Never Forget: Latham laid off hundreds in 2009 Forum

[Anonymous User]

This thread if fascinating. I'm probably going to drop my Latham offer.

People seem to have strong expertise here. Could anyone offer any additional thoughts at this thread here? http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=253218

[itbdvorm]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

Of course they did. Don't be naïve.

[itbdvorm]

As I've said in many threads...EVERYONE laid off hundreds in 2009. Latham did so publicly and got HORRIBLE pr. So everyone else did so stealthy. Literally, everyone other than 1-3 firms. Unless you're talking about Wachtell (too small to be effected) or Susman (plaintiff's litigation - gold mine) - the firm you're comparing with Latham? Did layoffs.

Isn't there a big difference between laying off first years just four months in and laying off everyone else?

No. There's a big difference between PR plans, NDAs, etc.

I personally know folks who got laid off at a large number of V10s as first years. They signed NDAs and had longer tail periods...but they were axed.

I think people here are severely underestimating how scary 2009 was. The world is different now.

[whats an updog]

As I've said in many threads...EVERYONE laid off hundreds in 2009. Latham did so publicly and got HORRIBLE pr. So everyone else did so stealthy. Literally, everyone other than 1-3 firms. Unless you're talking about Wachtell (too small to be effected) or Susman (plaintiff's litigation - gold mine) - the firm you're comparing with Latham? Did layoffs.

Isn't there a big difference between laying off first years just four months in and laying off everyone else?

No. There's a big difference between PR plans, NDAs, etc.

I personally know folks who got laid off at a large number of V10s as first years. They signed NDAs and had longer tail periods...but they were axed.

I think people here are severely underestimating how scary 2009 was. The world is different now.

Different as in not being in the middle of a huge recession? Don't you think that could happen again? Or do you mean in another sense?

[itbdvorm]

As I've said in many threads...EVERYONE laid off hundreds in 2009. Latham did so publicly and got HORRIBLE pr. So everyone else did so stealthy. Literally, everyone other than 1-3 firms. Unless you're talking about Wachtell (too small to be effected) or Susman (plaintiff's litigation - gold mine) - the firm you're comparing with Latham? Did layoffs.

Isn't there a big difference between laying off first years just four months in and laying off everyone else?

No. There's a big difference between PR plans, NDAs, etc.

I personally know folks who got laid off at a large number of V10s as first years. They signed NDAs and had longer tail periods...but they were axed.

I think people here are severely underestimating how scary 2009 was. The world is different now.

Different as in not being in the middle of a huge recession? Don't you think that could happen again? Or do you mean in another sense?

Just a truly different world today. Was a wild ride up (and DOWN) from 2003-2009. We're not on the same roller coaster now (last week notwithstanding - a stock market swing, not a REAL swing). Between the leveraged lending rules and the near-zero interest rates it's a different world. Any falloff will be substantially flatter.

You're not seeing quotes like "well, this is crazy, but while everyone's playing music we have to keep dancing" or whatever the Citi head said.

[Anonymous User]

Not really Latham specific, but here ya go

1000 point stock market drop a few days ago (588 pt net drop): http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/24/investi ... crash-dow/

Biggest (end of day) net drop: 777 pts on sept 29 2008

[orangecup]

Not really Latham specific, but here ya go

1000 point stock market drop a few days ago (588 pt net drop): http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/24/investi ... crash-dow/

Biggest (end of day) net drop: 777 pts on sept 29 2008

The 777 point drop in 2008 was 7% while the 588 point drop was 3.6%. Not sure what you're getting at.

[whats an updog]

As I've said in many threads...EVERYONE laid off hundreds in 2009. Latham did so publicly and got HORRIBLE pr. So everyone else did so stealthy. Literally, everyone other than 1-3 firms. Unless you're talking about Wachtell (too small to be effected) or Susman (plaintiff's litigation - gold mine) - the firm you're comparing with Latham? Did layoffs.

Isn't there a big difference between laying off first years just four months in and laying off everyone else?

No. There's a big difference between PR plans, NDAs, etc.

I personally know folks who got laid off at a large number of V10s as first years. They signed NDAs and had longer tail periods...but they were axed.

I think people here are severely underestimating how scary 2009 was. The world is different now.

Different as in not being in the middle of a huge recession? Don't you think that could happen again? Or do you mean in another sense?

Just a truly different world today. Was a wild ride up (and DOWN) from 2003-2009. We're not on the same roller coaster now (last week notwithstanding - a stock market swing, not a REAL swing). Between the leveraged lending rules and the near-zero interest rates it's a different world. Any falloff will be substantially flatter.

