Check out the V-10 rumor thread on this board. Have absolutely no clue if there is any factual basis behind the rumor, but if it is true then I would not want to be working for Latham this summer. If they are even thinking about layoffs now, I have to imagine getting an offer this summer will be difficult.

Basing big-time career decisions on anonymous message boards post typically isn't a good idea.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?


Check out the V-10 rumor thread on this board. Have absolutely no clue if there is any factual basis behind the rumor, but if it is true then I would not want to be working for Latham this summer. If they are even thinking about layoffs now, I have to imagine getting an offer this summer will be difficult.

Basing big-time career decisions on anonymous message boards post typically isn't a good idea.


True, but if the poster is already coming here to read anonymous message board posts, that ship has sailed. Again, I said I have no clue if the rumors are accurate, but they are at the very least something to consider.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby keg411 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?


It depends -- where are your other offers from?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:22 pm

keg411 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?


It depends -- where are your other offers from?


2 V40 NYC firms. Both have smaller offices in LA. Sorry can't be more specific, but afraid it would out me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:29 pm

keg411 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?


It depends -- where are your other offers from?


Different person, but also only have Latham in LA and would like to end up here. Other options are v20ish in NY, and waiting to hear from a v10. I would be happy at the ny firms, but love LA.

Read the v10 rumor thread, so if Latham is doing a capital call, does that necessarily mean trouble? No idea what that really means.

User avatar
L’Étranger
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:27 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby L’Étranger » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:30 pm

This thread is a mystery. Why is there is SO much anonymous posting going on in here, and why the heck would someone who wants to be in a LA not take a job in LA?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby ph14 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:31 pm

L’Étranger wrote:This thread is a mystery. Why is there is SO much anonymous posting going on in here, and why the heck would someone who wants to be in a LA not take a job in LA?


+1. Although I can understand being very skeptical about Latham.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby keg411 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:35 pm

ph14 wrote:
L’Étranger wrote:This thread is a mystery. Why is there is SO much anonymous posting going on in here, and why the heck would someone who wants to be in a LA not take a job in LA?


+1. Although I can understand being very skeptical about Latham.


IMO, the only reason is being skeptical about the firm (whether it's Latham or anywhere else that has had a rumor of issues).

While I personally don't think a capital call is necessarily a "sign of doom", I do think the xoxo thread points to trouble, since they're actually pretty on top of those types of things (if you can wade through the derp on the rest of the site). They were on point about Dewey from the beginning (and have been on-point about other firm-specific happenings in the past).

User avatar
L’Étranger
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:27 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby L’Étranger » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:35 pm

ph14 wrote:+1. Although I can understand being very skeptical about Latham.


Even so, I say just try and control what you can in life. From our vantage point, who knows why Latham or any other law firm does anything.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby ph14 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:37 pm

L’Étranger wrote:
ph14 wrote:+1. Although I can understand being very skeptical about Latham.


Even so, I say just try and control what you can in life. From our vantage point, who knows why Latham or any other law firm does anything.


Well, if you received a Latham offer, you most likely had the credentials to at least receive another LA offer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:43 pm

Slightly off topic.

But if you received a Latham NY offer and really liked the office and their specialties (M&A + PE), would it be crazy to choose them over another V10/15 firm?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby rayiner » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Slightly off topic.

But if you received a Latham NY offer and really liked the office and their specialties (M&A + PE), would it be crazy to choose them over another V10/15 firm?


Yes. Latham NY is not a well-diversified office.

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby anon168 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:19 pm

rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I get the feeling that Latham gets crap mainly because it is ranked as a V10 which means some people think it is peers with DPW, Simpson, Cleary, etc. While it is a V10 firm, its peers are probably more along the lines of Weil, Debevoise, GDC, etc. It reminds me a lot of the bickering over law schools where the entire T14 is elite (just like all the firms mentioned above), but some people want to think that their MVPDCNG is a peer with CCN.


