Husband just fired from large law firm after less 1 yr?! Forum

[sunynp]

This thread is sad and terrifying.

I know. And even the fast food market seems to be on the decline.

[hopper123]

Can the mods out the anonymous users who not only asked to out, but also who thanked the OP for "helping their careers"? I see no form of punishment as condoning this callous baseness. Banning the users won't work, since they'll create another account. Something more than deleting prior posts needs to be done.

[Bildungsroman]

Can the mods out the anonymous users who not only asked to out, but also who thanked the OP for "helping their careers"? I see no form of punishment as condoning this callous baseness. Banning the users won't work, since they'll create another account. Something more than deleting prior posts needs to be done.

Yeah, that's exactly what the employment forum needs, is punishing those people who ask questions. Fuck those guys for wanting to avoid the same fate as OP's husband.

[sunynp]

Can the mods out the anonymous users who not only asked to out, but also who thanked the OP for "helping their careers"? I see no form of punishment as condoning this callous baseness. Banning the users won't work, since they'll create another account. Something more than deleting prior posts needs to be done.

Yeah, that's exactly what the employment forum needs, is punishing those people who ask questions. Fuck those guys for wanting to avoid the same fate as OP's husband.

And the best way to ask those questions is to say things like "out the firm in your next post or you're a flame" to someone who has never posted here before. That is also the very best use of the anon feature, as it was designed to be "only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, clerkship, etc. "

Eh, whatever, it worked out. And some people got lulz out of this guy losing his job, so I guess there is that.

[hopper123]

Can the mods out the anonymous users who not only asked to out, but also who thanked the OP for "helping their careers"? I see no form of punishment as condoning this callous baseness. Banning the users won't work, since they'll create another account. Something more than deleting prior posts needs to be done.

Yeah, that's exactly what the employment forum needs, is punishing those people who ask questions. Fuck those guys for wanting to avoid the same fate as OP's husband.

Such is life bud. And not everyone who was with OPs husband got fired. We also don't know the whole story. If that were the only firm that hired you, would you deny them based off of one sample? I don't think you are that dumb. If you are, I don't know what to tell you...maybe become selfemployed so that you can fully protect yourself from getting fired. Anyway, a form of punishment should be in route as baseness and stupidity should not be tolerated for anonymous posting. The rules for posting anonymous are there for really needing to use them not for shit posts like out the firm or thank your failure for saving me. If one is at least is that appreciative of help, have the balls to do it with your real user name.

[Bildungsroman]

Can the mods out the anonymous users who not only asked to out, but also who thanked the OP for "helping their careers"? I see no form of punishment as condoning this callous baseness. Banning the users won't work, since they'll create another account. Something more than deleting prior posts needs to be done.

Yeah, that's exactly what the employment forum needs, is punishing those people who ask questions. Fuck those guys for wanting to avoid the same fate as OP's husband.

Such is life bud. And not everyone who was with OPs husband got fired. We also don't know the whole story. If that were the only firm that hired you, would you deny them based off of one sample? I don't think you are that dumb. If you are, I don't know what to tell you...maybe become selfemployed so that you can fully protect yourself from getting fired. Anyway, a form of punishment should be in route as baseness and stupidity should not be tolerated for anonymous posting. The rules for posting anonymous are there for really needing to use them not for shit posts like out the firm or thank your failure for saving me. If one is at least is that appreciative of help, have the balls to do it with your real user name.

First you seem to be denying that this is relevant information, which is stupid. Generally I'd agree on de-anoning everyone but the mods don't even enforce the anon rules you're referencing so I'd hate to see selective enforcement used to punish people asking the relevant questions.

[TB12]

Anyone mind sending me a PM stating who the firm is?

[sunynp]

Aside from empathy (and experience) what am I missing here? Aren’t people fired every day? Perhaps someone knowledgeable can walk us through a typical firing. What I mean by typical, is a firm on good financial footing firing someone (as opposed to the financial meltdown firm). Are there not company procedures, such as, warnings, negative reviews, etc.? Aren’t contracts involved? What about non-competes? Severance? What kind of recourse might be available to the terminated party?

What are you talking about? 1st year associates aren't fired everyday, even if they really fuck up. There is no need for warnings, reviews, etc. People just get called into the office and told they are being let go. They may get a few months severance.

People are concerned because they are bidding on firms for OCI and want to avoid the fate of OPs husband by avoiding that firm.

That the firm is cutting head count by stealth layoffs is a bad sign for the economy and for corporate practice in general.

[hopper123]

People are concerned because they are bidding on firms for OCI and want to avoid the fate of OPs husband by avoiding that firm.

Yes, that's very clear, but I am guessing that a few firms can do this, and if they need to make necessary cuts, they should be allowed to do it. Anyway, wouldn't it be wiser to first ask more pertinent questions like "why was he not given any notice?" "are you sure he wasn't given any warning/hints?" "did everyone else in his year get fired?" "how many people did they fire our of incoming year?" "did your husband have difficulty transitioning into biglaw?" etc etc. Also, ask these questions not as an anon. If you are that scared, send a PM. Don't be a yahoo with chants of "out the firm." That's abusing the anon feature.

First you seem to be denying that this is relevant information, which is stupid. Generally I'd agree on de-anoning everyone but the mods don't even enforce the anon rules you're referencing so I'd hate to see selective enforcement used to punish people asking the relevant questions.

Yes I think this irrelevant in the way it's been going. Please tell me what real information do we have? OP's husband got fired from X biglaw and apparently for no reason and without warning. Anything else I'm missing? Wouldn't you want to tease those questions out? Before outing a damn firm, how about getting some clarifying information first. I wouldn't de-anon everyone, only those that kept saying "out the firm" and especially the asses that said "thank you for outing because it helped ME out." Base solipsism, in the way it's been in this thread, should be de-anoned for sure.