You're not seeing quotes like "well, this is crazy, but while everyone's playing music we have to keep dancing" or whatever the Citi head said.

so what you're saying is i'm invulnerable and there is no reason not to choose latham over similarly situated firms. thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I know all you 1Ls will be making decisions soon. Never forget.

[Anonymous User]

I know all you 1Ls will be making decisions soon. Never forget.

LOL. what a subject line. Never forget.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

Of course they did. Don't be naïve.

Can anyone comment on who is right here?

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

Of course they did. Don't be naïve.

Can anyone comment on who is right here?

I can't comment with personal knowledge, but I talked to my school's OCS office the other day since one of my offers is from Latham. I mentioned being wary of them due to the layoffs, and her response was that every single firm did that - Latham and a few others were just the only firms that were honest about it, whereas the other firms disguised them as "performance-based layoffs." At the time, she was in the corporate department at a similarly-massive firm at the time and wasn't laid off, but saw many of her fellow associates laid off due to sudden "performance drops" that came out of nowhere. Her firm never had "mass layoffs" officially reported, but due to her characterization, it was basically the same thing.

So for what it's worth, I assume Jones Day likely conducted stealth layoffs as well.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

Of course they did. Don't be naïve.

Can anyone comment on who is right here?

I can't comment with personal knowledge, but I talked to my school's OCS office the other day since one of my offers is from Latham. I mentioned being wary of them due to the layoffs, and her response was that every single firm did that - Latham and a few others were just the only firms that were honest about it, whereas the other firms disguised them as "performance-based layoffs." At the time, she was in the corporate department at a similarly-massive firm at the time and wasn't laid off, but saw many of her fellow associates laid off due to sudden "performance drops" that came out of nowhere. Her firm never had "mass layoffs" officially reported, but due to her characterization, it was basically the same thing.

So for what it's worth, I assume Jones Day likely conducted stealth layoffs as well.

I had a very similar discussion with OCS last week and received almost the exact same answer. Latham was early on the layoffs and did it in one fell swoop. It made headlines, and now that is all people remember.

[Anonymous User]

JD mid-level here. While i'm sure JD has laid associates off in the past, and we certainly laid off staff and have reduced staff headcount, it was a big deal that JD didn't lay off any assocs or reduce summer classes in the 2009-10 downturn. I've seen the memo where partners were told they were taking a hit to their profits in order to keep associates.

[SmokeytheBear]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

Of course they did. Don't be naïve.

Can anyone comment on who is right here?

I can't comment with personal knowledge, but I talked to my school's OCS office the other day since one of my offers is from Latham. I mentioned being wary of them due to the layoffs, and her response was that every single firm did that - Latham and a few others were just the only firms that were honest about it, whereas the other firms disguised them as "performance-based layoffs." At the time, she was in the corporate department at a similarly-massive firm at the time and wasn't laid off, but saw many of her fellow associates laid off due to sudden "performance drops" that came out of nowhere. Her firm never had "mass layoffs" officially reported, but due to her characterization, it was basically the same thing.

So for what it's worth, I assume Jones Day likely conducted stealth layoffs as well.

I had a very similar discussion with OCS last week and received almost the exact same answer. Latham was early on the layoffs and did it in one fell swoop. It made headlines, and now that is all people remember.

Just to dispel this and prevent the spreading of incorrect facts and false knowledge, every firm did not do what Latham did. No other firm axed such a large percentage of their first year class. And no other firm axed as many associates, in terms of percentages or absolute numbers. The reason Latham gets the attention is not only because they did it first, but because they did it to so many and so many who were defenseless. Latham deserves this crown.

[Desert Fox]

There is some debate about whether Latham was worse about t but nearly all firm (who didn't have if bk groups) got rid of associates somehow. Latham was early and large in number but they also paid them 6 months. Since they were public about it, there wasn't any shame in it.

I think the only thing you can knock them for is cutting first years. But I suspect other forks did as well. A lot of firms delayed classes and never actually had them start.

[liam31]

There is some debate about whether Latham was worse about t but nearly all firm (who didn't have if bk groups) got rid of associates somehow. Latham was early and large in number but they also paid them 6 months. Since they were public about it, there wasn't any shame in it.

I think the only thing you can knock them for is cutting first years. But I suspect other forks did as well. A lot of firms delayed classes and never actually had them start.

That's a big knock. Most firms didn't cut 1st years and what that should tell everyone going through OCI is that if the economy goes down again when they graduate law school, if they picked Latham then they have reason to be much more worried than their classmates who picked other firms.

[RedGiant]

I know all you 1Ls will be making decisions soon. Never forget.