Debevoise, GDC, etc, didn't lay off hundreds of attorneys. They all grew their headcount through the recession. Latham's layoffs place it in the company of CWT, White & Case, etc.

Latham's big problem is that it straddles an uncomfortable place between the most elite firms and less elite firms. It does mega-M&A, but is behind quite a few firms on the totem pole for that work. It does mega-litigation, but is behind quite a few firms on the totem pole for that work. It's got the cost structure of a national firm, but is not a top-tier player in any market besides LA. When times are good, it can pick up a lot of work, but when times are bad, other firms are ahead in line for what little work is available.

Firms that are lower on the totem poll are actually better for associates in a way, both because they can't bulk up as much in good times and because partners don't have the same sorts of profitability expectations. Firms that don't play in the mega-M&A area to begin with can't be hurt when those deals dry up. I think a lot of law students are blinded by Latham's Vault ranking and think they'll be be safer there than at say Jones Day, Shearman, Milbank, Willkie, Cahill, Fried Frank, etc, etc, but the numbers say otherwise.


I know for a fact that GDC had layoffs during 2009. It refused to acknowledge them publicly which made the laid off associates' life that much more difficult (this is from first hand accounts). And GDC grew its headcount in the 2008-11 by lateral partners and groups, while at the same time shedding associates and recalibrating its leverage ratio. Again, this is first-hand reports.

And people keep saying that LW's model isn't sustainable, or that it doesn't work. Last I checked LW has been around for decades, has grown to be one of the biggest and most profitable firms in the world, if not one of the most prestigious. Seems like they are doing ok. And unless you are going to call a "Dewey" on LW, I would leave the law firm management guessing game to the folks who've been doing it for years.

And I don't care where you go, midlaw, biglaw, V1, V100 or whatever. Layoffs happen. It just does. People need to get over it. In fact, I would rather work at a firm that can recognize it needs to cull the fat, than one that hides its head in economic reality (Heller Ehrman), or simply tries to outgrow the problem by putting lipstick on the proverbial pig (Dewey).

It's like pruning a tree. Every so often you need to cut the dead branches so that the tree can regenerate and grow bigger and better.

I don't care if anyone goes to LW or not, or any other firm. I just want people here to make a choice knowing all the info that they possibly can.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby sunynp » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:08 pm

I think laying off 1st and 2nd years who have almost no chance at getting another job is about as far away from pruning dead wood than you can get. I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:26 pm

anon168 wrote:I know for a fact that GDC had layoffs during 2009. It refused to acknowledge them publicly which made the laid off associates' life that much more difficult (this is from first hand accounts). And GDC grew its headcount in the 2008-11 by lateral partners and groups, while at the same time shedding associates and recalibrating its leverage ratio. Again, this is first-hand reports.

And I don't care where you go, midlaw, biglaw, V1, V100 or whatever. Layoffs happen. It just does. People need to get over it. In fact, I would rather work at a firm that can recognize it needs to cull the fat, than one that hides its head in economic reality (Heller Ehrman), or simply tries to outgrow the problem by putting lipstick on the proverbial pig (Dewey).

It's like pruning a tree. Every so often you need to cut the dead branches so that the tree can regenerate and grow bigger and better.

I don't care if anyone goes to LW or not, or any other firm. I just want people here to make a choice knowing all the info that they possibly can.

Trying to equivocate between Latham's spectacularly bloody purges and anecdotes you've heard about Gibson Dunn (y'know, the Gibson Dunn that's famous for zero bank debt and conservative fiscal management - essentially the opposite of Latham?) would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I've heard a lot of Latham apologists, but this has got to be the biggest stretch.

anon168 wrote:And people keep saying that LW's model isn't sustainable, or that it doesn't work. Last I checked LW has been around for decades, has grown to be one of the biggest and most profitable firms in the world, if not one of the most prestigious. Seems like they are doing ok. And unless you are going to call a "Dewey" on LW, I would leave the law firm management guessing game to the folks who've been doing it for years.

