Layoffs back? Weil cutting associates Forum

[anon168]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

[timbs4339]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

I'm not sure what you have against people sharing information to help others make informed decisions. Isn't that what you free market rational actor zealots say is the glue that holds society together?

[anon168]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

I'm not sure what you have against people sharing information to help others make informed decisions. Isn't that what you free market rational actor zealots say is the glue that holds society together?

Sharing is one thing. Whining about it is another.

It's the latter that is pervasive here.

No one needs TLS for information about the layoffs. The popular press is already all over it.

[dixiecupdrinking]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

I'm not sure what you have against people sharing information to help others make informed decisions. Isn't that what you free market rational actor zealots say is the glue that holds society together?

Sharing is one thing. Whining about it is another.

It's the latter that is pervasive here.

No one needs TLS for information about the layoffs. The popular press is already all over it.

Is it your opinion that every biglaw firm is identical to every other as far as job security or quality of life for associates?

[anon168]

Is it your opinion that every biglaw firm is identical to every other as far as job security or quality of life for associates?

Identical? No.

Just different shades of white.

[84651846190]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

I'm not sure what you have against people sharing information to help others make informed decisions. Isn't that what you free market rational actor zealots say is the glue that holds society together?

Sharing is one thing. Whining about it is another.

It's the latter that is pervasive here.

No one needs TLS for information about the layoffs. The popular press is already all over it.

Oh, c'mon. Everyone likes bitching about their jobs. Not just lawyers. It's a very normal thing.

[run26.2]

Is it your opinion that every biglaw firm is identical to every other as far as job security or quality of life for associates?

Identical? No.

Just different shades of white.

This seems like an answer that presumes comparison of NYC offices.

[anon168]

Is it your opinion that every biglaw firm is identical to every other as far as job security or quality of life for associates?

Identical? No.

Just different shades of white.

This seems like an answer that presumes comparison of NYC offices.

No, it isn't.

[rad lulz]

Doodz but I herd Quinn u can wear flip flps to work isn't that awesome

[run26.2]

Is it your opinion that every biglaw firm is identical to every other as far as job security or quality of life for associates?

Identical? No.

Just different shades of white.

This seems like an answer that presumes comparison of NYC offices.

No, it isn't.

I cannot figure out how you can make that statement, then, at least as to QOL. I certainly think there is a significant difference in the quality of life of the associates at my firm versus other firms. Of course life stinks at some points at all firms; the question is what is it like when you're in between those points. At some firms/offices, I think those times are significantly better (or longer) than at others.

I admittedly know less about the job security aspect of the question.

[Pokemon]

Doodz but I herd Quinn u can wear flip flps to work isn't that awesome

Dare I say extraordinarily sturdy flip flops. I got them from their event last April, like 15 months ago, I wear them everyday, sometimes I do even small errands outside, and they are as good as new.
If Quinn starts giving umbrellas, I would pay $30 for them...

[dixiecupdrinking]

Is it your opinion that every biglaw firm is identical to every other as far as job security or quality of life for associates?

Identical? No.

Just different shades of white.

That's fair, and obviously better informed than my own opinion about this stuff, as someone who just graduated. But I still think it's unduly cynical, and so I think there's value in the notion that some firms might be better places to land than others, and students are smart to share notes about it.

[desertlaw]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

Thanks! But this isn't really Big-Law specific. It's the same thing working at the local hotel as a bellhop or for a Big4 accounting firm. You're an employee and those in charge of the business are looking out for themselves.

[BeenDidThat]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

Biglaw isn't some magical machine that treats everybody the same. They are partnerships that vary on their propensities to eat losses or cut weight to avoid losses. It's perfectly logical for law students to look at HR history of a firm to figure if it's where they want to work. Most firms will bend over backwards to avoid firing 1st years. Those that are willing to do so are generally either money-grubbers or in serious financial trouble.

Firm morale and cohesiveness indirectly contribute to the long-term health of firms. That's why partners at some firms are okay taking a hit here and there and not banking as much as in years prior. Partners at some other firms operate on shorter time horizons. Lots of law students would prefer being at the former. And that's perfectly logical.

[itbdvorm]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

Biglaw isn't some magical machine that treats everybody the same. They are partnerships that vary on their propensities to eat losses or cut weight to avoid losses. It's perfectly logical for law students to look at HR history of a firm to figure if it's where they want to work. Most firms will bend over backwards to avoid firing 1st years. Those that are willing to do so are generally either money-grubbers or in serious financial trouble.

Firm morale and cohesiveness indirectly contribute to the long-term health of firms. That's why partners at some firms are okay taking a hit here and there and not banking as much as in years prior. Partners at some other firms operate on shorter time horizons. Lots of law students would prefer being at the former. And that's perfectly logical.

That would be totally, completely, and 100% fair if it was actually true.

