Stealth layoffs at Goodwin? Forum

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I knew someone who said they got stealthed last year from Cleary lit as a 4th year, on track for 2,000+ hours who said there were no performance issues, just that work was slowing down. This never made sense to me though and I think lends more support to the idea that you can't always trust the explanations people give for why they were let go, so unless you see a clear pattern of "stealthing," not to get too nervous about it if your work is good and your hours are reasonable.

The firm does have more visibility into the future pipeline of work. You could be pacing 2000, but if you’re currently slow and likely to be slow for the foreseeable future, that’s a problem.

Also, performance issues almost always play a role. A top performer can have work funneled to them even in slow times and so is unlikely to get canned.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping due to latest layoff news. Surprised to see no posts made here. Plenty of discussion over on FB.

[Anonymous User]

Interested in this as well, particularly all those permanent remote schlubs they overhired.

[Anonymous User]

I thought Goodwin routinely trims the fat? At least this was the rumor I heard like 5-7 years ago when I was interviewing.

I'm JD 2018 and was warned against Goodwin by career services when I was bidding. Hope they're still warning folks to stay away. Obviously, you take what you can get, but you also need to know what you're getting into.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

[Anonymous User]

It's also just not a very pleasant culture on the corporate side at least.

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed with their debt team when I lateraled in 2021 and got a super creepy vibe. They were going to offer and I'm glad I withdrew.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

[Wanderingdrock]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

Nothing's simple, but what other big firms laid off associates at the beginning of the pandemic? There must have been a few, but most of the respectable firms either held tight and did right by their associates, or cut pay temporarily (then paid it back later). If Goodwin laid associates off as soon as it looked like the going might be getting rough, that reflects a fundamentally different approach to its employees than most other firms took.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

No it really is that simple. A firm can have a little more slack in its associate ranks and be a little more tolerant of low hours in slower times so they have enough in busy times that people don’t bill 2800. Or, it can aggressively fire people during slow times, massively overwork their thinned ranks when it’s busy, and develop a shitty management reputation for years and years and watch some people completely refuse to work for them because of it.

[objctnyrhnr]

The worst part is that some substantial majority of mouthbreathing 4th years are still gonna rank them such that they stay around 25th in vault or wherever they are now.

And they’ll thus escape punishment for having done this, and they’ll see no reason to reform their macro-management practices. It’ll then keep happening.

[objctnyrhnr]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

Lol at this brave anon’s “but not firing a bunch of people every year or two would be soooo harrrrddd and complicated” take.

Okay, bro. Good post. Keep doing you.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

I am quite literally recounting posts of former Goodwin associates on this forum. Many said they were let go for totally non-performance related reasons in the immediate aftermath of the March 2020 shutdown and panic, and when the markets got red hot later that summer, Goodwin hired a bunch of new associates - without reaching out to or bringing back the associates it had fired just a few months prior.

It’s bad enough they are trigger happy with their firing and hiring. But to leave the initial laid off batch of associates out in the cold when the work picked up again? That’s another level of dysfunctional.

Appreciate this is a harsh take, but firms have a lot of power to yank people’s lives around and when they do it so atrociously they really should be called out for it and it isn’t simplistic or reductive to do so.

[Anonymous User]

Goldman just laid off 3,000 people… that can’t be good.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

I am quite literally recounting posts of former Goodwin associates on this forum. Many said they were let go for totally non-performance related reasons in the immediate aftermath of the March 2020 shutdown and panic, and when the markets got red hot later that summer, Goodwin hired a bunch of new associates - without reaching out to or bringing back the associates it had fired just a few months prior.

It’s bad enough they are trigger happy with their firing and hiring. But to leave the initial laid off batch of associates out in the cold when the work picked up again? That’s another level of dysfunctional.

Appreciate this is a harsh take, but firms have a lot of power to yank people’s lives around and when they do it so atrociously they really should be called out for it and it isn’t simplistic or reductive to do so.

