Incoming Associates Getting Deferred Forum

[PartiallyLearnedHand]

Here's the link on deferral from 2009.

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/nationw ... t-in-2010/

Thanks. Does anyone know if firms that offered an attractive deferral stipend (like WilmerHale's $75,000 if you start in fall 2010 rather than Spring 2010) later failed to bring the associates on board?

Answered my own question. With deferral, as I expected, firms do sometimes fail to keep their promise to bring you on. Which makes me wonder if it's better to take the money and risk not being brought on, or to start early but risk an early push out (where you would have taken more money via deferral).

https://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/chadbou ... mployment/
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/dewey-l ... rral-year/
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/blank-r ... le-signal/

So, this seems to be for firms that offered associates a year deferral. Is there any information on whether firms that only deferred start dates also ended up rescinding those offers? I.e., if you were supposed to start in mid-September 2020, but were pushed back to January 2021. Based on the last recession, is it possible that firms could rescind offers to those associates slated to start in January 2021?

[lawlzschool]

This happened to me when I graduated - the firm delayed the start date to January of next year. I took an advance from the firm and went traveling for a couple of months. I'm still alive and highly recommend taking the time to charge up your batteries before your life is an endless grid of time entries.

I’m pretty sure traveling for a couple months isn’t going to be an option and I think that’s why a lot of us are bummed to see start dates get pushed. Not only do we not get paid, we don’t get the memories of a bar trip or something similar.

[blair.waldorf]

This happened to me when I graduated - the firm delayed the start date to January of next year. I took an advance from the firm and went traveling for a couple of months. I'm still alive and highly recommend taking the time to charge up your batteries before your life is an endless grid of time entries.

I’m pretty sure traveling for a couple months isn’t going to be an option and I think that’s why a lot of us are bummed to see start dates get pushed. Not only do we not get paid, we don’t get the memories of a bar trip or something similar.

Hell, I don’t even need a bar trip. I’d just like to spend some time with family in various parts of the country before biglaw starts, and who knows if flying will be feasible.

Also, a lot of people need the cash. It’s one thing to want a break when you have been making money for a couple years and have a decent chunk of change saved up. Many of us have been living off of student loans for three years now and are not prepared to go four more months without cash than originally planned. A break isn’t that enjoyable if you’re concerned about paying your bills.

[nahumya]

This happened to me when I graduated - the firm delayed the start date to January of next year. I took an advance from the firm and went traveling for a couple of months. I'm still alive and highly recommend taking the time to charge up your batteries before your life is an endless grid of time entries.

I’m pretty sure traveling for a couple months isn’t going to be an option and I think that’s why a lot of us are bummed to see start dates get pushed. Not only do we not get paid, we don’t get the memories of a bar trip or something similar.

There are plenty of ways to enjoy your time off even in the COVID era. Once you start working at a firm, your free time will be extremely limited, especially if you decide to have a family.

[Sad248]

At my firm, I've been told by multiple associates that not everyone passed the bar the first time and those associates were given some time off to retake the bar as if it was no big deal. So even though the bar exam is delayed, why is this part of the start date calculus when incoming associates are generally supervised anyway and not everyone passes the bar?

Bear in mind that "not everyone" passing the bar isn't the same as the entire first-year associate class not passing the bar. I agree that it's largely optics, but there's a huge difference between giving a handful of associates some extra time off to prep for February and giving all your first years extra time off.

Yeah I wasn't trying to imply that firms should have the same start date, give everyone time off to study for and take the bar exam, and then have everyone come back. I expect many/most firms that had start dates before September will have to defer the start dates somewhat. I just don't see how pushing start dates to 2021 because associates have to take the bar exam in September/October 2020 makes any sense if firms don't need all of the first year associates to be licensed right off the bat.

Yeah, zero chance that the bar is the reason for the delay. It's only delayed for a month, and generally speaking, no first year associate knows if they passed the bar until at least a month or two into the job (I don't know anyone who started before mid September).