If anyone wants to know what it was like, PM me. I was at Latham (as a paralegal) during this time. I have posted about this before. They didn't just lay people off. They went the extra mile and told people that they were terrible attorneys and should consider doing something else with their lives. For people who were politically protected, they got severance. Other folks were given no severance and told they "should have known" that they were going to be axed. It was ruthless and awful.

[Winter is Coming]

There is some debate about whether Latham was worse about t but nearly all firm (who didn't have if bk groups) got rid of associates somehow. Latham was early and large in number but they also paid them 6 months. Since they were public about it, there wasn't any shame in it.

I think the only thing you can knock them for is cutting first years. But I suspect other forks did as well. A lot of firms delayed classes and never actually had them start.

The delayed class thing and never starting is interesting to me because firms who did deferments basically brag about it at OCI now. Like "hey we didn't fire people". But if they never started thats even worse.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

Of course they did. Don't be naïve.

Can anyone comment on who is right here?

I can't comment with personal knowledge, but I talked to my school's OCS office the other day since one of my offers is from Latham. I mentioned being wary of them due to the layoffs, and her response was that every single firm did that - Latham and a few others were just the only firms that were honest about it, whereas the other firms disguised them as "performance-based layoffs." At the time, she was in the corporate department at a similarly-massive firm at the time and wasn't laid off, but saw many of her fellow associates laid off due to sudden "performance drops" that came out of nowhere. Her firm never had "mass layoffs" officially reported, but due to her characterization, it was basically the same thing.

So for what it's worth, I assume Jones Day likely conducted stealth layoffs as well.

I had a very similar discussion with OCS last week and received almost the exact same answer. Latham was early on the layoffs and did it in one fell swoop. It made headlines, and now that is all people remember.

Just to dispel this and prevent the spreading of incorrect facts and false knowledge, every firm did not do what Latham did. No other firm axed such a large percentage of their first year class. And no other firm axed as many associates, in terms of percentages or absolute numbers. The reason Latham gets the attention is not only because they did it first, but because they did it to so many and so many who were defenseless. Latham deserves this crown.

Absolutely correct and the truly egregious thing was firing first years, who never got a chance to get on their feet. I know several who got cut and many turned out fine but a few absolutely did not. If you have other offers at similar firms just remember that if things go south quickly you will be in a much worse position if you choose Latham.

I'm not sure which firms may have delayed a class and then simply not started them, but none of Latham's peer firms did that.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The shitty thing isn't firing first years by itself. It's that all those firms were firing first years and then turning around and doing OCI a few months later, despite knowing full well that, in that economy with that industry hiring model, most of those people would never work Biglaw again.

Those firms could've easily offered those people small deferments ($25k/yr or so) with a promise to bring them back as soon as business picked up, and that would've been better than the actual axe they got. That would've been fairer, it would look healthier to students and clients, and it probably would've ultimately been cheaper for firms. But in the massively oversupplied legal labor market where students are dumb enough to (a) take out hundreds of thousands in debt that they desperately need Biglaw to pay back, and (b) have no clue what happened in the industry even a few years ago, firms probably could sacrifice first-years to vengeful Pagan gods and still get their OCI schedules filled.

[blkhk]

Bumping this thread not because I care about the Latham vs. all other firms debate, but because I'm growing increasingly concerned about this type of mass layoff in BigLaw happening again in the not too distant future.

From purely anecdotal observations that might not be borne out by actual data, it seems that OCI this year is shaping up to be a bit rougher than in previous years, and I've overheard too many people talking about how a recession is due for my comfort. Some of the murmurs I've heard mention the recent raises as a bad sign in terms of increasing risk of partner departures, especially if the increased overhead cuts into firms' PPP. As a 2L, I have no idea if either the recession talk or the theory of salary raises increasing risk of layoffs has merit. Hopefully, the perception that OCI was rough might mean at least that firms are being conservative in hiring and also want to avoid another Lathaming. But in the meanwhile, can anyone speak as to whether a repeat of 2009 is an actual possibility, or if I'm being entirely paranoid for no good reason? Perhaps more importantly, regardless of whether it's a realistic possibility, what can I do in the meanwhile to best insulate myself from becoming one of the people axed if it ever comes to that? I've tried my best this OCI season to pick a firm that seems to be in good financial health - but beyond that, is there anything I should be doing in particular? Networking? Familiarizing myself with particular partners at my SA firm?

If I'm being a complete nutjob, please feel free to tell me so and shut this down.

[WeeBey]

Bumping this thread not because I care about the Latham vs. all other firms debate, but because I'm growing increasingly concerned about this type of mass layoff in BigLaw happening again in the not too distant future.

