Law Firm Layoffs Forum

[Anonymous User]

It's hard, because a lot of formerly mediocre firms that are now powerhouses screwed over a ton of people. I mean, totally fucked up their lives. Latham, Weil, Gibson, &c.

But if you don't get an offer to what's now a peer firm, are you really going to turn down one of the above to go to a lower-ranked firm?

So Latham, Weil, Gibson--I know Goodwin has pulled the same move as recently as the start of COVID. Anyone else to watch on this list?

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

Kirkland has also been drowning in work. You'd have to think about a scenario where things don't just slow down, but slow to the point where the current workforce goes from drastically overworked, down to normal levels of busy, then further down to being too slow, and stays that way. Then further that in such a scenario, the partners would be willing to risk Latham-style reputation damage to cut costs in the short term. I just don't see it as very likely, especially since in a broad economic crisis, they can just force everyone to switch over to bankruptcy and restructuring instead of laying them off.

Lol that Kirkland partners would care about their reputation. Feel like the firm would have been operated in a massively different way if that were the case.

[Anonymous User]

It's hard, because a lot of formerly mediocre firms that are now powerhouses screwed over a ton of people. I mean, totally fucked up their lives. Latham, Weil, Gibson, &c.

But if you don't get an offer to what's now a peer firm, are you really going to turn down one of the above to go to a lower-ranked firm?

So Latham, Weil, Gibson--I know Goodwin has pulled the same move as recently as the start of COVID. Anyone else to watch on this list?

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

Kirkland has also been drowning in work. You'd have to think about a scenario where things don't just slow down, but slow to the point where the current workforce goes from drastically overworked, down to normal levels of busy, then further down to being too slow, and stays that way. Then further that in such a scenario, the partners would be willing to risk Latham-style reputation damage to cut costs in the short term. I just don't see it as very likely, especially since in a broad economic crisis, they can just force everyone to switch over to bankruptcy and restructuring instead of laying them off.

What will happen at K&E and other firms is that they'll start taking reviews seriously and cut the worst performing associates who they haven't been able to let go up to that point because they've needed warm bodies to throw at deals.

Unfortunately the lateral market will be dead so those associates will have nowhere to go, and everybody will be searching at the same time for the very few openings left.

So better get your grind on and hope you aren't in that group.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

[Anonymous User]

It's hard, because a lot of formerly mediocre firms that are now powerhouses screwed over a ton of people. I mean, totally fucked up their lives. Latham, Weil, Gibson, &c.

But if you don't get an offer to what's now a peer firm, are you really going to turn down one of the above to go to a lower-ranked firm?

So Latham, Weil, Gibson--I know Goodwin has pulled the same move as recently as the start of COVID. Anyone else to watch on this list?

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

Kirkland has also been drowning in work. You'd have to think about a scenario where things don't just slow down, but slow to the point where the current workforce goes from drastically overworked, down to normal levels of busy, then further down to being too slow, and stays that way. Then further that in such a scenario, the partners would be willing to risk Latham-style reputation damage to cut costs in the short term. I just don't see it as very likely, especially since in a broad economic crisis, they can just force everyone to switch over to bankruptcy and restructuring instead of laying them off.

What will happen at K&E and other firms is that they'll start taking reviews seriously and cut the worst performing associates who they haven't been able to let go up to that point because they've needed warm bodies to throw at deals.

Unfortunately the lateral market will be dead so those associates will have nowhere to go, and everybody will be searching at the same time for the very few openings left.

So better get your grind on and hope you aren't in that group.

In this hypothetical scenario, do you think KE would thin out the 5th/6th year or even reduce 3rd/4th years??

[Sackboy]

Hey SackBoy maybe you’ve never worked in a biglaw firm. But culture is real and your post is pretty funny because it ignores the basic way that law firms function (i.e., partners are static and associates come and go).


Firm leadership selects the next set of firm leaders. Partners select the next set of partners. In all instances they choose people they view as similar and continuing a culture. That’s part of the opaque nature of making partner.

If you want advice on picking a firm that won’t lay people off, maybe you should adjust. You won’t get fired if you are good and work more than others. That’s your decision not a firm decision. Make that decision and where you go won’t matter.