Just 100% a costsaving measure, and not even a "we need this to survive" one, just because they can take advantage of the situation. I guess they are expecting there to not be enough work to go around in Fall, so they want to save money. This is all after a recordmarking year for them, btw. Good stuff.

I have not heard other firms do this yet, so let's hope this move isn't replicated by others.

That being said, if Orrick gives a sizeable amount of money to tide their associates over, this is not that bad at all. It's a good time to travel and enjoy your free time before the onslaught starts. If they don't...yeah, this is just 100% reprehensible.

[Anonymous User]

This happened to me when I graduated - the firm delayed the start date to January of next year. I took an advance from the firm and went traveling for a couple of months. I'm still alive and highly recommend taking the time to charge up your batteries before your life is an endless grid of time entries.

I’m pretty sure traveling for a couple months isn’t going to be an option and I think that’s why a lot of us are bummed to see start dates get pushed. Not only do we not get paid, we don’t get the memories of a bar trip or something similar.

Hell, I don’t even need a bar trip. I’d just like to spend some time with family in various parts of the country before biglaw starts, and who knows if flying will be feasible.

Also, a lot of people need the cash. It’s one thing to want a break when you have been making money for a couple years and have a decent chunk of change saved up. Many of us have been living off of student loans for three years now and are not prepared to go four more months without cash than originally planned. A break isn’t that enjoyable if you’re concerned about paying your bills.

100% this. Not all law students can just kick it at home for three months after the bar. If I'm deferred without a stipend and if I can't find a temporary gig after the bar (which is possible, given how hiring is quickly drying up due to COVID19), homelessness is a real possibility.

[LHand1993]

The NY Court of Appeals just announced that they don't think there will be big enough venues available for the September administration of the bar exam and that not as many people will be able to sit for that date. They're going to "prioritize" students. What?!?

[QContinuum]

The NY Court of Appeals just announced that they don't think there will be big enough venues available for the September administration of the bar exam and that not as many people will be able to sit for that date. They're going to "prioritize" students. What?!?

They'd probably apply the same prioritization rules they currently use vis-a-vis venue selection: First-time applicants who graduated with a J.D. from a NY State law school get first crack, then everyone else.

[LHand1993]

The NY Court of Appeals just announced that they don't think there will be big enough venues available for the September administration of the bar exam and that not as many people will be able to sit for that date. They're going to "prioritize" students. What?!?

They'd probably apply the same prioritization rules they currently use vis-a-vis venue selection: First-time applicants who graduated with a J.D. from a NY State law school get first crack, then everyone else.

Makes sense, thanks. I'm worried that this is going to give more firms more of an incentive to push back start dates. Aside from better optics for doing it for pure cost cutting reasons, I can imagine they also don't want to have staggered start dates and have multiples orientations etc.

[TheBlueDevil]

Here's the link on deferral from 2009.

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/nationw ... t-in-2010/

Thanks. Does anyone know if firms that offered an attractive deferral stipend (like WilmerHale's $75,000 if you start in fall 2010 rather than Spring 2010) later failed to bring the associates on board?

Answered my own question. With deferral, as I expected, firms do sometimes fail to keep their promise to bring you on. Which makes me wonder if it's better to take the money and risk not being brought on, or to start early but risk an early push out (where you would have taken more money via deferral).

https://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/chadbou ... mployment/
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/dewey-l ... rral-year/
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/blank-r ... le-signal/

I think it's interesting that, of the three firms here that did not make good on their deferral promises, two of them are no longer in business.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013 ... collapse-2
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/chadbou ... e-is-dead/

[QContinuum]

Makes sense, thanks. I'm worried that this is going to give more firms more of an incentive to push back start dates. Aside from better optics for doing it for pure cost cutting reasons, I can imagine they also don't want to have staggered start dates and have multiples orientations etc.

Many firms have staggered start dates even in normal times, but I agree that it would make for a convenient excuse to defer everyone.

