Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

(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.

Posts: 5056
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

Postby cavalier1138 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:Can someone confirm whether all the Dechert anons are different people? This reads like a manifesto someone writes before they go off the deep end.

Cavalier, I would appreciate it if you'd be kind enough to retract this comment.

The purpose of this thread was to state that this was not news, and would be ongoing to help those who were going to be affected mitigate their damages. Everything I said would happen has happened. I have not posted updates about continued layoffs. Those were all other posters.

I think those posts were attributed to me, which is harmful because I may have been outed and this makes me look like an obsessed nut and the only whistleblower. I am neither. I expected some blowback for warning people, which i determined to be ethically worth sacrificing something.

I would appreciate people either not posting about subsequent layoffs or prefacing their posts with "NOT OP". If it looks like i'm the only whistleblower, Dechert will have cause to be spiteful. Thank you.

Yeah, not gonna retract the comment that some of the posts in this thread (yours) sounds like a crazy person. Sorry that Dechert is apparently terrible, but that doesn't make you robustly sane.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327327
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:55 pm

1.) I have reason to suspect they know and are being spiteful - am not sure. I can't say why without 100% outing myself, and do think this thread is being followed:

2.) It has >6,700 views and has been discussed IRL. The mods can probably see the IP addresses of both the viewers and posters, and see what %age of these views are coming on different computers within the same office building's network.

3.) It's unfair to judge me based on posts from when these events first happened. If you weed the emotion out of it, everything was completely accurate - the extent of layoffs, when layoffs would happen, why they were happening, partnership's' dishonest and unethical characterization of these events.

The whole motive was to give warning to those who would be laid off without severance packages or packages that the firm would choose not to honor adapt. To attack my character because I was upset when these events first happened is completely and utterly uncalled for.

i understand that there's a mortality bias given the volatility of our industry - it's easier to say that firms don't fail, only individual people do. The idea 100s of peoples were asked to leave is scary, which is why you say, "oh, it must just be one bad/crazy associate". I'd want to believe the same thing, but when you have actual evidence of the contrary, to persist in making that accusation is and I don't mean any offense -- not nice and not cool.

User avatar

Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

Postby magnum_law » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 am

I, for one, think OP is being treated unnecessarily harsh. (S)he outed a firm for shitty practices, which is what TLS is consistently calling for, and did so at his/her own peril.

OP, if it's any consolation, I appreciate this thread. I would have otherwise bid on Dechert and who knows what that might have lead to. I know others who are leaving them off their bid list because of this thread also.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327327
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:04 pm

It's unfair to rope other firms in with this. What makes this egregious is (1) it's common at Dechert but not elsewhere, (2) Dechert was and is lying about it so that they could lay off most of their juniors without it affecting their selection pool or recruiting and (3) they orchestrated an elaborate way to prevent coworkers from telling the other they were laid off.

Basically, they would tell a first year they were horrible to embarrass them so they would not confide in another first year who had the same conversation. In fact, even discussing they were laod off was strictly banned. Further, they'd threate their career if they said they were laid off or there wasn't enough work. Everything was planned to allow Dechert to secretly cut down by thirty percent by blaming it on those laid off with no mention of any financial woes.

None of these things is news worthy in and of itself. It's just that the designation, big law begets certain assumptions and expectations. The conduct we are discussing here is unique to a single firm, and not indicative of big law in general. The purpose of this thread isn't to say that big law sucks. There are positives and negatives of the market generally. This thread is merely a warning label - Dechert is a great firm; it just lacks the moral values of other large firms and grouping these firms together is unfair to both Dechert and every other firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327327
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:51 pm

How do you come by this 30% number? I've been reading the farewell emails and it feels like there's been an uptick recently, but 30% of attorneys (or 30% of juniors) would be impossible to hide.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327327
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Dechert First Year Layoffs - NOT NEWS

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:36 am

Most lateraled. Many of those with 2 years experience or more had opportunities at better firms. It also hadn't been hidden. It made ATL. ATL just underestimated the scope because it only looked at one practice group.

Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.