Layoff Predictions Forum

[Anonymous User]

If you are in a busy practice like bankruptcy and your firm cut your salary would you leave?

I would but my concern is that the firm I would go to would also cut.

I’ve actually thought about this a lot. I’ve been applying to see what I can get. I’m at a firm that cut, so I’m really only focusing on firms that probably won’t cut (v20 or so). Obviously there’s the risk that the firm may cut, but a potential cut is better than one that has already been implemented for the foreseeable future.

Yeah I am hitting 200+ a month and it is just getting busier and busier. Its not charity. But my firm has not cut yet. I dont think that Milbanks and DPWs of the world will cut salaries. Instead they would just stealth...

[Anonymous User]

If you are in a busy practice like bankruptcy and your firm cut your salary would you leave?

I would but my concern is that the firm I would go to would also cut.

I’ve actually thought about this a lot. I’ve been applying to see what I can get. I’m at a firm that cut, so I’m really only focusing on firms that probably won’t cut (v20 or so). Obviously there’s the risk that the firm may cut, but a potential cut is better than one that has already been implemented for the foreseeable future.

Yeah I am hitting 200+ a month and it is just getting busier and busier. Its not charity. But my firm has not cut yet. I dont think that Milbanks and DPWs of the world will cut salaries. Instead they would just stealth...

Same. I think I’ll hit around 250 this month. I was well over 200 before as well. Frustrating to take a pay cut when I’m busy and there are associates who have billed maybe 10 hours in the past month who are just happy to have a job.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any intel on layoffs/salary cuts/1st year deferment at Davis Wright Tremaine?

[Anonymous User]

Reading about the litany of salary reductions, I am struck by a couple of things (1) most of them are in the AmLaw 200, not the AmLaw 100. And (2) even among the PPP > $1m firms, the ones that are reducing salary are not regarded as "prestigious" or "selective." Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation. Whereas Cadwalader does not necessarily have the same concern. At my V20, people would be shocked if salaries were reduced given everything we have heard. The uniform $190 scale obscures a lot of differences between the firms.

[2013]

Reading about the litany of salary reductions, I am struck by a couple of things (1) most of them are in the AmLaw 200, not the AmLaw 100. And (2) even among the PPP > $1m firms, the ones that are reducing salary are not regarded as "prestigious" or "selective." Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation. Whereas Cadwalader does not necessarily have the same concern. At my V20, people would be shocked if salaries were reduced given everything we have heard. The uniform $190 scale obscures a lot of differences between the firms.

I completely agree that some firms that probably should reduce will not because they want to be seen as “prestigious” and “elite” by potential candidates. I mentioned this in another thread, but I think these firms are more likely to do massive staff layoffs and stealth associate layoffs than reduce associate salary.

[QContinuum]

Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation.

Unless this was intended to be a discreet tip, this is some weird Winston & Strawn trolling here. AFAIK, Winston & Strawn hasn't announced any salary freezes, cuts or layoffs so far, and there's no public information that it's planning to do so.

I also think that firms' general willingness to do paycuts/economic layoffs does track with profitability. It's why we've seen the lion's share of these moves coming from the latter half of the AmLaw and Vault ranks. The existence of a few specific exceptions - like Covington - proves the rule.

[AdieuCali]

Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation.

Unless this was intended to be a discreet tip, this is some weird Winston & Strawn trolling here. AFAIK, Winston & Strawn hasn't announced any salary freezes, cuts or layoffs so far, and there's no public information that it's planning to do so.

They halved partner distributions temporarily, but no other cuts yet.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/am-law- ... -concerns/

[QContinuum]

Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation.

Unless this was intended to be a discreet tip, this is some weird Winston & Strawn trolling here. AFAIK, Winston & Strawn hasn't announced any salary freezes, cuts or layoffs so far, and there's no public information that it's planning to do so.

They halved partner distributions temporarily, but no other cuts yet.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/am-law- ... -concerns/

Ah, thanks. Still, my suspicion is that many more firms are reducing partner draws without announcing it. Firms are keenly aware of the main advantage of reducing partner draws (versus reducing associate/staff pay and layoffs): partner draws can be reduced without making the news.

