No-offers, deferrals, layoffs, etc. Forum

[Anonymous User]

Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

Then there are the no-offer offenders. Like Kirkland & Ellis. They seem to have improved, but their summer 2009/summer 2010 numbers were dreadful.

I'm not sure which office this is in reference to, but I summered in 2010 and we had 100% offers. The summers of 2009 had 2 no-offers (out of about 20 summers) and neither was due to the economy.

K&E Chicago in summer 2009? LOLno. Have incredibly inside information on that one. (Possible some were cold offers, so they don't show up in NALP). Maybe K&E NYC was different, but everything I've heard from someone extremely reliable was that there were at least 25% no-offers in Chicago that summer.

Got it, I only know about NY and DC, neither of which had a no offering problem in 2009 or 2010, they just cut class sizes in 2010 in reaction to the market.

[ajaxconstructions]

Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

Pretty sure most people who are getting Latham offers and taking them are going to have mostly other risky offers.

Other serial layoff offenders that haven't been mentioned ITT: Cadwalader and White & Case. White & Case also had tons of deferred associates.

Then there are the no-offer offenders. Like Kirkland & Ellis. They seem to have improved, but their summer 2009/summer 2010 numbers were dreadful.

Why do you assume this? Just curious. At my school Latham has a pretty high GPA average.

[sunynp]

If this doesn't exist (and I don't think it does), I think it would be helpful to try to compile a thread with information about firms that have, in one way or another, screwed associates with undeserved no-offers, unwanted deferrals, first- or second-year layoffs, etc. Obviously a lot of this might not be 100% verifiable, but it's still important for people going through OCI in a few months to have an idea, especially if they have the luxury of choosing between 2+ offers. It sucks to think about, but with the economy as shaky as it currently is, it's important not to let this slip under the radar. I'll start with the one everyone already knows:

2/2009, Latham & Watkins lays off 190 associates:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwi ... 250-staff/

It might be easier to come up with a list of biglaw firms that didn't layoff or defer anyone. I can't think of any but maybe some exist.

[r6_philly]

Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

Of course. Firms that do the poorest and have to lay people off during recessions do the best and become very strong financially during recoveries. It's how they structure their business: higher leverage = higher risk = higher reward. It's simple economics any way you look at it.

No sign of recovery anytime soon though.

Not the economic in general, but some firms and practice areas have largely recovered. I don't mean recover as going back to the boom times, but recover as back to "normal" practice.

[keg411]

Why do you assume this? Just curious. At my school Latham has a pretty high GPA average.

Eh, it's extremely small sample size, but of the people I knew that had Latham offers, the only one who took it was one that didn't have "safer" options.

[ajaxconstructions]

Why do you assume this? Just curious. At my school Latham has a pretty high GPA average.

Eh, it's extremely small sample size, but of the people I knew that had Latham offers, the only one who took it was one that didn't have "safer" options.

By safer do you mean pretty much any other firm other than White and case?

[keg411]

Why do you assume this? Just curious. At my school Latham has a pretty high GPA average.

Eh, it's extremely small sample size, but of the people I knew that had Latham offers, the only one who took it was one that didn't have "safer" options.

By safer do you mean pretty much any other firm other than White and case?

TBF, after the Dewey debacle, I don't really think any firm is really "safe" outside of certain portions of the V10 and a handful of other firms.

[Anonymous User]

Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

Then there are the no-offer offenders. Like Kirkland & Ellis. They seem to have improved, but their summer 2009/summer 2010 numbers were dreadful.

I'm not sure which office this is in reference to, but I summered in 2010 and we had 100% offers. The summers of 2009 had 2 no-offers (out of about 20 summers) and neither was due to the economy.

K&E Chicago in summer 2009? LOLno. Have incredibly inside information on that one. (Possible some were cold offers, so they don't show up in NALP). Maybe K&E NYC was different, but everything I've heard from someone extremely reliable was that there were at least 25% no-offers in Chicago that summer.

Here is another K&E insider: You're wrong.

Yes, there were no-offers that were well publicized on ATL, but that was the extent of it. Also, 2009 is not the best year to judge firms for their behavior. There were tons of no offers and cold offers everywhere, including within the V10.

You really seem to have it in for K&E on this forum. If you were working at another top law firm and legitimately had K&E as an option, I'd get it. But at this point, it just seems petty.

[keg411]

Here is another K&E insider: You're wrong.

Yes, there were no-offers that were well publicized on ATL, but that was the extent of it. Also, 2009 is not the best year to judge firms for their behavior. There were tons of no offers and cold offers everywhere, including within the V10.

