Top Law Schools

guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers

A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.

Anonymous User wrote:Seems to be the case that they avoided the harshness of 2008 economy because of their restructuring work. They're just facing the same problems that all the other firms did, just a few years later, because that work is drying up.

They didn't really "avoid" it so much as put off the inevitable. They had deferred classes to the size of 100 summer associates large, twice, and had one class (possibly two?) all start at the same time. We're talking about, what, 160-200 first years?

That aside, a booming bankruptcy group cannot sustain a mega law firm. I'd be surprised if cuts were in M&A (I've seen quite a few blockbuster deals go their way this year and last year, though their M&A practice isn't exactly a marquee one), but their IP litigation group took a huge beating with partner departures and I'm not sure whether their lit group is busy.

rad lulz wrote:

NYstate wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

shutterbug wrote:And yet so many of you still want BigLaw.

Explain why the possibility of layoff would make you not want to work at a large firm

Not getting another job?

All these 0Ls are making their budgets for their hypothetical future biglaw jobs as justification for going into huge debt from law school. They aren't calculating the risk of losing that job or not getting a job after leaving biglaw.

Your criticism is a really good criticism. Entirely fair

But I don't know how much this really says "Oh big firms do layoffs, hence I don't want to work at any big firm"

Nah dude, forget biglaw, I'm gonna turn down my job offer and go pound the pavement looking for a personal injury gig paying 1/4 as much where I will have even less job security.

There are obviously a whole hell of a lot of issues with working in biglaw but for many/most people it's better than the alternatives, so what are you going to do. Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:There are obviously a whole hell of a lot of issues with working in biglaw but for many/most people it's better than the alternatives, so what are you going to do. Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.

Pretty much

It's not like the feds or cool boutiques or in-house are doing a lot of first year hiring

Plus there are quite a few practice areas that are just dominated by big firms (see eg public company M&A)

dixiecupdrinking wrote: Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.

Can we leave the quality USA summer shows out of this? They are a guilty pleasure and need not be attacked unfairly like this.

desertlaw wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote: Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.

Can we leave the quality USA summer shows out of this? They are a guilty pleasure and need not be attacked unfairly like this.

lol, fair enough. Though if you go to Above The Law right now, they seem to be sponsoring them in this time of bad news...

rad lulz wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:There are obviously a whole hell of a lot of issues with working in biglaw but for many/most people it's better than the alternatives, so what are you going to do. Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.

Pretty much

It's not like the feds or cool boutiques or in-house are doing a lot of first year hiring

Plus there are quite a few practice areas that are just dominated by big firms (see eg public company M&A)

Actually I think there are many reasons to go to biglaw. Biglaw has been great to me and supported me through illness. The people have been pretty great. And I love the work. I'm pro- biglaw as long as you know what you are getting into.

My concern is those many 0Ls relying on biglaw to justify massive debt. They generally seem not interested in hearing news like this which has been brewing for a long time. It is smart to understand that biglaw is in flux in making those decisions to borrow the huge COA for law school.

IAFG wrote:

guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers

A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.

Not being able to fire partners is a huge problem for the firm.

Another article:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0 ... r-pay.html

The associates are senior and mid- level.

Link to actual memo:
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/nationwi ... gotshal/2/

Yikes! Definitely thinking about dropping Weil from my bidlist. Hope this isn't a harbinger of worse things to come.

Note:

< This is not the panda everyone is looking for.

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:

guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers

A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.

Not being able to fire partners is a huge problem for the firm.

I guess cutting pay is a big push toward the door. Not being able to fire a partner might benefit the firm in other ways.

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:

guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers

A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.

Not being able to fire partners is a huge problem for the firm.

Seems like they are just reallocating money among the partners in the hope that it amounts to either letting them go or demoting them to income partner.

From the e-mail: "It may well be that some of these partners will decide to pursue other opportunities"

It all seems like a gambit to give the star performers more money to stay.

People are crazy. Those worrying fail to look at Biglaw as a bunch of smaller practice groups, and instead as one undivided whole. Sure, some firms fail because they were over-leveraged, over-hired, or had practice leads jump ship with books of business. Largely, layoffs like this are normal.

Real estate is ticking back right now. This is really nice for those interested in real estate. IP litigation is booming. Tax is strong. HR/Benefits is killing it due to the affordable care act. Firms are creating new medical industry and insurance practice groups. Oil/Gas is doing well. Compliance in certain sectors is strong. Invest in these groups, not the actual firms. If the firm dies, who still get to ride your group to relative success. If your partners have work and they like you, then you are likely going to be purchased into big firm X.

Some areas that were killing it post-recession have declined-- private corporate has declined and slammed the CA biglaw legal economy as a result. I suppose if public M&A dies down with the end of the Fed's cheap money for big business, then we will see a lot of layoffs, and New York may not be a great bet anymore.

"At the end of May, my colleague David Lat wondered, “Are layoffs becoming daily news in Biglaw once again?” Given recent events — in particular, the reckoning at Weil — we think it’s now fair to answer that question with a resounding yes."

Sigh. Just in time for OCI.

.

gnuwheels wrote:"At the end of May, my colleague David Lat wondered, “Are layoffs becoming daily news in Biglaw once again?” Given recent events — in particular, the reckoning at Weil — we think it’s now fair to answer that question with a resounding yes."

Sigh. Just in time for OCI.

The layoffs getting coverage recently, by and large, affect only staff. The situation with Weil, as others have intimated, is not one that should keep OCI interviewees up at night. The strength of Weil's restructuring business, one that is countercyclical, allowed the firm to delay making changes that most others were forced to make years ago.

.

bankruptcy work related to Lehman is done? isn't this a sign that the hangover from 2007 is over? shouldn't we be encouraged?

c3pO4 wrote:bankruptcy work related to Lehman is done? isn't this a sign that the hangover from 2007 is over? shouldn't we be encouraged?

Lol. They are firing complex commericial lit people, not BK.

Bad sign bro.

Desert Fox wrote:

c3pO4 wrote:bankruptcy work related to Lehman is done? isn't this a sign that the hangover from 2007 is over? shouldn't we be encouraged?

Lol. They are firing complex commericial lit people, not BK.

Bad sign bro.

I don't know if it is a bad sign. Work has slowed down for one of their best practice groups, requiring them to make changes to one of their tertiary practice groups. Most firms did this back in 08 and 09. Weil is doing it now.

.

Sort of related question to this. Going into OCI, for bros interested in bankruptcy, should we worried enough to consider getting interested in some other practice area?

Serious question.... are law students ACTUALLY interested in bankruptcy/how the hell do you know you are interested in bankruptcy?

AllTheLawz wrote:Serious question.... are law students ACTUALLY interested in bankruptcy/how the hell do you know you are interested in bankruptcy?

Descriptions of the work from practitioners made it seem like it was pretty interesting as far as corporate work goes (has been described to me by I think three different people as the closest you can get to a hybrid between corp and lit) and it is supposedly recession proof.

Happy to admit that I'm fairly ignorant at this point though, but since we have to make a firm choice in 2 months, I'd like to get less ignorant.

AllTheLawz wrote:Serious question.... are law students ACTUALLY interested in bankruptcy/how the hell do you know you are interested in bankruptcy?

This may have been the worst post I have read all day. Seriously, I read reactions like this all the time and laugh. People are often interested in things (hobbies, sports, women) that they don't know about, that's why it's called interest. Actually liking it or hating it comes later. This is why so many students get to law school and find out that they hate it.

Ask yourself why you are interested in anything and you will have the answer to your question.