Firms to Avoid Forum

[patogordo]

why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?

[ClerkAdvisor]

I think this conversation is missing out on an important factor, that is the financial structure of the law firm. Unless the firm is one of the rare firms that has no debt and either a fully funded partner retirement plan or no retirement plan, there can be substantial consequences when there is a substantial decline in business (and thus cash flow). Some of these highly associate leveraged firms also have debt leveraging as well and may have little choice but to cut associates. This isn't to say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to make cuts, nor is it meant as a defense for firms getting themselves into the situation in the first place, but I think it does bear mention that it's more than just about some 50 year old partner's bottom line.

Is this news to you or have you heard about the crash? Do you not understand that layoffs were made rather than cut money to the partners (as much as possible.). You do understand that non equity partners and service partners are getting pushed out too.

All firms have some kind of bank financing, usually a line of credit. Dewey was the only firm that issued debt instruments, notes of some kind that they defaulted on. I don't think any other biglaw firm has done the same.

I have no idea how an associate or a law student can find out about the funding of partnership plans.

I think you are missing my point. People here are sitting on firms for doing only what was economically necessary. On TLS, there is an attitude that firms only cut associates to keep high profits for gray haired partners...

[ClerkAdvisor]

why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?

They have leverage problems, but their leverage isn't in the form of associates...

[NYSprague]

I think this conversation is missing out on an important factor, that is the financial structure of the law firm. Unless the firm is one of the rare firms that has no debt and either a fully funded partner retirement plan or no retirement plan, there can be substantial consequences when there is a substantial decline in business (and thus cash flow). Some of these highly associate leveraged firms also have debt leveraging as well and may have little choice but to cut associates. This isn't to say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to make cuts, nor is it meant as a defense for firms getting themselves into the situation in the first place, but I think it does bear mention that it's more than just about some 50 year old partner's bottom line.

Is this news to you or have you heard about the crash? Do you not understand that layoffs were made rather than cut money to the partners (as much as possible.). You do understand that non equity partners and service partners are getting pushed out too.

All firms have some kind of bank financing, usually a line of credit. Dewey was the only firm that issued debt instruments, notes of some kind that they defaulted on. I don't think any other biglaw firm has done the same.

I have no idea how an associate or a law student can find out about the funding of partnership plans.

I think you are missing my point. People here are sitting on firms for doing only what was economically necessary. On TLS, there is an attitude that firms only cut associates to keep high profits for gray haired partners...

I don't recall any firm cutting salaries to anyone just so they could keep more 1st years. I know firms deferred people to try to give them jobs at some point. My memory is hazy but I can't think of a single firm announcing any cost cutting measure to avoid ruining the careers of the 1st or 2nd years. Firing people was easier.

[bk1]

I think you are missing my point. People here are sitting on firms for doing only what was economically necessary. On TLS, there is an attitude that firms only cut associates to keep high profits for gray haired partners...

I'm not all too high on this thread and am not sure that it is particularly valuable, but I do think this misses the point of this thread. Just because all firms cut people for economic reasons doesn't mean that all firm cuts are equal. For example, a firm could be forced to make cuts because it continually overhires associates and prepares itself far worse for busts than other firms do (e.g. Latham), firms can make cuts to those most vulnerable rather than those that can greater weather the storm (e.g. Latham cutting first years), firms can be incompetent in the timing of their cut notifications (e.g. Brown Rudnick notifying people a few weeks before graduation), firms can be less transparent to their summers and fail to notify their summers when those law students could have done something when the firm knows things aren't okay in advance (e.g. Brown Rudnick, Winston), etc.

[bjsesq]

firms can be less transparent to their summers and fail to notify their summers when those law students could have done something when the firm knows things aren't okay in advance (e.g. Brown Rudnick, Winston), etc.

This bears repeating. Winston told us again and again how we were all sitting pretty because of how conservative they are in making moves that cost money. They lied to us again and again, and they kept doing it until the very end. THAT is why they suck so fucking hard, imo.

[Anonymous User]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

Problem is there is at least some evidence that a 5% cut isn't wheening out shitbirds so much as "we hired 5% too many SA's everybody protect you favorite SA."

V20 associate and OCI committee member here. Every firm is different, I guess, but I really can't imagine a "we hired 5% too many SA's" attitude. When you give offers to SA's, you are expecting them to start work at the earliest a year later, and for many of them a year or two later after clerkships. We simply do not know, and can not know, at the end of a summer whether we hired 5% "too many," because to know that we would have to know how much work we are going to have a year later. It just doesn't work that way. And even if we did, 5% is so small that it can easily be absorbed. Much better for us to have you start work and not be busy at first, and then have you ready to jump on the big matter that comes around 4 months later.