You really seem to have it in for K&E on this forum. If you were working at another top law firm and legitimately had K&E as an option, I'd get it. But at this point, it just seems petty.

I didn't apply at all to K&E. Didn't bid on them at OCI, didn't mass mail them, etc. because I 100% knew it would not be a good fit for me, so I didn't bother applying. And yes, a lot of my dislike for them is petty. I'm pretty sure I've admitted that a good portion is just irrational dislike based on a multitude of reasons . Look, they're a top firm and they pay well -- and because of that they are extremely popular. But there are a shit-load of downsides to going to K&E that tend to be overlooked because of the KIRKLAND SHATTERS memes, so I'm just hear with some friendly reminders .

And despite all of my trolling on this site, I've actually told people IRL to take K&E over other firms. (Based on other offers, the office, and the person's career goals). I may hate them for my reasons, but I'm not going to tell someone not to go there if it's a far better choice for them than their other offers.

My word on here isn't anywhere close to gospel. I'm a 2L summering now and have a bunch of friends who just happen to be junior associates at a variety of firms in a variety of practice areas. I'm giving an opinion based on personal anecdotes of what they've been through and their experiences working for/with different firms.

[rad lulz]

MARKET SHATTERING BROWNIES

[Anonymous User]

nd yes, a lot of my dislike for them is petty. I'm pretty sure I've admitted that a good portion is just irrational dislike based on a multitude of reasons

Well then it's good to know that we shouldn't take your opinion seriously.

and because of that they are extremely popular. But there are a shit-load of downsides to going to K&E that tend to be overlooked because of the KIRKLAND SHATTERS memes, so I'm just hear with some friendly reminders

I actually don't think they're that popular at all with the TLS group-think. In fact, there are a lot of haters here, and the hatred and trolling is so vitriolic that the benefits need to be emphasized.

And a lot of the downsides are generic V10 downsides, which boil down to: You work like crazy, the partnership prospects suck, and people got laid off or no/cold offered in 2009. Yes, there's the aggressive aspect to them because it's free-market, etc., but that's a subjective downside rather than an objective one.

Here are the benefits: You get paid above market, you're given a lot of responsibility, if you don't like someone, the free market means you can go work for someone else, it's one of the most stable firms out there (did you see their RPL?), and it's a crazy awesome gold stamp to have if you don't make partner.

If you don't like the lifestyle, shit won't suddenly get better at, say, Simpson. You'll work hard at any firm in this range.

[Anonymous User]

I know K&E Chicago had 100% offers in 2010 and it doesn't seem like there were cold offers because they called everyone into a room and told them they all had offers.

Disclaimer: This is based on a friend who's a first-year there. I've never worked there.

[Anonymous User]

.

[ajaxconstructions]

Why do you assume this? Just curious. At my school Latham has a pretty high GPA average.

Eh, it's extremely small sample size, but of the people I knew that had Latham offers, the only one who took it was one that didn't have "safer" options.

Keg,

This is 100% false and entirely misleading.

First of all, there is no "safer" firm than Latham. They have given 100% offers for the past three years, and they are doing everything possible to show that they will never 'latham' people again. They took a huge reputational hit last time and lost the trust of many law students in the process. Ever since, they have done everything right. In addition to 100% offers, they have built up an extremely strong litigation practice in NY, making them much less vulnerable to any down market conditions in the future. Latham is an incredible firm that I truly believe no one should ever pass up if they have the opportunity to work for.

The person keg is referring to was also considering Shearman & Sterling, another extremely "safe" firm for SAs.

Yeah, how is Shearman not a safe firm?

[Anonymous User]

Why do you assume this? Just curious. At my school Latham has a pretty high GPA average.

Eh, it's extremely small sample size, but of the people I knew that had Latham offers, the only one who took it was one that didn't have "safer" options.

Keg,

This is 100% false and entirely misleading.

First of all, there is no "safer" firm than Latham. They have given 100% offers for the past three years, and they are doing everything possible to show that they will never 'latham' people again. They took a huge reputational hit last time and lost the trust of many law students in the process. Ever since, they have done everything right. In addition to 100% offers, they have built up an extremely strong litigation practice in NY, making them much less vulnerable to any down market conditions in the future. Latham is an incredible firm that I truly believe no one should ever pass up if they have the opportunity to work for.

The person keg is referring to was also considering Shearman & Sterling, another extremely "safe" firm for SAs.

