Incoming Associates Getting Deferred Forum

[Anonymous User]

It looks like not all firms are giving a stipend. Cadwalader just deferred until January and only providing a 5,000 salary advance

[Anonymous User]

It looks like not all firms are giving a stipend. Cadwalader just deferred until January and only providing a 5,000 salary advance

This is truly insane. A $5000 stipend is pretty shitty, but to make it an advance?? I can’t see why any student with options at another firm would pick CWT after this.

[LSATWiz.com]

It looks like not all firms are giving a stipend. Cadwalader just deferred until January and only providing a 5,000 salary advance

This is truly insane. A $5000 stipend is pretty shitty, but to make it an advance?? I can’t see why any student with options at another firm would pick CWT after this.

Can’t the firms treat them as furloughed employees so they get benefits? That would seem like the easiest route assuming it’s legal, which I’m not sure but why not just furlough all of them - is that an issue with unemployment benefits? Gotta be a way you can get them some money each week without draining resources. They’re supposed to be leading lawyers for petesake.

[Sporty1911]

My guess is that most V50-100 firms will offer advances rather than stipends. Not really that surprised, tbh.

[LSATWiz.com]

My guess is that most V50-100 firms will offer advances rather than stipends. Not really that surprised, tbh.

Why not furlough them so they can get a government stipend when that’s extended past July? That way the firm gets them money without having to pay them.

[Sackboy]

It looks like not all firms are giving a stipend. Cadwalader just deferred until January and only providing a 5,000 salary advance

CWT seems like a terrible place.

When I went through OCI, CWT took 2 months to extend an offer after my callback. They were either (1) insanely slow, or (2) had to go through a massive god damn list of people who all turned them down; either way, not a good look. What makes all of it even more absurd is that I was easily at the top end of their GPA range.

CWT really just seems to not care about anyone who isn't an equity partner.

• CWT is notorious for having screamers.
• It has a 8 year associate track, counsel track, and two-tiered partnership (the worst combo for those in the non-equity ranks).
• It was among the first firms to cut salaries during the pandemic.
• They're doing a paltry salary advance instead of a reasonable stipend.
• It has a sweatshop reputation.
• The firm's revenue in 2019 was essentially identical to its revenue in 2005... (0% growth in 14 years).
• CWT chooses to solidify around its niche business, which leaves all of its associates/counsel incredibly vulnerable during bad economic times.
• CWT has one of the worst partner:associate ratios, using an army of associates/counsel to line the pockets of its 40 remaining partners, while offering them among the worst partnership prospects of any big firm.

It wouldn't surprise me if the firm just slowly died off, scaling down at whatever rate was required after partner departures/retirements to keep up their $2.5M PPP.

EDIT: Accidental anon, Sackboy

[wishywashy]

The reddit tracker lists CWT as a total of $12,500 of salary advances. $7500 May 1 and $5,000 Oct 1.

Not looking to be CWT's knight in shining armor, just pointing out that it appears to be $12,500 not just $5,000.

[Anonymous User]

The reddit tracker lists CWT as a total of $12,500 of salary advances. $7500 May 1 and $5,000 Oct 1.

Not looking to be CWT's knight in shining armor, just pointing out that it appears to be $12,500 not just $5,000.

I have friends who are going to CWT, and they are all pissed.

The first salary advance is a bar stipend that every firm has. Some of those bar stipends are actually stipends that don't need to be repaid. The second amount is the advance dedicated to expenses during the deferral period.

Also, CWT pays a stub bonus, which probably won't happen judging by their current behavior if incoming 3Ls start in Jan. In toto, incoming 3Ls are out ~75k. I guess technically it would be less since salaries have been cut so incoming associates would not be missing as much, but that's hardly a point worth celebrating...

[Sporty1911]

My guess is that most V50-100 firms will offer advances rather than stipends. Not really that surprised, tbh.

Why not furlough them so they can get a government stipend when that’s extended past July? That way the firm gets them money without having to pay them.

Maybe because you have to employ someone for a period of time before you can furlough them? I'm not sure though, don't really know the applicable law on that. It's a good question.

[JusticeSquee]

It looks like not all firms are giving a stipend. Cadwalader just deferred until January and only providing a 5,000 salary advance

CWT seems like a terrible place.