The "be the lobster" thing is also BS. I really just don't know of any firm where partners are asked to "protect" summer associates. Of course it is good to have glowing reviews from everyone you work for, but the idea that you have to become the favorite of one specific person or else you're voted off the island is just silly. In other words, we don't say, "gee, we had 30 SAs but only want to hire 29, which one has the fewest friends among the partnership?" Instead, we look at each summer individually. If they are remotely competent and/or remediable, and have not done anything shockingly inappropriate, we offer them.

If there are offerees who decline us because we didn't offer 100% the year before, it's only unfortunate because I wish I could tell them more about why we didn't offer 100%. It's always, always, because one or two people literally did not complete work assigned to them (without any explanation), and/or because one or two people got way too drunk at more than one social event and did or said awkward or inappropriate things to other SAs, associates, or partners. (Note the "more than one." It's sort of like The Importance of Being Earnest -- to drink too much at one social event is regarded as unfortunate, to drink too much at every social occasion looks like bad judgment.)

[bk1]

If there are offerees who decline us because we didn't offer 100% the year before, it's only unfortunate because I wish I could tell them more about why we didn't offer 100%. It's always, always, because one or two people literally did not complete work assigned to them (without any explanation), and/or because one or two people got way too drunk at more than one social event and did or said awkward or inappropriate things to other SAs, associates, or partners. (Note the "more than one." It's sort of like The Importance of Being Earnest -- to drink too much at one social event is regarded as unfortunate, to drink too much at every social occasion looks like bad judgment.)

Considering how socially inept law students can be, I'm not sure this should relieve them.

[Anonymous User]

If there are offerees who decline us because we didn't offer 100% the year before, it's only unfortunate because I wish I could tell them more about why we didn't offer 100%. It's always, always, because one or two people literally did not complete work assigned to them (without any explanation), and/or because one or two people got way too drunk at more than one social event and did or said awkward or inappropriate things to other SAs, associates, or partners. (Note the "more than one." It's sort of like The Importance of Being Earnest -- to drink too much at one social event is regarded as unfortunate, to drink too much at every social occasion looks like bad judgment.)

Considering how socially inept law students can be, I'm not sure this should relieve them.

I hear you, but with my example I tried to make clear that this is not about "inept." Believe me, if we dinged everyone who was awkward we would have to hire summer classes twice as large. I'm talking about attending an event at a partner's house and drunkenly and loudly making lewd comments about the photos of the partner's college-age daughters. I'm talking about buttonholing the head of legal recruiting at a late night event and saying that the firm "sucks" because your friends at XYZ firm across town get to go to [fanciest] restaurant, whereas we only had an event at [second fanciest] restaurant.

[bk1]

I hear you, but with my example I tried to make clear that this is not about "inept." Believe me, if we dinged everyone who was awkward we would have to hire summer classes twice as large. I'm talking about attending an event at a partner's house and drunkenly and loudly making lewd comments about the photos of the partner's college-age daughters. I'm talking about buttonholing the head of legal recruiting at a late night event and saying that the firm "sucks" because your friends at XYZ firm across town get to go to [fanciest] restaurant, whereas we only had an event at [second fanciest] restaurant.

I meant more that socially inept people are more likely to make the kinds of mistakes you mention.

[Anonymous User]

I hear you, but with my example I tried to make clear that this is not about "inept." Believe me, if we dinged everyone who was awkward we would have to hire summer classes twice as large. I'm talking about attending an event at a partner's house and drunkenly and loudly making lewd comments about the photos of the partner's college-age daughters. I'm talking about buttonholing the head of legal recruiting at a late night event and saying that the firm "sucks" because your friends at XYZ firm across town get to go to [fanciest] restaurant, whereas we only had an event at [second fanciest] restaurant.

I meant more that socially inept people are more likely to make the kinds of mistakes you mention.

Well, take comfort in the fact that I'm talking about like one person every two summers. Whether you call this inept or something worse, all I'm saying is as long as you aren't in the bottom 1% of douchebaggery, you don't need to worry about our offer rate.

[Dafaq]

V20 associate and OCI committee member here....

After reading your post I believe you have the chops to take this conversation to the next level. More often than not we hear about associates being terminated after 3-5 years. Why is that? Assuming that the associate is fulfilling billing requirements and gets along with most everyone, why the termination? Does the reason usually regard not bringing in new business, or is it something else?