Hmm while I think Latham is a very strong firm and people should definitely consider working there I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that it is 100% safe. The fact is, the partnership at the firm decided that their bottom line was more important then their reputation and the careers of the young associates they laid off... Now consider what has changed in the last 4 years. Latham has basically recovered its reputation in a fairly short period and further the people who made the initial decision to "Latham" are all still present at the law firm. Do I think they'll act in the same way again? Very unlikely but given the not insignificant risk of further worldwide economic disaster given the state of the eurozone, I would still factor their past actions when considering the firm

[IAFG]

I can't believe anyone sincerely believes Latham would never Latham again. They did it in the 90s, and didn't hesitate to repeat in the 2000s. They won't Latham again... unless it's to their advantage at any time in the future.

[Old Gregg]

Latham Latham'ed people back in the early 90s as well. The fact of the matter is that they're not and never will be above Latham-ing people ever again.

That Latham Latham'ed people is not unique to Latham. Basically, no firm is above doing that when they're pushed to the brink of collapse.

Latham suffered a reputational hit with law students, but did they really give a shit? No. They had and still have a great reputation for being a firm that produces high quality work product. They don't give two shits whether law students are going to take their jobs, because they know that it's a bad economy and for every law student who screams "no fuckin' way I'll work at Latham," there's another who will gladly work there.

Is Latham safe right now? I don't know. Depends on how the next few months shake out. Saying they have a good litigation practice doesn't mean shit. Even litigation practices were hit in the recession, so that thought process is not as rock solid as it once was.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't there a topic from the last few days that strongly implies that Latham is behind on incoming associates? (It seems like Ropes is too, from that topic.)

[Old Gregg]

I can't believe anyone sincerely believes Latham would never Latham again. They did it in the 90s, and didn't hesitate to repeat in the 2000s. They won't Latham again... unless it's to their advantage at any time in the future.

Yes, and anyone who believes otherwise has a Latham kool-aid IV drip running.

But again, this isn't unique to Latham, so I guess that's a good thing? Any firm would do what Latham did if they had to. That S&C didn't do it wasn't some act of charity. They don't give a shit about their associates as much as Latham doesn't give a shit about their associates. The former just wasn't pushed to the point of having to do mass-Latham-ings.

Whether or not a firm is safe has nothing to do with how they've acted in the past with respect to no offers, lay offs, and deferrals. In fact, evidence that a firm did that is probably a good sign (for them), as it signals a willingness to take drastic measures to stay alive.

As a law student, the "safeness" of a firm should purely be based on the probability that you'll keep your job. To that end, you should be looking at an entirely different set of metrics.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

All the Latham associates ITT can convince each other that their firm is better than Latham's peer firms until they are blue in the face, but it's simply not true. For associates, there's absolutely nothing that distinguishes Latham from firms like Weil, Simpson, or GDC except a slightly higher (but albeit remote) possibility that you might be axed when the economy turns sour. For equity partners, however, Latham is a dream come true. You are guaranteed to have your interests protected at all costs, including associate layoffs. Part of what makes Latham a great firm is its great partners and Latham is very good at attracting some of the best partners in biglaw. But it comes with a cost and part of that cost includes the level of trust associates have in Latham's management.

[rayiner]

If you look at Latham's leverage ratio in the 1990's and 2000's you'll see a sawtooth pattern where they leverage up between Lathamings.

There are safer firms. These firms are not safer because they are nicer. They're safer because they have more conservative business models, work in areas that intrisnically support lower leverage, or are more sensitive to recruiting costs.

[sunynp]

I can't believe anyone sincerely believes Latham would never Latham again. They did it in the 90s, and didn't hesitate to repeat in the 2000s. They won't Latham again... unless it's to their advantage at any time in the future.

Yes, and anyone who believes otherwise has a Latham kool-aid IV drip running.

But again, this isn't unique to Latham, so I guess that's a good thing? Any firm would do what Latham did if they had to. That S&C didn't do it wasn't some act of charity. They don't give a shit about their associates as much as Latham doesn't give a shit about their associates. The former just wasn't pushed to the point of having to do mass-Latham-ings.

Whether or not a firm is safe has nothing to do with how they've acted in the past with respect to no offers, lay offs, and deferrals. In fact, evidence that a firm did that is probably a good sign (for them), as it signals a willingness to take drastic measures to stay alive.

As a law student, the "safeness" of a firm should purely be based on the probability that you'll keep your job. To that end, you should be looking at an entirely different set of metrics.

I think that by "stay alive" you mean maintain PPP. The partners in most firms cut staff and associates but took no reduction in their own pay. I don't know any partners that took pay cuts.