This would be a useful comment if I hadn't worked in biglaw. Firm culture is completely overhyped at the biglaw level. Hard to have a differentiating culture when only 15% of your entire workforce has any level of permanency and each and every firm you compete with is built on the same model of extracting as many hours as possible out of associates with the expectation that 95% of them burn out over the long run. Also lol @ biglaw partners knowing or caring about "culture" when choosing new equity partners. I'm sure Kirkland's 480 equity partners were intimately acquainted with the culture of each new equity promotion last year.

[Anonymous User]

firms are definitely holding to warm bodies that I’m sure they won’t hesitate to let go once things slow down. That “unavailable after 9” “is there someone else that can handle this?” will come bite you back real fast. I’m by no means a start associate but dang at least I try

[Anonymous User]

Hey SackBoy maybe you’ve never worked in a biglaw firm. But culture is real and your post is pretty funny because it ignores the basic way that law firms function (i.e., partners are static and associates come and go).


Firm leadership selects the next set of firm leaders. Partners select the next set of partners. In all instances they choose people they view as similar and continuing a culture. That’s part of the opaque nature of making partner.

If you want advice on picking a firm that won’t lay people off, maybe you should adjust. You won’t get fired if you are good and work more than others. That’s your decision not a firm decision. Make that decision and where you go won’t matter.

This would be a useful comment if I hadn't worked in biglaw. Firm culture is completely overhyped at the biglaw level. Hard to have a differentiating culture when only 15% of your entire workforce has any level of permanency and each and every firm you compete with is built on the same model of extracting as many hours as possible out of associates with the expectation that 95% of them burn out over the long run. Also lol @ biglaw partners knowing or caring about "culture" when choosing new equity partners. I'm sure Kirkland's 480 equity partners were intimately acquainted with the culture of each new equity promotion last year.

You are not getting this right and you're being stubborn for reasons that at least I can't figure out--maybe it's just the MO of the people who post here the most. There is a stickiness to culture, being exposed to and ingrained with that culture is part of the process of coming into the partnership, and the mentalities that led to certain decisions x years ago continue to persist within those partnerships. And it's the partnership, to be clear, that sets the tone at these firms and makes the decisions; to your point, associates are transient but the partnership persists, particularly at successful firms, and therefore partnership culture definitely matters.

It doesn't sound like you've had any experience with biglaw at an equity partner level. So it's fine to say "from my perspective, as a burnt out associate, firm culture isn't a real thing." And just leave it at that and move on to some conversation where you can meaningfully contribute.

[Anonymous User]

Hey SackBoy maybe you’ve never worked in a biglaw firm. But culture is real and your post is pretty funny because it ignores the basic way that law firms function (i.e., partners are static and associates come and go).


Firm leadership selects the next set of firm leaders. Partners select the next set of partners. In all instances they choose people they view as similar and continuing a culture. That’s part of the opaque nature of making partner.

If you want advice on picking a firm that won’t lay people off, maybe you should adjust. You won’t get fired if you are good and work more than others. That’s your decision not a firm decision. Make that decision and where you go won’t matter.

This would be a useful comment if I hadn't worked in biglaw. Firm culture is completely overhyped at the biglaw level. Hard to have a differentiating culture when only 15% of your entire workforce has any level of permanency and each and every firm you compete with is built on the same model of extracting as many hours as possible out of associates with the expectation that 95% of them burn out over the long run. Also lol @ biglaw partners knowing or caring about "culture" when choosing new equity partners. I'm sure Kirkland's 480 equity partners were intimately acquainted with the culture of each new equity promotion last year.

Funny example because Kirkland does a yes no vote for each new equity partner from each other equity partner. So yeah. Your analogy applies to sports teams at all levels of too. But people would say Nick Sabans Alabama Football Team has a culture.

[Anonymous User]

It's hard, because a lot of formerly mediocre firms that are now powerhouses screwed over a ton of people. I mean, totally fucked up their lives. Latham, Weil, Gibson, &c.

But if you don't get an offer to what's now a peer firm, are you really going to turn down one of the above to go to a lower-ranked firm?