I noticed that my offered firm recently cut three associates. I knew a couple of them fairly well during my SA and (to me) they certainly seemed very capable. I thought maybe they lateralled but when I checked their linked-in bio they are said to be working at the firm (from that alone I assume they were dismissed).

Hardly a day goes by on TLS where someone doesn't mention that 3-5 years is all one can hope for. Why?

BTW: At my offered firm we have associates heading into their 6th year (and yes, some at 4-5 years have become partners).

[bk1]

Hardly a day goes by on TLS where someone doesn't mention that 3-5 years is all one can hope for. Why?

BTW: At my offered firm we have associates heading into their 6th year (and yes, some at 4-5 years have become partners).

Nobody is saying that people don't make it past years 3-5 because obviously that does happen. TLS says you can't hope past years 3-5 because statistically that is the most likely outcome.

[Dafaq]

Hardly a day goes by on TLS where someone doesn't mention that 3-5 years is all one can hope for. Why?

BTW: At my offered firm we have associates heading into their 6th year (and yes, some at 4-5 years have become partners).

Nobody is saying that people don't make it past years 3-5 because obviously that does happen. TLS says you can't hope past years 3-5 because statistically that is the most likely outcome.

Agreed. Just asking the V20 associate and OCI committee member why.

[bk1]

Agreed. Just asking the V20 associate and OCI committee member why.

Ah I misunderstood your why. I thought you were asking why TLS mentioned it, not why people don't last all that long.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't think you can assume anything from LinkedIn. I have co-workers who've been here 2 years whose LinkedIn still lists a previous job.

[TelegramSam]

If there are offerees who decline us because we didn't offer 100% the year before, it's only unfortunate because I wish I could tell them more about why we didn't offer 100%. It's always, always, because one or two people literally did not complete work assigned to them (without any explanation), and/or because one or two people got way too drunk at more than one social event and did or said awkward or inappropriate things to other SAs, associates, or partners. (Note the "more than one." It's sort of like The Importance of Being Earnest -- to drink too much at one social event is regarded as unfortunate, to drink too much at every social occasion looks like bad judgment.)

Considering how socially inept law students can be, I'm not sure this should relieve them.

I hear you, but with my example I tried to make clear that this is not about "inept." Believe me, if we dinged everyone who was awkward we would have to hire summer classes twice as large. I'm talking about attending an event at a partner's house and drunkenly and loudly making lewd comments about the photos of the partner's college-age daughters. I'm talking about buttonholing the head of legal recruiting at a late night event and saying that the firm "sucks" because your friends at XYZ firm across town get to go to [fanciest] restaurant, whereas we only had an event at [second fanciest] restaurant.

God I wish I had summered at your firm

[Dafaq]

Agreed. Just asking the V20 associate and OCI committee member why.

Ah I misunderstood your why. I thought you were asking why TLS mentioned it, not why people don't last all that long.

Sometimes my clarity isn't. If you have an opinion on why 3-5 years is often the life expectancy of an associate... do tell.

[09042014]

Agreed. Just asking the V20 associate and OCI committee member why.

Ah I misunderstood your why. I thought you were asking why TLS mentioned it, not why people don't last all that long.

Sometimes my clarity isn't. If you have an opinion on why 3-5 years is often the life expectancy of an associate... do tell.

Because the job fucking blows. So people quit. Some stop caring and get fired.

[Anonymous User]

V20 associate and OCI committee member here....

After reading your post I believe you have the chops to take this conversation to the next level. More often than not we hear about associates being terminated after 3-5 years. Why is that? Assuming that the associate is fulfilling billing requirements and gets along with most everyone, why the termination? Does the reason usually regard not bringing in new business, or is it something else?

I noticed that my offered firm recently cut three associates. I knew a couple of them fairly well during my SA and (to me) they certainly seemed very capable. I thought maybe they lateralled but when I checked their linked-in bio they are said to be working at the firm (from that alone I assume they were dismissed).

Hardly a day goes by on TLS where someone doesn't mention that 3-5 years is all one can hope for. Why?

BTW: At my offered firm we have associates heading into their 6th year (and yes, some at 4-5 years have become partners).

V20 guy again here. Happy to discuss this. A couple of thoughts:

1. Firms would like to do everything they can to avoid actually terminating people. At a place with an 8-year partnership track, you are more likely to have a situation where around year 6 the firm has some informal or formal process by which they say, "hey, partnership probably isn't in the cards for you, so maybe you should start looking at other opportunities." Or there will be other soft ways of nudging you out, by assigning you to cases that really aren't in your practice area but where they just need bodies, etc. The chopping block is infrequently used.

