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

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Lasers » Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:29 pm

unc0mm0n1 wrote:
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.

yeah. definitely stay away from them, especially as a summer:

"Like many law firms, our clients did not use first- and second-year associates to the extent they have in the past," Fitzgerald says. Winston also offered fewer 2011 summer associates full-time first-year associate positions in 2012 than it has in the past. The firm has traditionally offered positions to about 90 percent of its summer associates, Fitzgerald says. Last year, the proportion of summers receiving offers slid to about 75 percent. The trend is set to continue, as Winston will be taking on far fewer new first-year associates in 2013. "We used to take on 130 or so before the recession," Fitzgerald says. "This year, we'll have approximately 55 joining us."

Anonymous User
Posts: 273387
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:28 pm

So I suppose the odds turned out better for those who selected a boutique bursting with cases then a firm with hundreds of attorneys and dozens of SAs hoping for the best. When I say overflowing with cases I mean that most of us will work right up until LS starts (except for one SA who has an overseas vacation commitment locked-in). Plus the hands-on experience has been better than I ever imagined.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273387
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:So I suppose the odds turned out better for those who selected a boutique bursting with cases then a firm with hundreds of attorneys and dozens of SAs hoping for the best. When I say overflowing with cases I mean that most of us will work right up until LS starts (except for one SA who has an overseas vacation commitment locked-in). Plus the hands-on experience has been better than I ever imagined.


I am working at a boutique where I am the only SA and I really dislike the idea of not having anyone to "compare myself with" or a person to filter the work that I get. I get so many assignments with tight deadlines and I just feel insecure. A lot of my friends that worked in bigger firms seem to have much longer deadlines allowing them to turn in better work product than me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273387
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So I suppose the odds turned out better for those who selected a boutique bursting with cases then a firm with hundreds of attorneys and dozens of SAs hoping for the best. When I say overflowing with cases I mean that most of us will work right up until LS starts (except for one SA who has an overseas vacation commitment locked-in). Plus the hands-on experience has been better than I ever imagined.


I am working at a boutique where I am the only SA and I really dislike the idea of not having anyone to "compare myself with" or a person to filter the work that I get. I get so many assignments with tight deadlines and I just feel insecure. A lot of my friends that worked in bigger firms seem to have much longer deadlines allowing them to turn in better work product than me.

Short of family firms tossing their kid an SA, I have never heard of a firm with just 1 SA. Are you at a very small firm (less than a dozen attorneys)? I/we work on short "need it now" assignments but they are mixed-in with week or longer deadlines. BTW: What is your definition of a boutique?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273387
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So I suppose the odds turned out better for those who selected a boutique bursting with cases then a firm with hundreds of attorneys and dozens of SAs hoping for the best. When I say overflowing with cases I mean that most of us will work right up until LS starts (except for one SA who has an overseas vacation commitment locked-in). Plus the hands-on experience has been better than I ever imagined.


I am working at a boutique where I am the only SA and I really dislike the idea of not having anyone to "compare myself with" or a person to filter the work that I get. I get so many assignments with tight deadlines and I just feel insecure. A lot of my friends that worked in bigger firms seem to have much longer deadlines allowing them to turn in better work product than me.

Short of family firms tossing their kid an SA, I have never heard of a firm with just 1 SA. Are you at a very small firm (less than a dozen attorneys)? I/we work on short "need it now" assignments but they are mixed-in with week or longer deadlines. BTW: What is your definition of a boutique?


It was a first for them too, I think. They told me I should not count on getting an offer, so not really an SA (never given offers to students). I guess I call myself an SA because that is what they call me. Nevertheless, I still want to do a good job and wish there was more organization/feedback...
Also, there are offices of biglaw firms with just one SA. And there are smaller boutiques with just one SA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273387
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So I suppose the odds turned out better for those who selected a boutique bursting with cases then a firm with hundreds of attorneys and dozens of SAs hoping for the best. When I say overflowing with cases I mean that most of us will work right up until LS starts (except for one SA who has an overseas vacation commitment locked-in). Plus the hands-on experience has been better than I ever imagined.


I am working at a boutique where I am the only SA and I really dislike the idea of not having anyone to "compare myself with" or a person to filter the work that I get. I get so many assignments with tight deadlines and I just feel insecure. A lot of my friends that worked in bigger firms seem to have much longer deadlines allowing them to turn in better work product than me.

Short of family firms tossing their kid an SA, I have never heard of a firm with just 1 SA. Are you at a very small firm (less than a dozen attorneys)? I/we work on short "need it now" assignments but they are mixed-in with week or longer deadlines. BTW: What is your definition of a boutique?


this happens at even v100 offices in cities where the office is 20-30 attorneys. sometimes they only hire 1-2 SAs. IMO a class size of ~3-5 sa's is a lot nicer than 25-50.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby PDaddy » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:32 pm

The ABA should be able to sanction any firm that has big layoffs like this.