So Latham, Weil, Gibson--I know Goodwin has pulled the same move as recently as the start of COVID. Anyone else to watch on this list?

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

Kirkland has also been drowning in work. You'd have to think about a scenario where things don't just slow down, but slow to the point where the current workforce goes from drastically overworked, down to normal levels of busy, then further down to being too slow, and stays that way. Then further that in such a scenario, the partners would be willing to risk Latham-style reputation damage to cut costs in the short term. I just don't see it as very likely, especially since in a broad economic crisis, they can just force everyone to switch over to bankruptcy and restructuring instead of laying them off.

What will happen at K&E and other firms is that they'll start taking reviews seriously and cut the worst performing associates who they haven't been able to let go up to that point because they've needed warm bodies to throw at deals.

Unfortunately the lateral market will be dead so those associates will have nowhere to go, and everybody will be searching at the same time for the very few openings left.

So better get your grind on and hope you aren't in that group.

In this hypothetical scenario, do you think KE would thin out the 5th/6th year or even reduce 3rd/4th years??

Even if we just go back to normal times (pre-2019) then you’ll start to see more associates getting let go at all levels. Truly bad first years have been let go in the past and there are a whole lot of underperforming juniors/midlevels who wouldn’t have jobs save for the wild deal pace the last couple years. There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

[Anonymous User]

It's hard, because a lot of formerly mediocre firms that are now powerhouses screwed over a ton of people. I mean, totally fucked up their lives. Latham, Weil, Gibson, &c.

But if you don't get an offer to what's now a peer firm, are you really going to turn down one of the above to go to a lower-ranked firm?

So Latham, Weil, Gibson--I know Goodwin has pulled the same move as recently as the start of COVID. Anyone else to watch on this list?

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

Kirkland has also been drowning in work. You'd have to think about a scenario where things don't just slow down, but slow to the point where the current workforce goes from drastically overworked, down to normal levels of busy, then further down to being too slow, and stays that way. Then further that in such a scenario, the partners would be willing to risk Latham-style reputation damage to cut costs in the short term. I just don't see it as very likely, especially since in a broad economic crisis, they can just force everyone to switch over to bankruptcy and restructuring instead of laying them off.

What will happen at K&E and other firms is that they'll start taking reviews seriously and cut the worst performing associates who they haven't been able to let go up to that point because they've needed warm bodies to throw at deals.

Unfortunately the lateral market will be dead so those associates will have nowhere to go, and everybody will be searching at the same time for the very few openings left.

So better get your grind on and hope you aren't in that group.

In this hypothetical scenario, do you think KE would thin out the 5th/6th year or even reduce 3rd/4th years??

Even if we just go back to normal times (pre-2019) then you’ll start to see more associates getting let go at all levels. Truly bad first years have been let go in the past and there are a whole lot of underperforming juniors/midlevels who wouldn’t have jobs save for the wild deal pace the last couple years. There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

Helpful info thanks

[Anonymous User]

There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

I'm on a team with a junior who has been doing multiple day OOOs without warning almost every week for the past several months. I always thought biglaw firms would push people out for that. But it has been happening for months so it seems like the firm doesn't care.

Anon because this is a very specific thing happening and I've identified my firm in non-anon posts.

[Anonymous User]

There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

I'm on a team with a junior who has been doing multiple day OOOs without warning almost every week for the past several months. I always thought biglaw firms would push people out for that. But it has been happening for months so it seems like the firm doesn't care.

Anon because this is a very specific thing happening and I've identified my firm in non-anon posts.

Has this person never worked before? Like, how do they not know to notify their teams that they'll be OOO? Seems pretty basic to me.

[Anonymous User]

There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

I'm on a team with a junior who has been doing multiple day OOOs without warning almost every week for the past several months. I always thought biglaw firms would push people out for that. But it has been happening for months so it seems like the firm doesn't care.

Anon because this is a very specific thing happening and I've identified my firm in non-anon posts.

Has this person never worked before? Like, how do they not know to notify their teams that they'll be OOO? Seems pretty basic to me.