2. The idea that 3-5 years is all that someone can hope for is a very simplistic way of stating what happens in BigLaw, and it was prevalent when I was in law school, too. The problem is that as a statement it is trying to make a normative prediction out of a description. Is it true that most of an entering class of associates is gone by year 5? Sure. Absolutely. But how many of those associates always intended to return to their home markets? How many always intended to leave law as soon as the loans were paid off? How many always planned on going into academia? Etc. So it doesn't mean that associates are forced out at 3-5 years, just that that's a natural transition point for what many people had planned for their careers. 3-5 years is also sort of a natural point for having enough data for whether or not you like BigLaw. If you like it, it's not hard to stay in it -- at least up until that partnership vote at year 8 or whatever. But if you hate it, it's hard not to leave. The job really can put a lot of psychological pressure on you.

3. That brings up a point that I like to mention a lot to 0Ls and law students. This job is just too hard to do long term unless you like it. It's hard to predict whether you like it or not, sure, but I am just always wary of people who say they don't care where they work or what practice they do as long as it gets them the $2M PPP. Those people aren't going to make it to partnership. Cliche, but -- to be good enough to become a partner, you have to love your practice; the money comes once you do that.

4. So why are associates canned? The typical formula is this (as far as I can tell -- my firm really has not had any mass layoffs since I've been here). A practice gets slow. The firm decides that, because of the economy or changes to the firm (rainmaker departures, changes to regulatory landscape, etc.), the practice in question needs to be downsized. They look for the associates who have some combination of (a) not likely to become a productive partner, (b) have been particularly slow in terms of hours for many months and for whatever reason have not been able to get more work relative to their peers, and (c) don't have high-powered friends among the partnership. So to answer your question directly, assuming an associate meets hours requirements and gets along with everyone, I'm going to assume they won't get axed. Keep your hours legitimately, not artificially, adequate and get informal partner mentors who like you and don't think you're annoying, and you're in pretty good shape. Easier said than done, of course, but that's my view.

5. Finally, I have tried to word it in a way that does not mean that those who get cut are not capable. We have hired people who have been cut from other firms, and honestly can't tell why they got let go. I think the only answer to that puzzle is that sometimes you get caught in a bad cycle, where a slowdown in work leads to you not being seen as desirable, preventing you from breaking the slowdown that you had no part in causing. It's sad and unfair, but it happens, and moving to a different firm can break that.

Sorry for the wall of text but I wanted to be thorough. I have to do some actual work now but will try to log back on tonight.

[rayiner]

why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?

Bulge-bracket banks hire entry-level people onto two-year contracts, which are usually not renewed. They also routinely offer only about half their summer classes. The difference is, the rest of the industry doesn't treat you like some sort of pariah just because you didn't get an offer from Morgan Stanley, or were asked to leave after two years.

[patogordo]

why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?

Bulge-bracket banks hire entry-level people onto two-year contracts, which are usually not renewed. They also routinely offer only about half their summer classes. The difference is, the rest of the industry doesn't treat you like some sort of pariah just because you didn't get an offer from Morgan Stanley, or were asked to leave after two years.

sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant why don't they have the problem of partners fleeing at the first sign of a drop in profitability.

[84651846190]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

This post has taken a lot of shit, but it's definitely TCR. There are some people who fuck up in ways that make it obvious that they shouldn't get offers. If you can't meet deadlines and do good work as a summer associate (when the work is insanely easy and you're only expected to bill like 4 hours per day), I do not want to work with you when you're a real associate.

If you think the initial callback and screening interview process is capable of weeding out ALL of these kinds of people, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[TelegramSam]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

This post has taken a lot of shit, but it's definitely TCR. There are some people who fuck up in ways that make it obvious that they shouldn't get offers. If you can't meet deadlines and do good work as a summer associate (when the work is insanely easy and you're only expected to bill like 4 hours per day), I do not want to work with you when you're a real associate.

If you think the initial callback and screening interview process is capable of weeding out ALL of these kinds of people, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, it's good for you because you already work there. But for a law student looking at firms, thinking less than a 100% offer rate is a positive is retarded.

[Dafaq]

V20 guy again here. Happy to discuss....
.

Thank you for the excellent reply. Certainly dispels the automatic fifth year guillotine conclusion.