Why does everyone dump on Latham? Forum

[whats an updog]

OP here. I'm going to one of the midsize Latham offices (think Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco).

I'm a little shocked at some of the responses in this thread. I think some of the criticisms of my OP are legitimate but I also feel there is a lot of irrational anti-Latham bias with some of the people here. Some of the people here are probably bitter they didn't get offers from Latham.

First of all, a lot of people here are making straw man arguments saying that I said Latham was the most prestigious firm. I never said that or even claimed to say that.

With that said, it is indisputable that Latham is a V5 firm. This is literally a fact. When you wake up tomorrow morning this fact will still be true and there is nothing you can do about it. Some people seem to be suggesting that Latham is a "fake" V5 firm. What about firms like Davis Polk, which are literally not in the V5? I have never seen anyone call DPW a "fake" V5 firm.

Second of all, I am not a Latham recruiter. The mods here can see who I am - I have been on this site for years and am clearly a 2L law school student. I think it is very telling that some people think that anyone who says anything good about Latham must be a recruiter.

I do think some of the criticism of how Latham handled the recession is legitimate. But to be fair this probably applies more to the New York office.

Finally I think it is funny people seem to be accusing me of putting to much of my self-worth into my firm. I am not the one going around on internet message boards tearing down other peoples' firms. I just think that is a little funny.

What was the point of your OP if you’re just going to try to bat away every criticism of Latham? Clearly you just want to go there or you didn’t get a better offer, which is fine.

Latham is a great firm. But it’s a behemoth that probably will Latham again if the economy tanks. Some of the offices you mentioned “Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco” are highly leveraged, so those will probably be more susceptible to lathaming.

Boston: 20 partners, 32 associates
Orange County: 18 partners, 35 associates
Houston: 20 partners, 51 associates
Silicon Valley: 41 partners, 55 associates
San Diego: 26 partners, 39 associates
San Francisco: 39 partners, 66 associates

[wons]

OP, rather than being defensive try to learn from people with more experience than you who are trying to help you. The reason those leverage numbers on an office-by-office basis aren’t helpful is because average leverage wildly varies by practice area. Certain types of matters - for example investigations on the lit side and M&A on the transactional side - are super associate heavy but also super profitable. Those types of matters, for most firms, are generally run out of New York, since that’s where the bodies are. So any satellite office-only leverage metric will look better than an all-firm metric (for firms that play with the big boys) because you’ve basically excluded the most highly levered and profitable practice areas.

Nevertheless, associates at satellite offices have generally been subject to higher layoff risk. There are lots of reasons for this and which one counts the most varies from office to office and firm to firm. Often, the satellite office relies on the mothership to generate work and when times are slow the mothership partners will save the work to utilize the associates they know. Often a satellite office relies on one or two rainmaking partners to feed everyone so they have a less diversified deal pipeline and their deal flow has a lot more variance. It’s rare for a satellite office to have a meaningful restructuring practice to flip juniors into in a downturn, unlike offices in big financial centers like NY, Chicago and LA.

More specifically: why does Latham have a particular history of layoffs in downturns? Because it has an unusually finance and cap markets focused practice compared to other wall street firms and so it’s revenue sources are inherently more choppy. Other firms that are finance / high yield heavy have historically also had layoff issues. A firm like Latham can watch, like, 20%+ of its revenue walk out the door overnight if the financing markets are disrupted. It’s very difficult to survive that without layoffs - law firms don’t keep that kind of cash on hand since they are, you know, partnerships that distribute profits to partners.

Someone asked up thread why Cleary is so well regarded. I don’t know, but I suspect it’s because Cleary’s model is much more stable. They’re lockstep and rarely take laterals, so they don’t have to pay big guarantee checks to a small number of rainmaking partners. They’re very strong in recession-resistant practices like bankruptcy, sovereign debt, and international arbitration. Sure, Cleary isn’t going to have the highs in a bull market, and I think plenty of folks would argue they’re underexposed over the long term to the high profit / high variance practice areas, but you can see why Cleary’s model might be attractive to an associate, who isn’t paid a share of profits. Cleary held up well in 2008-2010.

More generally OP, geez. Once you start working, you’re going to spend most of your next 5+ years (god willing) doing your learning not from a book, but by learning from others and learning from criticism of your work. When people with lots more experience with you try to explain to you what you don’t know, don’t flail around defensively to try to prove them wrong. Take it as a opportunity to learn. No one is saying they Latham is bad, they’re telling you that you don’t understand how to assess a firm yet.