They think saying they are OOO the day before because they are taking a flight at 3 pm on Friday is ok. Super special event with a couple weeks notice? Fine by me we want that flex but don’t do it 10-20 times a year. 5 years ago associates would be fired for unavailability/responsiveness. Jrs are abusing the current environment IMO call me sheep or whatever

[Anonymous User]

There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

I'm on a team with a junior who has been doing multiple day OOOs without warning almost every week for the past several months. I always thought biglaw firms would push people out for that. But it has been happening for months so it seems like the firm doesn't care.

Anon because this is a very specific thing happening and I've identified my firm in non-anon posts.

Has this person never worked before? Like, how do they not know to notify their teams that they'll be OOO? Seems pretty basic to me.

They think saying they are OOO the day before because they are taking a flight at 3 pm on Friday is ok. Super special event with a couple weeks notice? Fine by me we want that flex but don’t do it 10-20 times a year. 5 years ago associates would be fired for unavailability/responsiveness. Jrs are abusing the current environment IMO call me sheep or whatever

Here is the playbook ive seen. The junior likely has other career options, money, or both. I’ve seen so much attrition at the entry level junior level (between 9-15 months being the most common) that my take is this junior is already planning to move on. Junior also doesn’t care about their relationship with you. You’ll forget their name in 3 months once they leave.

[Anonymous User]

There’s been some behavior the last couple years that would’ve never been tolerated if we didn’t need bodies (juniors disappearing for days from deals, people putting up OOOs with no warning, habitually blowing deadlines, etc).

I'm on a team with a junior who has been doing multiple day OOOs without warning almost every week for the past several months. I always thought biglaw firms would push people out for that. But it has been happening for months so it seems like the firm doesn't care.

Anon because this is a very specific thing happening and I've identified my firm in non-anon posts.

Has this person never worked before? Like, how do they not know to notify their teams that they'll be OOO? Seems pretty basic to me.

They think saying they are OOO the day before because they are taking a flight at 3 pm on Friday is ok. Super special event with a couple weeks notice? Fine by me we want that flex but don’t do it 10-20 times a year. 5 years ago associates would be fired for unavailability/responsiveness. Jrs are abusing the current environment IMO call me sheep or whatever

Here is the playbook ive seen. The junior likely has other career options, money, or both. I’ve seen so much attrition at the entry level junior level (between 9-15 months being the most common) that my take is this junior is already planning to move on. Junior also doesn’t care about their relationship with you. You’ll forget their name in 3 months once they leave.

Risky strategy though. The midlevels/seniors definitely remember who was comically lazy and incompetent, and pass that along if in-house inquiries come their way through informal channels. Not a great career move to get fired from your first real job for being terrible.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of OOO are we talking about? Orthodox Jews may have an OOO every week for 25 hours sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, plus various holidays. It doesn't mean they are slacking.

But other than that and similar situations, I still wouldn't consider someone who in general isn't responsive outside 9-5 to be a bad lawyer, just not cut out for biglaw. Not everyone is. They aren't taking a risk because as soon as they aren't tolerated they want to leave. They'll be fine in house.

[Anonymous User]

It's hard, because a lot of formerly mediocre firms that are now powerhouses screwed over a ton of people. I mean, totally fucked up their lives. Latham, Weil, Gibson, &c.

But if you don't get an offer to what's now a peer firm, are you really going to turn down one of the above to go to a lower-ranked firm?

So Latham, Weil, Gibson--I know Goodwin has pulled the same move as recently as the start of COVID. Anyone else to watch on this list?

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

That's because so many people left. In the 6 months I have been there, I've seen at least 10 people leave.

[Anonymous User]

What kind of OOO are we talking about? Orthodox Jews may have an OOO every week for 25 hours sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, plus various holidays. It doesn't mean they are slacking.

But other than that and similar situations, I still wouldn't consider someone who in general isn't responsive outside 9-5 to be a bad lawyer, just not cut out for biglaw. Not everyone is. They aren't taking a risk because as soon as they aren't tolerated they want to leave. They'll be fine in house.

No. It's not religious OOOs, which are obviously in their own category.