Freeze all recruiting indefinitely and force them to rehire at least 50% of the associates they terminated as the firm's financial position improves - assuming they don't secure new jobs. Force them to compensate those employees for any wage disparities for up to three years. Freeze the bonuses of all existing partners. They need to treat this as a bailout situation. In the end, the partners are still going to profit from the work of these people.

If a large firm is laying off employees because it cannot afford those employees, why should that firm be recruiting new employees? No OCI's, no hiring...period! No SA's.

All preferences should go to the previously laid off/fired staff and associates, and they should have a chance to get their jobs back.

The partner contracts are a b*tch! The non-compete clauses are likely rendered void if partners are laid off/fired without cause. That means they can take with them their best clients if forced out. This whole thing just reeks!

Does the ABA have an antitrust exemption? Not an expert on the topic, just asking.

User avatar
NinerFan
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby NinerFan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:06 pm

PDaddy wrote:The ABA should be able to sanction any firm that has big layoffs like this.

Freeze all recruiting indefinitely and force them to rehire at least 50% of the associates they terminated as the firm's financial position improves - assuming they don't secure new jobs. Force them to compensate those employees for any wage disparities for up to three years. Freeze the bonuses of all existing partners. They need to treat this as a bailout situation. In the end, the partners are still going to profit from the work of these people.

If a large firm is laying off employees because it cannot afford those employees, why should that firm be recruiting new employees? No OCI's, no hiring...period! No SA's.

All preferences should go to the previously laid off/fired staff and associates, and they should have a chance to get their jobs back.

The partner contracts are a b*tch! The non-compete clauses are likely rendered void if partners are laid off/fired without cause. That means they can take with them their best clients if forced out. This whole thing just reeks!

Does the ABA have an antitrust exemption? Not an expert on the topic, just asking.


This is silly. And, the ABA, as far as I know, doesn't have any power other than accrediting law schools. It doesn't have the power to decide if an attorney is admitted to practice law, much less to sanction firms.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby timbs4339 » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:09 pm

NinerFan wrote:
PDaddy wrote:The ABA should be able to sanction any firm that has big layoffs like this.

Freeze all recruiting indefinitely and force them to rehire at least 50% of the associates they terminated as the firm's financial position improves - assuming they don't secure new jobs. Force them to compensate those employees for any wage disparities for up to three years. Freeze the bonuses of all existing partners. They need to treat this as a bailout situation. In the end, the partners are still going to profit from the work of these people.

If a large firm is laying off employees because it cannot afford those employees, why should that firm be recruiting new employees? No OCI's, no hiring...period! No SA's.

All preferences should go to the previously laid off/fired staff and associates, and they should have a chance to get their jobs back.

The partner contracts are a b*tch! The non-compete clauses are likely rendered void if partners are laid off/fired without cause. That means they can take with them their best clients if forced out. This whole thing just reeks!

Does the ABA have an antitrust exemption? Not an expert on the topic, just asking.


This is silly. And, the ABA, as far as I know, doesn't have any power other than accrediting law schools. It doesn't have the power to decide if an attorney is admitted to practice law, much less to sanction firms.


Well, it can issue advisory opinions telling firms they can have US legal work done by foreign LPOs.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1 ... 0530150858

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

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby NYstate » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:15 pm

PDaddy wrote:The ABA should be able to sanction any firm that has big layoffs like this.

Freeze all recruiting indefinitely and force them to rehire at least 50% of the associates they terminated as the firm's financial position improves - assuming they don't secure new jobs. Force them to compensate those employees for any wage disparities for up to three years. Freeze the bonuses of all existing partners. They need to treat this as a bailout situation. In the end, the partners are still going to profit from the work of these people.

If a large firm is laying off employees because it cannot afford those employees, why should that firm be recruiting new employees? No OCI's, no hiring...period! No SA's.

All preferences should go to the previously laid off/fired staff and associates, and they should have a chance to get their jobs back.

The partner contracts are a b*tch! The non-compete clauses are likely rendered void if partners are laid off/fired without cause. That means they can take with them their best clients if forced out. This whole thing just reeks!

Does the ABA have an antitrust exemption? Not an expert on the topic, just asking.


You seriously don't want any firm that has had major layoffs in the past few years to do OCI? And you want the worse than useless ABA involved in deciding which firms do OCI?

Do you not want anyone to find a job? This rant makes no sense to me. What are you trying to accomplish? All associate employment is at-will. They got a better severance than all the people who have stealth layoffs.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Bildungsroman » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:29 pm

PDaddy wrote:The ABA should be able to sanction any firm that has big layoffs like this.

