guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers
A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.
guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers
They didn't really "avoid" it so much as put off the inevitable. They had deferred classes to the size of 100 summer associates large, twice, and had one class (possibly two?) all start at the same time. We're talking about, what, 160-200 first years?Anonymous User wrote:Seems to be the case that they avoided the harshness of 2008 economy because of their restructuring work. They're just facing the same problems that all the other firms did, just a few years later, because that work is drying up.
Nah dude, forget biglaw, I'm gonna turn down my job offer and go pound the pavement looking for a personal injury gig paying 1/4 as much where I will have even less job security.rad lulz wrote:Your criticism is a really good criticism. Entirely fairNYstate wrote:rad lulz wrote:Explain why the possibility of layoff would make you not want to work at a large firmshutterbug wrote:And yet so many of you still want BigLaw.
Not getting another job?
All these 0Ls are making their budgets for their hypothetical future biglaw jobs as justification for going into huge debt from law school. They aren't calculating the risk of losing that job or not getting a job after leaving biglaw.
But I don't know how much this really says "Oh big firms do layoffs, hence I don't want to work at any big firm"
Pretty muchdixiecupdrinking wrote:There are obviously a whole hell of a lot of issues with working in biglaw but for many/most people it's better than the alternatives, so what are you going to do. Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.
Can we leave the quality USA summer shows out of this? They are a guilty pleasure and need not be attacked unfairly like this.dixiecupdrinking wrote: Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
lol, fair enough. Though if you go to Above The Law right now, they seem to be sponsoring them in this time of bad news...desertlaw wrote:Can we leave the quality USA summer shows out of this? They are a guilty pleasure and need not be attacked unfairly like this.dixiecupdrinking wrote: Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.
Actually I think there are many reasons to go to biglaw. Biglaw has been great to me and supported me through illness. The people have been pretty great. And I love the work. I'm pro- biglaw as long as you know what you are getting into.rad lulz wrote:Pretty muchdixiecupdrinking wrote:There are obviously a whole hell of a lot of issues with working in biglaw but for many/most people it's better than the alternatives, so what are you going to do. Not everyone wanting to work at a big firm is some wide-eyed 0L who watched Suits and decided it was worth borrowing $250,000, it's legitimately the rational risk/reward choice, warts and all.
It's not like the feds or cool boutiques or in-house are doing a lot of first year hiring
Plus there are quite a few practice areas that are just dominated by big firms (see eg public company M&A)
Not being able to fire partners is a huge problem for the firm.IAFG wrote:guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers
A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.
I guess cutting pay is a big push toward the door. Not being able to fire a partner might benefit the firm in other ways.Desert Fox wrote:Not being able to fire partners is a huge problem for the firm.IAFG wrote:guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers
A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.
Seems like they are just reallocating money among the partners in the hope that it amounts to either letting them go or demoting them to income partner.Desert Fox wrote:Not being able to fire partners is a huge problem for the firm.IAFG wrote:guano wrote:What a bullshit excuse. They're laying off staff to increase PPP. Greedy fucking boomers
A firm official confirmed that roughly 30 of the firm's 300 partners would see their pay reduced.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
The layoffs getting coverage recently, by and large, affect only staff. The situation with Weil, as others have intimated, is not one that should keep OCI interviewees up at night. The strength of Weil's restructuring business, one that is countercyclical, allowed the firm to delay making changes that most others were forced to make years ago.gnuwheels wrote:"At the end of May, my colleague David Lat wondered, “Are layoffs becoming daily news in Biglaw once again?” Given recent events — in particular, the reckoning at Weil — we think it’s now fair to answer that question with a resounding yes."
Sigh. Just in time for OCI.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
Lol. They are firing complex commericial lit people, not BK.c3pO4 wrote:bankruptcy work related to Lehman is done? isn't this a sign that the hangover from 2007 is over? shouldn't we be encouraged?
I don't know if it is a bad sign. Work has slowed down for one of their best practice groups, requiring them to make changes to one of their tertiary practice groups. Most firms did this back in 08 and 09. Weil is doing it now.Desert Fox wrote:Lol. They are firing complex commericial lit people, not BK.c3pO4 wrote:bankruptcy work related to Lehman is done? isn't this a sign that the hangover from 2007 is over? shouldn't we be encouraged?
Bad sign bro.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
Descriptions of the work from practitioners made it seem like it was pretty interesting as far as corporate work goes (has been described to me by I think three different people as the closest you can get to a hybrid between corp and lit) and it is supposedly recession proof.AllTheLawz wrote:Serious question.... are law students ACTUALLY interested in bankruptcy/how the hell do you know you are interested in bankruptcy?
This may have been the worst post I have read all day. Seriously, I read reactions like this all the time and laugh. People are often interested in things (hobbies, sports, women) that they don't know about, that's why it's called interest. Actually liking it or hating it comes later. This is why so many students get to law school and find out that they hate it.AllTheLawz wrote:Serious question.... are law students ACTUALLY interested in bankruptcy/how the hell do you know you are interested in bankruptcy?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login