Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

(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.
User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2090
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:48 pm

I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

User avatar
Skye
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Skye » Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:06 am

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as a Weil associate? Seriously?

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2090
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:47 am

Skye wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as a Weil associate? Seriously?


Wut?

Pokemon
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Pokemon » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:11 am

Tip to struggling 1Ls (well not that struggling): bid Weil. The firm is already very much personality based and this might have a negative effect on their recruiting thus easier for you to get that offer. At my school, you could see Latham's GPA callback ratio going really low after creating a verb after their name, and then with the passage of time slowly rising again.

Morgan12Oak
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Morgan12Oak » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:24 am

I don't know where the whole grades don't matter after your first big law job flame started from, but while true in some circumstances, is absolutely not something I would put much stock into. Many firms have GPA requirements for lateral associates. Many such firms have stringent GPA requirements such that if your GPA wouldn't have qualified you to get hired by them in the first place as a first year, you have no luck as a lateral associate. While true in most industries that it is skills, networking, and other intangibles you pick up along the way that qualifies you as a lateral, the legal industry is not like most industries.

The fact is the legal industry is largely based on and relies on reputation moreso than other industries. I read a ridiculous comparison to Google and something earlier in this thread, and had to laugh. But to compare, Google is not a pure service provider and could care less about its employees GPA because it creates a product and sells it, for the most part. On the other hand, the legal industry has no product without the client and needs to attract the client in order to deliver the product. Therefore, it completely matters how many people you have on order of the coif because you are trying to create the facade that you are of elite talent, and the easiest proxy for that is grades and accolades.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby NYstate » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:50 am

Morgan12Oak wrote:I don't know where the whole grades don't matter after your first big law job flame started from, but while true in some circumstances, is absolutely not something I would put much stock into. Many firms have GPA requirements for lateral associates. Many such firms have stringent GPA requirements such that if your GPA wouldn't have qualified you to get hired by them in the first place as a first year, you have no luck as a lateral associate. While true in most industries that it is skills, networking, and other intangibles you pick up along the way that qualifies you as a lateral, the legal industry is not like most industries.

The fact is the legal industry is largely based on and relies on reputation moreso than other industries. I read a ridiculous comparison to Google and something earlier in this thread, and had to laugh. But to compare, Google is not a pure service provider and could care less about its employees GPA because it creates a product and sells it, for the most part. On the other hand, the legal industry has no product without the client and needs to attract the client in order to deliver the product. Therefore, it completely matters how many people you

have on order of the coif because you are trying to create the facade that you are of elite talent, and the easiest proxy for that is grades and accolades.


Part of this misunderstanding may come from the idea that you need more than grades to lateral and your experience is what will matter. I have seen people trade up without having to be Coif though. You still need decent grades to lateral but I don't think it has to be that high.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:57 am

For what it is worth, I have interviewed lateral associates anywhere from 2nd year associates to 8th year associates and we always ask for grades and I have always seen them. Usually, it is not a topic of conversation, but I can think of 2 people who did not get offers because of their transcripts even though they came from better ranked firms, had great experience and were personable. It's not like a better candidate came along either. We just decided to pass on them and not hire for the time being. Lawyers are super judgmental, as are clients, so any indication that you are not brilliant is sometimes latched onto.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:11 am

IAFG wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

Sure, firms pay partners less, so rainmakers leave, and now all the associates are out of work instead of just some of them.

I fucking hate it when people say that.


Nothing about "it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs" is inconsistent with that. There are firms where some rainmakers bring in much more business than their compensation would suggest, and those rainmakers do not flee en masse to firms with more flexible compensation structures.


List of partners where this is the case.


Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby NYstate » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:47 am

Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.


OTOH:Marty bienenstock ; Jeffrey Kessler. (Just to name two that jump to mind)


c3pO4
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby c3pO4 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:45 pm

Goodwin Proctor just closed its san diego office... who is next?

cim_can
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:17 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby cim_can » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This is interesting. Houston has gotten so hot lately it's insane. Vinson & Elkins, Baker Botts, and F&J dominate that place, and it seems like the only "outsider" who has made any headway has been Latham. It makes me wonder whether some other firms that have tried to crack that market are going to similarly shed practice groups down there eventually.


Weil's Houston practice looks (or, looked) to be exclusively complex commercial litigation and bankruptcy. Houston is hot in corporate/energy, yes, but my guess (reinforced by the WSJ article) is that Weil was charging clients national BigLaw rates for litigation.

Texas has a lot of homegrown firms and litigation boutiques that likely charge much less and are exceptional, which likely meant that clients were not willing to pay for Weil.

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2090
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:For what it is worth, I have interviewed lateral associates anywhere from 2nd year associates to 8th year associates and we always ask for grades and I have always seen them. Usually, it is not a topic of conversation, but I can think of 2 people who did not get offers because of their transcripts even though they came from better ranked firms, had great experience and were personable. It's not like a better candidate came along either. We just decided to pass on them and not hire for the time being. Lawyers are super judgmental, as are clients, so any indication that you are not brilliant is sometimes latched onto.