Freeze all recruiting indefinitely and force them to rehire at least 50% of the associates they terminated as the firm's financial position improves - assuming they don't secure new jobs. Force them to compensate those employees for any wage disparities for up to three years. Freeze the bonuses of all existing partners. They need to treat this as a bailout situation. In the end, the partners are still going to profit from the work of these people.

If a large firm is laying off employees because it cannot afford those employees, why should that firm be recruiting new employees? No OCI's, no hiring...period! No SA's.

All preferences should go to the previously laid off/fired staff and associates, and they should have a chance to get their jobs back.

The partner contracts are a b*tch! The non-compete clauses are likely rendered void if partners are laid off/fired without cause. That means they can take with them their best clients if forced out. This whole thing just reeks!

Does the ABA have an antitrust exemption? Not an expert on the topic, just asking.

Oh man, vintage PDaddy.

Pokemon
Posts: 1861
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Pokemon » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:46 pm

If this was communism, we would all have jerbs... and a house. But no one but the politburo would be making 160k.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Blessedassurance » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:51 am

PDaddy wrote:The ABA should be able to sanction any firm that has big layoffs like this.

Freeze all recruiting indefinitely and force them to rehire at least 50% of the associates they terminated as the firm's financial position improves - assuming they don't secure new jobs. Force them to compensate those employees for any wage disparities for up to three years. Freeze the bonuses of all existing partners. They need to treat this as a bailout situation. In the end, the partners are still going to profit from the work of these people.

If a large firm is laying off employees because it cannot afford those employees, why should that firm be recruiting new employees? No OCI's, no hiring...period! No SA's.

All preferences should go to the previously laid off/fired staff and associates, and they should have a chance to get their jobs back.

The partner contracts are a b*tch! The non-compete clauses are likely rendered void if partners are laid off/fired without cause. That means they can take with them their best clients if forced out. This whole thing just reeks!

Does the ABA have an antitrust exemption? Not an expert on the topic, just asking.


herr engels, i understand we're all entitled to our opinions but, as a matter of courtesy and public decency, you should really take the time to think through your ideas before you publish them...

User avatar
Summerz
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Summerz » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:09 am

NinerFan wrote:This is silly. And, the ABA, as far as I know, doesn't have any power other than accrediting law schools. It doesn't have the power to decide if an attorney is admitted to practice law, much less to sanction firms.

Agreed, forget the ABA. At the T-14 level the schools need to be the ones to securitize OCI firms for admission. If the thinking is that T14 students are nearly +90% assured of landing a good gig, the last thing a student wants to do is sign up with a habitually low percentage offer firm or one that is suddenly terminating people. Firms with a high offer rate should be given a high recommendation by the school. Good students shouldn’t be placed in jeopardy because of a douchey firm.

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

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:54 am

Y'all, students don't need to be "protected" from taking jobs at Weil. When 2Ls accept summer jobs there this fall, it won't be because they don't understand or don't know about the layoffs. It'll be because it's still their best option. "Punishing" Weil by limiting their recruiting (aside from being an impossible idea) would just mean fewer opportunities for law students.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273387
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So I suppose the odds turned out better for those who selected a boutique bursting with cases then a firm with hundreds of attorneys and dozens of SAs hoping for the best. When I say overflowing with cases I mean that most of us will work right up until LS starts (except for one SA who has an overseas vacation commitment locked-in). Plus the hands-on experience has been better than I ever imagined.


I am working at a boutique where I am the only SA and I really dislike the idea of not having anyone to "compare myself with" or a person to filter the work that I get. I get so many assignments with tight deadlines and I just feel insecure. A lot of my friends that worked in bigger firms seem to have much longer deadlines allowing them to turn in better work product than me.

Short of family firms tossing their kid an SA, I have never heard of a firm with just 1 SA. Are you at a very small firm (less than a dozen attorneys)? I/we work on short "need it now" assignments but they are mixed-in with week or longer deadlines. BTW: What is your definition of a boutique?

I'm the only SA at a boutique firm in a major market that has approximately 60 attorneys and pays market. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three other firms in my market that are similar. So yes, Anon 2 above, there are definitely firms that take on one or very few SAs and are fantastic places to work; the reason these firms hire so few SAs is that they don't operate on an associate-leverage/up-and-out business model.

By 'boutique,' I mean a one (or maybe two)-office firm that 1) pays market; 2) has a limited number of practice areas it focuses on; and 3) has a business model that depends on competitive rates and lean staffing of matters.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby 09042014 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:27 pm

Anyone know the classes these cuts were made in? Unless this is 1-2 years, then it's not some crazy horrible thing. These guys got 6 months severance and a public acknowledgement that it was a financial layoff. Better than most people get from biglawl right?