The firms that've slashed associate pay have made a point of highlighting partner draw reductions, presumably to head off associates grumbling about fat cat partners getting rich off their backs. But firms that haven't touched associate pay really have have no incentive for announcing reduced draws.

[2013]

Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation.

Unless this was intended to be a discreet tip, this is some weird Winston & Strawn trolling here. AFAIK, Winston & Strawn hasn't announced any salary freezes, cuts or layoffs so far, and there's no public information that it's planning to do so.

They halved partner distributions temporarily, but no other cuts yet.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/am-law- ... -concerns/

Ah, thanks. Still, my suspicion is that many more firms are reducing partner draws without announcing it. Firms are keenly aware of the main advantage of reducing partner draws (versus reducing associate/staff pay and layoffs): partner draws can be reduced without making the news.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens at these firms if the economy doesn’t bounce back like they are hoping/expecting. Partners are going to want to be paid at some point and the more junior partners probably aren’t going to be too happy about making less than associates.

[Anonymous User]

Winston & Strawn and Cadwalader make a lot of money but also are not competing for the top of the class at HLS. It may be that more "prestigious" but not that profitable firms like Covington and A&P are going to hold out as long as possible to avoid damaging their reputation.

Unless this was intended to be a discreet tip, this is some weird Winston & Strawn trolling here. AFAIK, Winston & Strawn hasn't announced any salary freezes, cuts or layoffs so far, and there's no public information that it's planning to do so.

They halved partner distributions temporarily, but no other cuts yet.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/am-law- ... -concerns/

Ah, thanks. Still, my suspicion is that many more firms are reducing partner draws without announcing it. Firms are keenly aware of the main advantage of reducing partner draws (versus reducing associate/staff pay and layoffs): partner draws can be reduced without making the news.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens at these firms if the economy doesn’t bounce back like they are hoping/expecting. Partners are going to want to be paid at some point and the more junior partners probably aren’t going to be too happy about making less than associates.

I was the original anon here. I don't have any information on Winston & Strawn. My point was more broad: that the firms that have made public announcements of financial distress, such as salary cuts but also reduced partner distributions etc., are generally firms that are not regarded as fancy and prestigious even if they make a lot of money. I haven't seen any reports about Covington or A&P or Munger Tolles doing any of that. I think the reason is that these firms want to project confidence even if they make half or less money than the big NY firms on a PPP basis.

[Anonymous User]

I was the original anon here. I don't have any information on Winston & Strawn. My point was more broad: that the firms that have made public announcements of financial distress, such as salary cuts but also reduced partner distributions etc., are generally firms that are not regarded as fancy and prestigious even if they make a lot of money. I haven't seen any reports about Covington or A&P or Munger Tolles doing any of that. I think the reason is that these firms want to project confidence even if they make half or less money than the big NY firms on a PPP basis.

I agree with this, though (as someone who recently left Covington), these prestigious DC firms also likely have more stable practices that are less tied to the business cycle. There has, for example, not been a shortage of FDA, healthcare or bank regulatory work that has needed to be done during the crisis. And, while gov enforcement has been down overall, when I left, Covington at least was overwhelmed with the amount of white collar investigations they had, as well as a couple of absolutely gigantic litigation matters. These are the types of things that have likely slowed down in the short term, but won’t go away just because the economy is really bad.

[Raiden]

How much do these cuts have to do with Profitability then with being fiscally conservative? Many firms don’t make much money in the beginning of the year because they’re operating in a deficit. I think the firms that are coming are the ones that are trying to get ahead of the pandemic. They are anticipating losses whereas the firms that are not making any cuts and trying to strong army this may face more devastating effects later. That’s just my uneducated two cents.

[Sporty1911]

How much do these cuts have to do with Profitability then with being fiscally conservative? Many firms don’t make much money in the beginning of the year because they’re operating in a deficit. I think the firms that are coming are the ones that are trying to get ahead of the pandemic. They are anticipating losses whereas the firms that are not making any cuts and trying to strong army this may face more devastating effects later. That’s just my uneducated two cents.