[LHand1993]

Of all the things to freak out about in the industry during these crazy times, this does not strike me as one of them to be honest.

Do you have any idea how many times during my biglaw tenure (and I say this as much as I do honestly enjoy the gig), I’ve thought about how amazing it would be to do some traveling or even some staycationing without worrying about court imposed deadlines or hitting my hours or responding to emails? Getting the opportunity to receive some money while having an amazing offer in hand while not having to report to work after the stress of school and then the stress of the bar strikes me as a pretty solid situation.

And I want to add that I think it’s extremely unlikely that there will be a 2009 Repeat where some people going to reputable firms (keyword reputable) will end up with rescinded offers.* Thinking about it, the more Time for which you defer, the better off you probably are.

Frankly, the notion of somebody with a vault50 offer getting stressed over this when people are actually getting laid off/salaries slashed/furloughed with no end date is a little rough on the people with ACTUAL biglaw ITE-related problems.

*my sentiments do not apply to people going to smaller firms or maybe even anything below the approximate amlaw100. I do think some of those firms will fold, I hate to say.

OP. While I understand that incoming associates are not in the same position to stress as lawyers/staff who are currently working in the industry, I still think we have every right to stress. As has already been mentioned throughout this thread, this isn't like 2009/2010. "Travel" will not return to some state of normalcy by September, certainly not international travel. Moreover, for those of us with families or a financial situation where we depended on a full salary to get situated, this is going to hurt. Assuming we get a second loan, many incoming associates will be faced with the prospect of having $20k to support them for approximately 9 months. That's not enough for people who are renting in the NYC area without them taking on a second job. Another difference from 2009 is that a T5 graduate with an offer in hand is going to struggle to get a job just to hold it down in the meantime. I would be perfectly ok working a minimum wage job full-time, but you can't even get one of those in this economy. Some people might be lucky enough to find some kind of work, but to say that this entire situation isn't something to be stressed about and that our stress is somehow insensitive is really missing the reality of the current situation for us.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

[LHand1993]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

[NYC2012]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

Yes, they can stay with their parents. If that's not possible, they can get a cheap Airbnb somewhere else and wait it out. Why do NYU/CLS kids, many of whom are from flyover country anyway, feel entitled to remain in NYC from May through January (assuming they're deferred).

[LHand1993]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

I don't really understand the confusion. Most students who I know at NY schools were planning on remaining in NYC post-grad (during bar prep) until they started. So, they'd be paying rent for the summer months. Is this really so uncommon that students at a law school remain in that school's city after graduating if they're planning on working in that city post-grad? That's why most firms label the advance "to cover living expenses".

I also don't understand why this is such a difficult issue for people to grasp--is the assumption here that most law students who have a biglaw job have the ability to go live somewhere rent free when they need to? Most people need to pay rent somewhere, and the amount of money we're presumably getting for the time we're not working (and studying for the bar) is going to make things very tight financially for people.

[AdieuCali]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

Yeah, this is a non-issue for the typical CLS/NYU recent grad: 26 years old, upper-middle class family, unmarried, no dependents. Most of them can just move back into their childhood bedrooms in Westchester or Bethesda and chill for a few months.

But there are many students for whom that isn't possible. Some students are from low-SES backgrounds and their family don't have the money or space to house another person. Some are from abusive families and aren't able to return home.

There's also the logistical/financial issue for students whose leases end in late August/early September but now cannot move directly into their "career" apartment. Your choices are to eat an extra 4 months of rent unpaid, or move somewhere else then move back to NYC. If you're able to live out of a suitcase, that's probably not a big deal. But if you've accumulated worldly belongings after undergrad, moving twice in 4 months can be an expensive proposition.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to support a family of 3 (soon to be 4) on student loans and a stipend that was supposed to get me to October, but now will likely need to get an extra three months. Both my parents and my wife's parents are immunocompromised, so going home isn't an option. Fortunately, I'm not in NYC, so I can probably stretch my savings. But there are many graduates of NY schools in mine or similar positions who won't have the resources to make it work.