[2013]

OP here. I'm going to one of the midsize Latham offices (think Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco).

I'm a little shocked at some of the responses in this thread. I think some of the criticisms of my OP are legitimate but I also feel there is a lot of irrational anti-Latham bias with some of the people here. Some of the people here are probably bitter they didn't get offers from Latham.

First of all, a lot of people here are making straw man arguments saying that I said Latham was the most prestigious firm. I never said that or even claimed to say that.

With that said, it is indisputable that Latham is a V5 firm. This is literally a fact. When you wake up tomorrow morning this fact will still be true and there is nothing you can do about it. Some people seem to be suggesting that Latham is a "fake" V5 firm. What about firms like Davis Polk, which are literally not in the V5? I have never seen anyone call DPW a "fake" V5 firm.

Second of all, I am not a Latham recruiter. The mods here can see who I am - I have been on this site for years and am clearly a 2L law school student. I think it is very telling that some people think that anyone who says anything good about Latham must be a recruiter.

I do think some of the criticism of how Latham handled the recession is legitimate. But to be fair this probably applies more to the New York office.

Finally I think it is funny people seem to be accusing me of putting to much of my self-worth into my firm. I am not the one going around on internet message boards tearing down other peoples' firms. I just think that is a little funny.

What was the point of your OP if you’re just going to try to bat away every criticism of Latham? Clearly you just want to go there or you didn’t get a better offer, which is fine.

Latham is a great firm. But it’s a behemoth that probably will Latham again if the economy tanks. Some of the offices you mentioned “Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco” are highly leveraged, so those will probably be more susceptible to lathaming.

Boston: 20 partners, 32 associates
Orange County: 18 partners, 35 associates
Houston: 20 partners, 51 associates
Silicon Valley: 41 partners, 55 associates
San Diego: 26 partners, 39 associates
San Francisco: 39 partners, 66 associates

Ok, your point? Outside of SV and maybe Boston, those aren’t rosy numbers.

Let me clarify, since my main message may have gotten lost in my post.

If you’re at a satellite, you should only plan on going to Latham if you are trying to stay for a few years. You will never make partner and they’ll cut you as dead weight in a down economy.

I didn’t mean that it was more leveraged than its NY office, but other firms have very low-leveraged satellites (some with 1:1).

Lastly, I feel like you’re still a recruiter or just some crazy person with too much time on their hands.

[star fox]

Legal work is not prestigious. Just flat out. Arguing which firm is more prestigious is like arguing which landscaping company is most prestigious. It just doesn’t make sense. We’re just service providers. On my end in M&A we paper transactions the business principals negotiate and we can help shift risk away from our client (and who wins those points depends on who has more business leverage, so right now it’s a Seller’s market so Seller usually gets their terms unless for whatever reason Seller really needs that particular deal with the specific Buyer). Arguing who does that more prestigiously is laughable. The process is the same whether it’s a V5 or some Little Rock, AR “local biglaw” on the other end. The turnaround and familiarity will be higher on the Vault firm but that’s going to be the same up and down the Vault ladder. Only thing anyone should really care about is the amount of green paper that goes on your pocket. Other than that just cross your fingers you don’t get stuck working with horrible people.

[QContinuum]

Legal work is not prestigious. Just flat out. Arguing which firm is more prestigious is like arguing which landscaping company is most prestigious. It just doesn’t make sense. We’re just service providers. On my end in M&A we paper transactions the business principals negotiate and we can help shift risk away from our client (and who wins those points depends on who has more business leverage, so right now it’s a Seller’s market so Seller usually gets their terms unless for whatever reason Seller really needs that particular deal with the specific Buyer). Arguing who does that more prestigiously is laughable. The process is the same whether it’s a V5 or some Little Rock, AR “local biglaw” on the other end. The turnaround and familiarity will be higher on the Vault firm but that’s going to be the same up and down the Vault ladder. Only thing anyone should really care about is the amount of green paper that goes on your pocket. Other than that just cross your fingers you don’t get stuck working with horrible people.

OK, this goes too far to the opposite side of the spectrum. The fact that Vault rankings aren't dispositive doesn't mean there's no such thing as prestige in the legal industry. To the contrary, the legal market is one of the most prestige-driven (obsessed?) fields out there. It's laughable to attempt to argue that firms like Wachtell or Susman or what have you aren't prestigious, or that there's no difference between those firms and a "local biglaw" based in some tertiary market.

