Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates Forum

[84651846190]

I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

[Skye]

I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as a Weil associate? Seriously?

[84651846190]

I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as a Weil associate? Seriously?

Wut?

[Pokemon]

Tip to struggling 1Ls (well not that struggling): bid Weil. The firm is already very much personality based and this might have a negative effect on their recruiting thus easier for you to get that offer. At my school, you could see Latham's GPA callback ratio going really low after creating a verb after their name, and then with the passage of time slowly rising again.

[Morgan12Oak]

I don't know where the whole grades don't matter after your first big law job flame started from, but while true in some circumstances, is absolutely not something I would put much stock into. Many firms have GPA requirements for lateral associates. Many such firms have stringent GPA requirements such that if your GPA wouldn't have qualified you to get hired by them in the first place as a first year, you have no luck as a lateral associate. While true in most industries that it is skills, networking, and other intangibles you pick up along the way that qualifies you as a lateral, the legal industry is not like most industries.

The fact is the legal industry is largely based on and relies on reputation moreso than other industries. I read a ridiculous comparison to Google and something earlier in this thread, and had to laugh. But to compare, Google is not a pure service provider and could care less about its employees GPA because it creates a product and sells it, for the most part. On the other hand, the legal industry has no product without the client and needs to attract the client in order to deliver the product. Therefore, it completely matters how many people you have on order of the coif because you are trying to create the facade that you are of elite talent, and the easiest proxy for that is grades and accolades.

[NYstate]

I don't know where the whole grades don't matter after your first big law job flame started from, but while true in some circumstances, is absolutely not something I would put much stock into. Many firms have GPA requirements for lateral associates. Many such firms have stringent GPA requirements such that if your GPA wouldn't have qualified you to get hired by them in the first place as a first year, you have no luck as a lateral associate. While true in most industries that it is skills, networking, and other intangibles you pick up along the way that qualifies you as a lateral, the legal industry is not like most industries.

The fact is the legal industry is largely based on and relies on reputation moreso than other industries. I read a ridiculous comparison to Google and something earlier in this thread, and had to laugh. But to compare, Google is not a pure service provider and could care less about its employees GPA because it creates a product and sells it, for the most part. On the other hand, the legal industry has no product without the client and needs to attract the client in order to deliver the product. Therefore, it completely matters how many people you

have on order of the coif because you are trying to create the facade that you are of elite talent, and the easiest proxy for that is grades and accolades.

Part of this misunderstanding may come from the idea that you need more than grades to lateral and your experience is what will matter. I have seen people trade up without having to be Coif though. You still need decent grades to lateral but I don't think it has to be that high.

[Anonymous User]

For what it is worth, I have interviewed lateral associates anywhere from 2nd year associates to 8th year associates and we always ask for grades and I have always seen them. Usually, it is not a topic of conversation, but I can think of 2 people who did not get offers because of their transcripts even though they came from better ranked firms, had great experience and were personable. It's not like a better candidate came along either. We just decided to pass on them and not hire for the time being. Lawyers are super judgmental, as are clients, so any indication that you are not brilliant is sometimes latched onto.

[Anonymous User]

This may come as a complete shock to you, but it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs, rather than spend a lot of money in order to hire midlevels and seniors if the market picks up again (perhaps at an increased pay rate). If not, attrition can thin the herd.

IIRC, Dewey and Howrey both claimed until the day they died that they were merely rightsizing. Weil won't go the way of those firms, but to say that cutting jobs means that management knows how to run a business is foolish. In fact, I read layoffs as an indication that management screwed up somewhere along the line.

Sure, firms pay partners less, so rainmakers leave, and now all the associates are out of work instead of just some of them.

I fucking hate it when people say that.

Nothing about "it is possible for the partners to take lower draws to preserve jobs" is inconsistent with that. There are firms where some rainmakers bring in much more business than their compensation would suggest, and those rainmakers do not flee en masse to firms with more flexible compensation structures.

List of partners where this is the case.

Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.

[NYstate]

Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.

OTOH:Marty bienenstock ; Jeffrey Kessler. (Just to name two that jump to mind)

[bdubs]

http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticl ... ed%20Event

Thoughts?

[c3pO4]

Goodwin Proctor just closed its san diego office... who is next?

[cim_can]

This is interesting. Houston has gotten so hot lately it's insane. Vinson & Elkins, Baker Botts, and F&J dominate that place, and it seems like the only "outsider" who has made any headway has been Latham. It makes me wonder whether some other firms that have tried to crack that market are going to similarly shed practice groups down there eventually.

Weil's Houston practice looks (or, looked) to be exclusively complex commercial litigation and bankruptcy. Houston is hot in corporate/energy, yes, but my guess (reinforced by the WSJ article) is that Weil was charging clients national BigLaw rates for litigation.

Texas has a lot of homegrown firms and litigation boutiques that likely charge much less and are exceptional, which likely meant that clients were not willing to pay for Weil.