I think there is some anecdotal evidence for this. Arent Fox had a 30% profit margin in 2019 (https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... trys-turn/) which, by most accounts, is rather healthy. But they have been one of the firms cutting salaries. I think there is some credibility to the idea that firms who act now are trying to set some money aside for later in the year.

[LHand1993]

McDermott Will & Emery is laying off associates.

Fuck.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/am-law- ... -pandemic/

[Anonymous User]

McDermott Will & Emery is laying off associates.

Fuck.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/am-law- ... -pandemic/

any tips on the "departments" hit here?

[Anonymous User]

From what I know, that article is misleading. Entire "departments" refers to furloughing our catering team, etc. We had received word that we had a large number of staff layoffs and furloughs due to economic conditions, and that a small number of associates (whose termination was already "in progress", i.e. those with previous negative reviews) had also been terminated. Source: associate at the firm.

[giggaman1228]

a small number of associates (whose termination was already "in progress", i.e. those with previous negative reviews) had also been terminated.

sounds an awful lot like stealth layoffs

[Anonymous User]

a small number of associates (whose termination was already "in progress", i.e. those with previous negative reviews) had also been terminated.

sounds an awful lot like stealth layoffs

I imagine a lot of firms are (or will soon be) terminating associates who have already been given "the talk." In good times they can often hang around indefinitely but not anymore.

[giggaman1228]

a small number of associates (whose termination was already "in progress", i.e. those with previous negative reviews) had also been terminated.

sounds an awful lot like stealth layoffs

I imagine a lot of firms are (or will soon be) terminating associates who have already been given "the talk." In good times they can often hang around indefinitely but not anymore.

I don't know any serious firms where attorneys can hang around 'indefinitely.' That wasn't even true pre-2008. If McDermott is terminating its lower performers now, that is a stealth layoff, even if it gave them a subpar review in the past. No company lays off its top performers.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience at multiple V100 firms, someone billing ~1000 hours who receives negative reviews can sometimes linger around for 1-2 years until they find a decent exit option. It can take several months of ~50 billable hours before someone is formally terminated. Obviously that's unlikely to remain the case now.

[giggaman1228]

In my experience at multiple V100 firms, someone billing ~1000 hours who receives negative reviews can sometimes linger around for 1-2 years until they find a decent exit option. It can take several months of ~50 billable hours before someone is formally terminated. Obviously that's unlikely to remain the case now.

big difference between getting 'the talk' and getting 'negative reviews' of course

[Anonymous User]

Any news about Seward & Kissel? Stealth layoffs?

[Raiden]

For those of you who were around in 2008 (though let's be real - this is economically worse than 2008), any firm that cares about its prestige more than the transparency with its employees is going to stealth layoffs. We may not hear about it until people tell their stories later.

[Anonymous User]

From what I know, that article is misleading. Entire "departments" refers to furloughing our catering team, etc. We had received word that we had a large number of staff layoffs and furloughs due to economic conditions, and that a small number of associates (whose termination was already "in progress", i.e. those with previous negative reviews) had also been terminated. Source: associate at the firm.

Heard from associates directly in firm that the last sentence is just gossip, runs deeper than folks with “bad reviews” etc. just a counter point to the narrative (however comforting) that they are just cutting dead weight.

[objctnyrhnr]

From what I know, that article is misleading. Entire "departments" refers to furloughing our catering team, etc. We had received word that we had a large number of staff layoffs and furloughs due to economic conditions, and that a small number of associates (whose termination was already "in progress", i.e. those with previous negative reviews) had also been terminated. Source: associate at the firm.

Heard from associates directly in firm that the last sentence is just gossip, runs deeper than folks with “bad reviews” etc. just a counter point to the narrative (however comforting) that they are just cutting dead weight.

Can you elaborate? I mean what % are we talking here? What groups? Hours in March/April a factor?

That type of stuff.