[QContinuum]

As I understand it, the argument is that incoming associates who get deferred until January 2021 don't have the moral standing to be disappointed, because those associates can move back home with their parents, sponge off of their SO, or find a cheap apartment in bumfuck nowhere to reduce living expenses.

In order, 1) Even assuming incoming associates who get deferred are "less screwed over" than current associates who get laid off, which isn't necessarily true, that doesn't mean incoming associates aren't being put in a bad position. "Less screwed over" isn't the same as "not screwed over".

2) Not all incoming associates have parents or significant others to sponge off of.

3) During the pandemic, when we're all supposed to be under stay-at-home orders (or at least stay-at-home guidance, in a few states without orders), it's morally irresponsible to advise folks to move. Yes, a 3L currently renting an apartment in NYC might save money by moving to South Dakota or West Virginia or whatever, but that would entail hiring movers (or, at the least, going out and renting a U-Haul), traveling to South Dakota, etc., all of which increases the risk of contracting the coronavirus or contributing to its spread (or both).

It's also pretty entitled to assume folks can simply up and move across the country on a whim. Where's the 3L gonna find the money to fund this unanticipated cross-country move (actually, two moves: one move out to West Virginia, then another move back to NYC before starting)? There's also the additional expense of traveling back to NY from West Virginia to take the bar (firms may reimburse bar-related expenses, but candidates will typically need to pay upfront and may not get reimbursed for months). If the answer is "parents or SO", again, see 2) above.

[LHand1993]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

Yes, they can stay with their parents. If that's not possible, they can get a cheap Airbnb somewhere else and wait it out. Why do NYU/CLS kids, many of whom are from flyover country anyway, feel entitled to remain in NYC from May through January (assuming they're deferred).

This is so out of touch, I don't even know where to begin. It has nothing to do with "entitlement". What sounds entitled is assuming people have parents they can stay with (especially in the current circumstances) or that someone can just get a cheap Airbnb and wait it out. It may come as a shock to you to learn that not every student who attends NYU/Columbia is that well-off.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

As I understand it, the argument is that incoming associates who get deferred until January 2021 don't have the moral standing to be disappointed, because those associates can move back home with their parents, sponge off of their SO, or find a cheap apartment in bumfuck nowhere to reduce living expenses.

In order, 1) Even assuming incoming associates who get deferred are "less screwed over" than current associates who get laid off, which isn't necessarily true, that doesn't mean incoming associates aren't being put in a bad position. "Less screwed over" isn't the same as "not screwed over".

2) Not all incoming associates have parents or significant others to sponge off of.

3) During the pandemic, when we're all supposed to be under stay-at-home orders (or at least stay-at-home guidance, in a few states without orders), it's morally irresponsible to advise folks to move. Yes, a 3L currently renting an apartment in NYC might save money by moving to South Dakota or West Virginia or whatever, but that would entail hiring movers (or, at the least, going out and renting a U-Haul), traveling to South Dakota, etc.

It's also pretty entitled to assume folks can simply up and move across the country on a whim. Where's the 3L gonna find the money to fund this unanticipated cross-country move (actually, two moves: one move out to West Virginia, then another move back to NYC before starting)? If the answer is "parents or SO", again, see 2) above.

people can be as disappointed as they want. In terms of moving, northeastern PA is not a bad spot. Whether that's morally responsible or not, it's an option. Or people could sit tight, since evictions are not happening in NYC and might not happen for the near future.

as for worldly possessions, most furniture isn't worth much and can be tossed now & replaced later. moving old furniture around can be more expensive than getting new Ikea-level furniture.

the hope is that firms or law schools will provide a financial bridge to those who need it. But if they don't, people need to survive and hard decisions need to be made.

[objctnyrhnr]

If people who have to wait a few more months than they had previously believed to begin their 190k a year job plus 30k bonus or whatever while getting a decent stipend to do nothing are hopelessly screwed, then what does that make the state govt lawyer Or the PI person who’s going to make 50k/year for at least the next several years? Or even the grad with no job at all (which happens in the t14 too, you know)?