I recall in the Dewey bond offering memo they bragged about cutting 300 lawyers to cut costs, that was a selling point for the bondholders.

[Anonymous User]

I can't believe anyone sincerely believes Latham would never Latham again. They did it in the 90s, and didn't hesitate to repeat in the 2000s. They won't Latham again... unless it's to their advantage at any time in the future.

Yes, and anyone who believes otherwise has a Latham kool-aid IV drip running.

But again, this isn't unique to Latham, so I guess that's a good thing? Any firm would do what Latham did if they had to. That S&C didn't do it wasn't some act of charity. They don't give a shit about their associates as much as Latham doesn't give a shit about their associates. The former just wasn't pushed to the point of having to do mass-Latham-ings.

Whether or not a firm is safe has nothing to do with how they've acted in the past with respect to no offers, lay offs, and deferrals. In fact, evidence that a firm did that is probably a good sign (for them), as it signals a willingness to take drastic measures to stay alive.

As a law student, the "safeness" of a firm should purely be based on the probability that you'll keep your job. To that end, you should be looking at an entirely different set of metrics.

I agree. Where specifically can we find these metrics? It looks to me for SA no-offer data, NALP has rosy figures whereas Chambers (other than Latham because Latham is not even listed here), with different numbers (how is this?) has grim figures. Who, if either, is accurate?

[IAFG]

I can't believe anyone sincerely believes Latham would never Latham again. They did it in the 90s, and didn't hesitate to repeat in the 2000s. They won't Latham again... unless it's to their advantage at any time in the future.

Yes, and anyone who believes otherwise has a Latham kool-aid IV drip running.

But again, this isn't unique to Latham, so I guess that's a good thing? Any firm would do what Latham did if they had to. That S&C didn't do it wasn't some act of charity. They don't give a shit about their associates as much as Latham doesn't give a shit about their associates. The former just wasn't pushed to the point of having to do mass-Latham-ings.

Whether or not a firm is safe has nothing to do with how they've acted in the past with respect to no offers, lay offs, and deferrals. In fact, evidence that a firm did that is probably a good sign (for them), as it signals a willingness to take drastic measures to stay alive.

As a law student, the "safeness" of a firm should purely be based on the probability that you'll keep your job. To that end, you should be looking at an entirely different set of metrics.

I think that by "stay alive" you mean maintain PPP. The partners in most firms cut staff and associates but took no reduction in their own pay. I don't know any partners that took pay cuts.

I recall in the Dewey bond offering memo they bragged about cutting 300 lawyers to cut costs, that was a selling point for the bondholders.

I knew someone was going to come in with this bullshit. What do you think causes a firm to collapse? When PPP drops, other firms start looking attractive to rainmakers. When partners flee, a firm collapses. Whatever personal benefit the partners derive from maintaining PPP, it's crucial for stability.

[sunynp]

I can't believe anyone sincerely believes Latham would never Latham again. They did it in the 90s, and didn't hesitate to repeat in the 2000s. They won't Latham again... unless it's to their advantage at any time in the future.

Yes, and anyone who believes otherwise has a Latham kool-aid IV drip running.

But again, this isn't unique to Latham, so I guess that's a good thing? Any firm would do what Latham did if they had to. That S&C didn't do it wasn't some act of charity. They don't give a shit about their associates as much as Latham doesn't give a shit about their associates. The former just wasn't pushed to the point of having to do mass-Latham-ings.

Whether or not a firm is safe has nothing to do with how they've acted in the past with respect to no offers, lay offs, and deferrals. In fact, evidence that a firm did that is probably a good sign (for them), as it signals a willingness to take drastic measures to stay alive.

As a law student, the "safeness" of a firm should purely be based on the probability that you'll keep your job. To that end, you should be looking at an entirely different set of metrics.

I think that by "stay alive" you mean maintain PPP. The partners in most firms cut staff and associates but took no reduction in their own pay. I don't know any partners that took pay cuts.

I recall in the Dewey bond offering memo they bragged about cutting 300 lawyers to cut costs, that was a selling point for the bondholders.

I knew someone was going to come in with this bullshit. What do you think causes a firm to collapse? When PPP drops, other firms start looking attractive to rainmakers. When partners flee, a firm collapses. Whatever personal benefit the partners derive from maintaining PPP, it's crucial for stability.

True, unless the partners jointly decide to stick together and take a hit so that they can employ the people they hired.
My view is that if the economy tanks again, associates are fucked at almost every firm.