Trust Latham's management as a young associate? You realize the factors that make a firm attractive to partners can be completely anathema to the interests of new associates right? Like sweatshops that work their associates into the ground and ignore career development to drive up short term PPP, or gee, firms that routinely ratchet up leverage until they have to start gutting first years? Didn't we invent a new verb for that in 2009? There's no one on earth I'd trust less with the future of my career than Bob Dell. Why?

sunynp (in response to anon168) wrote:I think laying off 1st and 2nd years who have almost no chance at getting another job is about as far away from pruning dead wood than you can get. I think you don't know what you are talking about.

That's why.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby rayiner » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
anon168 wrote:I know for a fact that GDC had layoffs during 2009. It refused to acknowledge them publicly which made the laid off associates' life that much more difficult (this is from first hand accounts). And GDC grew its headcount in the 2008-11 by lateral partners and groups, while at the same time shedding associates and recalibrating its leverage ratio. Again, this is first-hand reports.

And I don't care where you go, midlaw, biglaw, V1, V100 or whatever. Layoffs happen. It just does. People need to get over it. In fact, I would rather work at a firm that can recognize it needs to cull the fat, than one that hides its head in economic reality (Heller Ehrman), or simply tries to outgrow the problem by putting lipstick on the proverbial pig (Dewey).

It's like pruning a tree. Every so often you need to cut the dead branches so that the tree can regenerate and grow bigger and better.

I don't care if anyone goes to LW or not, or any other firm. I just want people here to make a choice knowing all the info that they possibly can.

Trying to equivocate between Latham's spectacularly bloody purges and anecdotes you've heard about Gibson Dunn (y'know, the Gibson Dunn that's famous for zero bank debt and conservative fiscal management - essentially the opposite of Latham?) would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I've heard a lot of Latham apologists, but this has got to be the biggest stretch.

anon168 wrote:And people keep saying that LW's model isn't sustainable, or that it doesn't work. Last I checked LW has been around for decades, has grown to be one of the biggest and most profitable firms in the world, if not one of the most prestigious. Seems like they are doing ok. And unless you are going to call a "Dewey" on LW, I would leave the law firm management guessing game to the folks who've been doing it for years.

Trust Latham's management as a young associate? You realize the factors that make a firm attractive to partners can be completely anathema to the interests of new associates right? Like sweatshops that work their associates into the ground and ignore career development to drive up short term PPP, or gee, firms that routinely ratchet up leverage until they have to start gutting first years? Didn't we invent a new verb for that in 2009? There's no one on earth I'd trust less with the future of my career than Bob Dell. Why?

sunynp (in response to anon168) wrote:I think laying off 1st and 2nd years who have almost no chance at getting another job is about as far away from pruning dead wood than you can get. I think you don't know what you are talking about.

That's why.


The equivocation is ridiculous. Even the best-managed firms stealth-ed people. It sucks, but it is what it is. Latham systematically purged the first and second year classes because they had hired too much. Every firm had hired too much, but none of Latham's ostensible peers laid off half their junior associates. Skadden, Debevoise, Cleary, etc, were able to absorb the huge classes they had taken on the previous two years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
anon168 wrote:I know for a fact that GDC had layoffs during 2009. It refused to acknowledge them publicly which made the laid off associates' life that much more difficult (this is from first hand accounts). And GDC grew its headcount in the 2008-11 by lateral partners and groups, while at the same time shedding associates and recalibrating its leverage ratio. Again, this is first-hand reports.

And I don't care where you go, midlaw, biglaw, V1, V100 or whatever. Layoffs happen. It just does. People need to get over it. In fact, I would rather work at a firm that can recognize it needs to cull the fat, than one that hides its head in economic reality (Heller Ehrman), or simply tries to outgrow the problem by putting lipstick on the proverbial pig (Dewey).