Layoffs unless its entire department / whole group layoffs always tend to have a relative performance component. If you pick out the people who didn't get laid off in the group, there always is a reason why they didn't which generally reads into out performance over the others.

Unfortunately layoffs are an effect of industries with very high fixed cost employee compensation whether its finance, law, tech, or consulting. The firms that laid off admins and support functions especially during COVID who didn't have the financial means / savings to support themselves were the worst actors.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

Is it really that hard to say what should have been done? I think it's a bit silly to pretend that any moves like this are largely driven by benevolence towards underwater associates, rather than equity partner take home.

[mardash]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

I am quite literally recounting posts of former Goodwin associates on this forum. Many said they were let go for totally non-performance related reasons in the immediate aftermath of the March 2020 shutdown and panic, and when the markets got red hot later that summer, Goodwin hired a bunch of new associates - without reaching out to or bringing back the associates it had fired just a few months prior.

It’s bad enough they are trigger happy with their firing and hiring. But to leave the initial laid off batch of associates out in the cold when the work picked up again? That’s another level of dysfunctional.

Appreciate this is a harsh take, but firms have a lot of power to yank people’s lives around and when they do it so atrociously they really should be called out for it and it isn’t simplistic or reductive to do so.

Layoffs unless its entire department / whole group layoffs always tend to have a relative performance component. If you pick out the people who didn't get laid off in the group, there always is a reason why they didn't which generally reads into out performance over the others.

Unfortunately layoffs are an effect of industries with very high fixed cost employee compensation whether its finance, law, tech, or consulting. The firms that laid off admins and support functions especially during COVID who didn't have the financial means / savings to support themselves were the worst actors.

Perhaps, but you will assess an associate’s performance differently if your assumption is you will have to layoff a % of your associates.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

Kind of a simplistic, reductive take tbh. I don't think it's that simple here. We were all billing 2800+ pace for most of COVID so a lot of those hires were absolutely welcome and the only way to keep us from jumping ship. It's honestly hard for me to say what I think the firm should have done, and I don't know enough what the other options and considerations were. But I never get the sense that Goodwin treats people poorly. The exact opposite in my personal experience, having worked at two other firms.

I am quite literally recounting posts of former Goodwin associates on this forum. Many said they were let go for totally non-performance related reasons in the immediate aftermath of the March 2020 shutdown and panic, and when the markets got red hot later that summer, Goodwin hired a bunch of new associates - without reaching out to or bringing back the associates it had fired just a few months prior.

It’s bad enough they are trigger happy with their firing and hiring. But to leave the initial laid off batch of associates out in the cold when the work picked up again? That’s another level of dysfunctional.

Appreciate this is a harsh take, but firms have a lot of power to yank people’s lives around and when they do it so atrociously they really should be called out for it and it isn’t simplistic or reductive to do so.

Layoffs unless its entire department / whole group layoffs always tend to have a relative performance component. If you pick out the people who didn't get laid off in the group, there always is a reason why they didn't which generally reads into out performance over the others.

Unfortunately layoffs are an effect of industries with very high fixed cost employee compensation whether its finance, law, tech, or consulting. The firms that laid off admins and support functions especially during COVID who didn't have the financial means / savings to support themselves were the worst actors.

Perhaps, but you will assess an associate’s performance differently if your assumption is you will have to layoff a % of your associates.

Yes but the entire group is also then reviewed through that same lens. Its like ranking on a curve where the curve is moved from a B to a C. The top half of the curve is still fine.

Firms keep the associates they want to keep, whether it be because the senior partner likes them, they are billing a ton more than others, client relationships, higher utilization, etc. On a relative basis the associates that remain are the ones that the decision makers at the firm / group decided they wanted to keep around.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

I’m the anon that posted the above. Just going to leave the following piece of news here. Seems like they’re using the same tactics again. Fire en masse and then hire (different people) en masse.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/01/sure-go ... -laterals/

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

I’m the anon that posted the above. Just going to leave the following piece of news here. Seems like they’re using the same tactics again. Fire en masse and then hire (different people) en masse.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/01/sure-go ... -laterals/

Terrible optics but I doubt they fired 40 FDA/Healthcare regulatory associates and then hired back 40 FDA/Healthcare regulatory associates. If so then that's messed up.