What happens is the junior randomly emails on Tuesday "Sorry I'm OOO from now through Thursday." Then does it again two weeks later. Always without warning. It's annoying but I'm over it I put in my notice and hopefully the firm I'm joining next week doesn't tolerate that from its juniors.

[Anonymous User]

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

That's because so many people left. In the 6 months I have been there, I've seen at least 10 people leave.

Ten departures in 6 months is comically low if biglaw and not Wachtell level lean. At my firm 10 departures would happen in one or two months, not 6.

[Anonymous User]

Latham lathamed so publicly that I think it's safe to say they probably won't repeat. But I would be a little concerned about Kirkland -- they've been hiring so much, and so many ppl they'd normally never look at, there's gotta be some shedding if/when there's a downturn

That's because so many people left. In the 6 months I have been there, I've seen at least 10 people leave.

Ten departures in 6 months is comically low if biglaw and not Wachtell level lean. At my firm 10 departures would happen in one or two months, not 6.

10 in my group (specialist) and city. Overall firm wide, i have seen a TON.

[Anonymous User]

Recent leaver here, over 50 people put in notice firm wide just in the first 10 days of the year. Don’t know how this stacks up to previous years. Curious to see if their shine comes off a bit with increased attrition. Someone competent and experienced has to do the actual work.

[Anonymous User]

Recent leaver here, over 50 people put in notice firm wide just in the first 10 days of the year. Don’t know how this stacks up to previous years. Curious to see if their shine comes off a bit with increased attrition. Someone competent and experienced has to do the actual work.

They're hiring perm remote positions while forcing people near a hub to RTO. It's pretty funny

[ConfusedNYer]

A few random thoughts because bored at work.

I would not overleverage what happened in '08 when assessing firms. While the firm wide lays offs occurred before I even went to law school I worked with a number of recent law grades at the time and they were pretty clear that "all of the firms" were laying people off at the time - including firms that now try to pretend they did not lay anyone off.

Firms did it in different ways, and Latham's tactic was very public (and has since been mythologized) but what we publicly remember from 08 will have little bearing on what happens in the next recession. Looking at how firms reacted at the start of covid and overall firm health is going to be a lot more helpful (and I would generally assume all biglaw firms will increase stealth lay offs if a recession hits, that's just what happens when things go from incredibly busy to very slow).

But I do generally think the next round of major layoffs will not be as bad (maybe not even be particularly notable beyond a return to normal practice) because: 1 I don't think this recession will be as bad; 2 I think firms are net more conservative now then they were pre-08 and 3 the impact of losing huge swathes of different class years in 08 had a real lingering impact in the industry that I think firms will value avoiding this time around if possible.

I do feel a bit bad for the recent grades and juniors trying to notch a year or two, collect $$ and Lateral or get out - I think that is going to be a much harder path to take starting in a few months.

But also what the fuck do I know, I'm just bored and wanted to ramble.

[BrowsingTLS]

I do feel a bit bad for the recent grades and juniors trying to notch a year or two, collect $$ and Lateral or get out - I think that is going to be a much harder path to take starting in a few months.

Are the recent greats As or Bs? If so, they'll probably be fine. The Cs and Ds on the other hand.

[Anonymous User]

I do feel a bit bad for the recent grades and juniors trying to notch a year or two, collect $$ and Lateral or get out - I think that is going to be a much harder path to take starting in a few months.

Eh, I am a recent grad (anon due to info). But, you basically said what I think but I disagree on who it’s “bad” for. I think it sucks for 2nd/3rd years. They may be looking to go in house in the next two years, during a bit of a slump. Or the recently transitioned 4th or 5th year who just went to an overvalued startup that would need to chop headcount. Me? If times are slow for a year or two, when I’m not worried about making the trivial yearly bonus anyways…I’m here for it. The bonuses never look worthwhile to me. Honestly, the fact that any entering class has people going over their firms stated billable target is crazy town to me. The number of people going over that number should be exactly the same number that get made equity partner each year. Maybe double so there’s some selection pool. This new generation of kids is aware partnership, firm culture, and grind-culture exist to make equity partners rich.

Plus, I graduated college into a recession and did shit work for years so I’m kinda used to it.