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Icculus » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:29 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Anyone know the classes these cuts were made in? Unless this is 1-2 years, then it's not some crazy horrible thing. These guys got 6 months severance and a public acknowledgement that it was a financial layoff. Better than most people get from biglawl right?


Saw somewhere that at least in the Boston Lit group it was some first years.

User avatar
Summerz
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Summerz » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:33 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Y'all, students don't need to be "protected" from taking jobs at Weil. When 2Ls accept summer jobs there this fall, it won't be because they don't understand or don't know about the layoffs. It'll be because it's still their best option. "Punishing" Weil by limiting their recruiting (aside from being an impossible idea) would just mean fewer opportunities for law students.

That’s the point, it shouldn’t be an impossible idea. The school should provide as much firm info as humanly possible. Offer rates, recent downsizing, etc. Where does the school obtain this info you ask…. info should be included in the firm’s OCI application form. As far as punishing Weil, they are doing a pretty good job on their own, given that their downsizing is occurring as OCI is about to begin. When Weil makes an offer the student will likely wait out the 28 waiting period (in hopes of securing something more stable). Not picking on Weil, this applies to every firm downsizing or with a poor offer rate.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby sundance95 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:41 pm

Summerz wrote:That’s the point, it shouldn’t be an impossible idea. The school should provide as much firm info as humanly possible. Offer rates, recent downsizing, etc. Where does the school obtain this info you ask…. info should be included in the firm’s OCI application form. As far as punishing Weil, they are doing a pretty good job on their own, given that their downsizing is occurring as OCI is about to begin. When Weil makes an offer the student will likely wait out the 28 waiting period (in hopes of securing something more stable). Not picking on Weil, this applies to every firm downsizing or with a poor offer rate.

The end result of your scenario is that Weil fills its class as it always does, but the class average GPA is (maybe) a couple of points lower. Do you think this prospect keeps Weil partners up at night?

User avatar
Summerz
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Summerz » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:56 pm

sundance95 wrote:The end result of your scenario is that Weil fills its class as it always does, but the class average GPA is (maybe) a couple of points lower. Do you think this prospect keeps Weil partners up at night?

If I were a partner at Weil making my +$2.5M a year, I’d sleep very well, thank you. But perhaps not such a comfy Beautyrest sleep for a wide-eyed SA or first year associate about to be handed their hat. All I am advocating is, the school should provide as much OCI firm info as possible to students trying to figure out what firms to bid and what firms to avoid.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby sundance95 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:03 pm

Summerz wrote:
sundance95 wrote:The end result of your scenario is that Weil fills its class as it always does, but the class average GPA is (maybe) a couple of points lower. Do you think this prospect keeps Weil partners up at night?

If I were a partner at Weil making my +$2.5M a year, I’d sleep very well, thank you. But perhaps not such a comfy Beautyrest sleep for a wide-eyed SA or first year associate about to be handed their hat. All I am advocating is, the school should provide as much OCI firm info as possible to students trying to figure out what firms to bid and what firms to avoid.

Obviously--who would disagree with that? But it's not like the schools had any idea Weil was going to do this. And if you think schools can leverage information out of biglaw firms with OCI forms, then I think you misunderstand the power dynamic between the schools and the firms.

The point is that the idea that students can organize and 'punish' Weil is, in fact, an impossible idea.

User avatar
Summerz
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Summerz » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:12 pm

sundance95 wrote:The point is that the idea that students can organize and 'punish' Weil is, in fact, an impossible idea.

First, providing information should not be deemed as punishment. Secondly, this is not about Weil. It is about all firms soliciting students through OCI.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby Samara » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:28 pm

Summerz wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Y'all, students don't need to be "protected" from taking jobs at Weil. When 2Ls accept summer jobs there this fall, it won't be because they don't understand or don't know about the layoffs. It'll be because it's still their best option. "Punishing" Weil by limiting their recruiting (aside from being an impossible idea) would just mean fewer opportunities for law students.

That’s the point, it shouldn’t be an impossible idea. The school should provide as much firm info as humanly possible. Offer rates, recent downsizing, etc. Where does the school obtain this info you ask…. info should be included in the firm’s OCI application form. As far as punishing Weil, they are doing a pretty good job on their own, given that their downsizing is occurring as OCI is about to begin. When Weil makes an offer the student will likely wait out the 28 waiting period (in hopes of securing something more stable). Not picking on Weil, this applies to every firm downsizing or with a poor offer rate.

Because what we need are MORE stealth layoffs!

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

Re: Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:51 pm

sundance95 wrote:And if you think schools can leverage information out of biglaw firms with OCI forms, then I think you misunderstand the power dynamic between the schools and the firms.

Yeah, this.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.