(The broader point - that the concept of prestige doesn't apply to any service industry - is also absurd. Most industries have adopted or are moving in the direction of a service model. This includes everything from Sil Val - Alphabet, Facebook - to Detroit - legacy car manufacturers are actively moving toward cars-as-a-service. Comparing these service providers to landscaping companies is ridiculous.)

[Stillblade]

OP here. I'm going to one of the midsize Latham offices (think Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco).

I'm a little shocked at some of the responses in this thread. I think some of the criticisms of my OP are legitimate but I also feel there is a lot of irrational anti-Latham bias with some of the people here. Some of the people here are probably bitter they didn't get offers from Latham.

First of all, a lot of people here are making straw man arguments saying that I said Latham was the most prestigious firm. I never said that or even claimed to say that.

With that said, it is indisputable that Latham is a V5 firm. This is literally a fact. When you wake up tomorrow morning this fact will still be true and there is nothing you can do about it. Some people seem to be suggesting that Latham is a "fake" V5 firm. What about firms like Davis Polk, which are literally not in the V5? I have never seen anyone call DPW a "fake" V5 firm.

Second of all, I am not a Latham recruiter. The mods here can see who I am - I have been on this site for years and am clearly a 2L law school student. I think it is very telling that some people think that anyone who says anything good about Latham must be a recruiter.

I do think some of the criticism of how Latham handled the recession is legitimate. But to be fair this probably applies more to the New York office.

Finally I think it is funny people seem to be accusing me of putting to much of my self-worth into my firm. I am not the one going around on internet message boards tearing down other peoples' firms. I just think that is a little funny.

1) No one is bitter about not getting an offer from Latham, lol.

2) If you really think they're going to focus future layoffs on NYC (where lawyers tend to be most profitable for big law firms) so that they can protect their junior associates in Anchorage or wherever you're going, you're completely delusional.

3) You went completely out of your way to post a thread about how great the Kool Aid tastes and now you're covering your ears pretending not to hear criticisms stating that your future employer isn't perfect. Other people aside, you absolutely are putting way too much of your self-worth into your firm and its vault ranking. There's a pretty good chance they're no longer going to be "V5" by the time you're an actual associate.

You just sound like a really insecure person who doesn't know anything about the legal industry. And that's perfectly fine, you're a 2L. But there are some really nice, knowledgeable people in this thread taking a lot of time out of their days to share their wisdom with you. Stop making excuses to not listen to them and maybe you'll learn something.

[legalace]

... I'm going to one of the midsize Latham offices (think Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco)...

It may well be that none of the members of your associate class at that office are offered partnership. How long do do intend to stay there?

[star fox]

Legal work is not prestigious. Just flat out. Arguing which firm is more prestigious is like arguing which landscaping company is most prestigious. It just doesn’t make sense. We’re just service providers. On my end in M&A we paper transactions the business principals negotiate and we can help shift risk away from our client (and who wins those points depends on who has more business leverage, so right now it’s a Seller’s market so Seller usually gets their terms unless for whatever reason Seller really needs that particular deal with the specific Buyer). Arguing who does that more prestigiously is laughable. The process is the same whether it’s a V5 or some Little Rock, AR “local biglaw” on the other end. The turnaround and familiarity will be higher on the Vault firm but that’s going to be the same up and down the Vault ladder. Only thing anyone should really care about is the amount of green paper that goes on your pocket. Other than that just cross your fingers you don’t get stuck working with horrible people.

OK, this goes too far to the opposite side of the spectrum. The fact that Vault rankings aren't dispositive doesn't mean there's no such thing as prestige in the legal industry. To the contrary, the legal market is one of the most prestige-driven (obsessed?) fields out there. It's laughable to attempt to argue that firms like Wachtell or Susman or what have you aren't prestigious, or that there's no difference between those firms and a "local biglaw" based in some tertiary market.

(The broader point - that the concept of prestige doesn't apply to any service industry - is also absurd. Most industries have adopted or are moving in the direction of a service model. This includes everything from Sil Val - Alphabet, Facebook - to Detroit - legacy car manufacturers are actively moving toward cars-as-a-service. Comparing these service providers to landscaping companies is ridiculous.)

I was talking about the deal processs. And I think you undersell regional biglaw. Those attorneys work hard, use good forms and argue points well for their clients. Too many here seem to think if it isn’t one of 10 or so firms that it’s a rinky-dink bush league operation. Point is firms are way more similar than different. Only real objective separator is how profitable they are. Perceived prestige among 2Ls exists sure but matters not a lot objectively.