When I went through OCI, CWT took 2 months to extend an offer after my callback. They were either (1) insanely slow, or (2) had to go through a massive god damn list of people who all turned them down; either way, not a good look. What makes all of it even more absurd is that I was easily at the top end of their GPA range.

CWT really just seems to not care about anyone who isn't an equity partner.

• CWT is notorious for having screamers.
• It has a 8 year associate track, counsel track, and two-tiered partnership (the worst combo for those in the non-equity ranks).
• It was among the first firms to cut salaries during the pandemic.
• They're doing a paltry salary advance instead of a reasonable stipend.
• It has a sweatshop reputation.
• The firm's revenue in 2019 was essentially identical to its revenue in 2005... (0% growth in 14 years).
• CWT chooses to solidify around its niche business, which leaves all of its associates/counsel incredibly vulnerable during bad economic times.
• CWT has one of the worst partner:associate ratios, using an army of associates/counsel to line the pockets of its 40 remaining partners, while offering them among the worst partnership prospects of any big firm.

It wouldn't surprise me if the firm just slowly died off, scaling down at whatever rate was required after partner departures/retirements to keep up their $2.5M PPP.

EDIT: Accidental anon, Sackboy

I've been saying this for a while. Have friends who chose CWT and all of them quit after a year. It is a terrible place with terrible partners who put their greed above all else. They regularly fuck associates over on bonuses, have shittier benefits than peer firms, and yes plenty of screamers to go around.

IF YOU HAVE CHOICES, DO NOT GO TO CADWALADER.

You will make more money and have a better time at peer firms.

[Sackboy]

I've been saying this for a while. Have friends who chose CWT and all of them quit after a year. It is a terrible place with terrible partners who put their greed above all else. They regularly fuck associates over on bonuses, have shittier benefits than peer firms, and yes plenty of screamers to go around.

IF YOU HAVE CHOICES, DO NOT GO TO CADWALADER.

You will make more money and have a better time at peer firms.

I just remembered a story from my CWT callback that I think is worth sharing.

I'm interviewing with a partner. The first thing I notice when I walk in is the great view; you can even see 56 Leonard's construction starting to resemble its jenga-like shape. I grab a seat, pass over my materials, and remark about the great view. Partner doesn't respond. Fair enough. We get started. His thick New York accent accentuates his seemingly "I don't give a fuck about you mentality," as he asks me questions that seem slightly offensive: "why did you major in something as useless as X?" I get it I'm a social sciences/humanities guy, so while the tone and delivery wasn't great I've gotten this question before from various friends and family members. After explaining that, I then tell the guy what I'm interested in Tax/ECEB. He visibly scoffs. He then proceeds to ask "why, you have no quantitative skills." Ok, rude, but whatever. The guy probably had a bad day. The interview proceeds with him asking me to do ridiculously stupid mental math and asking me things like "is a credit or a deduction preferable?" I think he also asked me to define the difference between "equity" and "debt."

I have never wanted to work at a place less than after that interview, and I've worked some pretty shitty gigs.

[Anonymous User]

My guess is that most V50-100 firms will offer advances rather than stipends. Not really that surprised, tbh.

Why not furlough them so they can get a government stipend when that’s extended past July? That way the firm gets them money without having to pay them.

Maybe because you have to employ someone for a period of time before you can furlough them? I'm not sure though, don't really know the applicable law on that. It's a good question.

I'm doing a lot of L&E advising these days, and some states are expanding unemployment benefits eligibility to people who accepted jobs but are unable to start work for COVID-related reasons. It's worth looking into for anyone in this situation IMO.

[kengh]

My guess is that most V50-100 firms will offer advances rather than stipends. Not really that surprised, tbh.

Why not furlough them so they can get a government stipend when that’s extended past July? That way the firm gets them money without having to pay them.

Maybe because you have to employ someone for a period of time before you can furlough them? I'm not sure though, don't really know the applicable law on that. It's a good question.

I'm doing a lot of L&E advising these days, and some states are expanding unemployment benefits eligibility to people who accepted jobs but are unable to start work for COVID-related reasons. It's worth looking into for anyone in this situation IMO.

Wow this is great to know. Is New York one of them?

[aspiringlaw]

I debated whether or not to post this, but Cadawalder’s decision to defer incoming associates to January without providing a stipend is simply reprehensible.

