Latham a Risky Choice Forum

[Bosque]

Interesting post on XO. This would make me far more hesitant to join Latham:

Code: Select all

Associate Count by office: (NALP 2008; i.e. 2/1/2008) (OP 3/21/2009) (9/16/2010)

NY: 293 194 135

Chicago: 128 103 81

LA: 202 179 136

DC: 180 119 114

SF: 110 101 69

SV: 80 64 52

bad all around, but Cali offices have been pwned in the past 18 months

Why? It means they are transitioning to a less leveraged model, one where an associate has a much better chance of making partner. Sounds good to me.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

I'm accepting my NY offer without hesitation. Top firm, great people, period.

Everyone did layoffs through the recession. Latham bungled it, and will be extremely adverse to cutting so deeply again. Note that partners and clients did not flee the firm.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone did layoffs through the recession. Latham bungled it, and will be extremely adverse to cutting so deeply again. Note that partners and clients did not flee the firm.

For your sake, I hope you're joking.

If you're not, I wish you luck.

I think we've gotten your perspective from your remarks earlier in this thread, but thanks.

Anyone disagree with the last part of my earlier post re clients/partners?

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

I updated the table with the numbers from the current NALP forms (2/1/2010) and percentages.

Code: Select all

Associate Count by office: (NALP 2008; i.e. 2/1/2008) (OP 3/21/2009) (2/1/2010) (9/16/2010) % Decrease Since 2/1/2010

NY: 293 194 214 135 36.92%

Chicago: 128 103 98 81 17.34%

LA: 202 179 164 136 17.07%

DC: 180 119 159 114 28.30%

SF: 110 101 132 69 47.77%   OUCH

SV: 80 64 57 52 8.78%

Can somebody verify my numbers? There is something strange going on in the SF, NY, and DC offices if those numbers are correct. However, it looks as if more people left in the past 6 months than in the initial 2008 to 2009 period. It looks that way from a cursory glance at least.

[chup]

ITT: Cognitive dissonance on parade.

[Anonymous User]

I updated the table with the numbers from the current NALP forms (2/1/2010) and percentages.

Code: Select all

Associate Count by office: (NALP 2008; i.e. 2/1/2008) (OP 3/21/2009) (2/1/2010) (9/16/2010) % Decrease Since 2/1/2010

NY: 293 194 214 135 36.92%

Chicago: 128 103 98 81 17.34%

LA: 202 179 164 136 17.07%

DC: 180 119 159 114 28.30%

SF: 110 101 132 69 47.77%   OUCH

SV: 80 64 57 52 8.78%

Can somebody verify my numbers? There is something strange going on in the SF, NY, and DC offices if those numbers are correct. However, it looks as if more people left in the past 6 months than in the initial 2008 to 2009 period. It looks that way from a cursory glance at least.

These numbers are really, really off all around.

[Anonymous User]

Just out of curiosity...

How many people who say things like "Latham has no reputation to preserve" have talked to any 5th+ year associate (at any firm) about what Latham's reputation is? I feel like law students tend to think a law firm's reputation is whatever xoxo.com says it is, and never actually talk to practicing attorneys about their Point of View.

Just a thought...

[edcrane]

Just out of curiosity...

How many people who say things like "Latham has no reputation to preserve" have talked to any 5th+ year associate (at any firm) about what Latham's reputation is? I feel like law students tend to think a law firm's reputation is whatever xoxo.com says it is, and never actually talk to practicing attorneys about their Point of View.

Just a thought...

I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously the comment was referencing its reputation among candidates for stability/job security. I have no idea why you think that it would be especially enlightening to speak to random midlevel/senior associates about this.

[Anonymous User]

Just out of curiosity...

How many people who say things like "Latham has no reputation to preserve" have talked to any 5th+ year associate (at any firm) about what Latham's reputation is? I feel like law students tend to think a law firm's reputation is whatever xoxo.com says it is, and never actually talk to practicing attorneys about their Point of View.

Just a thought...

Not to take a side here, but Latham being a good firm for seniors won't help you if you get laid off as a junior. Hence, the weight should be on impressions of their recent and prospective treatment of juniors.

[Anonymous User]

I see your point...

Basically you're saying Latham has no reputation only to the extent that, in the event of a double dip recession, they might be more willing to fire younger associates than other firms, who would also be forced to lay off young attorneys as well.

I suppose that may be fair... but a LOT of other big firms did the same thing, but they just weren't as large as Latham. I mean, shouldn't all 1st-3rd year associates worry about their job during a recession? If you're really worried about another recession, just go into Bankruptcy law!

I think a lot of firms with big layoffs (not just Latham) have gotten a pretty bad name for doing what, in any other industry, would be considered just another rational business decision.

Back on topic. If this is something that worries you (the riskiness of being a young associate at a firm with layoffs), this seems to be a post-offer topic to discuss with attorneys at the firm, at other firms, and maybe try to track down some ex-associates for a more well rounded view. Everything you hear on forums like these are going to be 3rd, 4th, 5th hand rumors/speculation mixed with hyperbole and miscommunications. Seems an odd place to get life advice!