[whats an updog]

... I'm going to one of the midsize Latham offices (think Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco)...

It may well be that none of the members of your associate class at that office are offered partnership. How long do do intend to stay there?

This is pretty much true at most biglaw firms though

[Right2BearArms]

OP here. I'm going to one of the midsize Latham offices (think Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco).

I'm a little shocked at some of the responses in this thread. I think some of the criticisms of my OP are legitimate but I also feel there is a lot of irrational anti-Latham bias with some of the people here. Some of the people here are probably bitter they didn't get offers from Latham.

First of all, a lot of people here are making straw man arguments saying that I said Latham was the most prestigious firm. I never said that or even claimed to say that.

With that said, it is indisputable that Latham is a V5 firm. This is literally a fact. When you wake up tomorrow morning this fact will still be true and there is nothing you can do about it. Some people seem to be suggesting that Latham is a "fake" V5 firm. What about firms like Davis Polk, which are literally not in the V5? I have never seen anyone call DPW a "fake" V5 firm.

Second of all, I am not a Latham recruiter. The mods here can see who I am - I have been on this site for years and am clearly a 2L law school student. I think it is very telling that some people think that anyone who says anything good about Latham must be a recruiter.

I do think some of the criticism of how Latham handled the recession is legitimate. But to be fair this probably applies more to the New York office.

Finally I think it is funny people seem to be accusing me of putting to much of my self-worth into my firm. I am not the one going around on internet message boards tearing down other peoples' firms. I just think that is a little funny.

What was the point of your OP if you’re just going to try to bat away every criticism of Latham? Clearly you just want to go there or you didn’t get a better offer, which is fine.

Latham is a great firm. But it’s a behemoth that probably will Latham again if the economy tanks. Some of the offices you mentioned “Boston, Costa Mesa, Houston, Menlo Park, San Diego, or San Francisco” are highly leveraged, so those will probably be more susceptible to lathaming.

Boston: 20 partners, 32 associates
Orange County: 18 partners, 35 associates
Houston: 20 partners, 51 associates
Silicon Valley: 41 partners, 55 associates
San Diego: 26 partners, 39 associates
San Francisco: 39 partners, 66 associates

Ok, your point? Outside of SV and maybe Boston, those aren’t rosy numbers.

Let me clarify, since my main message may have gotten lost in my post.

If you’re at a satellite, you should only plan on going to Latham if you are trying to stay for a few years. You will never make partner and they’ll cut you as dead weight in a down economy.

I didn’t mean that it was more leveraged than its NY office, but other firms have very low-leveraged satellites (some with 1:1).

Lastly, I feel like you’re still a recruiter or just some crazy person with too much time on their hands.

Went ahead and bolded portions of the above that are verifiabley not true.

Italicized the portion that is true of every single law firm in the country.

This thread is silly. The OP is some kind of striver looking for validation. Relax, and stop. Please stop. The rest is a perfect example of why law students are insufferable.

[BlackAndOrange84]

Ok, your point? Outside of SV and maybe Boston, those aren’t rosy numbers.

Let me clarify, since my main message may have gotten lost in my post.

If you’re at a satellite, you should only plan on going to Latham if you are trying to stay for a few years. You will never make partner and they’ll cut you as dead weight in a down economy.

I didn’t mean that it was more leveraged than its NY office, but other firms have very low-leveraged satellites (some with 1:1).

Lastly, I feel like you’re still a recruiter or just some crazy person with too much time on their hands.

Went ahead and bolded portions of the above that are verifiabley not true.

Italicized the portion that is true of every single law firm in the country.

This thread is silly. The OP is some kind of striver looking for validation. Relax, and stop. Please stop. The rest is a perfect example of why law students are insufferable.

Classic case of false equivalency. Yes, biglaw firms aren't charities - they will cut dead weight in a bad economy. But Latham's unique in how much of the associate class it's historically been willing to cut - and what level of associates it's willing to cut. It's one thing to lay off a midlevel - a whole different thing to lay off a stub year/first year who's too junior to lateral. None of Latham's purported V10 peers had cuts remotely similar to what Latham did ten years ago.

I'd add that some firms really went above and beyond in terms of how they treated associates at the outbreak of the recession. There was a wide spectrum of responses among firms, and Latham was at one extreme—that's why everyone dumps on Latham (along with the fact that they were dishonest about it, they did massive layoffs of juniors shortly after denying that they would repeat the deep and broad layoffs that they'd done in the 90s).

ETA: This thread should just die already.