[sunynp]

People are concerned because they are bidding on firms for OCI and want to avoid the fate of OPs husband by avoiding that firm.

Yes, that's very clear, but I am guessing that a few firms can do this, and if they need to make necessary cuts, they should be allowed to do it. Anyway, wouldn't it be wiser to first ask more pertinent questions like "why was he not given any notice?" "are you sure he wasn't given any warning/hints?" "did everyone else in his year get fired?" "how many people did they fire our of incoming year?" "did your husband have difficulty transitioning into biglaw?" etc etc. Also, ask these questions not as an anon. If you are that scared, send a PM. Don't be a yahoo with chants of "out the firm." That's abusing the anon feature.

First you seem to be denying that this is relevant information, which is stupid. Generally I'd agree on de-anoning everyone but the mods don't even enforce the anon rules you're referencing so I'd hate to see selective enforcement used to punish people asking the relevant questions.

Yes I think this irrelevant in the way it's been going. Please tell me what real information do we have? OP's husband got fired from X biglaw and apparently for no reason and without warning. Anything else I'm missing? Wouldn't you want to tease those questions out? Before outing a damn firm, how about getting some clarifying information first. I wouldn't de-anon everyone, only those that kept saying "out the firm" and especially the asses that said "thank you for outing because it helped ME out." Base solipsism, in the way it's been in this thread, should be de-anoned for sure.

I agree with you, but the abuse of the anon system is systemic here.
I do think people are kidding themselves if they think they can avoid the same layoffs if their firms decides to cut people, but I understand wanting the information. I'm curious to see how OCI will go this year. If corporate is way down, I wonder what the class size of biglaw NY firms will be this year?

[Ludo!]

It's too bad there's no way for there to be a temporary/recordless - and somehow unsearchable/ungoogleable - way for us to warn rising 2Ls about what the firm might be.

That would be very useful to them.

This was not appreciated nearly enough

[keg411]

Yeah, there have always been terrible rumors about said firm. It's kind of too bad because the people I met from there during OCI last year were super cool and fun, and it actually made me like the firm (...for about five minutes until I didn't get a CB ).

Can't believe the firing-first-years thing is happening again in general (even though yes, the economy still sucks). Thank god I have no desire to do M&A in general and that my firm definitely doesn't make it's $$$$ in that practice.

[WhoMe?]

Could someone please PM me the name of the firm? Thank you.

[Ludo!]

It's too bad there's no way for there to be a temporary/recordless - and somehow unsearchable/ungoogleable - way for us to warn rising 2Ls about what the firm might be.

That would be very useful to them.

This was not appreciated nearly enough

It was too subtle apparently

[rayiner]

Apparently the firm in question turned over a quarter of their partnership in the last two years, adding dozens of lateral partners. Maybe they got a bit optimistic about the economic recovery.

[piccolittle]

It's too bad there's no way for there to be a temporary/recordless - and somehow unsearchable/ungoogleable - way for us to warn rising 2Ls about what the firm might be.

That would be very useful to them.

This was not appreciated nearly enough

<3 I appreciate.

[r@dical]

could I receive a PM on the name of the firm? It would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

[sundance95]

It's too bad there's no way for there to be a temporary/recordless - and somehow unsearchable/ungoogleable - way for us to warn rising 2Ls about what the firm might be.

That would be very useful to them.

This was not appreciated nearly enough

<3 I appreciate.

+1. Sometimes the subtlety is too beautiful to ruin by pointing it out.

[nygrrrl]

I rather suspect that this is a troll, but in case it's not?
OP, edit your post. Delete all of it, leave a period or something in its place.
If this is, in fact, a real post, the other posters in the thread are correct and you're
really revealing too much information.

[Anonymous User]

Public service announcement: this is not that unusual. All of this hoopla about outing the firm and "protecting" oneself from this firm at OCI is ridiculous. Every single top firm would do the same thing under the right circumstances. Talk about "loyalty" to associates and the like is just naive. This is the real world people. Especially in this economy. No one is ever safe, and everyone is

[fatduck]

Public service announcement: this is not that unusual. All of this hoopla about outing the firm and "protecting" oneself from this firm at OCI is ridiculous. Every single top firm would do the same thing under the right circumstances. Talk about "loyalty" to associates and the like is just naive. This is the real world people. Especially in this economy. No one is ever safe, and everyone is

were you fired mid-sentence?

[rayiner]

Public service announcement: this is not that unusual. All of this hoopla about outing the firm and "protecting" oneself from this firm at OCI is ridiculous. Every single top firm would do the same thing under the right circumstances. Talk about "loyalty" to associates and the like is just naive. This is the real world people. Especially in this economy. No one is ever safe, and everyone is

Every firm would lay off first years if they had to. That's tautological. That doesn't justify your false equivalence. Some firms are nearer than others to that boundary of drastic action. The firm in question made LawShucks's list of top 10 firms to lay-off associates during the market crash. I don't think that's coincidental, and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that information in making choices.

[sunynp]

I rather suspect that this is a troll, but in case it's not?
OP, edit your post. Delete all of it, leave a period or something in its place.
If this is, in fact, a real post, the other posters in the thread are correct and you're
really revealing too much information.

Why is this a troll? Can you tell it is an alt?
If a troll, I guess I'm a fool but she seemed real in the couple of short PMs I had with her.

[Anonymous User]

Please PM me the firm name - missed it before it was edited out. Want to warn 2L friends entering OCI. Thank you.

[Anonymous User]

No one can PM you if you post anonymously.

Rumors about this firm have been around for a while now. Not surprising if this is true.