[Moneytrees]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

I’m the anon that posted the above. Just going to leave the following piece of news here. Seems like they’re using the same tactics again. Fire en masse and then hire (different people) en masse.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/01/sure-go ... -laterals/

Truly absurd.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

I’m the anon that posted the above. Just going to leave the following piece of news here. Seems like they’re using the same tactics again. Fire en masse and then hire (different people) en masse.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/01/sure-go ... -laterals/

Terrible optics but I doubt they fired 40 FDA/Healthcare regulatory associates and then hired back 40 FDA/Healthcare regulatory associates. If so then that's messed up.

Okay but now every group there knows that layoffs aren't just a crisis-mode thing and it's just something the firm might do whenever you get slow. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows they're going to be slow at some point during an 8-10 year period; why would any junior bother working hard for partnership with the Sword of Goodwincles hanging over their head the whole time? Who cares if you get laid off from a firm known for laying everyone off? It would never get held against you. I would've bullshitted every day at a firm like that. You know how I know? Because I worked for a firm with a well-earned reputation for firing juniors without good reason and bullshitted every day even after they paid me $25k more than their peers. What did it matter? Money didn't buy morale and trust.

I later got offered $100k more than that from an even worse firm--one of the shittiest management reputations in all of Biglaw--and turned them down on the basis of 10 years of a shitty online reputation, several publicly reported layoff waves, and multiple ex-employees who said things like "worst mistake of my life." And I'll bet their dipshit management still only measures what's on their balance sheets and doesn't grasp the costs of the premiums they now have to pay to hire people (or their inability to hire them at all). Reputations matter more than ever in the social media age; it's incredibly funny to watch partners treat associates like shit and then turn around and wonder why they only have shit associates.

[Anonymous User]

I distinctly remember they laid off of a number of associates at the beginning of the pandemic (May-June 2020) and then a few months later when the markets went wild, hired a bunch of associates (however not the ones they laid of a few months prior).

What a horrible approach to hiring and general treatment of employees.

I’m the anon that posted the above. Just going to leave the following piece of news here. Seems like they’re using the same tactics again. Fire en masse and then hire (different people) en masse.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/01/sure-go ... -laterals/

Terrible optics but I doubt they fired 40 FDA/Healthcare regulatory associates and then hired back 40 FDA/Healthcare regulatory associates. If so then that's messed up.

Okay but now every group there knows that layoffs aren't just a crisis-mode thing and it's just something the firm might do whenever you get slow. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows they're going to be slow at some point during an 8-10 year period; why would any junior bother working hard for partnership with the Sword of Goodwincles hanging over their head the whole time? Who cares if you get laid off from a firm known for laying everyone off? It would never get held against you. I would've bullshitted every day at a firm like that. You know how I know? Because I worked for a firm with a well-earned reputation for firing juniors without good reason and bullshitted every day even after they paid me $25k more than their peers. What did it matter? Money didn't buy morale and trust.

I later got offered $100k more than that from an even worse firm--one of the shittiest management reputations in all of Biglaw--and turned them down on the basis of 10 years of a shitty online reputation, several publicly reported layoff waves, and multiple ex-employees who said things like "worst mistake of my life." And I'll bet their dipshit management still only measures what's on their balance sheets and doesn't grasp the costs of the premiums they now have to pay to hire people (or their inability to hire them at all). Reputations matter more than ever in the social media age; it's incredibly funny to watch partners treat associates like shit and then turn around and wonder why they only have shit associates.

Valid but did anyone really think it was a crisis mode thing? It was clearly a cut the dead weight that was hired over the last 2 years when the need for warm bodies wasn't there. It was a PPP move.