It’s perfectly understandable for a firm to defer its associates during these uncertain times, but to do so without providing them with a stipend to tide them over shows a callous disregard for the wellbeing of future employees that you’ve already invested significant sums in recruiting and, at least in theory, will be spending a significant amount of time with.

These partners really sat around a table and decided that giving a $5000 “advance” (i.e. loan) to incoming associates – who are already over encumbered with loans and realistically can’t get another legal job, both because of the Corona situation and because they’re supposed to start working at Cadawalder roughly 3 months after the planned September bar exam – would be enough to cover their expenses for over 3 months. Some may jump in and say incoming associates “can always work for ubereats” or something along those lines, but stop and think about it for a second, what kind of firm forces its incoming associates to choose between struggling to get by (or not getting by at all) and taking dangerous temp-jobs during a PANDEMIC?

If you still disagree with me, consider this:
- Cadawalder had a PPP of $2.51 million in 2018
- Cadawalder has 40 equity partners (according to NALP)
- 40 partners x $2.51 million = $100,400,000
- Cadawalder had 19 summer associates in 2019 (NALP), even assuming a 100% return rate, that
means only 19 incoming first-years
- It is my understanding that Cadawalder always provided incoming first years with an “advance”
of $7,500 to cover summer expenses, and that the new $5,000 “advance” will be distributed in
September to cover the deferral period – so that means that the “advance” isn’t really $12,500
as some are reporting, and that it comes out to a measly $1,667/month (and that’s assuming
incoming associates start on Jan. 1 – which they won’t)

If the $5000 “advance” was given as a stipend, it would amount to LESS THAN 0.1% of the firm’s profits for ONE year (2018). If Cadawalder chose to do, what in my opinion, is the right thing and match Hogan Lovell’s $25k stipend, it would still amount to LESS THAN 0.5% of the firm’s profits for 2018. It is true that the firm’s profits may decrease in 2020, but these numbers are still laughably small.

My sympathies go out to Cadawalder’s incoming associates, and I will personally remember the way Cadawalder treated them for a long, long time. I can only hope that when it comes time for those of us who will one day become partners ourselves, we won’t make such awful decisions in the name of avarice. In the meantime, I know that I will advise anyone who comes to me for guidance to avoid Cadawalder at all costs. Please feel free to share this on reddit or wherever else other law students and associates may come across it.

[abcdoremi]

I debated whether or not to post this, but Cadawalder’s decision to defer incoming associates to January without providing a stipend is simply reprehensible.

It’s perfectly understandable for a firm to defer its associates during these uncertain times, but to do so without providing them with a stipend to tide them over shows a callous disregard for the wellbeing of future employees that you’ve already invested significant sums in recruiting and, at least in theory, will be spending a significant amount of time with.

These partners really sat around a table and decided that giving a $5000 “advance” (i.e. loan) to incoming associates – who are already over encumbered with loans and realistically can’t get another legal job, both because of the Corona situation and because they’re supposed to start working at Cadawalder roughly 3 months after the planned September bar exam – would be enough to cover their expenses for over 3 months. Some may jump in and say incoming associates “can always work for ubereats” or something along those lines, but stop and think about it for a second, what kind of firm forces its incoming associates to choose between struggling to get by (or not getting by at all) and taking dangerous temp-jobs during a PANDEMIC?

If you still disagree with me, consider this:
- Cadawalder had a PPP of $2.51 million in 2018
- Cadawalder has 40 equity partners (according to NALP)
- 40 partners x $2.51 million = $100,400,000
- Cadawalder had 19 summer associates in 2019 (NALP), even assuming a 100% return rate, that
means only 19 incoming first-years
- It is my understanding that Cadawalder always provided incoming first years with an “advance”
of $7,500 to cover summer expenses, and that the new $5,000 “advance” will be distributed in
September to cover the deferral period – so that means that the “advance” isn’t really $12,500
as some are reporting, and that it comes out to a measly $1,667/month (and that’s assuming
incoming associates start on Jan. 1 – which they won’t)

If the $5000 “advance” was given as a stipend, it would amount to LESS THAN 0.1% of the firm’s profits for ONE year (2018). If Cadawalder chose to do, what in my opinion, is the right thing and match Hogan Lovell’s $25k stipend, it would still amount to LESS THAN 0.5% of the firm’s profits for 2018. It is true that the firm’s profits may decrease in 2020, but these numbers are still laughably small.