[84651846190]

For what it is worth, I have interviewed lateral associates anywhere from 2nd year associates to 8th year associates and we always ask for grades and I have always seen them. Usually, it is not a topic of conversation, but I can think of 2 people who did not get offers because of their transcripts even though they came from better ranked firms, had great experience and were personable. It's not like a better candidate came along either. We just decided to pass on them and not hire for the time being. Lawyers are super judgmental, as are clients, so any indication that you are not brilliant is sometimes latched onto.

Out of curiosity, how bad were the transcripts of the 2 people who didn't get offers?

[Old Gregg]

Goodwin Proctor just closed its san diego office... who is next?

Did you hear that Dewey closed ALL their offices last year? Who is next?

Half the people in this thread, including you, need to get the fuck out of here and stop posting/fear mongering.

[Anonymous User]

For what it is worth, I have interviewed lateral associates anywhere from 2nd year associates to 8th year associates and we always ask for grades and I have always seen them. Usually, it is not a topic of conversation, but I can think of 2 people who did not get offers because of their transcripts even though they came from better ranked firms, had great experience and were personable. It's not like a better candidate came along either. We just decided to pass on them and not hire for the time being. Lawyers are super judgmental, as are clients, so any indication that you are not brilliant is sometimes latched onto.

Out of curiosity, how bad were the transcripts of the 2 people who didn't get offers?

Not bad. Some C's sprinkled in throughout the transcript. I was surprised to be honest and so were some people in my department...some of them (including partners) were really annoyed by it.

[gonewiththewind]

I find this whole Weil situation to be interesting b/c it could either be just a noncyclical blip or a sign of bad things to come. Also you could take the risk with Weil and apply, hoping that a) you'll have an easier time b/c of the dump they just took on their own reputation, and b) that those cuts are the only ones they need to make. Can't hurt to bid on them anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly, I would not bid Weil right now. Same for Latham.

The Latham thing never ceases to amaze me. The clipped 400 total people, 200+ associates (many first years) in one fell swoop and will do it again immediately if they need to. Why would you want to work for a firm that has that sort of philosophy?

[anonymous2012]

Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.

OTOH:Marty bienenstock ; Jeffrey Kessler. (Just to name two that jump to mind)

The point is that Harvey is bringing in something like 100 million a year in business. To quote him, " I've made all my partners very rich."

But why should they heavily subsidize underperforming groups? Perhaps those people shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but Harvey Miller shouldn't have to take less. He already takes much less than he's worth.

[bk1]

I can confirm that my firm has a grades requirement below which we will not hire any associate. However, if you satisfy the requirement, grades have almost zero relevancy apart from whatever honors you've achieved (Coif, magna, etc.). In other words, if our firm's cutoff for your school was, for example, a 3.4 and your law school's MCL and CL cutoffs were 3.7 and 3.4 respectively, the people with GPAs in the range of 3.4-3.69 are treated almost identically for hiring purposes when it comes to how their GPA factors in.

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as a Weil associate? Seriously?

Wut?

[Lasers]

Honestly, I would not bid Weil right now. Same for Latham.

The Latham thing never ceases to amaze me. The clipped 400 total people, 200+ associates (many first years) in one fell swoop and will do it again immediately if they need to. Why would you want to work for a firm that has that sort of philosophy?

i'd stay away from a firm like winston rather than latham. winston has been doing stealth layoffs for a while i believe; latham hasn't had to cut associates in a while and has returned to great profitability.

[Anonymous User]

Weil isn't the only firm conducting layoffs. Weil is one of the few firms conducting layoffs in such a transparent manner with generous packages.

[unc0mm0n1]

Honestly, I would not bid Weil right now. Same for Latham.

The Latham thing never ceases to amaze me. The clipped 400 total people, 200+ associates (many first years) in one fell swoop and will do it again immediately if they need to. Why would you want to work for a firm that has that sort of philosophy?

i'd stay away from a firm like winston rather than latham. winston has been doing stealth layoffs for a while i believe; latham hasn't had to cut associates in a while and has returned to great profitability.

No doubt Winston has been doing stealth layoffs for a while.

[itbdvorm]

Weil isn't the only firm conducting layoffs. Weil is one of the few firms conducting layoffs in such a transparent manner with generous packages.

this.

[NYstate]

Weil isn't the only firm conducting layoffs. Weil is one of the few firms conducting layoffs in such a transparent manner with generous packages.

this.

Stephan Harper with a rambling article about who pays the price of these layoffs. Harper seems like a bit of an ass to me.

http://m.americanlawyer.com/module/alm/ ... 029795238p

[NYstate]

Here's a particularly relevant one: Harvey Miller.

OTOH:Marty bienenstock ; Jeffrey Kessler. (Just to name two that jump to mind)

The point is that Harvey is bringing in something like 100 million a year in business. To quote him, " I've made all my partners very rich."

But why should they heavily subsidize underperforming groups? Perhaps those people shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but Harvey Miller shouldn't have to take less. He already takes much less than he's worth.

I thought the point being made was that partners will leave given the right inducement and acting like they won't leave is poor judgement. I just gave two noteworthy examples without even doing a bit of research, there are more.


Besides Harvey Miller is older than my grandmother by a couple of years. He isn't the future.