It's like pruning a tree. Every so often you need to cut the dead branches so that the tree can regenerate and grow bigger and better.

I don't care if anyone goes to LW or not, or any other firm. I just want people here to make a choice knowing all the info that they possibly can.

Trying to equivocate between Latham's spectacularly bloody purges and anecdotes you've heard about Gibson Dunn (y'know, the Gibson Dunn that's famous for zero bank debt and conservative fiscal management - essentially the opposite of Latham?) would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I've heard a lot of Latham apologists, but this has got to be the biggest stretch.

anon168 wrote:And people keep saying that LW's model isn't sustainable, or that it doesn't work. Last I checked LW has been around for decades, has grown to be one of the biggest and most profitable firms in the world, if not one of the most prestigious. Seems like they are doing ok. And unless you are going to call a "Dewey" on LW, I would leave the law firm management guessing game to the folks who've been doing it for years.

Trust Latham's management as a young associate? You realize the factors that make a firm attractive to partners can be completely anathema to the interests of new associates right? Like sweatshops that work their associates into the ground and ignore career development to drive up short term PPP, or gee, firms that routinely ratchet up leverage until they have to start gutting first years? Didn't we invent a new verb for that in 2009? There's no one on earth I'd trust less with the future of my career than Bob Dell. Why?

sunynp (in response to anon168) wrote:I think laying off 1st and 2nd years who have almost no chance at getting another job is about as far away from pruning dead wood than you can get. I think you don't know what you are talking about.

That's why.


Which firms, aside from GDC, have no debt?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:03 pm

I don't want to hijack OP's thread but my interests are similar. For those who said definitely do LA now would the calculus be different if you:

1. are from LA but had always wanted to live in NYC at some point and very much want to try it out and

2. you are choosing between NY V50s and similarly ranked LA firms?

Its hard for me to swallow that you can't try living someplace for a few years, especially someplace that is the largest legal market in the country, and not decide to change markets at some point down the road (and yes I am aware there are two bar exams).

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby ph14 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't want to hijack OP's thread but my interests are similar. For those who said definitely do LA now would the calculus be different if you:

1. are from LA but had always wanted to live in NYC at some point and very much want to try it out and

2. you are choosing between NY V50s and similarly ranked LA firms?

Its hard for me to swallow that you can't try living someplace for a few years, especially someplace that is the largest legal market in the country, and not decide to change markets at some point down the road (and yes I am aware there are two bar exams).


Who said "you can't"? I believe much of the thread has advised that it would be preferable or perhaps smarter to start in LA, not that you "can't."

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:10 pm

ph14 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't want to hijack OP's thread but my interests are similar. For those who said definitely do LA now would the calculus be different if you:

1. are from LA but had always wanted to live in NYC at some point and very much want to try it out and

2. you are choosing between NY V50s and similarly ranked LA firms?

Its hard for me to swallow that you can't try living someplace for a few years, especially someplace that is the largest legal market in the country, and not decide to change markets at some point down the road (and yes I am aware there are two bar exams).


Who said "you can't"? I believe much of the thread has advised that it would be preferable or perhaps smarter to start in LA, not that you "can't."


Thats fair. I guess by "can't" I meant "can't without seriously risking never getting home where my family is and it never snows, or at least seriously hurting my career prospects."

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't want to hijack OP's thread but my interests are similar. For those who said definitely do LA now would the calculus be different if you:

1. are from LA but had always wanted to live in NYC at some point and very much want to try it out and

2. you are choosing between NY V50s and similarly ranked LA firms?

Its hard for me to swallow that you can't try living someplace for a few years, especially someplace that is the largest legal market in the country, and not decide to change markets at some point down the road (and yes I am aware there are two bar exams).


Who said "you can't"? I believe much of the thread has advised that it would be preferable or perhaps smarter to start in LA, not that you "can't."