I’m not saying having start date deferring doesn’t suck. I’m just saying It could be wayyyy worse.

And to be clear I’m also not saying it’s not worth complaining about. I complain about stuff that sucks much less than getting a start date deferred. Seriously—it does suck don’t get me wrong.

Just saying keep things in perspective.

[lawschoolnewbie2018]

If people who have to wait a few more months than they had previously believed to begin their 190k a year job plus 30k bonus or whatever while getting a decent stipend to do nothing are hopelessly screwed, then what does that make the state govt lawyer Or the PI person who’s going to make 50k/year for at least the next several years? Or even the grad with no job at all (which happens in the t14 too, you know)?

I’m not saying having start date deferring doesn’t suck. I’m just saying It could be wayyyy worse.

And to be clear I’m also not saying it’s not worth complaining about. I complain about stuff that sucks much less than getting a start date deferred. Seriously—it does suck don’t get me wrong.

Just saying keep things in perspective.

I understand your take. I am trying to look at it that way too. But there are a lot of things riding on this for me. I am lucky to be able to live with my parents until my start date. But my job is in a market I never wanted to be in, in biglaw, only offer I got, market pay. Didn’t want to turn it down. However, I really don’t want to leave from my home state of CA. I wouldn’t move if it werent for the biglaw job. Now I don’t know if there will be a biglaw job. Also do I take the CA bar in case that offer goes away, or the UBE for that job? When will the bar be anyway? My husband and I were planning to try for a baby a year after starting biglaw so my maternity leave would kick in. When will that be? If my job in the other market still exists, when should I start looking for a place to live? There are so many more unanswered questions now than there have ever been. None of us know what to do and I don’t know how to not stress about that when there is nothing else for me to do right now other than think about it.

[LSATWiz.com]

I'd be more worried about the chance this is step one in rescinding offers altogether. Psychologically, it's much easier to deal the blow if you build up to it. There is a reality in which the lockdown lasts to some extent until there's an FDA approved vaccine next spring. In such a worst case scenario, you can see a scenario in which half of the class starting 2021 graduates in 2020 and half graduates in 2021. This probably doesn't happen but deferring the incoming class at least opens the door to it as a possibility.

[QContinuum]

I'd be more worried about the chance this is step one in rescinding offers altogether. Psychologically, it's much easier to deal the blow if you build up to it. There is a reality in which the lockdown lasts to some extent until there's an FDA approved vaccine next spring. In such a worst case scenario, you can see a scenario in which half of the class starting 2021 graduates in 2020 and half graduates in 2021. This probably doesn't happen but deferring the incoming class at least opens the door to it as a possibility.

Contra TLS stereotypes, I highly doubt BigLaw partners are sitting around a table in some hidden lair, stroking white cats and smoking cigars, plotting how to "build up" to putting the screws to the class of 2020.

The reality is no one knows how this plays out. It's completely unprecedented. If this was "just" a normal recession, we'd have 2008-10 to look at as a template for how firms might react. But this is not a normal downturn. Partners are figuring this out de novo, just as we are. And, BigLaw being a naturally cautious place, of course firms aren't going to leap to rescinding offers right off the bat. There's no upside to rescinding offers now (no money saved), but plenty of downside in terms of bad PR, a blow to associate morale, and the risk of being short-staffed should the economy be back to roaring by the end of the year or early next year. So, much better to defer for now and wait and see what happens.

Now, is there risk the deferrals turn into rescissions? Absolutely there's risk. It just all comes back to what happens with the economy. If the economy somehow adapts and recovers, then even if we're all still under lockdown, firms will find a way to onboard the class of 2020. They will FedEx laptops out to folks and do Virtual Orientation. Conversely, if we somehow get a vaccine or a miracle cure by the fall and all the lockdowns are lifted, but the economy's in the gutter, then the class of 2020 will be in deep shit.