The number of "safe" biglaw firms can be counted on one hand. Debevoise just axed its trusts and estates practice entirely. Lots of people left on Simpson and Skadden's "sidebar" programs and never actually were able to come back. I've heard tell of people getting laid off/pushed out (yes, even as junior as first years) at virtually every firm you can think of.

The security of payment to the most important partners is the single most important thing to a firm's survival. Firms will do what they need to do to ensure that those payments remain high so those partners don't leave. For all its troubles, Dewey would still be here today if key partners didn't leave.

[Tiago Splitter]

The number of "safe" biglaw firms can be counted on one hand.

I think a lot of us about to go through OCI would appreciate the names of these firms.

[itbdvorm]

The number of "safe" biglaw firms can be counted on one hand.

I think a lot of us about to go through OCI would appreciate the names of these firms.

I'll say Wachtell, Williams & Connelly, Munger...and that's frankly probably it.

[bdubs]

The number of "safe" biglaw firms can be counted on one hand.

I think a lot of us about to go through OCI would appreciate the names of these firms.

I'll say Wachtell, Williams & Connelly, Munger...and that's frankly probably it.

The old school lockstep firms have been very stable and avoided layoffs. Cravath, Cleary, and Debevoise are the prominent ones. The above mentioned "axing" of Debevoise's T&E practice is a bit misleading as it was a split, not layoffs. It was also inevitable because T&E is a terrible fit with the biglaw model and bill rates.

[09042014]

The number of "safe" biglaw firms can be counted on one hand.

I think a lot of us about to go through OCI would appreciate the names of these firms.

I'll say Wachtell, Williams & Connelly, Munger...and that's frankly probably it.

The old school lockstep firms have been very stable and avoided layoffs. Cravath, Cleary, and Debevoise are the prominent ones. The above mentioned "axing" of Debevoise's T&E practice is a bit misleading as it was a split, not layoffs. It was also inevitable because T&E is a terrible fit with the biglaw model and bill rates.

But what is the force attrition rate at these places? I don't see why getting laid off in a group is WAY WORSE than quietly being told to get the fuck out.

[2014]

But what is the force attrition rate at these places? I don't see why getting laid off in a group is WAY WORSE than quietly being told to get the fuck out.

Maybe if you are laid off quietly your odds of picking up another position are higher than if you are competing with 6-7 or w/e attorneys with basically the identical pedigree as you?

I'm not really sold on it, but that would be one argument.

[NYstate]

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 think people here need to understand something.

When you decide to bid and work for biglaw (a choice, by the way, that is made voluntarily) you agree to be treated as a commodity. A fungible commodity, at that.

A biglaw associate, especially a junior one like a 1st year, is about as essential as that blue pen in the supply room. Faceless, nameless, and really all not that much different from the other 1st year associate across the hall.

Biglaw cares not about you as a person, your family, your feelings, or your well-being beyond the fact that they might somehow directly or indirectly contribute to the firm's bottom line.

No one, and I mean no one (partners included) are immune from being laid off at biglaw. It is what it is. It is the bargain you agree to when you join biglaw.

If you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, then by all means do not go work for a biglaw firm. Do something else.

Sitting here and complaining about "layoffs" at biglaw is counterproductive.

Thanks! But this isn't really Big-Law specific. It's the same thing working at the local hotel as a bellhop or for a Big4 accounting firm. You're an employee and those in charge of the business are looking out for themselves.

You know, I have found that the partners care about people they work with. They aren't just a bunch of cold hearted assholes. The partners at my firm have been extremely supportive of me and of other people as well.

Two things : they are always going to act in their own, and the firm's best interest; and they can do all the work without you. You aren't necessary for the firm.

[anon168]

But what is the force attrition rate at these places? I don't see why getting laid off in a group is WAY WORSE than quietly being told to get the fuck out.

People fail to realize just how true this is.

[sundance95]

In the modern biglaw firm where partners don't all know each other, its better to think of the partnership as a whole as shareholders. The fact that partner X cares about her associates might matter in a firm where all the other partners know partner X, and thus might be swayed by her--but when a firm has hundreds of partners sprinkled through dozens of offices, the partnership will makes decisions like a corporation would, i.e., based on $$$ and $$$ only.

[anon168]

But what is the force attrition rate at these places? I don't see why getting laid off in a group is WAY WORSE than quietly being told to get the fuck out.

Maybe if you are laid off quietly your odds of picking up another position are higher than if you are competing with 6-7 or w/e attorneys with basically the identical pedigree as you?

I'm not really sold on it, but that would be one argument.

Not correct.

[anon168]

The number of "safe" biglaw firms can be counted on one hand.

I think a lot of us about to go through OCI would appreciate the names of these firms.

I'll say Wachtell, Williams & Connelly, Munger...and that's frankly probably it.

Munger has laid off people. I know this for a fact. Not "mass layoffs" because they're not big enough to do real layoffs en masse. But they've laid off people -- partners and associates.

W&C has laid off people, as well.

Maybe people want to call it "mutually agreed separation" but it is what it is.