Thats fair. I guess by "can't" I meant "can't without seriously risking never getting home where my family is and it never snows, or at least seriously hurting my career prospects."

The economy at large is hurting, the legal industry is in flux, and nobody knows what kind of hiring law firms will be doing in 5 years. On top of that, you're talking about lateraling into a relatively small legal market, from a firm that is good but not extremely impressive (V50), into a jurisdiction where you will most likely not be admitted at the time (no waiver from NY to CA).

Not sure why you think this *wouldn't* be riskier than just working where you want to work from the get-go.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273310
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:48 pm

What if one starts at the home office of a non-CA firm with California offices like Milbank/Morgan Lewis? How hard would it be to lateral into the LA market? Assuming one didn't get an LA offer the first time around.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby ph14 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What if one starts at the home office of a non-CA firm with California offices like Milbank/Morgan Lewis? How hard would it be to lateral into the LA market? Assuming one didn't get an LA offer the first time around.


Are you asking about lateraling to another firm or lateraling into the CA office?

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: Los Angeles--Now or Later?

Postby anon168 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:09 pm

rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
anon168 wrote:I know for a fact that GDC had layoffs during 2009. It refused to acknowledge them publicly which made the laid off associates' life that much more difficult (this is from first hand accounts). And GDC grew its headcount in the 2008-11 by lateral partners and groups, while at the same time shedding associates and recalibrating its leverage ratio. Again, this is first-hand reports.

And I don't care where you go, midlaw, biglaw, V1, V100 or whatever. Layoffs happen. It just does. People need to get over it. In fact, I would rather work at a firm that can recognize it needs to cull the fat, than one that hides its head in economic reality (Heller Ehrman), or simply tries to outgrow the problem by putting lipstick on the proverbial pig (Dewey).

It's like pruning a tree. Every so often you need to cut the dead branches so that the tree can regenerate and grow bigger and better.

I don't care if anyone goes to LW or not, or any other firm. I just want people here to make a choice knowing all the info that they possibly can.

Trying to equivocate between Latham's spectacularly bloody purges and anecdotes you've heard about Gibson Dunn (y'know, the Gibson Dunn that's famous for zero bank debt and conservative fiscal management - essentially the opposite of Latham?) would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I've heard a lot of Latham apologists, but this has got to be the biggest stretch.

anon168 wrote:And people keep saying that LW's model isn't sustainable, or that it doesn't work. Last I checked LW has been around for decades, has grown to be one of the biggest and most profitable firms in the world, if not one of the most prestigious. Seems like they are doing ok. And unless you are going to call a "Dewey" on LW, I would leave the law firm management guessing game to the folks who've been doing it for years.

Trust Latham's management as a young associate? You realize the factors that make a firm attractive to partners can be completely anathema to the interests of new associates right? Like sweatshops that work their associates into the ground and ignore career development to drive up short term PPP, or gee, firms that routinely ratchet up leverage until they have to start gutting first years? Didn't we invent a new verb for that in 2009? There's no one on earth I'd trust less with the future of my career than Bob Dell. Why?

sunynp (in response to anon168) wrote:I think laying off 1st and 2nd years who have almost no chance at getting another job is about as far away from pruning dead wood than you can get. I think you don't know what you are talking about.

That's why.


The equivocation is ridiculous. Even the best-managed firms stealth-ed people. It sucks, but it is what it is. Latham systematically purged the first and second year classes because they had hired too much. Every firm had hired too much, but none of Latham's ostensible peers laid off half their junior associates. Skadden, Debevoise, Cleary, etc, were able to absorb the huge classes they had taken on the previous two years.


I think saying that LW systematically purged first and second year classes is overstating it, if not just wrong. I'll just leave it at that. I'm not here to debate the merits of Latham as a firm 5 years ago, or as an ongoing concern.

And given the choice, I would have my being laid off public knowledge (Latham) than being stealthed. It's much easier finding a job when your flogging is public knowledge.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.