My sympathies go out to Cadawalder’s incoming associates, and I will personally remember the way Cadawalder treated them for a long, long time. I can only hope that when it comes time for those of us who will one day become partners ourselves, we won’t make such awful decisions in the name of avarice. In the meantime, I know that I will advise anyone who comes to me for guidance to avoid Cadawalder at all costs. Please feel free to share this on reddit or wherever else other law students and associates may come across it.

What Cadwalader is doing is bad. But it seems to me that what they are doing is better than Orrick/Dentons/Seyfarth/Fox Rothschild/Kramer Levin, which are deferring without stipends and without loans or with loans of lesser value. And many more firms will likely join this list. Let's hold firms to account, and let's hold Cadwalader to account, but I don't think it's fair to single out Cadwalader when they're not even the worst actor out there. It makes it seem like you have a vendetta against the firm and aren't being objective, and it undermines your point that Cadwalader is doing something bad, which they assuredly are.

[LSATWiz.com]

My guess is that most V50-100 firms will offer advances rather than stipends. Not really that surprised, tbh.

Why not furlough them so they can get a government stipend when that’s extended past July? That way the firm gets them money without having to pay them.

Maybe because you have to employ someone for a period of time before you can furlough them? I'm not sure though, don't really know the applicable law on that. It's a good question.

I'm doing a lot of L&E advising these days, and some states are expanding unemployment benefits eligibility to people who accepted jobs but are unable to start work for COVID-related reasons. It's worth looking into for anyone in this situation IMO.

Wow this is great to know. Is New York one of them?

From glancing at the eligibility criteria, I didn't see anything about a required length of employment to be eligible so long as you worked in New York in the last 18 months. My understanding of the COVID-19 amendments may be off but it would seem possible to keep start dates the same and immediately furlough everyone.

It's likely irrelevant though because they already characterized it as a delayed hire as opposed to furlough. If this read is correct, which it may not be as I only spent a minute using control f for "month", the first firm to delay the start date missed an opportunity to greatly mitigate the situation for you all and then every other firm merely followed ship with none thinking about alternatives. Or maybe some did but didn't care.

[aspiringlaw]

What Cadwalader is doing is bad. But it seems to me that what they are doing is better than Orrick/Dentons/Seyfarth/Fox Rothschild/Kramer Levin, which are deferring without stipends and without loans or with loans of lesser value. And many more firms will likely join this list. Let's hold firms to account, and let's hold Cadwalader to account, but I don't think it's fair to single out Cadwalader when they're not even the worst actor out there. It makes it seem like you have a vendetta against the firm and aren't being objective, and it undermines your point that Cadwalader is doing something bad, which they assuredly are.

You are right. I did not realize that other firms were taking even "worse" actions. I have had no interaction whatsoever with Cadawalder, but it's the only firm that you listed that I had heard fellow law students discuss as one of "the NY biglaw firms" and so when I saw what they did it hit hard.

Having conceded that you're correct, let me rephrase my original point - I will personally remember how firms treated their incoming associates and hope that other law students and associates will as well. I recognize that this is just my opinion, but I view this treatment as pretty unacceptable, and would never in a million years think of treating anyone, let alone my future employees, in such a way.

[abcdoremi]

What Cadwalader is doing is bad. But it seems to me that what they are doing is better than Orrick/Dentons/Seyfarth/Fox Rothschild/Kramer Levin, which are deferring without stipends and without loans or with loans of lesser value. And many more firms will likely join this list. Let's hold firms to account, and let's hold Cadwalader to account, but I don't think it's fair to single out Cadwalader when they're not even the worst actor out there. It makes it seem like you have a vendetta against the firm and aren't being objective, and it undermines your point that Cadwalader is doing something bad, which they assuredly are.

You are right. I did not realize that other firms were taking even "worse" actions. I have had no interaction whatsoever with Cadawalder, but it's the only firm that you listed that I had heard fellow law students discuss as one of "the NY biglaw firms" and so when I saw what they did it hit hard.

Having conceded that you're correct, let me rephrase my original point - I will personally remember how firms treated their incoming associates and hope that other law students and associates will as well. I recognize that this is just my opinion, but I view this treatment as pretty unacceptable, and would never in a million years think of treating anyone, let alone my future employees, in such a way.