Out of curiosity, how bad were the transcripts of the 2 people who didn't get offers?

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:36 pm

c3pO4 wrote:Goodwin Proctor just closed its san diego office... who is next?


Did you hear that Dewey closed ALL their offices last year? Who is next?

Half the people in this thread, including you, need to get the fuck out of here and stop posting/fear mongering.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:18 am

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:For what it is worth, I have interviewed lateral associates anywhere from 2nd year associates to 8th year associates and we always ask for grades and I have always seen them. Usually, it is not a topic of conversation, but I can think of 2 people who did not get offers because of their transcripts even though they came from better ranked firms, had great experience and were personable. It's not like a better candidate came along either. We just decided to pass on them and not hire for the time being. Lawyers are super judgmental, as are clients, so any indication that you are not brilliant is sometimes latched onto.


Out of curiosity, how bad were the transcripts of the 2 people who didn't get offers?

Not bad. Some C's sprinkled in throughout the transcript. I was surprised to be honest and so were some people in my department...some of them (including partners) were really annoyed by it.

User avatar
gonewiththewind
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby gonewiththewind » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:01 am

I find this whole Weil situation to be interesting b/c it could either be just a noncyclical blip or a sign of bad things to come. Also you could take the risk with Weil and apply, hoping that a) you'll have an easier time b/c of the dump they just took on their own reputation, and b) that those cuts are the only ones they need to make. Can't hurt to bid on them anyway.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:30 pm

Honestly, I would not bid Weil right now. Same for Latham.

The Latham thing never ceases to amaze me. The clipped 400 total people, 200+ associates (many first years) in one fell swoop and will do it again immediately if they need to. Why would you want to work for a firm that has that sort of philosophy?

anonymous2012
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby anonymous2012 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:07 pm

NYstate wrote:
Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.


OTOH:Marty bienenstock ; Jeffrey Kessler. (Just to name two that jump to mind)



The point is that Harvey is bringing in something like 100 million a year in business. To quote him, " I've made all my partners very rich."

But why should they heavily subsidize underperforming groups? Perhaps those people shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but Harvey Miller shouldn't have to take less. He already takes much less than he's worth.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18418
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby bk1 » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:36 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Skye wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as a Weil associate? Seriously?


Wut?

:lol:

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Lasers » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:21 am

Anonymous User wrote:Honestly, I would not bid Weil right now. Same for Latham.

The Latham thing never ceases to amaze me. The clipped 400 total people, 200+ associates (many first years) in one fell swoop and will do it again immediately if they need to. Why would you want to work for a firm that has that sort of philosophy?

i'd stay away from a firm like winston rather than latham. winston has been doing stealth layoffs for a while i believe; latham hasn't had to cut associates in a while and has returned to great profitability.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273256
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:31 am

Weil isn't the only firm conducting layoffs. Weil is one of the few firms conducting layoffs in such a transparent manner with generous packages.

User avatar
unc0mm0n1
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:06 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby unc0mm0n1 » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:38 am

Lasers wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Honestly, I would not bid Weil right now. Same for Latham.

The Latham thing never ceases to amaze me. The clipped 400 total people, 200+ associates (many first years) in one fell swoop and will do it again immediately if they need to. Why would you want to work for a firm that has that sort of philosophy?

i'd stay away from a firm like winston rather than latham. winston has been doing stealth layoffs for a while i believe; latham hasn't had to cut associates in a while and has returned to great profitability.


No doubt Winston has been doing stealth layoffs for a while.

itbdvorm
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby itbdvorm » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:39 am

Anonymous User wrote:Weil isn't the only firm conducting layoffs. Weil is one of the few firms conducting layoffs in such a transparent manner with generous packages.


this.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby NYstate » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:22 am

itbdvorm wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Weil isn't the only firm conducting layoffs. Weil is one of the few firms conducting layoffs in such a transparent manner with generous packages.


this.


Stephan Harper with a rambling article about who pays the price of these layoffs. Harper seems like a bit of an ass to me.

http://m.americanlawyer.com/module/alm/ ... 029795238p

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby NYstate » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:29 am

anonymous2012 wrote:
NYstate wrote:
Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.


OTOH:Marty bienenstock ; Jeffrey Kessler. (Just to name two that jump to mind)



The point is that Harvey is bringing in something like 100 million a year in business. To quote him, " I've made all my partners very rich."

But why should they heavily subsidize underperforming groups? Perhaps those people shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but Harvey Miller shouldn't have to take less. He already takes much less than he's worth.



I thought the point being made was that partners will leave given the right inducement and acting like they won't leave is poor judgement. I just gave two noteworthy examples without even doing a bit of research, there are more.


Besides Harvey Miller is older than my grandmother by a couple of years. He isn't the future.
Last edited by NYstate on Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.