From purely anecdotal observations that might not be borne out by actual data, it seems that OCI this year is shaping up to be a bit rougher than in previous years, and I've overheard too many people talking about how a recession is due for my comfort. Some of the murmurs I've heard mention the recent raises as a bad sign in terms of increasing risk of partner departures, especially if the increased overhead cuts into firms' PPP. As a 2L, I have no idea if either the recession talk or the theory of salary raises increasing risk of layoffs has merit. Hopefully, the perception that OCI was rough might mean at least that firms are being conservative in hiring and also want to avoid another Lathaming. But in the meanwhile, can anyone speak as to whether a repeat of 2009 is an actual possibility, or if I'm being entirely paranoid for no good reason? Perhaps more importantly, regardless of whether it's a realistic possibility, what can I do in the meanwhile to best insulate myself from becoming one of the people axed if it ever comes to that? I've tried my best this OCI season to pick a firm that seems to be in good financial health - but beyond that, is there anything I should be doing in particular? Networking? Familiarizing myself with particular partners at my SA firm?

If I'm being a complete nutjob, please feel free to tell me so and shut this down.

A recession is always a possibility. But people on this forum have been predicting one literally every since the last one (double dip). Anyone who could do so accurately and confidently would not be on this forum and instead be shorting the market.

As for what you can do for yourself, just be the best associate you can be. When it comes time to trim the fat they won't be firing above average associates. As a summer, IDK the firm you're going to, but summers don't really get a chance to prove themselves. So just be polite and enthusiastic.

[Wild Card]

Also never forget that Weil is shit, pure shit:

https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/24 ... rtner-pay/

"Sixty junior lawyers, known at firms as associates, lost their jobs. That amounts to roughly 7 percent of Weil’s associates. Annual compensation will be reduced for roughly 30 of the firm’s 300 partners, in many cases by hundreds of thousands of dollars. And 110 non-lawyers — roughly half of them secretaries — were let go.

...

Nevertheless, the firm has performed well relative to its peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In 2012, Weil was ranked No. 1 in private equity representations globally. It ranked No. 2 in domestic mergers and acquisitions last year and has maintained that position in 2013, advising on deals like the American Airlines merger with US Airways. Still, Mr. Wolf said, there was not enough work to keep Weil’s army of lawyers sufficiently busy.

...

Mr. Wolf, a corporate lawyer who joined Weil in 1984 straight out of law school, said that while the decision to cut associates and staff was personally distressing for him and the management committee, there was little disagreement that it was the right one.

...

(There are no partner cuts because under Weil’s partnership agreement, partners can be fired only for cause.)

...

Last year, the firm posted revenue of about $1.2 billion, and its profits per partner ranked 17th of all firms nationally.

In Monday’s e-mail, Weil said it was taking the action “from a position of strength.” It said that it had zero debt and a fully financed pension plan with more than $500 million in assets. It also noted that its partners did not have long-term compensation guarantees."

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this thread not because I care about the Latham vs. all other firms debate, but because I'm growing increasingly concerned about this type of mass layoff in BigLaw happening again in the not too distant future.

From purely anecdotal observations that might not be borne out by actual data, it seems that OCI this year is shaping up to be a bit rougher than in previous years, and I've overheard too many people talking about how a recession is due for my comfort. Some of the murmurs I've heard mention the recent raises as a bad sign in terms of increasing risk of partner departures, especially if the increased overhead cuts into firms' PPP. As a 2L, I have no idea if either the recession talk or the theory of salary raises increasing risk of layoffs has merit. Hopefully, the perception that OCI was rough might mean at least that firms are being conservative in hiring and also want to avoid another Lathaming. But in the meanwhile, can anyone speak as to whether a repeat of 2009 is an actual possibility, or if I'm being entirely paranoid for no good reason? Perhaps more importantly, regardless of whether it's a realistic possibility, what can I do in the meanwhile to best insulate myself from becoming one of the people axed if it ever comes to that? I've tried my best this OCI season to pick a firm that seems to be in good financial health - but beyond that, is there anything I should be doing in particular? Networking? Familiarizing myself with particular partners at my SA firm?

If I'm being a complete nutjob, please feel free to tell me so and shut this down.

If another recession happens (I’m predicting 2020), I think Kirkland associates are the most at risk. Yes, Kirkland has a very large and powerful bankruptcy arm, but its total number of associates has swelled in recent years. I think there are over 1000 associates and like 500 income partners (Kirkland promotes after 6 years so a lot of these partners would still be at risk, too).

I considered working there but I just can’t see the firm sustaining itself if a recession hits.