Agreed and appreciated! Deferring w/o a stipend is definitely an awful look and firms that do this should be warned against (assuming this doesn't become the norm and assuming worse things like layoffs don't happen and don't become the new main metric we use to judge firm shittyness).

[Anonymous User]

What Cadwalader is doing is bad. But it seems to me that what they are doing is better than Orrick/Dentons/Seyfarth/Fox Rothschild/Kramer Levin, which are deferring without stipends and without loans or with loans of lesser value. And many more firms will likely join this list. Let's hold firms to account, and let's hold Cadwalader to account, but I don't think it's fair to single out Cadwalader when they're not even the worst actor out there. It makes it seem like you have a vendetta against the firm and aren't being objective, and it undermines your point that Cadwalader is doing something bad, which they assuredly are.

You are right. I did not realize that other firms were taking even "worse" actions. I have had no interaction whatsoever with Cadawalder, but it's the only firm that you listed that I had heard fellow law students discuss as one of "the NY biglaw firms" and so when I saw what they did it hit hard.

Having conceded that you're correct, let me rephrase my original point - I will personally remember how firms treated their incoming associates and hope that other law students and associates will as well. I recognize that this is just my opinion, but I view this treatment as pretty unacceptable, and would never in a million years think of treating anyone, let alone my future employees, in such a way.

Agreed and appreciated! Deferring w/o a stipend is definitely an awful look and firms that do this should be warned against (assuming this doesn't become the norm and assuming worse things like layoffs don't happen and don't become the new main metric we use to judge firm shittyness).

I can't speak to the other firms, but Orrick hasn't said anything definitive about additional stipends/advances as of yet.

[Anonymous User]

This might have already been discussed (I didn't go back and read 9 pages), but I think deferring until October
(or even January) is problematic. Presumably the deferral decided in order to give the country time to get a handle on Coronavirus and to allow people to start after the October bar exam. However, there is widespread agreement that Coronavirus is going to come back as early as September and linger throughout flu season (all fall and winter).

If a firm is deferring start dates at least in part because of Coronavirus, how is opening back up in the fall/winter--during the second wave--going to solve anything? Doesn't it just open the door for the firms to defer again until the Coronavirus is cured (which could reasonably take over 18 months)?

Yeah, my big fear is that firms will be at least voluntary WFH for most of the next year and a half and that a deferral to January opens the door to further deferrals later on because firms won’t want to onboard new associates remotely. Unfortunately law is not the most progressive profession, and I could certainly see firms thinking it’s too important for cultural or whatever reasons to start everyone in the office, even if that means a long-term deferral.

But, perhaps firms are deferring in part to buy themselves some time to figure out how to onboard new associates remotely. And/or hoping to use the remote summer program as a trial run. I hope so at least. Other industries are doing it and it’s really not that difficult.

[Anonymous User]

This might have already been discussed (I didn't go back and read 9 pages), but I think deferring until October
(or even January) is problematic. Presumably the deferral decided in order to give the country time to get a handle on Coronavirus and to allow people to start after the October bar exam. However, there is widespread agreement that Coronavirus is going to come back as early as September and linger throughout flu season (all fall and winter).

If a firm is deferring start dates at least in part because of Coronavirus, how is opening back up in the fall/winter--during the second wave--going to solve anything? Doesn't it just open the door for the firms to defer again until the Coronavirus is cured (which could reasonably take over 18 months)?

Yeah, my big fear is that firms will be at least voluntary WFH for most of the next year and a half and that a deferral to January opens the door to further deferrals later on because firms won’t want to onboard new associates remotely. Unfortunately law is not the most progressive profession, and I could certainly see firms thinking it’s too important for cultural or whatever reasons to start everyone in the office, even if that means a long-term deferral.

But, perhaps firms are deferring in part to buy themselves some time to figure out how to onboard new associates remotely. And/or hoping to use the remote summer program as a trial run. I hope so at least. Other industries are doing it and it’s really not that difficult.

Bruh, as someone who lateraled and onboarded remotely to a new firm recently, I can tell you it was a piece of cake. It’s called zoom.

[Anonymous User]

This might have already been discussed (I didn't go back and read 9 pages), but I think deferring until October
(or even January) is problematic. Presumably the deferral decided in order to give the country time to get a handle on Coronavirus and to allow people to start after the October bar exam. However, there is widespread agreement that Coronavirus is going to come back as early as September and linger throughout flu season (all fall and winter).

If a firm is deferring start dates at least in part because of Coronavirus, how is opening back up in the fall/winter--during the second wave--going to solve anything? Doesn't it just open the door for the firms to defer again until the Coronavirus is cured (which could reasonably take over 18 months)?

Yeah, my big fear is that firms will be at least voluntary WFH for most of the next year and a half and that a deferral to January opens the door to further deferrals later on because firms won’t want to onboard new associates remotely. Unfortunately law is not the most progressive profession, and I could certainly see firms thinking it’s too important for cultural or whatever reasons to start everyone in the office, even if that means a long-term deferral.

But, perhaps firms are deferring in part to buy themselves some time to figure out how to onboard new associates remotely. And/or hoping to use the remote summer program as a trial run. I hope so at least. Other industries are doing it and it’s really not that difficult.

Bruh, as someone who lateraled and onboarded remotely to a new firm recently, I can tell you it was a piece of cake. It’s called zoom.

I agree it would be easy but firms might think onboarding in person is especially important? Idk

[Anonymous User]

This might have already been discussed (I didn't go back and read 9 pages), but I think deferring until October
(or even January) is problematic. Presumably the deferral decided in order to give the country time to get a handle on Coronavirus and to allow people to start after the October bar exam. However, there is widespread agreement that Coronavirus is going to come back as early as September and linger throughout flu season (all fall and winter).

If a firm is deferring start dates at least in part because of Coronavirus, how is opening back up in the fall/winter--during the second wave--going to solve anything? Doesn't it just open the door for the firms to defer again until the Coronavirus is cured (which could reasonably take over 18 months)?

Yeah, my big fear is that firms will be at least voluntary WFH for most of the next year and a half and that a deferral to January opens the door to further deferrals later on because firms won’t want to onboard new associates remotely. Unfortunately law is not the most progressive profession, and I could certainly see firms thinking it’s too important for cultural or whatever reasons to start everyone in the office, even if that means a long-term deferral.

But, perhaps firms are deferring in part to buy themselves some time to figure out how to onboard new associates remotely. And/or hoping to use the remote summer program as a trial run. I hope so at least. Other industries are doing it and it’s really not that difficult.

Bruh, as someone who lateraled and onboarded remotely to a new firm recently, I can tell you it was a piece of cake. It’s called zoom.

As a lateral who started virtually, do you feel like you were effectively integrated to the group? I'm starting in September and worry that if it's still virtual/WFH, integration will be difficult.

[proshren]

According to the Reddit post, Baker Botts is deferring to 2021, but didn't specify when in 2021.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comm ... rst_years/

[Waupli]

This might have already been discussed (I didn't go back and read 9 pages), but I think deferring until October
(or even January) is problematic. Presumably the deferral decided in order to give the country time to get a handle on Coronavirus and to allow people to start after the October bar exam. However, there is widespread agreement that Coronavirus is going to come back as early as September and linger throughout flu season (all fall and winter).

If a firm is deferring start dates at least in part because of Coronavirus, how is opening back up in the fall/winter--during the second wave--going to solve anything? Doesn't it just open the door for the firms to defer again until the Coronavirus is cured (which could reasonably take over 18 months)?

Yeah, my big fear is that firms will be at least voluntary WFH for most of the next year and a half and that a deferral to January opens the door to further deferrals later on because firms won’t want to onboard new associates remotely. Unfortunately law is not the most progressive profession, and I could certainly see firms thinking it’s too important for cultural or whatever reasons to start everyone in the office, even if that means a long-term deferral.

But, perhaps firms are deferring in part to buy themselves some time to figure out how to onboard new associates remotely. And/or hoping to use the remote summer program as a trial run. I hope so at least. Other industries are doing it and it’s really not that difficult.

Bruh, as someone who lateraled and onboarded remotely to a new firm recently, I can tell you it was a piece of cake. It’s called zoom.

I think there is a significant difference between laterals and new hires, though.

New hires should generally be treated differently by a firm. Onboarding a lateral is not the same as onboarding a new associate. Laterals will generally know the mechanics of law firm life and only need to know the specifics of a given firm. New hires, in contrast, have very little experience. New hires have never worked in a law firm before (other than their summer). Many of these new hires have never even worked a real job. I can understand why a firm would be willing to onboard laterals through zoom, but not do the same with new associates.